issue-1995-11-02•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-02
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-02
issue-1995-11-02Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-02Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 95-27203 Airworthiness Directives; Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale and Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, N1, and N2 Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 212 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55681-55683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27203]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-SW-01-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Societe Nationale Industrielle
Aerospatiale and Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, N1, and N2
Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to Societe Nationale Industrielle
Aerospatiale and Eurocopter France (Eurocopter France) Model SA-365N,
N1, and N2 helicopters. This proposal would require an inspection of
the door jettison systems to detemine if the handle shafts are locked
to the jettison systems. If the inspection indicates the handle shafts
are locked to the jettison systems, the proposal would require
installation of a snapwire on the jettison systems and a visual
inspection of the door jettison handles to determine whether two spring
pins are installed, and installation of a second spring pin, if
necessary. If the initial inspection indicates that the handle shafts
are not locked to the jettison systems, the proposal would require
replacement of the sheared spring pin with two spring pins. This
proposal is prompted by a factory inspection performed by the
manufacturer that revealed that the forward passenger door jettison
handles may have been fitted with one spring pin instead of two spring
pins at the door jettison handle attachment points. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent a loss of the
doors in flight and subsequent damage to the horizontal stabilizer,
main fin, or lateral fins.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:
Rules Docket No. 95-SW-01-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, Texas 75053-4005. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas.
[[Page 55682]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Monschke, Aerospace
Engineer, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5116, fax
(817) 222-5961.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-SW-01-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-SW-01-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.
Discussion
The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, N1, and
N2 helicopters. The DGAC advises that the forward passenger doors may
be lost in flight due to the failure of the manufacturer to install the
appropriate number of spring pins in the door jettison mechanism.
Eurocopter France has issued Eurocopter Service Bulletin SA 365,
No. 01.38, dated January 31, 1994, which generally applies to all model
SA-365 helicopters except for the SA-365C, that specifies an inspection
of the door jettison systems to detemine if the handle shafts are
locked to the jettison systems. If the inspection indicates the handle
shafts are locked to the jettison systems, the proposal would require
installation of a snapwire on the jettison systems and a visual
inspection of the door jettison handles to determine whether two spring
pins are installed, and installation of a second spring pin, if
necessary. If the initial inspection indicates that the handle shafts
are not locked to the jettison systems, the proposal would require
replacement of the sheared spring pin with two spring pins. The DGAC
classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Airworthiness
Directive 94-052-035(B), dated March 2, 1994, in order to assure the
continued airworthiness of these helicopters in France.
This helicopter model is manufactured in France and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD
action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other Eurocopter France Model SA-365N, N1, and N2
helicopters of the same type design registered in the United States,
the proposed AD would require, within 30 days after the effective date
of the AD, an inspection of the door jettison systems to detemine if
the handle shafts are locked to the jettison systems. If the inspection
indicates the handle shafts are locked to the jettison systems, the
proposed AD would require installation of a snapwire on the jettison
systems and within 500 hours time-in-service, a visual inspection of
the door jettison handles to determine whether two spring pins are
installed, and installation of a second spring pin, if necessary. If
the initial inspection indicates that the handle shafts are not locked
to the jettison systems, the proposal would require, before further
flight, replacement of the sheared spring pin with two spring pins.
This proposal is prompted by a factory inspection performed by the
manufacturer that revealed that the forward passenger door jettison
handles may have been fitted with one spring pin instead of two spring
pins at the door jettison handle attachment points. The actions would
be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin
described previously.
The FAA estimates that 27 helicopters of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8 work
hours per helicopter to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $230 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$19,170.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
[[Page 55683]]
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES -
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale and Eurocopter France
(Eurocopter France): Docket No. 95-SW-01-AD.
Applicability: Model SA-365N, N1, and N2 helicopters, serial
numbers (S/N) 6008, 6033, 6083, 6084, 6085, 6093, 6120 and higher
that have not been modified in accordance with Avis De Modification
(AMS) 365A07-56B15, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) to request approval from the FAA. This
approval may address either no action, if the current configuration
eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request
should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any helicopter from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent a loss of the doors in flight and subsequent damage
to the horizontal stabilizer, main fin, or lateral fins, accomplish
the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, left and
right forward passenger door jettison systems, cut the snapwire on
the door jettison handle, and, without turning the handle
completely, determine whether the handle is locked to the jettison
mechanism, in accordance with paragraph 1C1 of Eurocopter Service
Bulletin (SB) SAA365, No. 01.38, dated January 31, 1994. Based on
the results of this procedure, perform the following as appropriate:
-
(1) If the door jettison handle shaft is locked to the jettison
system,
(i) Install the snapwire (annealed copper safety wire, black
enameled, 0.3mm diameter) on each door jettison handle in accordance
with paragraph 1C2(a) of SB SA 365, No. 01.38, dated January 31,
1994.
(ii) Within 500 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD, in accordance with paragraphs 1C3 and 1C3(a) of SB
SA 365, No. 01.38, dated January 31, 1994, accomplish the following:
(A) Remove the doors and remove the trimming panels from the
passenger door posts. Visually inspect each door to determine
whether two spring pins are installed to fasten each jettison
handle.
(B) If only one spring pin is installed, install a second spring
pin.
(C) Reinstall the trimming panel
(D) Reinstall the door
(E) Install the snapwire as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
this AD.
(2) If a door jettison handle shaft is not locked to the
jettison system, before further flight, accomplish the following in
accordance with paragraphs 1C3 and 1C3(b) of SB SA 365, No. 01.38,
dated January 31, 1994:
(i) Remove the door and the trimming panel
(ii) Remove the sheared spring pin.
(iii) Replace the sheared spring pin with two spring pins
(iv) Reinstall the door trimming panels
(v) Reinstall the door
(vi) Install the snapwire as described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
this AD.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used when approved by the Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, FAA,
Rotorcraft Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests
through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or
comment and then send it to the Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Staff.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Rotorcraft Standards Staff.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
Secs. 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the
requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 26, 1995.
Eric Bries,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-27203 Filed 11-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27202 Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model BO-105, BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105S, BO-105LS A-1 Helicopters
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 212 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55680-55681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27202]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-SW-14-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) Model
BO-105, BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105S, BO-105LS A-1 Helicopters
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD)
(Eurocopter) Model BO-105, BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105S, BO-105LS A-1
helicopters. This proposal would require a ground test and inspection
of the tandem hydraulic switch-over system (switch-over system) for
component wear and parts replacement, if necessary. This proposal is
prompted by incidents involving Model BO-105 series helicopters in
which, during the switch-over from Hydraulic System 1 to Hydraulic
System 2, a 3-inch drop in the collective occurred, caused by component
wear in the switch-over system. The actions specified by the proposed
AD are intended to detect switch-over system component wear, which
could result in a sudden drop in the collective and a sudden loss of
altitude.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention:
Rules Docket No. 95-SW-14-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, Texas 75053-4005. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert McCallister, Aerospace
Engineer, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5121, fax
(817) 222-5961.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-SW-14-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-SW-14-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.
Discussion
The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority
for the Federal Republic of Germany, has notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD)
(Eurocopter) Model BO-105 series helicopters. The LBA advises that
excessive wear on tandem hydraulic units may exist on certain
Eurocopter Model BO-105 series helicopters. Wear of more than 0.5mm in
the switch-over components may prevent normal switching from Hydraulic
System 1 to Hydraulic System 2.
Eurocopter has issued MBB-Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB-BO
105-40-102, dated April 20, 1989, applicable to all BO-105 series
helicopters with tandem hydraulic units, part numbers 105-45021, 105-
45023, or 105-45028, having valve body manifolds D133-756, D133-756E,
ZE1-126-I, ZE2-126, or ZE2-126-1, installed on Hydraulic System 1 or
Hydraulic System 2. This service bulletin specifies procedures for a
ground test of the tandem hydraulic switch-over system to determine
whether excessive wear exists. The LBA classified this service bulletin
as mandatory and issued AD 89-123/2 MBB, dated October 25, 1989, in
order to assure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in
Germany.
This helicopter model is manufactured in Germany and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
Sec. 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the
applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
LBA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
There has been a recent occurrence in the United States that may
have been attributable to this out-of-tolerance condition. Since an
unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop
on other Eurocopter Model BO-105, BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105S, BO-105LS
A-1 helicopters of the same type design registered in the United
States, the proposed AD would require that a ground test be conducted
of the tandem hydraulic switch-over system to detect component wear and
require parts replacement if necessary. The actions would be required
to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously.
The FAA estimates that 165 helicopters of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 5 work
hours per helicopter to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts, if needed,
would cost approximately $750. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$173,250.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and
[[Page 55681]]
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with
Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this proposal would not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES -
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended] -
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
to read as follows:
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD): Docket No. 95-SW-14-AD.
-Applicability: Model BO-105, BO-105A, BO-105C, BO-105S, and BO-
105LS A-1 helicopters with tandem hydraulic units, part numbers (P/
N) 105-45021, 105-45023, or 105-45028, having valve body manifolds
D133-756, D133-756E, ZE1-126-I, ZE2-126, or ZE2-126-1, installed on
either Hydraulic System 1 or Hydraulic System 2, certificated in any
category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) to request approval from the FAA. This
approval may address either no action, if the current configuration
eliminates the unsafe condition, or different actions necessary to
address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such a request
should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any helicopter from the applicability of this AD.
-Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. -
To detect switch-over system component wear, which could result
in a sudden drop in the collective and a sudden loss of altitude,
accomplish the following: -
(a) Within 50 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1 year, conduct a
ground test of the tandem hydraulic system and an inspection of the
switch-over system linkage for wear in accordance with section A,
``Inspections Required,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of MBB-
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB-BO 105-40-102, dated April
20, 1989. Based on the results of this ground test, accomplish the
following as appropriate: -
(1) If no switch-over reactions occur during the ground test, no
further action is required. -
(2) If any switch-over reaction occurs during the ground test,
perform the additional inspections of the switch-over system and
perform the required maintenance procedures in accordance with
section B, ``Work Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
MBB-Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB-BO 105-40-102, dated
April 20, 1989. -
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used when approved by the Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Staff,
Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests
through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or
comment and then send it to the Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Staff.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Rotorcraft Standards Staff.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
Secs. 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the
requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 26, 1995.
Eric Bries,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-27202 Filed 11-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27077 Training of Lessee and Contractor Employees Engaged in Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 212 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55683-55691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27077]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 250
RIN 1010-AB99
Training of Lessee and Contractor Employees Engaged in Oil and
Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend MMS regulations governing the
training of lessee and contractor employees engaged in oil and gas and
sulphur operations in the OCS. MMS is amending these regulations to
simplify the training options, to provide the flexibility to use
alternative training methods, and to provide the option to allow third
parties to certify schools.
DATES: MMS will consider all comments we receive by January 31, 1996.
We will begin reviewing comments at that time and may not fully
consider comments we receive after January 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the
Interior; Minerals Management Service; Mail Stop 4700; 381 Elden
Street; Herndon, Virginia 22070-4817; Attention: Chief, Engineering and
Standards Branch.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerry Richard, Information and Training Branch, telephone (703) 787-
1582 or FAX (703) 787-1575.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 5, 1994, MMS published an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) concerning the training of lessee
and contractor employees engaged in drilling, well-completion, well-
workover, well-servicing, or production operations in the OCS. The ANPR
suggested five options to improve the existing regulations at 30 CFR
Part 250, Subpart O, Training. The ANPR also encouraged the public to
suggest other viable options.
During the comment period, which ended on October 19, 1994, MMS
held a workshop to provide a mechanism to exchange ideas about
improvements to subpart O. MMS announced the September 29, 1994,
workshop in the Federal Register on August 31, 1994.
MMS received 33 comments from industry, support contractors,
training schools, and academia. Some comments favored a third-party
certification option and others favored the current system with minor
changes to be more flexible.
MMS agrees that it should be more flexible in training options and
it should allow a third party to relive some of the burden to the
Government. After analyzing the comments received from the ANPR and the
workshop and after analyzing our future goals, MMS determined that it
needs to amend the existing training regulations.
The revision would:
--Streamline the current regulations by 80 percent
--Provide flexibility to use alternative training methods
--Provide the option for a third party to certify schools
MMS is developing the criteria for approving third parties to
certify training schools and their programs. We plan to have the
criteria available for the
[[Page 55684]]
final rule because we anticipate that this proposed rule will generate
interest from potential third parties.
Once MMS begins shifting, to a third party, the burden of
certifying the numerous training schools and their frequent training
plan updates, the Federal Government will save resources. Although the
third party will probably charge each potential school a service fee,
MMS anticipates that market competition will make the fee nonminal. The
students may receive a slight tuition increase to absorb the fee. MMS
anticipates that any cost increase to industry may be offset by the
increased flexibility provided by this proposed rule.
This rulemaking is the first step to change the way MMS regulates
worker qualifications and training. Our vision for the future of the
training program is for more of a partnership with industry by using a
performance-based system. Under a performance-based system, MMS would
shift the responsibility to industry for establishing training methods.
However, the training that employees receive would need to continue to
provide safety for personnel and the environment. MMS could appraise
the adequacy of industry's training through methods that could include
random inspections, tests or drills, and by analyzing accidents or near
accidents. MMS is just beginning to write performance-based regulations
and we would appreciate your comments on this subject.
MMS is also considering opening up the option for industry to
integrate its training requirements into a safety and environmental
management plan (SEMP). You may know that the objective of the SEMP
program is to reduce the risk of accidents and pollution from OCS
operations by incorporating safety management practices into facility
management and procedures. Using a SEMP may provide an alternative
means to fulfill some of industry's regulatory obligations. Please send
us your ideas and comments on the future of using a SEMP.
We hope that you find this proposed rule clear, and more user-
oriented. MMS may conduct a workshop on this proposed training rule. We
will notify you under separate notice.
Author: Sharon Buffington, Engineering and Standards Branch,
MMS, prepared this document.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This proposed rule is not a significant rule under E.O. 12866.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior (DOI) determined that this proposed
rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of
small entities. In general, the entities that engage in offshore
activities are not considered small due to the technical and financial
resources and experience necessary to safely conduct such activities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not add any new collection requirements.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved the
collection requirements under OMB No. 1010-0078.
Takings Implication Assessment
The DOI determined that this proposed rule does not represent a
governmental action capable of interference with constitutionally
protected property rights. Thus, DOI does not need to prepare a Takings
Implication Assessment pursuant to E.O. 12630, Government Action and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
E.O. 12778
The DOI certified to OMB that this proposed rule meets the
applicable civil justice reform standards provided in Sections 2(a) and
2(b)(2) of E.O. 12778.
National Environmental Policy Act
The DOI determined that this action does not constitute a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not
required.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 250
Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental
protection, Government contracts, Incorporation by reference,
Investigations, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas development and
production, Oil and gas exploration, Oil and gas reserves, Penalties,
Pipelines, Public lands--mineral resources, Public lands--rights-of-
way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur development and
production, Sulphur exploration, Surety bonds.
Dated: September 5, 1995.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons in the preamble, Minerals Management Service (MMS)
proposes to amend 30 CFR part 250 as follows:
PART 250--OIL AND GAS AND SULPHUR OPERATIONS IN THE OUTER
CONTINENTAL SHELF
1. The authority citation for part 250 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1334.
2. Subpart O is revised to read as follows:
Subpart O--Training
Sec.
250.209 Question index table.
250.210 Definitions.
250.211 What is MMS's goal for well-control and production safety
systems training?
210.212 What type of training must I provide for my employees?
250.213 What documentation must I provide to trainees?
250.214 How often must I provide training to my employees and for
how many hours?
250.215 Where must I get training for my employees?
250.216 Where can I find training guidelines for other topics?
250.217 Can I get an exception to the training requirements?
250.218 Can my employees change job certification?
250.219 What must I do if I have temporary employees or on-the-job
trainees?
250.220 What must manufacturer's representatives in production
safety systems do?
250.221 May I use alternative training methods?
250.222 What is MMS looking for when it reviews an alternative
training program?
250.223 Who may certify a training organization to teach?
250.224 How long is a training organization's certification valid
for?
250.225 What information must a training organization submit to MMS
(or an MMS-approved third party)?
250.226 What additional requirements must a training organization
follow?
250.227 What are MMS's requirements for the written test?
250.228 What are MMS's requirements for the hands-on simulator and
well test?
250.229 What elements must a basic course cover?
250.230 If MMS tests employees at my worksite, what must I do?
250.231 If MMS tests trainees at a training organization's
facility, what must occur?
250.232 Why might MMS conduct its own tests?
Subpart O--Training
Sec. 250.209 Question index table.
(a) For your convenience in locating information, we grouped the
questions in table 250.209(b) as follows:
(1) General training requirements--Secs. 250.211 through 250.216.
(2) Departures from training requirements--Secs. 250.217 through
250.222.
[[Page 55685]]
(3) Training program certifications--Secs. 250.223 through 250.229.
(4) MMS testing information--Secs. 250.230 through 250.232.
(b) Table 250.209(b) is as follows:
Table 250.209(b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions Sec. 250.210
What is MMS's goal for well- Sec. 250.211
control and production safety
systems training?
What type of training must I Sec. 250.212
provide for my employees?
What documentation must I Sec. 250.213
provide to trainees?
How often must I provide Sec. 250.214
training to my employees and
for how many hours?
Where must I get training for my Sec. 250.215
employees?
Where can I find training Sec. 250.216
guidelines for other topics?
Can I get an exception to the Sec. 250.217
training requirements?
Can my employees change job Sec. 250.218
certification?
What must I do if I have Sec. 250.219
temporary employees or on-the-
job trainees?
What must manufacturer's Sec. 250.220
representatives in production
safety systems do?
May I use alternative training Sec. 250.221
methods?
What is MMS looking for when it Sec. 250.222
reviews an alternative training
program?
Who may certify a training Sec. 250.223
organization to teach?
How long is a training Sec. 250.224
organization's certification
valid for?
What information must a training Sec. 250.225
organization submit to MMS (or
an MMS-approved third party)?
What additional requirements Sec. 250.226
must a training organization
follow?
What are MMS's requirements for Sec. 250.227
the written test?
What are MMS's requirements for Sec. 250.228
the hands-on simulator and well
test?
What elements must a basic Sec. 250.229
course cover?
If MMS tests employees at my Sec. 250.230
worksite, what must I do?
If MMS tests trainees at a Sec. 250.231
training organization's
facility, what must occur?
Why might MMS conduct its own Sec. 250.232
tests?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 250.210 Definitions.
Terms used in this subpart have the following meaning:
Alternative training methods includes self-paced or team-based
training that may use a computer-based system such as compact disc
interactive (CDI), compact disc read only memory (CDROM), or Laser
Discs.
Completed training means that the trainee successfully met MMS's
requirements for that training.
Employees means direct employees and contract employees of lessees.
Floorhands means rotary helpers, derrickmen, or their equivalent.
I or you means the lessee or contractor engaged in oil, gas or
sulphur operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Installing includes installing and replacing the equipment.
Lessee means the person, organization, agent or designee authorized
to explore, develop and produce leased deposits.
Maintaining includes preventive maintenance, routine repair, and
replacing defective components.
Operating includes testing, adjusting, calibrating, and recording
test and calibration results for the equipment.
Production Safety Systems employees means employees engaged in
installing, repairing, testing, maintaining, or operating surface or
subsurface safety devices and the platform employee who is responsible
for production operations.
Supervisors means the driller, toolpusher, operator's
representative, or their equivalent.
Third-Third Certifier means a party that MMS has approved to
certify a training organization or training program.
Training includes a basic or an advanced class in well-control for
drilling, well-completion/well-workover, well-servicing, and production
safety systems.
Training organization means a party certified by MMS or an MMS-
approved third-party certifier to teach well-control for drilling,
well-completion/well-workover, well-servicing, and production safety
systems.
Well-completion/well-workover (WO) well-control includes small
tubing.
Well-servicing (WS) well-control includes snubbing and coil tubing.
Well-workover rig means a drilling rig used for well completions.
Sec. 250.211 What is MMS's goal for well-control and production safety
systems training?
The goal is to ensure that employees who work in the following
areas receive training that results in safe and clean operations:
(a) Drilling well-control;
(b) WO well-control;
(c) WS well-control; and
(d) Production Safety Systems.
Sec. 250.212 What type of training must I provide for my employees?
You must provide training for your employees in accordance with the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training
Type of employee requirements Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling floorhand.............. Drilling well
control.\1\
Complete a well You must log the
control drill at time it took to
the job site complete the
within the time drill in the
limit prescribed driller's log and
by company furnish the time
operating to the floorhand.
procedures.\2\
Participate in You must record
well control the date and time
drills under it took to
subpart D of this complete each
part.\2\ drill in the
driller's log.
Receive copy of a
drilling well
control
manual.\2\
Drilling supervisor............. Drilling well
control
course.\1\
Qualify to direct
well control
operations.\1\
WO floorhands................... WO well control
course.\1\
Complete the You must record
qualifying the date and time
testing it took to
consisting of a complete each
well control drill in the
drill at the job operations log.
site within the
time limit set by
company
procedures.\2\
Participate in
weekly well
control drills
under subparts E
and F of this
part.\2\
Receive a well
control
manual.\2\
WO supervisors.................. WO well control
course.\1\
Qualify to direct
well control
operations.\1\
WS work crews................... At least one crew Trained employee
member is trained must be in work
in WS well area at all time
control.\1\ during snubbing
or coil tubing
operations.
[[Page 55686]]
At least one crew
member must be
qualified to
direct well
control
operations.\1\
Production safety systems Must complete
employees. training that
enables them to
install, test,
maintain, &
operate
subsurface
surface safety
devices.\1\
Employees who work in well Either WO well
completion operations before or control course or
during tree installation. drilling well
control
course.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Employee may not work in the OCS unless this requirement is met.
\2\ Employee must complete this requirement before exceeding six months
of cumulative employment.
Sec. 250.213 What documentation must I provide to trainees?
You must give your employees documents that show they have
completed the training courses required for their job. The employee
must either carry the documents or keep them at the job site.
Sec. 250.214 How often must I provide training to my employees for how
many hours?
(a) You must ensure that applicable employees complete basic or
advanced well-control training at least every 2 years. For example, if
your employee completed a well control course on May 31, 1996, they
must again complete training by May 31, 1998.
(b) You must ensure that applicable employees complete basic or
advance production safety systems training at least every 3 years. For
example, if your employee completes production safety systems training
on May 31, 1996, they must again complete the training by May 31, 1999.
(c) You must ensure that your employees have at least the following
amount of training:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Subsea No
option option options
Basic/advanced course minimum minimum minimum
hours hours hours
---------------------------------------------------------\1\------------
Drilling (D).............................. 28 32 --
Well-Completion/Workover (WO)............. 32 36 --
Well-Serving (WS)......................... -- -- 18
Combination D/WO.......................... 40 44 --
Combination D/WS.......................... 44 48 --
Combination WO/WS......................... 48 52 --
Combination D/WO/WS....................... 55 59 --
Production Safety Systems................. -- -- 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The subsea option includes the minimum hours from the surface option
plus four hours.
Sec. 250.215 Where must I get training for my employees?
You must provide training by a training organization or program
approved by MMS or by an MMS-approved third-party.
Sec. 250.216 Where can I find training guidelines for other topics?
You can find guidelines in the subparts of this part listed in the
following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic Subpart of part 250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution control.......................... C
Crane operations........................... A
Welding and burning........................ D
Hydrogen sulfide........................... D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 250.217 Can I get an exception to the training requirements?
MMS may grant an exception to well-control or production safety
systems training if you meet both of the following:
(a) MMS determines that the exception won't jeopardize the safety
of your personnel or create a hazard to the environment.
(b) You need the exception because of unavoidable circumstances
that make compliance infeasible for impractical.
Sec. 250.218 Can my employees change job certification?
Only if you ensure that the employee completes training for the new
job before entering on duty.
Sec. 250.19 What must I do if I have temporary employees or on-the-job
trainees?
You must ensure that temporary employees and on-the-job trainees
complete the appropriate training unless a trained supervisor is
directly supervising the employee.
Sec. 250.220 What must manufacturer's representatives in production
safety systems do?
A manufacturer's representative who is working on company supplied
equipment must:
(a) Receive training by the manufacturer to install, service, or
repair the specific safety device or safety systems; and
(b) Have an individual trained in production safety systems (who
can evaluate their work) accompany them.
Sec. 250.221 May I use alternative training methods?
Yes.
(a) You may receive a one-year provisional approval from MMS to use
alternative training methods that may involve team or self-paced
training using a computer-based system.
(b) You may receive up to 3 additional years (4 years total) from
MMS to use alternative training methods (through onsite reviews).
Sec. 250.222 AWhat is MMS looking for when it reviews an alternative
training program?
(a) The alternative training must teach methods to operate
equipment that result in safe and clean operations.
(b) MMS will determine, through onsite MMS reviews and unannounced
audits during the provisional period, if the:
(1) Training environment is conducive to learning;
(2) Trainees interact effectively with the moderator or training
administrator;
(3) Trainees function as a team (for well-control only); and
(4) Tests are challenging and cover all important safety concepts
and practical procedures to ensure safety.
(c) MMS may also speak with the trainees to determine if the
trainees felt the training met their needs for their job.
Sec. 250.223 Who may certify a training organization to teach?
Either MMS or an MMS-approved third party may certify a training
organization or program.
Sec. 250.224 How long is a training organization's certification valid
for?
A certificate is valid for a maximum of 4 years. A training
organization may apply to MMS to recertify its program before the
fourth anniversary of the effective certification date. The training
organization must state the changes
[[Page 55687]]
(additions and deletions) to the last approved training curriculum and
plan.
Sec. 250.225 What information must a training organization submit to
MMS (or an MMS-approved third party)?
(a) Two copies of the detailed plan that includes the:
(1) Curriculum;
(2) Names and credentials of the instructors (instructors must
complete training from an approved training organization);
(3) Mailing and street address of the training facility and the
location of the records;
(4) Location for the simulator and lecture areas and how you
separate the areas;
(5) Presentation methods (video, lecture, film, etc.);
(6) Percentage of time for each presentation method;
(7) Testing procedures and a sample test; and
(8) List of any portions of the course that cover the subsea
training option instead of the surface training option.
(b) A training manual.
(c) A cross-reference that relates the requirements of this subpart
to the elements in the program.
(d) A copy of the handouts.
(e) A copy of the training certificate that includes the following:
(1) Candidate's full name;
(2) Candidate's social security number or an MMS-issued or third
party issued identification number;
(3) Name of the training school;
(4) Course name (e.g., basic WS well-control course);
(5) Option (surface or subsea);
(6) Training completion date;
(7) Job classification (e.g., drilling supervisor; and
(8) Certificate expiration date.
(f) Course outlines identified by:
(1) Name (e.g., ``WS well-control course'');
(2) Type (basic or advanced); and
(3) Option (surface or subsea).
(g) Time (hours per student) for the following:
(1) Teaching;
(2) Using the simulator (for well-control);
(3) Hands-on training (for production safety systems); and
(4) Completing the test (written and simulator).
(h) Special instruction methods for students who respond poorly to
conventional training (including oral assistance).
(i) Additional material (for the advanced training option) such as
advanced training techniques or case studies.
(j) Information on the simulator or test wells:
(1) Capability for surface and or subsea drilling well-control
training;
(2) Capability to simulate lost circulation and secondary kicks;
and
(3) Types of kicks.
Sec. 250.226 What additional requirements must a training
organization follow?
(a) Keep training records of each trainee for 5 years after the
date the trainee completed the training. For example, if a trainee
completed a course in 1995, you may destroy the 1995 records at the end
of the year 2000. Keep the following trainee record information:
(1) Daily attendance record including makeup time;
(2) Written test and retest (including simulator test);
(3) Evaluation of the trainee's simulator test or retest;
(4) ``Kill sheets'' for simulator test or retest; and
(5) Copy of the trainee's certificate.
(b) Keep records of the training program for 5 years. The 5 years
starts with the program approval date. For example, if a training
program was certified in 1995, at the end of the year 2000 you may
destroy the records for 1995. Keep the following training record
information:
(1) Complete and current training program plan and a technical
manual;
(2) A copy of each class roster; and
(3) Copies of schedules and schedule changes.
(c) Supply trainees with copies of Government regulations on the
training subject matter.
(d) Provide a certificate to each trainee who successfully
completes training.
(e) Ensure that the subsea training option has an additional 4
hours of training and covers problems in well-control when drilling
with a subsea blowout preventer (BOP) stack including:
(1) Choke line friction determinations;
(2) Using marine risers;
(3) Riser collapse;
(4) Removing trapped gas from the BOP after controlling a well
kick; and
(5) ``U'' tube effect as gas hits the choke line.
(f) Ensure that trainees who are absent from any part of a course
make up the missed portion within 14 days after the end of the course
before providing a written or simulator test to the trainee.
(g) Ensure that classes contain 18 or fewer candidates.
(h) Furnish a copy of the training program and plan to MMS for
their use during an onsite review.
(i) Submit the course schedule to MMS at the following times--after
MMS approves the training program, annually, and prior to any program
changes. The schedule must include the:
(1) Name of the course;
(2) Class dates;
(3) Type of course; and
(4) Course location.
(j) Provide all basic course trainees a copy of the training
manual.
(k) Provide all advanced course trainees handouts necessary to
update the manuals the trainee has as a result of previous training
courses.
(l) When each course ends, send MMS a letter listing each trainee
who completed the course. The letter must contain the following
information for each trainee:
(1) Name of training organization;
(2) Course location (e.g., Thibodeaux, Louisiana);
(3) Trainee's full name;
(4) Name of course (e.g., Drilling well-control or WS well-
control);
(5) Course type (i.e., basic or advanced training);
(6) Options (e.g., subsea);
(7) Date trainee completed course;
(8) Name(s) of instructor(s) teaching the course;
(9) Either the trainee's social security number or an MMS-issued or
third party issued identification number;
(10) Trainee's employer;
(11) Actual job title of trainee;
(12) Job for each awarded certificate; and
(13) Test scores (including course element scores) for each
successful trainee.
(m) Ensure that test scores for combination training have a
separate score element for each designation and for each option. For
example, training in subsea drilling and in WO would have separate test
scores for the drilling, WO, and for the subsea portion.
Sec. 250.227 What are MMS's requirements for the written test?
(a) The training organization must:
(1) Administer the test at the training facility;
(2) Use 70 percent as a passing grade for each course element
(drilling, well-completion, etc.);
(3) Ensure that the tests are confidential and nonrepetitive; and
(4) Offer a retest, when necessary, using different questions of
equal difficulty.
(b) A trainee who fails a retest must repeat the training and pass
the test in order to work in the OCS in their classification.
[[Page 55688]]
Sec. 250.228 What are MMS's requirements for the hands-on simulator
and well test?
(a) The test must simulate a surface blowout preventer (BOP) or
subsea stack. You must have a 3-D simulator with actual gauges and
dials. The trainees must be able to demonstrate to the instructor the
ability to:
(1) Kill the well prior to removing the tree;
(2) Determine slow pump rates;
(3) Recognize kick warning signs;
(4) Shut in a well;
(5) Complete kill sheets;
(6) Initiate kill procedures;
(7) Maintain appropriate bottomhole pressure;
(8) Maintain constant bottomhole pressure;
(9) Recognize and handle unusual well control situations;
(10) Control the kick as it reaches the choke line; and
(11) Determine if kill gas or fluids are removed.
(b) In the subsea option, trainees must demonstrate the ability to:
(1) Determine choke line friction pressures for subsea BOP stacks;
and
(2) Discuss and demonstrate procedures such as circulating the
riser and removing trapped gas in a subsea BOP stack.
(c) Offer a retest, when necessary, using different questions of
equal difficulty.
(d) A trainee who fails a retest must repeat the training and pass
the test to work in the OCS in their job classification.
Sec. 250.229 What elements must a basic course cover?
See Sec. 250.229 Table (a) for well control and Sec. 250.229 Table
(b) for production safety systems. The checks in Sec. 250.229 Table (a)
indicate the required training elements that apply to each job. Tables
(a) and (b) follow:
Table (a).--Well Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling WO
Elements for basic training ---------------------------------------- WS
Super Floor Super Floor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hands-on:
Training to operate choke manifold........................ ........ ........ ........
Training to operate stand pipe............................ ........ ........ ........
Training to operate mud room valves....................... ........ ........ ........ ........
2. Care, handling & characteristics of drilling & completion
fluids....................................................... ........ ........ ........
3. Care, handling & characteristics of well completion/well
workover fluids & packer fluids.............................. ........ ........
4. Major causes of uncontrolled fluids from a well including:
Failure to keep the hole full............................. ........ ........ ........
Swabbing effect........................................... ........ ........ ........
Loss of circulation....................................... ........ ........ ........
Insufficient drilling fluid density....................... ........ ........ ........
Abnormally pressured formations........................... ........ ........ ........
Effect of too rapidly lowering of the pipe in the hole.... ........ ........ ........
5. Importance & instructions of measuring the volume of fluid
to fill the hole during trips................................ ........ ........ ........ ........
6. Importance & instructions of measuring the volume of fluid
to fill the hold during trips including the importance of
filling the hole as it relates to shallow gas conditions..... ........ ........ ........ ........
7. Filling the tubing & casing with fluid to control
bottomhole pressure.......................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
8. Warning signals that indicate kick & conditions that lead
to a kick.................................................... ........
9. Controlling shallow gas kicks and using diverters.......... ........ ........ ........ ........
10. At least one bottomhole pressure well control method
including conditions unique to a surface or subsea BOP stack. ........ ........ ........
11. Installing, operating, maintaining & testing BOP &
diverter systems............................................. ........ ........ ........ ........
12. Installing, operating, maintaining & testing BOP systems.. ........ ........ ........ ........
13. Government regulations on:
Emergency shutdown systems................................ ........ ........ ........ ........
Production safety systems................................. ........ ........ ........ ........
Drilling procedures....................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
Wellbore plugging & abandonment........................... ........ ........
Pollution prevention & waste management...................
Well completion & well workover requirements (Subparts E &
F of 30 CFR part 250).................................... ........ ........ ........
14. Procedures & sequential steps, for shutting in a well:
BOP system................................................ ........ ........
Surface/subsurface safety system.......................... ........ ........ ........ ........
Choke manifold............................................ ........ ........ ........
15. Well control exercises with a simulator suitable for
modeling well completion/well workover....................... ........ ........ ........ ........
16. Well control exercises with a simulator suitable for
modeling drilling............................................ ........ ........ ........ ........
17. Instructions & simulator or test well experience on
organizing & directing a well killing operation.............. ........ ........ ........
18. At least two simulator practice problems (rotate the
trainees & have teams of 3 or less members).................. ........ ........ ........
19. Care, operation, & purpose {& installation (for
supervisors)} of the well control equipment.................. ........
20. Limitations of the equipment that may wear or be subjected
to pressure.................................................. ........ ........
21. Instructions in well control equipment, including:
Surface equipment......................................... ........ ........ ........
Well completion/well workover, BOP & tree equipment....... ........ ........ ........ ........
Downhole tools & tubulars................................. ........ ........ ........ ........
Tubing hanger, back pressure valve (threaded/profile),
landing nipples, lock mandrels for corresponding nipples
& operational procedures for each, gas lift equipment &
running & pulling tools operation........................ ........ ........ ........ ........
Packers................................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
[[Page 55689]]
22. Instructions in special tools & systems, such as:
Automatic shutdown systems (control points, activator
pilots, monitor pilots, control manifolds & subsurface
systems)................................................. ........ ........ ........ ........
Flow string systems (tubing, mandrels & nipples, flow
couplings, blast joints, & sliding sleeves).............. ........ ........ ........ ........
Pumpdown equipment (purpose, applications, requirements,
surface circulating systems, entry loops & tree
connection/flange)....................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
23. Instructions for detecting entry into abnormally pressured
formations & warning signals................................. ........ ........ ........ ........
24. Instructions on well completion/well control problems..... ........ ........ ........ ........
25. Well control problems during well completion/well workover
including:
Killing a flow............................................ ........ ........ ........ ........
Simultaneous drilling, completion & workover operations on
the same platform........................................ ........ ........ ........ ........
Killing a producing well.................................. ........ ........ ........ ........
Removing the tree......................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
26. Calculations on the following:
Fluid density increase that controls fluid flow into the
wellbore................................................. ........ ........ ........
Fluid density to pressure conversion & the danger of
formation breakdown under the pressure caused by the
fluid column especially when setting casing in shallow
formations............................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
Fluid density to pressure conversion & the danger of
formation breakdown under the pressure caused by the
fluid column............................................. ........ ........ ........ ........
Equivalent pressures at the casing seat depth............. ........ ........ ........ ........
Drop in pump pressure as fluid density increases; & the
relationship between pump pressure, pump rate, & fluid
density.................................................. ........ ........ ........
Pressure limitations on casings........................... ........ ........ ........
Hydrostatic pressure & pressure gradient.................. ........ ........ ........
27. Unusual well control situations, including the following:
Drill pipe is off the bottom or out of the hole/work
string is off the bottom or out of the hole.............. ........ ........ ........
Lost circulation occurs................................... ........ ........ ........
Drill pipe is plugged/work string is plugged.............. ........ ........ ........
There is excessive casing pressure........................ ........ ........ ........
There is a hole in drill pipe/hole in the work string/hole
in the casing string..................................... ........ ........ ........
Multiple completions in the hole.......................... ........ ........ ........ ........
28. Special well-control problems-drilling with a subsea stack
(subsea students) includes:
Choke line friction determinations........................ ........ ........ ........
Using marine risers....................................... ........ ........ ........
Riser collapse............................................ ........ ........ ........
Removing trapped gas from the BOP stack after controlling
a well kick.............................................. ........ ........ ........
``U'' tube effect as gas hits the choke line.............. ........ ........ ........
29. Mechanics of various well controlled situations,
including:
Gas bubble migration & expansion.......................... ........ ........ ........
Bleeding volume from a shut-in well during gas migration.. ........ ........ ........
Excessive annular surface pressure........................ ........ ........ ........
Differences between a gas kick & a salt water and/or oil
kick..................................................... ........ ........ ........
Special well control techniques (such as, but not limited
to, barite plugs & cement plugs)......................... ........ ........ ........
Procedures & problems involved when experiencing lost
circulation.............................................. ........ ........ ........
Procedures & problems involved when experiencing a kick
while drilling in a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) environment... ........ ........
Procedures & problems--experiencing a kick during
snubbing, coil-tubing, or small tubing operations and
stripping & snubbing operations with work string......... ........ ........ ........
30. Reasons for well completion/well workover, including:
Reworking a reservoir to control production............... ........ ........ ........
Water coning.............................................. ........ ........ ........ ........
Completing from a new reservoir........................... ........ ........ ........
Completing multiple reservoirs............................ ........ ........ ........
Stimulating to increase production........................ ........ ........ ........
Repairing mechanical failure.............................. ........ ........ ........
31. Methods on preparing a well for entry:
Using back pressure valves................................ ........ ........ ........ ........
Using surface & subsurface safety systems................. ........ ........ ........
Removing the tree & tubing hangar......................... ........ ........
Installing & testing BOP & wellhead prior to removing back
pressure valves & tubing plugs........................... ........ ........ ........
32. Instructions in small tubing units:
Applications (stimulation operations, cleaning out tubing
obstructions, and plugback and squeeze cementing)........ ........ ........ ........ ........
Equipment description (derrick & drawworks, small tubing,
pumps, weighted fluid facilities, and weighted fluids)... ........ ........ ........ ........
BOP equipment (rams, wellhead connection, & check valve... ........ ........ ........ ........
33. Methods for killing a producing well, including:..........
Bullheading............................................... ........ ........ ........
Lubricating & bleeding.................................... ........ ........ ........
[[Page 55690]]
Coil tubing............................................... ........ ........ ........
Applications (stimulation operations, initiating flow, &
cleaning out sand in tubing)............................. ........ ........ ........ ........
Equipment description (coil tubing, reel, injection head,
control assembly & injector hoist)....................... ........ ........ ........ ........
BOP equipment (tree connection or flange, rams, injector
assembly & circulating system)........................... ........ ........ ........ ........
Snubbing.................................................. ........ ........ ........
Types (rig assist & stand alone).......................... ........ ........ ........ ........
Applications (running & pulling production or kill
strings, resetting weight on packers, fishing for lost
wireline tools or parted kill strings & circulating
cement or fluid)......................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
Equipment (operating mechanism, power supply, control
assembly & basket, slip assembly, mast & counterbalance
winch & access window)................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
BOP equipment (tree connection or flange, rams, spool,
traveling slips, manifolds, auxiliary--full opening
safety valve inside BOP, maintenance & testing).......... ........ ........ ........ ........
34. The purpose & use of BOP closing units, including the
following:
Charging procedures include precharge & operating pressure ........ ........ ........
Fluid volumes (usable & required)......................... ........ ........ ........
Fluid pumps............................................... ........ ........ ........
Maintenance that includes charging fluid & inspection
procedures............................................... ........ ........ ........
35. Instructions on stripping & snubbing operations & using
the BOP system for working pipe in or out of a wellbore under
pressure..................................................... ........ ........ ........ ........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table (b).--Production Safety Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Government Regulations:
Pollution prevention & waste management.
Requirements for well completion/well workover operations.
2. Instructions in the following: (contained in, but not limited to, API
RP 14C):
Failures or malfunctions, in systems that cause abnormal conditions
& the detection of abnormal conditions.
Primary & secondary protection devices & procedures.
Safety devices that control undesirable events.
Safety analysis concepts.
Safety analysis of each basis production process component.
Protection concepts.
3. Hands on training on safety devices covering, installing, operating,
repairing or maintaining equipment:
High-low pressure sensors.
High-low level sensors.
Combustible gas detectors.
Pressure relief devices.
Flow line check valves.
Surface safety valves.
Shutdown valves.
Fire (flame, heat, or smoke) detectors.
Auxiliary devices (3-way block & bleed valves, time relays, 3-way
snap acting valves, etc.).
Surface-controlled subsurface safety valves &/or surface-control
equipment.
Subsurface-controlled subsurface safety valves.
4. Instructions on inspecting, testing & maintaining surface &
subsurface devices & surface control systems for subsurface safety
valves.
5. Instructions in at least one safety device that illustrates the
primary operation principle in each class for safety devices:
Basic operations principles.
Limits affecting application.
Problems causing equipment malfunction & how to correct these
problems.
A test for proper actuation point & operation.
Adjustments or calibrations.
Recording inspection results & malfunctions.
Special techniques for installing safety devices.
6. Instructions on the basic principle & logic of the emergency support
system:
Combustible & toxic gas detection system.
Liquid containment system.
Fire loop System.
Other fire detection systems.
Emergency shutdown system.
Subsurface safety valves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 250.230 If MMS tests employees at my worksite, what must I do?
(a) You must allow MMS to test employees at your worksite.
(b) You must identify your employees by:
(1) Current job classification;
(2) Name of the operator;
(3) Name of the most recent basic or advanced course taken by your
employees for their current job; and
(4) Name of the training organization.
[[Page 55691]]
(c) You must correct any deficiencies found by MMS.
Steps for correcting deficiencies may include:
(1) Isolating problem areas by doing more testing; and
(2) Reassigning employees or conducting the training they need (MMS
will not identify the employees it tests).
Sec. 250.231 If MMS tests trainees at a training organization's
facility, what must occur?
(a) Training organizations must allow MMS to test trainees.
(b) The trainee must pass the MMS-conducted test or a retest in
order for MMS to consider that the trainee completed the training.
Sec. 250.232 Why might MMS conduct its own tests?
MMS needs to identify the effectiveness of a training program that
provides safe and clean operations.
[FR Doc. 95-27077 Filed 11-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27074 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 212 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55673-55680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27074]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-111-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400,
and -500 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-
300 and -400 series airplanes, that currently requires either
repetitive leak checks on the forward lavatory service system and
repair as necessary, or draining of the system and placarding the
lavatory inoperative. This action would expand the applicability of the
rule to include all Model 737 series airplanes. It would also add a
requirement to perform leak checks of other lavatory drain systems;
provide for the option of revising the FAA-approved maintenance program
to include a schedule of leak checks; require the installation of a cap
or vacuum break on the flush/fill line; and require either a periodic
replacement of the seal for the cap and tank anti-siphon valve or
periodic maintenance of the
[[Page 55674]]
vacuum break in the flush/fill line. This proposal is prompted by
continuing reports of damage to engines and airframes, separation of
engines from airplanes, and damage to property on the ground, caused by
``blue ice'' that forms from leaking lavatory drain systems on
transport category airplanes and subsequently dislodges from the
airplane fuselage. The actions specified by this proposed AD are
intended to prevent such damage associated with the problems of ``blue
ice.''
DATES: Comments must be received by January 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-111-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Don Eiford, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington; telephone (206) 227-2778; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-111-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-111-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion of the Existing AD
On May 9, 1989, the FAA issued AD 89-11-03, amendment 39-6223 (54
FR 21933, May 22, 1989), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-300 and
-400 airplanes, to require repetitive leak checks of the forward
lavatory service system at intervals of 200 hours time-in-service, and
repair, if necessary. That AD also provides operators with an optional
action in lieu of performing these periodic checks, which entails
draining the system, locking the lavatory, and placarding the lavatory
inoperative. That action was prompted by several reports of leakage
from the forward lavatory service system on in-service transport
category airplanes that resulted in the formation of ``blue ice'' on
the fuselage. In some instances, the ``blue ice'' subsequently
dislodged from the fuselage and was ingested into an engine. In one
incident, ``blue ice'' was ingested into the right engine and resulted
in the loss of an engine fan blade, severe engine damage, and an in-
flight shutdown of the engine. The requirements of that AD are intended
to prevent such ingestion of ``blue ice'' into the engine, which could
consequently result in damage to the engine and potential separation of
the engine from the airplane.
New Incidents Prompting This Proposed Action
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has continued to receive
reports of engine damage on transport category airplanes caused by
``blue ice'' that has formed from leaking lavatory waste systems or
flush/fill lines and is ingested in to the engine(s) of the airplane.
The FAA also has received reports of at least three incidents of
damage caused by foreign objects from the forward toilet drain valve
and flush/fill line on certain airplanes. One report was of a dent on
the right horizontal stabilizer leading edge on a Model 737 series
airplane that was caused by ``blue ice'' that had formed from leakage
through a flush/fill line; in this case, the flush/fill cap was missing
from the line at the forward service panel. Numerous operators of Model
737 series airplanes have stated that leakage from the flush/fill line
is a significant source of the type of ``blue ice'' problems addressed
by the current AD action.
Additionally, there have been numerous reports of ``blue ice''
dislodging from airplanes and striking houses, cars, buildings, and
other occupied areas on the ground. Although there have been no reports
of any person being struck by ``blue ice,'' the FAA considers that the
large number of reported cases of ``blue ice'' falling from lavatory
drain system is sufficient to support the conclusion that ``blue ice''
presents an unsafe condition to people on the ground. Demographic
studies have shown that population density has increased around
airports, and probably will continue to increase. These are populations
that are at greatest risk of damage and injury due to ``blue ice''
dislodging from an airplane during descent. Without actions to ensure
that leaks from the lavatory drain systems are detected and corrected
in a timely manner, ``blue ice'' incidents could go unchecked and
eventually someone may be struck, perhaps fatally, by falling ``blue
ice.''
In light of these continuing incidents and the data received
concerning them, the FAA has determined that the inspections currently
required by AD 89-11-03 are not adequate to positively address the
unsafe condition(s) associated with ``blue ice.'' -
Additionally, since the lavatory systems on Model 737-100, -200,
and -500 series airplanes are similar to those installed on Model 737-
300 and -400 series airplanes (the models currently subject to AD 89-
11-03), the FAA has determined that the potential unsafe condition
exists with regard to all of these models.
Description of the Proposed Rule -
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the FAA
proposes to issue a new AD to supersede AD 89-11-03. -
Paragraph (a) of the proposed AD would require various repetitive
leak checks of the dump valve and drain valve (either service panel or
in-line drain valve). The intervals for performing these leak checks
would vary from the currently required 200 flight hours to 4,500 flight
hours,
[[Page 55675]]
depending upon the type of valve installed at each location. If any
leak is discovered during a leak check, operators would be required
either to repair the leak, or drain the lavatory system and placard the
lavatory inoperative. -
Proposed paragraph (a) also would require replacement of certain
seals on the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve and flush/fill line
cap; and replacement or cleaning of the vacuum break vent line. -
Paragraph (b) of this proposed AD would provide an optional
procedure for complying with the rule, which would entail revising the
FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate a schedule and
procedure to conduct leak checks of the lavatory drain systems.
However, operators electing to comply with this option would be
required to accomplish the actions required by paragraph (a) of the
proposal until their maintenance program is revised. -
Additionally, operators electing to comply with this option would
be required to obtain approval from the Manager of the FAA's Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) for any revision to the leak check
intervals. Requests for such revisions must be accompanied by certain
data when submitted to the ACO [through the appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector (PMI)] for approval. In paragraph (c) of the
proposed rule, the FAA proposes a ``data collection format'' for these
requests. Data submitted in accordance with the proposed format, if
favorable to an increase in the leak check interval, will allow the FAA
to justify increasing the leak check interval with assurance that the
valves involved have the required reliability. The data provided also
will be important in assisting the FAA in making future determinations
of appropriate leak check intervals for new valves that have shown
promising, but not conclusive, service data. -
This proposal also includes a process for terminating the leak
checks of waste drain systems for those operators who have installed
in-line drain (ball) valves and elect to comply with the proposed AD
via the ``maintenance program option.'' The FAA has determined that
these types of valves are currently the best solution to the addressed
problems, and provide very reliable operation. In combination with a
normal maintenance program, these valves provide a system that is
superior in reliability to the combination of less reliable valves and
the proposed leak checks. Further, the FAA has been advised that
additional versions of the in-line drain valve may become available for
aft lavatory and flush/fill line applications. This could make it
possible to install in-line drain type valves in all drain systems and
flush/fill line locations. Assuming the new versions are designed,
certified, and found acceptable, based upon the guidelines of NOTE 9 of
the proposed AD, it eventually could be possible to obtain terminating
action for all systems addressed by the AD. -
Paragraph (d) of the proposed AD would require that a lever/lock
cap or a vacuum break be installed for the forward, aft, and executive
lavatories. -
Paragraph (e) of the proposed AD would require that, before an
operator places an airplane subject to the AD into service, the
operator must establish a schedule for accomplishment of the leak
checks. This provision is intended to ensure that transferred airplanes
are inspected in accordance with the AD on the same basis as if there
were continuity in ownership, and that scheduling of the leak checks
for each airplane is not delayed or postponed due to a transfer of
ownership. Airplanes that have previously been subject to the AD would
have to be checked in accordance with either the previous operator's or
the new operator's schedule, whichever would result in the earlier
accomplishment date for that leak check. Other airplanes would have to
be inspected before an operator could begin operating them or in
accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA PMI, but within a period
not exceeding 200 flight hours.
Related AD's -
On November 9, 1994, the FAA issued AD 94-23-10, amendment 39-9073
(59 FR 59124, November 16, 1994), which is applicable to Boeing Model
727 series airplanes. That AD contains numerous requirements that are
similar to those proposed in this action applicable to Model 737 series
airplanes. In fact, several of the proposed requirements of this action
are based on alternative methods of compliance that the FAA had
previously approved for compliance with AD 94-23-10. -
The FAA is currently considering additional rulemaking to address
the problems associated with ``blue ice'' on other transport category
airplanes.
Economic Impact -
There are approximately 2,410 Model 737 series airplanes of the
affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,031
airplanes of U.S. registry and 110 U.S. operators would be affected by
this proposed AD. -
The proposed waste drain system leak check and outer cap inspection
would take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an
average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
total cost impact on U.S. operators of these proposed requirements of
this AD is estimated to be $371,160, or $360 per airplane, per check/
inspection. -
Certain airplanes (i.e., those that have ``donut'' type of drain
valve installed) may be required to be leak checked as many as 15 times
each year. Certain other airplanes having other valve configurations
would be required to be leak checked as few as 3 times each year. Some
airplanes that have various combinations drain valves installed would
require approximately 2 leak checks of one drain valve and 3 leak
checks of the other drain valve each year. Based on these figures, the
total annual (recurring) cost impact of the required repetitive leak
checks on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $1,080 and $5,400
per airplane per year. -
The FAA estimates that it would take approximately 1 work hour per
airplane lavatory drain to accomplish a visual inspection of the
service panel drain valve cap/door seal and seal mating surfaces, at an
average labor cost of $60 per work hour. As with leak checks, certain
airplanes would be required to be visually inspected as many as 15
times or as few as 3 times each year. Based on these figures, the total
annual (recurring) cost impact of the required repetitive visual
inspections on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $180 and $900
per airplane per year. -
The proposed installation of the flush/fill line cap would take
approximately 1 hour per cap to accomplish, at an average labor rate of
$60 per work hour. The cost of required parts would be $275 per cap.
There are an average of 2.5 caps per airplane. Based on these figures,
the total cost impact on U.S. operators of these proposed requirements
of this AD is estimated to be $863,463, or $838 per airplane. -
The number of required work hours, as indicated above, is presented
as if the accomplishment of the actions proposed in this AD were to be
conducted as ``stand alone'' actions. However, in actual practice,
these actions could be accomplished coincidentally or in combination
with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance
program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary ``additional''
work hours would be minimal in many instances. Additionally, any costs
associated with special airplane scheduling should be minimal. -
In addition to the costs discussed above, for those operators who
elect to
[[Page 55676]]
comply with proposed paragraph (b) of this proposed AD action, the FAA
estimates that it would take approximately 40 work hours per operator
to incorporate the lavatory drain system leak check procedures into the
maintenance programs, at an average labor cost of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed
maintenance revision requirement of this AD action on the 110 U.S.
operators is estimated to be $264,000, or $2,400 per operator.
The total cost impact figures discussed above are based on
assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or
proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would
accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The FAA recognizes that the obligation to maintain aircraft in an
airworthy condition is vital, but sometimes expensive. Because AD's
require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions, they
appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be borne by operators.
However, because of the general obligation of operators to maintain
aircraft in an airworthy condition, this appearance is deceptive.
Attributing those costs solely to the issuance of this AD is
unrealistic because, in the interest of maintaining safe aircraft,
prudent operators would accomplish the required actions even if they
were not required to do so by the AD.
A full cost-benefit analysis has not been accomplished for this AD.
As a matter of law, in order to be airworthy, an aircraft must conform
to its type design and be in a condition for safe operation. The type
design is approved only after the FAA makes a determination that it
complies with all applicable airworthiness requirements. In adopting
and maintaining those requirements, the FAA has already made the
determination that they establish a level of safety that is cost-
beneficial. When the FAA, as in this AD, makes a finding of an unsafe
condition, this means that the original cost-beneficial level of safety
is no longer being achieved and that the required actions are necessary
to restore that level of safety. Because this level of safety has
already been determined to be cost-beneficial, a full cost-benefit
analysis for this AD would be redundant and unnecessary.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-6223 (54 FR
21933, May 22, 1989), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD),
to read as follows:
Boeing. Docket 95-NM-111-AD. Supersedes AD 89-11-03, Amendment 39-
6223.
Applicability: Boeing Model 737 series 100, 200, 300, 400 and
500 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (f) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless previously
accomplished.
To prevent engine damage, airframe damage, and/or hazard to
persons or property on the ground as a result of ``blue ice'' that
has formed from leakage of the lavatory drain system or flush/fill
systems and dislodged from the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this AD, accomplish
the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of
this AD at the time specified in each paragraph. If the waste drain
system incorporates more than one type of valve, only one of the
waste drain system leak check procedures (the one that applies to
the equipment with the longest leak check interval) must be
conducted at each service panel location. The leak check of the in-
line drain valve or service panel drain valve must be performed
while the airplane is pressurized, unless another leak check method
is approved under the provisions of paragraph (f) of this AD.
(1) For each lavatory drain system that has an in-line drain
valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 2651-
329, 2651-334, or 2651-278: Within 4,500 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
4,500 flight hours, accomplish the procedures specified in
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve (in-tank valve that
is spring loaded closed and operable by a T-handle at the service
panel) and the in-line drain valve. The dump valve leak check must
be performed by filling the toilet tank with water/rinsing fluid to
a level such that the bowl is approximately half full (at least 2
inches above the flapper in the bowl) and checking for leakage after
a period of 5 minutes. The in-line drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum of 3 pounds per square inch differential
pressure (PSID) applied across the valve.
(ii) If a service panel valve or cap is installed, perform a
visual inspection of the service panel drain valve outer cap/door
seal and the inner seal (if the valve has an inner door with a
second positive seal), and the seal mating surfaces, for wear or
damage that may allow leakage.
(2) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series
0218-0032; or Pneudraulics part number series 9527; or Shaw Aero
part number/serial number as listed in Table 1 of this AD: Within
1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours, accomplish
the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD:
[[Page 55677]]
Table 1.--Shaw Aero Valves Approved for 1,000 Flight Hour Leak Check
Interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial numbers of part
number valve approved for
Shaw Waste Drain Valve Part No. 1,000-hour leak check
interval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
331 Series, 332 Series.................... All.
10101000B-A-.............................. None.
10101000B-A-1............................. 0207-0212, 0219, 0226 and
higher.
10101000BA2-.............................. 0130 and higher.
10101000B-B-.............................. None.
10101000BB2-.............................. 0011 and higher.
10101000B-C-.............................. None.
10101000B-K-.............................. 0007 and higher.
10101000BJ-............................... 0023 and higher.
10101B-577-............................... 0254 and higher.
10101B-577-1.............................. None.
10101B587-................................ 0009 and higher.
10101000C-A-.............................. None.
10101000C-A-1............................. 0277 and higher.
10101000CB-............................... 0061 and higher.
10101000C-G-.............................. None.
10101000C-J-.............................. None.
10101000C-J-2............................. None.
10101000CJ3-.............................. 0014 and higher.
10101000CK-............................... 0317 and higher.
10101000C-M-.............................. 0044 and higher.
10101000CN OR C-N-........................ 3649 and higher.
10101000C-R-.............................. 0191 and higher.
10101C739-................................ 0022 and higher.
Certain 10101000B valves-................. Any of these ``B'' series
valves that incorporate the
improvements of Shaw
Service Bulletin 10101000B-
38-1, dated October 7,
1994, and are marked
``SBB38-1-58''.
Certain 10101000C valves.................. Any of these ``C'' series
valves that -incorporate
the improvements of Shaw
Service Bulletin 10101000C-
38-2 dated October 7, 1994,
and are marked ``SBC38-2-
58''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 2: Table 1 is a comprehensive list of all approved Shaw
Valves, including those valves approved for installation on
airplanes other than the airplanes subject to this AD. (Therefore,
being listed in this table does not necessarily mean that a
particular valve is FAA-approved for installation on the Model 737
airplanes subject to this AD.)
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and drain valve. The
dump valve leak check must be performed by filling the toilet tank
with water/rinsing fluid to a level such that the bowl is
approximately half full (at least 2 inches above the flapper in the
bowl) and checking for leakage after a period of 5 minutes. The
service panel drain valve leak check must be performed with a
minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve inner door/closure
device.
(ii) Perform a visual inspection of the outer cap/door and seal
mating surface for wear or damage that may cause leakage.
(3) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series
0218-0026; or Shaw Aero Devices part number series 10101000B or
10101000C [except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD]:
Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours, accomplish
the requirements of paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The dump valve leak check must be performed by filling
the toilet tank with water/rinsing fluid to a level such that the
bowl is approximately half full (at least 2 inches above the flapper
in the bowl) and checking for leakage after a period of 5 minutes.
The service panel drain valve leak check must be performed with a
minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve inner door/closure device.
(ii) Perform a visual inspection of the outer cap/door and seal
mating surface for wear or damage that may cause leakage.
(4) For each lavatory drain system with a lavatory drain system
valve that incorporates either ``donut'' assemblies (or substitute
assemblies from another manufacturer) Kaiser Electroprecision part
number 4259-20 or 4259-31, or incorporates Kaiser Roylyn part number
2651-194C, 2651-197C, 2651-216, 2651-219, 2651-235, 2651-256, 2651-
258, 2651-259, 2651-260, 2651-275, 2651-282, 2651-286: Within 200
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours, conduct leak checks of the
dump valve and the service panel drain valve. The dump valve leak
check must be performed by filling the toilet tank with water/
rinsing fluid to a level such that the bowl is approximately half
full (at least 2 inches above the flapper in the bowl) and checking
for leakage after a period of 5 minutes. The service panel drain
valve leak check must be performed with a minimum 3 PSID applied
across the valve. Both the donut and the outer cap/door must be leak
checked.
(5) For each lavatory drain system not addressed in paragraph
(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(4) of this AD: Within 200 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 200 flight hours, accomplish the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (a)(5)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The dump valve leak check must be performed by filling
the toilet tank with water/rinsing fluid to a level such that the
bowl is approximately half full (at least 2 inches above the flapper
in the bowl) and checking for leakage after a period of 5 minutes.
The service panel drain valve leak check must be performed with a
minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve inner door/closure device.
(ii) Perform a visual inspection of the outer cap/door and seal
mating surface for wear or damage that may cause leakage.
(6) For flush/fill lines: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
5,000 flight hours, perform the requirements of either paragraph
(a)(6)(i) or (a)(6)(ii), as applicable.
(i) If a lever lock cap is installed on the flush/fill line of
the subject lavatory, replace the seals on the toilet tank anti-
siphon (check) valve and the flush/fill line cap. Prior to further
flight after replacement, perform a leak check of the toilet tank
anti-siphon (check) valve with a minimum of 3 PSID across the valve.
Note 3: The leak test procedure described in Boeing Service
Letter 737-SL-38-3-A dated March 19, 1990, may be referred to as
guidance for this test.
(ii) If a vacuum break, Monogram part number 3765-175 series or
3765-190 series, is installed on the subject lavatory, replace or
clean the vent line in accordance with the manufacturer's
maintenance manual.
(7) As a result of the leak checks and inspections required by
this paragraph, or if evidence of leakage is found at any other
time, accomplish the requirements of paragraph (a)(7)(i),
(a)(7)(ii), or (a)(7)(iii), as applicable.
(i) If a leak is discovered, prior to further flight, repair the
leak. Prior to further flight after repair, perform the leak test.
Additionally, prior to returning the airplane to service, clean the
surfaces adjacent to where the leakage occurred to clear them of any
horizontal fluid residue streaks; such cleaning must be to the
extent that any future appearance of a horizontal fluid residue
streak will be taken to mean that the system is leaking again.
Note 4: For purposes of this AD, ``leakage'' is defined as any
visible leakage, if observed during a leak test. At any other time
(than during a leak test), ``leakage'' is defined as the presence of
ice in the service panel, or horizontal fluid residue streaks/ice
trails originating at the service panel. The fluid residue is
usually, but not necessarily, blue in color.
(ii) If any worn or damaged seal is found, or if any damaged
seal mating surface is found, prior to further flight, repair or
replace it in accordance with the valve manufacturer's maintenance
manual.
(iii) In lieu of performing the requirements of paragraph
(a)(7)(i) or (a)(7)(ii): Prior to further fight, drain the affected
lavatory system and placard the lavatory inoperative until repairs
can be accomplished.
(b) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (a) of
this AD, operators may revise the FAA-approved maintenance program
to include the requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(7) of this AD. However, until the FAA-approved maintenance
program is so revised, operators must accomplish the leak test
requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD. Incorporation of the
requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(2)(i), (b)(4),
(b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(7) of this AD into the operator's FAA-
approved maintenance program constitutes terminating action for
waste drain systems that incorporate the ball valves specified in
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this AD. However, the requirements of this AD
that affect flush/fill lines and waste drain systems with valves
different from those listed in paragraph (b)(1)(i) remain in effect.
[[Page 55678]]
(1) Replace the valve seals in accordance with the applicable
schedule specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this
AD.
(i) For each lavatory drain system that has an in-line drain
valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 2651-
329, 2651-334, or 2651-278: Replace the seals within 5,000 flight
hours after revision of the maintenance program in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
48 months.
(ii) For each lavatory drain system that has any other type of
drain valve: Replace the seals within 5,000 flight hours after
revision of the maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b)
of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months. Any
revision to this replacement schedule must be approved by the
Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate.
(2) Conduct periodic leak checks of the lavatory drain systems
in accordance with the applicable schedule specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), and (b)(2)(iv) of this AD. Only
one of the waste drain system leak check procedures (the one that
applies to the equipment with the longest leak check interval) must
be conducted at each service panel location. The leak check of the
in-line drain valve or service panel drain valve shall be performed
while the airplane is pressurized, unless another leak check method
is approved under the provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(i) For each lavatory drain system, that has an in-line drain
valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 2651-
329, 2651-334, or 2651-278: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
24 months or 5,000 flight hours, whichever occurs later, accomplish
the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(B)
of this AD:
(A) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve (in-tank valve that
is spring loaded closed and operable by a T-handle at the service
panel) and the in-line drain valve. The dump valve leak check must
be performed by filling the toilet tank with water/rinsing fluid to
a level such that the bowl is approximately half full (at least 2
inches above the flapper in the bowl) and checking for leakage after
a period of 5 minutes. The in-line drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum of 3 pounds per square inch differential
pressure (PSID) applied across the valve.
(B) If a service panel valve or cap is installed, perform a
visual inspection of the service panel drain valve outer cap/door
seal and the inner seal (if the valve has an inner door with a
second positive seal), and the seal mating surfaces, for wear or
damage that may allow leakage. Any worn or damaged seal must be
replaced, and any damaged seal mating surfaces repaired or replaced,
prior to further flight, in accordance with the valve manufacturer's
maintenance manual.
(ii) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series
0218-0032, or Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 0218-0026,
or Shaw Aero Devices part number series 10101000B, 10101000C, 331-
series, 332-series, or Pneudraulics part number series 9527: Within
1,000 flight hours after revising the maintenance program in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours, accomplish the
following:
(A) Conduct leak checks of the dump valve and service panel
drain valve . The dump valve leak check must be performed by filling
the toilet tank with water/rinsing fluid to a level such that the
bowl is approximately half full (at least 2 inches above the flapper
in the bowl) and checking for leakage after a period of 5 minutes.
The service panel drain valve leak check must be performed with a
minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve inner door/closure
device. Any revision to this leak check schedule must be approved by
the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(B) Perform a visual inspection of the outer cap/door and seal
mating surface for wear or damage that may cause leakage. Any worn
or damaged seal must be replaced and any damaged seal mating surface
must be repaired or replaced, prior to further flight, in accordance
with the valve manufacturer's maintenance manual.
(iii) For each lavatory drain system with a lavatory drain
system valve that incorporates either ``donut'' assemblies (or
substitute assemblies from another manufacturer) Kaiser
Electroprecision part number 4259-20 or 4259-31, or incorporates
Kaiser Roylyn part number 2651-194C, 2651-197C, 2651-216, 2651-219,
2651-235, 2651-256, 2651-258, 2651-259, 2651-260, 2651-275, 2651-
282, 2651-286: Within 200 flight hours after revising the
maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b), and thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours, conduct leak checks of
the dump valve and the service panel drain valve. Both the donut and
the outer cap/door must be leak checked. The dump valve leak check
must be performed by filling the toilet tank with water/rinsing
fluid to a level such that the bowl is approximately half full (at
least 2 inches above the flapper in the bowl) and checking for
leakage after a period of 5 minutes. The service panel drain valve
leak check must be performed with a minimum 3 PSID applied across
the valve.
(iv) For each lavatory drain system that incorporates any other
type of approved valves: Within 400 flight hours after revising the
maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours, accomplish
the following:
(A) Conduct leak checks of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The dump valve leak check must be performed by filling
the toilet tank with water/rinsing fluid to a level such that the
bowl is approximately half full (at least 2 inches above the flapper
in the bowl) and checking for leakage after a period of 5 minutes.
The service panel drain valve leak check must be performed with a
minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve. If the service panel drain
valve has an inner door with a second positive seal, only the inner
door must be tested.
(B) Perform a visual inspection of the outer cap/door and seal
mating surface for wear or damage that may cause leakage. Any worn
or damaged seal must be replaced and any damaged seal mating surface
must be repaired or replaced, prior to further flight, in accordance
with the valve manufacturer's maintenance manual.
(3) For flush/fill lines: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
5,000 flight hours, perform the requirements of either paragraph
(b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii), as applicable.
(i) If a lever lock cap is installed on the flush/fill line of
the subject lavatory, replace the seals on the toilet tank anti-
siphon (check) valve and the flush/fill line cap. Perform a leak
check of the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve with a minimum of
3 PSID across the valve.
Note 5: The leak test procedure of Boeing Service Letter 737-SL-
38-3-A, dated March 19, 1990, May be referred to as guidance for
this test.
(ii) If a vacuum break, Monogram part number 3765-175 series, or
3765-190 series, is installed on the subject lavatory, replace or
clean the vent line in accordance with the manufacturer's
maintenance manual.
(4) Provide procedures for accomplishing visual inspections to
detect leakage, to be conducted by maintenance personnel at
intervals not to exceed 4 calendar days or 45 flight hours, which
ever occurs later.
(5) Provide procedures for reporting leakage. These procedures
shall provide that any ``horizontal blue streak'' findings must be
reported to maintenance and that, prior to further flight, the
leaking system shall either be repaired, or be drained and placarded
inoperative.
(i) For systems incorporating an in-line drain valve, Kaiser
Electroprecision part number series 2651-329, 2651-334 or 2651-278:
The reporting procedures also must include the following:
(A) Provisions for reporting to maintenance any instances of
abnormal operation of the valve handle for the in-line drain valve,
as observed by service personnel during normal servicing.
(B) For instances where abnormal operation of the valve handle
is identified, instructions to accomplish, prior to further flight,
either the in-line drain valve manufacturer's recommended
troubleshooting procedures and correction of the discrepancy; or
drainage of the lavatory system and placarding it inoperative until
the correction of the discrepancy can be accomplished.
(ii) If the drain system also includes an additional service
panel drain valve, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 0218-
0026 or 0218-0032 or Shaw Aero Devices series 10101000B, series
10101000C, series 331, or series 332, or Pneudraulics part number
series 9527: Indications of abnormal operation of the valve handle
for the in-line drain valve need not be addressed immediately if a
leak check of the service panel drain valve indicates no leakage or
other discrepancy. In these cases, repair of the in-line drain valve
must be accomplished within 1,000 flight hours after the leak check
of the additional service panel drain valve.
(6) Provide training programs for maintenance and servicing
personnel that
[[Page 55679]]
include information on ``Blue Ice Awareness'' and the hazards of blue
ice.
(7) If a leak is discovered during a leak check required by this
paragraph; or if evidence of leakage is found at any other time; or
if repair/replacement of a valve (or valve parts) is required as a
result of a visual inspection required in accordance with this AD;
prior to further flight, accomplish the requirements of paragraph
(b)(7)(i), (b)(7)(ii), or (b)(7)(iii), as applicable.
Note 6: For purposes of this AD, ``leakage'' is defined as any
visible leakage, if observed during a leak test. At any other time
(than during a leak test), ``leakage'' is defined as the presence of
ice in the service panel, or horizontal fluid residue streaks/ice
trails originating at the service panel. The fluid residue is
usually, but not necessarily, blue in color.
(i) Repair the leak and, prior to further flight after repair,
perform a leak test. Additionally, prior to returning the airplane
to service, clean the surfaces adjacent to where the leakage
occurred to clear them of any horizontal fluid residue streaks; such
cleaning must be to the extent that any future appearance of a
horizontal fluid residue streak will be taken to mean that the
system is leaking again.
(ii) Repair or replace the valve or valve parts.
(iii) In lieu of either paragraph (b)(7)(i) or (b)(7)(ii), drain
the affected lavatory system and placard the lavatory inoperative
until repairs can be accomplished.
(c) For operators who elect to comply with paragraph (b) of this
AD: Any revision to (i.e., extension of) the leak check intervals
required by paragraph (b) of this AD must be approved by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Requests
for such revisions must be submitted to the Manager of the Seattle
ACO through the FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI), and must
include the following information:
(1) The operator's name;
(2) A statement verifying that all known cases/indications of
leakage or failed leak tests are included in the submitted material;
(3) The type of valve (make, model, manufacturer, vendor part
number, and serial number);
(4) The period of time covered by the data;
(5) The current FAA leak check interval;
(6) Whether or not seals have been replaced between the seal
replacement intervals required by this AD;
(7) Whether or not leakage has been detected between leak check
intervals required by this AD, and the reason for leakage (i.e.,
worn seals, foreign materials on sealing surface, scratched or
damaged sealing surface or valve, etc.);
(8) Whether or not any cleaning, repairs, or seal changes were
performed on the valve prior to conducting the leak check. [If such
activities have been accomplished prior to conducting the periodic
leak check, that leak check shall be recorded as a ``failure'' for
purposes of the data required for this request submission. The
exception to this is the normally-scheduled seal change in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this AD. Performing this
scheduled seal change prior to a leak check will not cause that leak
check to be recorded as a failure. Debris removal done as part of
normal maintenance for previous flights is also allowable and will
not cause a leak check to be recorded as a failure].
Note 7: Requests for approval of revised leak check intervals
may be submitted in any format, provided the data give the same
level of assurance specified in paragraph (c) above. Results of an
Environmental Quality Analysis (EQA) examination and leak test on a
randomly selected high-flight-hour valve, with seals that have not
been replaced during a period of use at least as long as the desired
interval, may be considered a valuable supplement to the service
history data, reducing the amount of service data that would
otherwise be required.
Note 8: For the purposes of expediting resolution of requests
for revisions to the leak check intervals, the FAA suggests that the
requester summarize the raw data; group the data gathered from
different airplanes (of the same model) and drain systems with the
same kind of valve; and provide a recommendation from pertinent
industry group(s) and/or the manufacturer specifying an appropriate
revised leak check interval.
Note 9: In cases where changes are made to a valve design
approved for an extended leak test interval such that a new valve
dash number or part number is established for the valve, the FAA may
not require extensive service history data to approve the new valve
to the same leak check interval as the previous valve design.
Similarity of design, the nature of the design changes, the nature
and amount of testing, and like factors will be considered by the
FAA to determine the appropriate data requirements and leak check
interval for a new or revised valve based upon an existing design.
Note 10: If other valve designs achieve the reliability (as
demonstrated by equivalent service history and data) of the valves
cited in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this AD, the FAA may consider
granting terminating action using the same guidelines.
(d) For all airplanes: Unless already accomplished, within 5,000
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform the
actions specified in either paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this AD:
(1) Install a FAA approved lever/lock cap on the flush/fill
lines for the forward, aft, and executive lavatories. Or -
(2) Install a vacuum break, Monogram part number 3765-175 series
or 3765-190 series, in the flush/fill lines for the forward, aft,
and executive lavatories. -
(e) For any affected airplane acquired after the effective date
of this AD: Before any operator places into service any airplane
subject to the requirements of this AD, a schedule for the
accomplishment of the leak checks required by this AD shall be
established in accordance with either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of
this AD, as applicable. After each leak check has been performed
once, each subsequent leak check must be performed in accordance
with the new operator's schedule, in accordance with either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD as applicable.
(1) For airplanes previously maintained in accordance with this
AD, the first leak check to be performed by the new operator must be
accomplished in accordance with the previous operator's schedule or
with the new operator's schedule, whichever would result in the
earlier accomplishment date for that leak check.
(2) For airplanes that have not been previously maintained in
accordance with this AD, the first leak check to be performed by the
new operator must be accomplished prior to further flight, or in
accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA PMI, but within a
period not to exceed 200 flight hours.
(f) Alternative method(s) of compliance with this AD:
(1) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through
an appropriate FAA PMI, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance previously approved for AD
89-11-03, which permit a 4,500-flight hour interval between leak
checks of the forward waste drain system for those operators
installing the modifications specified in Boeing Service Bulletin
737-38-1028, dated July 18, 1991, and later revisions, are
considered acceptable alternative methods of compliance with the
requirements of only paragraph (a)(1) of this AD. For those
operators, the other requirements of this AD are still required to
be accomplished. All other alternate methods of compliance approved
for AD 89-11-03 are terminated and are no longer in effect.
Note 11: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
Note 12: For any valve that is not eligible for the extended
leak check intervals of this AD: To be eligible for the leak check
interval specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(2)(i), and
(b)(2)(ii), the service history data of the valve must be submitted
to the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
with a request for an alternative method of compliance. The request
should include an analysis of known failure modes for the valve, if
it is an existing design, and known failure modes of similar valves,
with an explanation of how design features will preclude these
failure modes, results of qualification tests, and approximately
25,000 flight hours or 25,000 flight cycles of service history data
which include a winter season, collected in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (c) above, or a similar program. One of
the factors that the FAA will consider in approving alternative
valve designs is whether the valve meets Boeing Specification
S417T105 or 10-62213. However, meeting the Boeing specification is
not a prerequisite for approval of alternative valve designs.
(g) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
[[Page 55680]]
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 26, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-27074 Filed 11-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27073 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 Series Airplanes and Model MD-11F (Freighter) Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 212 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55668-55673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27073]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-120-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 Series
Airplanes and Model MD-11F (Freighter) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Model DC-10 series airplanes
and MD-11F airplanes. Among other things, this proposal would require
repetitive leak checks of the lavatory drain system and repair, if
necessary; would provide for
[[Page 55669]]
the option of revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to include
a schedule of leak checks; and would require the installation of a cap
on the flush/fill line. This proposal is prompted by continuing reports
of damage to engines and airframes, separation of engines from
airplanes, and damage to property on the ground, caused by ``blue ice''
that forms from leaking lavatory drain systems on transport category
airplanes and subsequently dislodges from the airplane fuselage. The
actions specified by this proposed AD are intended to prevent such
damage associated with the problems of ``blue ice.''
DATES: Comments must be received by January 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-120-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,
California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business
Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). This information may be examined
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Eierman, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5336; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-120-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-120-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
Over the past ten years, the FAA has received numerous reports of
leakage from the lavatory service systems on in-service transport
category airplanes that resulted in the formation of ``blue ice'' on
the fuselage. In some instances, the ``blue ice'' subsequently
dislodged from the fuselage and was ingested in to an engine. In
several of these incidents, the ingestion of ``blue ice'' into an
engine resulted in the loss of an engine fan blade, severe engine
damage, and the in-flight shutdown of the engine. In two cases, the
loads created by the ``blue ice'' being ingested into the engine
resulted in the engine being physically torn from the airplane. Damage
to an engine, or the separation of an engine from the airplane, could
result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
The FAA also has received reports of at least three incidents of
damage to the airframe caused by foreign objects from the forward
toilet drain valve and flush/fill line on transport category airplanes.
One report was of a dent on the right horizontal stabilizer leading
edge on a Model 737 series airplane that was caused by ``blue ice''
that had formed from leakage through a flush/fill line; in this case,
the flush/fill cap was missing from the line at the forward service
panel. Numerous operators have stated that leakage from the flush/fill
line is a significant source of problems associated with ``blue ice.''
Such damage caused by blue ice could adversely affect the integrity of
the fuselage skin or surface structures.
Additionally, there have been numerous reports of ``blue ice''
dislodging from airplanes and striking houses, cars, buildings, and
other occupied areas on the ground. Although there have been no reports
of any person being struck by ``blue ice,'' the FAA considers that the
large number of reported cases of ``blue ice'' falling from lavatory
drain system is sufficient to support the conclusion that ``blue ice''
presents an unsafe condition to people on the ground. Demographic
studies have shown that population density has increased around
airports, and probably will continue to increase. These are populations
that are at greatest risk of damage and injury due to ``blue ice''
dislodging from an airplane during descent. Without actions to ensure
that leaks from the lavatory drain systems are detected and corrected
in a timely manner, ``blue ice'' incidents could go unchecked and
eventually someone may be struck, perhaps fatally, by falling ``blue
ice.''
Current Rules
In response to these incidents, the FAA has issued several AD's
applicable to various transport category airplanes:
1. AD 86-05-07, Amendment 39-5250 (51 FR 7767, March 6, 1986):
Issued on February 26, 1986, this AD required periodic leak checks of
all Model 727 aircraft forward lavatory drain systems (both dump valve
and drain valve) at intervals not to exceed 15 months, and corrective
action, if necessary.
2. AD 94-23-10, Amendment 39-9073 (59 FR 59124, November 16, 1994):
Issued on November 9, 1994, this AD supersedes AD 86-05-07. It
continues to require various leak checks of Boeing Model 727 series
airplanes, but adds requirements for leak checks of other lavatory
drain systems; provides for the option of revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program to include a schedule of leak checks; requires the
installation of a cap on the flush/fill line; and requires either a
periodic leak check of the flush/fill line cap or replacement of the
seals on both that cap and the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve.
3. AD 89-11-03, Amendment 39-6223 (54 FR 21933, May 22, 1989):
Issued on May 9, 1989, this AD is applicable to certain Boeing Model
737-300 and -400 airplanes. It requires repetitive leak checks of the
forward lavatory service system at intervals of 200 hours time-in-
service, and repair, if necessary. That AD also provided operators with
an optional action in lieu of performing
[[Page 55670]]
these periodic checks, which entails draining the system, locking the
lavatory, and placarding the lavatory inoperative.
4. The FAA is planning to amend AD 89-11-03 to make it applicable
to all Model 737 series airplanes, and to require additional
inspections and other actions similar to those of AD 94-23-10.
5. The FAA is currently considering additional rulemaking to
address the problems associated with ``blue ice'' on various other
transport category airplanes, including those manufactured by Airbus,
British Aerospace, Fokker, and Lockheed.
Discussion of the Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the FAA is
proposing an AD would require the following actions:
Paragraph (a) of the proposed AD would require repetitive leak
checks of the lavatory dump valve and drain valve (either service panel
or in-line drain valve). The intervals for performing these leak checks
would vary from 200 flight hours to 1,000 flight hours, depending upon
what type of valve is installed at each location. The leak check of
panel valves would be required to be performed with a minimum of 3 PSID
applied across the valve. If any leak is discovered during the leak
checks, operators would be required either to repair the leak and
retest it, or drain the lavatory system and placard it inoperative
until repairs can be made.
In cases where the panel valve has an inner seal, in lieu of
pressure testing, operators are provided with the option of performing
a visual inspection for damage or wear of the outer cap seal and seal
surface. Any damaged parts detected would be required to be repaired or
replaced prior to further flight, or the lavatory drained and placarded
inoperative until repairs can be made.
Additionally, the flush/fill line cap would be required to be leak
checked. In lieu of this particular check, operators may elect to
replace the seals on the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve and
flush/fill line cap.
Paragraph (b) of this proposed AD would provide an optional
procedure for complying with the rule, which would entail revising the
FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate a schedule to conduct
leak checks of the lavatory drain systems. The maintenance program
change would also require that procedures be provided for accomplishing
the visual inspections to detect leakage, for reporting leakage.
Additionally, a training program must be provided to maintenance and
servicing personnel, which would include information on ``blue ice''
awareness and the hazards of ``blue ice.''
Operators electing to comply with this option would be required to
obtain approval from the Manager of the FAA's Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) for any revision to the leak check
intervals. Requests for such revisions would be required to be
accompanied by certain data when submitted to the ACO [through the
appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI)] for approval. In
paragraph (c) of the proposed rule, the FAA proposes a ``data
collection format'' for these requests. Data submitted in accordance
with the proposed format, if favorable to an increase in the leak check
interval, will allow the FAA to justify increasing the leak check
interval with assurance that the valves involved have the required
reliability. The data provided also will be important in assisting the
FAA in making future determinations of appropriate leak check intervals
for new valves that have shown promising, but not conclusive, service
data.
Paragraph (d) of the proposed AD also would require that all
operators install a lever/lock cap on the flush/fill lines for all
service panels. The cap must be either an FAA-approved cap or one
installed in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 38-65
or 38-39.
Paragraph (e) of the proposed AD would require that, before an
operator places an airplane subject to the AD into service, the
operator must establish a schedule for accomplishment of the subject
leak checks. This provision is intended to ensure that transferred
airplanes are inspected in accordance with the AD on the same basis as
if there were continuity in ownership, and that scheduling of the leak
checks for each airplane is not delayed or postponed due to a transfer
of ownership. Airplanes that have previously been subject to the AD
would have to be checked in accordance with either the previous
operator's or the new operator's schedule, whichever would result in
the earlier accomplishment date for that leak check. Other airplanes
would have to be inspected before an operator could begin operating
them or in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA PMI, but
within a period not exceeding 200 flight hours.
Economic Impact
There are approximately 435 Model DC-10 series airplanes and Model
MD-11F airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 285 airplanes of U.S. registry, and 18 U.S. operators,
would be affected by this proposed AD.
For airplanes in the passenger configuration, the estimated costs
associated with the requirements of this proposed AD would be as
follows:
1. Leak checks. It would take approximately 4 work hours per
airplane lavatory drain to accomplish each leak check, at an average
labor cost of $60 per work hour. There normally are two drains per
airplane. Depending upon the type of valve installed and the flight
utilization rate of the airplane, airplanes could be required to be
inspected as few as 3 times per year or as many as 15 times per year.
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed leak
check requirement on U.S. operators would be between $1,440 and $7,200
per airplane per year.
2. Inspections. Should an operator elect to perform the inspection
of the service panel drain valve cap/door seal and seal mating surface,
the inspection would take approximately 2 work hours to accomplish, at
an average labor cost of $60 per work hour. Depending upon the type of
valves installed and the flight utilization rate of the airplane,
airplanes could be required to be inspected as few as 3 times per year
or as many as 15 times per year. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact of the proposed inspection requirement on U.S. operators would
be between $360 and $1,800 per airplane per year.
3. Installation of cap on flush/fill line. The proposed
installation would take approximately 2 work hours to accomplish, at an
average labor cost of $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts is
estimated to be $275 per airplane. There are 8 flush/fill lines per
airplane. There currently are 175 passenger-configured airplanes of
U.S. registry that would be subject to this requirement. Based on these
figures, the total cost impact of the proposed installation requirement
on U.S. operators would be $553,000, or $3,160 per airplane.
For airplanes in the freighter configuration, the estimated costs
associated with the requirements of this proposed AD would be as
follows:
1. Leak checks. It would take approximately 4 work hours per
airplane lavatory drain to accomplish each leak check, at an average
labor cost of $60 per work hour. There normally is one per airplane.
Depending upon the type of valve installed and the flight utilization
rate of the airplane, airplanes could be required to be inspected as
few as 3 times per year or as many as 15 times per year. Based on these
figures, the total cost impact of the proposed
[[Page 55671]]
leak check requirement on U.S. operators would be between $720 and
$3,600 per airplane per year.
2. Inspections. Should an operator elect to perform the inspection
of the service panel drain valve cap/door seal and seal mating surface,
the inspection would take approximately 1 work hour to accomplish, at
an average labor cost of $60 per work hour. Depending upon the type of
valves installed and the flight utilization rate of the airplane,
airplanes could be required to be inspected as few as 3 times per year
or as many as 15 times per year. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact of the proposed inspection requirement on U.S. operators would
be between $180 and $900 per airplane per year.
3. Installation of cap on flush/fill line. The proposed
installation would take approximately 2 work hours to accomplish, at an
average labor cost of $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts is
estimated to be $275 per airplane. There is 1 flush/fill lines per
airplane. There currently are 110 freighter-configured airplanes of
U.S. registry that would be subject to this requirement. Based on these
figures, the total cost impact of the proposed installation requirement
on U.S. operators would be $43,450, or $395 per airplane.
The number of required work hours, as indicated above, is presented
as if the accomplishment of the actions proposed in this AD were to be
conducted as ``stand alone'' actions. However, in actual practice,
these actions could be accomplished coincidentally or in combination
with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other maintenance
program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary ``additional''
work hours would be minimal in many instances. Additionally, any costs
associated with special airplane scheduling should be minimal.
In addition to the costs discussed above, for those operators who
elect to comply with proposed paragraph (b) of this AD action, the FAA
estimates that it would take approximately 40 work hours per operator
to incorporate the lavatory drain system leak check procedures into the
maintenance programs, at an average labor cost of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed
maintenance revision requirement of this AD on the 18 affected U.S.
operators is estimated to be $43,200, or $2,400 per operator.
The ``total cost impact'' figures discussed above are based on
assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The FAA recognizes that the obligation to maintain aircraft in an
airworthy condition is vital, but sometimes expensive. Because AD's
require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions, they
appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be borne by operators.
However, because of the general obligation of operators to maintain
aircraft in an airworthy condition, this appearance is deceptive.
Attributing those costs solely to the issuance of this AD is
unrealistic because, in the interest of maintaining safe aircraft,
prudent operators would accomplish the required actions even if they
were not required to do so by the AD.
A full cost-benefit analysis has not been accomplished for this
proposed AD. As a matter of law, in order to be airworthy, an aircraft
must conform to its type design and be in a condition for safe
operation. The type design is approved only after the FAA makes a
determination that it complies with all applicable airworthiness
requirements. In adopting and maintaining those requirements, the FAA
has already made the determination that they establish a level of
safety that is cost-beneficial. When the FAA, as in this AD, makes a
finding of an unsafe condition, this means that the original cost-
beneficial level of safety is no longer being achieved and that the
required actions are necessary to restore that level of safety. Because
this level of safety has already been determined to be cost-beneficial,
a full cost-benefit analysis for this AD would be redundant and
unnecessary.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95-NM-120-AD.
Applicability: All Model DC-10 series airplanes and Model MD-11F
series airplanes, certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (f) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless previously
accomplished.
To prevent engine damage , airframe damage, and/or hazard to
persons or property on the ground as a result of ``blue ice'' that
has formed from leakage of the lavatory drain system and dislodged
from the airplane, accomplish the following:
Note 2: The toilet dump valve leak checks required by this AD
may be performed by filling the toilet tank with water/rinsing fluid
[[Page 55672]]
to a level such that the bowl is approximately half full (at least 2
inches above the flapper in the bowl) and checking for leakage after
a period of 5 minutes.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this AD, accomplish
the applicable procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
(a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of this AD. If the individual waste drain
system panel incorporates more than one type of valve, the
inspection interval that applies to that panel is determined by the
component with the longest inspection interval allowed. Each of the
components must be inspected or tested at that time at each service
panel location.
(1) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series
0218-0032; or Shaw Aero Devices part number 1010100C-N (or higher
dash number); or Shaw Aero Devices part number 1010100B-A-1, serial
numbers 0115 through 0121, 0146 through 0164, and -0180 and higher;
or Pneudraulics part number series 9527: Within 1,000 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 1,000 flight hours, accomplish the following procedures:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and drain valve. The
service panel drain valve leak check must be performed with a
minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve. Both the inner door/
closure device and the outer cap/door must be leak checked.
(ii) For service panel valves that have an inner seal: In lieu
of pressure testing, the outer cap seal and seal surface may be
visually inspected for damage or wear. Any damaged parts must be
replaced or repaired prior to further flight, or the affected
lavatory(s) must be drained and placarded inoperative until repairs
can be accomplished.
(2) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series
0218-0026, or Shaw Aero Devices part number series 1010100C (except
as called out in paragraph (a)(1) above), or Shaw Aero Devices part
number 1010100B (except as called out in paragraph (a)(1) above):
Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours, accomplish
the following procedures:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve. Both the
inner door/closure device and the outer cap/door must be leak
checked.
(ii) For service panel valves that have an inner seal: In lieu
of pressure testing, the outer cap seal and seal surface may be
visually inspected for damage or wear. Any damaged parts must be
replaced or repaired prior to further flight, or the affected
lavatory(s) must be drained and placarded inoperative until repairs
can be accomplished.
(3) For each lavatory drain system not addressed in paragraph
(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD: Within 200 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
200 flight hours, accomplish the following procedures:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve. If the
service panel drain valve has an inner door with a second positive
seal, both the inner door and the outer cap/door must be leak
checked.
(ii) For service panel valves that have an inner seal: In lieu
of pressure testing, the outer cap seal and seal surface may be
visually inspected for damage or wear. Any damaged parts must be
replaced or repaired prior to further flight, or the affected
lavatory(s) must be drained and placarded inoperative until repairs
can be accomplished.
(4) For flush/fill lines: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
5,000 flight hours, accomplish either of the procedures specified in
paragraph (a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the flush/fill line cap. This leak
check must be made with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the cap.
Or
(ii) Replace the seals on the toilet tank anti-siphon (check)
valve and the flush/fill line cap. Additionally, perform a leak
check of the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve with a minimum of
3 PSID across the valve.
Note 3: The Inspection/Check procedure specified in DC-10
Maintenance Manual, chapter 38-30-00, pages 601 and 602, dated June
1, 1993, may be referred to as guidance for the procedures required
by this paragraph.
(5) If a leak is discovered during any leak check required by
paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish either
of the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of
this AD:
(i) Repair the leak and retest. Or
(ii) Drain the affected lavatory system and placard the lavatory
inoperative until repairs can be accomplished.
(b) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (a) of
this AD: Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the FAA-approved maintenance program to include the requirements
specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), and
(b)(6) of this AD.
(1) For each lavatory drain system: Within 5,000 flight hours
after revision of the maintenance program in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
18 months, replace the valve seals. Any revision to this replacement
schedule must be approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(2) Conduct periodic leak checks of the lavatory drain systems
in accordance with the applicable schedule specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(2)(iii) of this AD. If the individual
waste drain system panel incorporates more than one type of valve,
the inspection interval that applies to that panel is determined by
the component with the longest inspection interval allowed. Each of
the components must be inspected/tested at that time at each service
panel location. Any revision to the leak check schedule must be
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.
(i) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series
0218-0032, or Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 0218-0026,
or Shaw Aero Devices part number series 1010100C, or Shaw Aero
Devises part number series 1010100B, or Pneudraulics part number
series 9527: Within 1,000 flight hours after revising the
maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours, accomplish
both of the following procedures:
(A) Conduct leak checks of the dump valve and service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve. Only
the inner door/closure device of the service panel drain valve must
be leak checked. And
(B) Visually inspect the service panel drain valve outer cap/
door seal and seal mating surface for wear or damage that may cause
leakage. Any worn or damaged seal must be replaced, and any damaged
seal mating surface must be repaired or replaced, prior to further
flight, in accordance with the valve manufacturer's maintenance
manual.
(ii) For each lavatory drain system with a lavatory drain system
valve that either incorporates ``donut'' assemblies (or substitute
assemblies from another manufacturer) Kaiser Electroprecision part
number 4259-20 or 4259-31, or incorporates Kaiser Roylyn part number
2651-231 or 2651-259 : Within 200 flight hours after revising the
maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 200 flight hours, accomplish
either one of the following procedures:
(A) Conduct leak checks of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve. Both the
donut and the outer cap/door must be leak checked.
(B) For service panel valves that have an inner seal: In lieu of
pressure testing, visually inspect the outer cap seal and seal
surface for damage or wear. Any damaged parts must be replaced or
repaired prior to further flight, or the affected lavatory(s) must
be drained and placarded inoperative until repairs can be
accomplished.
(iii) For each lavatory drain system that incorporates any other
type of approved valves: Within 400 flight hours after revising the
maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours accomplish
both of the following procedures:
(A) Conduct leak checks of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve. If the
service panel drain valve has an inner door/closure device with a
second positive seal, only the inner door must be leak checked. And
(B) If the valve has an inner door/closure device with a second
positive seal: Visually inspect the service panel drain valve outer
[[Page 55673]]
door/cap seal and seal mating surface for wear or damage that may cause
leakage. Any worn or damaged seal must be replaced and any damaged
seal mating surface must be repaired or replaced, prior to further
flight, in accordance with the valve manufacturer's maintenance
manual.
(3) For flush/fill lines: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
5,000 flight hours, accomplish either of the following procedures:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the flush/fill line cap. This leak
check must be made with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the cap.
Or
(ii) Replace the seals on the toilet tank anti-siphon (check)
valve and the flush/fill line cap. Additionally, perform a leak
check of the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve with a minimum of
3 PSID across the valve.
Note 4: The Inspection/Check procedure specified in DC-10
Maintenance Manual, chapter 38-30-00, pages 601 and 602, dated June
1, 1993, may be referred to as guidance for the procedures required
by this paragraph.
(4) Provide procedures for accomplishing visual inspections to
detect leakage, to be conducted by maintenance personnel at
intervals not to exceed 4 calendar days or 45 flight hours, which
ever occurs later.
(5) Provide procedures for reporting leakage. These procedures
shall provide that any ``horizontal blue streak'' findings must be
reported to maintenance and that, prior to further flight, the
leaking system shall either be repaired, or be drained and placarded
inoperative.
(6) Provide training programs for maintenance and servicing
personnel that include information on ``Blue Ice Awareness'' and the
hazards of ``blue ice.''
(c) For operators who elect to comply with paragraph (b) of this
AD: Any revision to (i.e., extension of) the leak check intervals
required by paragraph (b) of this AD must be approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
Requests for such revisions must be submitted to the Manager of the
Los Angeles ACO through the FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector
(PMI), and must include the following information:
(1) The operator's name;
(2) A statement verifying that all known cases/indications of
leakage or failed leak tests are included in the submitted material;
(3) The type of valve (make, model, manufacturer, vendor part
number, and serial number);
(4) The period of time covered by the data;
(5) The current FAA leak check interval;
(6) Whether or not seals have been replaced between the seal
replacement intervals required by this AD;
(7) Whether or not leakage has been detected between leak check
intervals required by this AD, and the reason for leakage (i.e.,
worn seals, foreign materials on sealing surface, scratched or
damaged sealing surface or valve, etc.);
(8) Whether or not any leak check was conducted without first
inspecting or cleaning the sealing surfaces, changing the seals, or
repairing the valve. [If such activities have been accomplished
prior to conducting the periodic leak check, that leak check shall
be recorded as a ``failure'' for purposes of the data required for
this request submission. The exception to this is the normally
scheduled seal change in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this
AD. Performing this scheduled seal change prior to a leak check will
not cause that leak check to be recorded as a failure.]
Note 5: Requests for approval of revised leak check intervals
may be submitted in any format, provided that the data give the same
level of assurance specified in paragraph (c) of this AD.
Note 6: For the purposes of expediting resolution of requests
for revisions to the leak check intervals, the FAA suggests that the
requester summarize the raw data; group the data gathered from
different airplanes (of the same model) and drain systems with the
same kind of valve; and provide a recommendation from pertinent
industry group(s) and/or the manufacturer specifying an appropriate
revised leak check interval.
(d) For all airplanes: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, install a lever/lock cap on the flush/
fill lines for all lavatory service panels. The cap must be either
an FAA-approved lever/lock cap; or a lever/lock cap installed in
accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 38-65 (for Model
DC-10 series airplanes) or Service Bulletin 38-39 [for Model MD-11F
series airplanes (freighter)], as applicable.
(e) For any affected airplane acquired after the effective date
of this AD: Before any operator places into service any airplane
subject to the requirements of this AD, a schedule for the
accomplishment of the leak checks required by this AD shall be
established in accordance with either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of
this AD, as applicable. After each leak check has been performed
once, each subsequent leak check must be performed in accordance
with the new operator's schedule, in accordance with either
paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD as applicable.
(1) For airplanes previously maintained in accordance with this
AD, the first leak check to be performed by the new operator must be
accomplished in accordance with the previous operator's schedule or
with the new operator's schedule, whichever would result in the
earlier accomplishment date for that leak check.
(2) For airplanes that have not been previously maintained in
accordance with this AD, the first leak check to be performed by the
new operator must be accomplished prior to further flight, or in
accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA PMI, but within a
period not to exceed 200 flight hours.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through
an appropriate FAA PMI, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 7: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
Note 8: For any valve that is not eligible for the extended leak
check intervals of this AD: To be eligible for the leak check
interval specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(2)(i), the service
history data of the valve must be submitted to the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, with a request for
an alternative method of compliance with this AD. The request should
include an analysis of known failure modes for the valve, if it is
an existing design, and known failure modes of similar valves.
Additionally, the request should include an explanation of how
design features will preclude these failure modes, results of
qualification tests, and approximately 25,000 flight hours or 25,000
flight cycles of service history data, including a winter season,
collected in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c) of
this AD or a similar program.
(g) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 26, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-27073 Filed 11-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27045 Supervisory Committee Audits and Verifications
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 212 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55663-55668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27045]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 212 / Thursday, November 2, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 55663]]
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 701
Supervisory Committee Audits and Verifications
AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
SUMMARY: The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) is proposing
to amend its regulations governing credit union supervisory committee
audits and verifications. The NCUA Board is proposing to amend the
regulations to clarify existing audit scope; expand audit scope and
reporting requirements in certain areas; clarify existing working paper
access requirements and strengthen administrative remedies for denial
of access; require a comprehensive engagement letter setting forth
minimum contracting terms and conditions; and add relevant definitions
of accounting/auditing terms used throughout the regulation.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board,
National Credit Union Administration Board, 1775 Duke Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Kelbly, Accounting Officer,
Office of Examination and Insurance (703) 518-6360, or Michael McKenna,
Attorney, Office of General Counsel (703) 518-6540, at the above
address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 25, 1993, the NCUA Board issued for public comment a
proposed amendment to the ``then'' supervisory committee audit and
verification requirements. Two hundred two comment letters were
received over a 60-day comment period which ended June 7, 1993. Thirty-
one commenters gave their full support of the amendment as written;
fifty-three commenters offered mixed support; and one hundred eighteen
commenters opposed the amendment.
In their final amendment, the NCUA Board changed the regulations
governing supervisory committee audits and verification to: (1) Add a
nonstatistical sampling option for independent, licensed, certified
public accountants in the verification of members' accounts consistent
with applicable generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS); and (2)
change applicable sections of the ``then'' regulation to more properly
reflect accounting/auditing terms of art without otherwise changing the
intent of the regulation. Dropped from consideration in the final
amendment were the proposed amendments to require independent annual
audits (opinion audits) for federally insured credit unions with assets
exceeding $50 million, and to require that the supervisory committee
and/or its auditors provide NCUA the option to photocopy working papers
supporting the audit.
Since July 1993 when Sec. 701.12 was last amended, NCUA has had
continued concerns about the scope of the supervisory committee audit.
Many of these concerns are outlined in specific detail below. Rather
than again proposing an amendment for an opinion audit requirement,
which many commenters soundly rejected in their comment letters on the
last proposed amendment, the Board wishes to solicit views on a
proposed revision to the current regulation which expands audit scope
without requiring an opinion audit. This proposal is an opportunity to
consider a middle ground approach, with the goal of building a
consensus that both the regulated and the regulator would find
agreeable.
Currently, Sec. 701.12, 12 C.F.R. 701.12, sets forth the
supervisory committee's responsibility in meeting the audit and
verification requirements of section 115 of the Federal Credit Union
Act, 12 U.S.C. 1761d. A supervisory committee audit is required at
least once every calendar year covering the period since the last
audit. The scope of the audit must be sufficient, at a minimum, to test
the federal credit union's assets, liabilities, equity, income, and
expenses for existence, proper cut off, valuations, ownership,
disclosures and classification, and internal controls (current
Sec. 701.12(b)). A written report on the audit must be made to the
board of directors and, if requested, NCUA (current Sec. 701.12(c)).
Working papers must be maintained and made available to NCUA (current
Sec. 701.12(c)). Independence requirements must be met (current
Sec. 701.12(d)); standards governing verifications--100 percent
verification or statistical sampling--are set forth (current
Sec. 701.12(e)). Section 741.2 makes these requirements applicable to
federally insured state-chartered credit unions.
The proposed regulation will address practical enforcement problems
in the existing regulation, some of which have arisen through the
examination process as a matter of course and others of which have
arisen in litigation and in negotiating settlements. The proposed
changes in audit scope represent increased requirements which the Board
believes have grown out of necessity. The scope changes are more
specific and are aimed at eliminating vagueness regarding the audit
scope required, in certain targeted risk areas, to meet the provisions
of this regulation. The vagueness of audit scope has been the subject
of complaints from both the regulated and the regulator/insurer.
The majority of added requirements are not applicable to credit
unions which do not employ a compensated auditor. If the supervisory
committee or an uncompensated designated representative will be
performing the supervisory committee audit as described in
Sec. 701.12(4)(iv), the following portions of the proposed regulation
do not apply to the supervisory committee audit: Sec. 701.12(c)(3)
[increased scope requirements in designated areas];
Sec. 701.12(4)(i)(A)-(C) [opinion audits and agreed-upon-procedures in
relation to compensated auditors]; and Sec. 701.12(d) [engagement
letter requirements].
Proposed Regulation
Added to the first part of proposed Sec. 701.12(a) is a set of
definitions for terms used in the regulation. Many of these terms,
while familiar to accounting/auditing professionals, may be less well
known to supervisory committee volunteers. For example, the definition
of ``audit'' is intended to closely follow the language in AICPA,
Professional Standards, volume 1, AU
[[Page 55664]]
section 110.01; the definition of ``independence'' is intended to be
consistent with Rule 101 of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct; the
definition of ``related party transactions'' is intended to be
consistent with FASB Statement No. 57; and the definition of ``internal
control reportable conditions'' is intended to be consistent with
Statement of Auditing Standard (SAS) No. 60, Communication of Internal
Control Structure Related Matters Noted in an Audit (AICPA,
Professional Standards, volume 1, AU section 325).
Additionally, as concerns ``independence,'' the auditor must be
intellectually honest and be recognized as independent, i.e., free from
any material obligation to or interest in the credit union or its
officials. The independent auditor must enjoy the confidence of the
general public. Such confidence may be compromised by evidence that
independence is lacking, or by the existence of circumstances which
reasonable people might believe likely to influence independence. The
definition of ``related party transactions'' uses as examples of senior
management the chief executive officer (CEO), president, treasurer/
manager, assistant CEO, and the chief financial officer (Comptroller)
of a credit union, and their families, etc. However, this is not
intended to be an all inclusive list of related parties.
The proposed definitions rely on accepted supplemental references,
e.g., a reference for the definition of ``generally accepted accounting
principles'' is SAS No. 69, The Meaning of ``Present Fairly in
Conformity With Generally Accepted Accounting Principles'' in the
Independent Auditor's Report which establishes a GAAP hierarchy (GAAP
serves to provide a standard by which to measure financial statement
presentations); a reference for the definition of ``internal controls''
is Internal Control--Integrated Framework, published by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission; and a reference
for the definition of ``illegal acts'' is SAS No. 54, Illegal Acts By
Clients, (AICPA, Professional Standards, volume 1 AU section 317). The
definitions section was added to elucidate terms used in the
regulation. The NCUA Board seeks comments as to whether the definitions
clarify the regulation. The NCUA Board also is interested to learn of
any additional terms which should be defined in the regulation.
Subsections 701.12(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c)(1), (c)(2) of the
proposed regulation represent a reordering of the existing regulatory
provisions with minor changes in language which are intended not to
change, but to clarify, the existing regulation's meaning or
provisions. However, the supervisory committee is expected to conduct
such further tests and reviews as may, in the committee's judgment, be
necessary to meet its responsibilities. Additionally, the changes
incorporate in part enhancements suggested by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, Credit Unions Committee (``the AICPA
Committee''). The AICPA Committee reviewed the proposed regulation for
technical accuracy of usage of accounting/auditing technical terms and
concepts. NCUA is grateful to the AICPA Committee for its advice during
the drafting of the proposed regulation.
The audit scope changes added to Sec. 701.12(c)(3) expand the
required audit scope when a supervisory committee employs the services
of a compensated auditor. The additional requirements are not intended
to discourage a credit union from hiring a compensated auditor, but are
intended to achieve a more definitive audit scope in targeted areas,
which experience indicates are of higher risk in credit unions. The
AICPA audit guide, Audits of Credit Unions, prepared by the AICPA
Credit Unions Committee, is a proper reference for the auditor in
making judgments, based on the facts and circumstances of the
engagement, as to what procedures to perform to obtain sufficient,
competent evidential matter to afford a reasonable basis for
conclusions regarding the financial statements under audit. The NCUA
Board believes the expanded scope will provide those credit unions
having the resources to employ a compensated auditor with an enhanced
audit product that meets the applicable GAAS requirements of an opinion
audit in the following areas: internal controls; cash; loans and
interest thereon; investments and interest thereon; shares and
dividends and/or interest thereon; related party transactions; and the
detection and reporting of errors and irregularities. NCUA believes
this increased scope requirement not only will give the credit union a
greater return on the dollars invested in the audit, but will result in
a more useful audit report for the examiner, whether regulator or
insurer.
The more definitive audit scope is designed to address and to
reduce confusion which occurs when the supervisory committee and the
compensated auditor agree that the audit engagement will consist of
less than the full scope of a supervisory committee audit as prescribed
in 701.12 (b) and (c). Experience indicates that supervisory committees
often do not realize that, due to the compensated auditor's exclusion
of scope provisions (e.g., evaluation of the reasonableness of the
allowance for loan losses, evaluation of securities held, adequacy of
loan collateral, etc.), the final audit product is not a complete
supervisory committee audit. Nor do supervisory committees realize that
in such instances they remain responsible for performing the additional
audit work needed to ``fill the gaps'' and produce a complete
supervisory committee audit. The NCUA Board believes that vagueness in
the existing audit scope provision may have contributed to the
confusion, and that a more definitive audit scope will end the finger
pointing between supervisory committees and compensated auditors as to
who is responsible for the audit scope components excluded from the
audit engagement.
To further reduce confusion about responsibility for required scope
components that are excluded from the audit engagement, the NCUA Board
has added a requirement in Sec. 701.12 (d)(2) and (d)(3) for the
engagement letter between the supervisory committee and the compensated
auditor to address audit scope either by (1) certifying that the
compensated auditor is to complete the full scope of a supervisory
committee audit or, alternatively (2) specifying what prescribed
financial statement elements and/or attributes will be excluded from
the engagement, and expressly cautioning the supervisory committee that
it is responsible for fulfilling the scope of the supervisory committee
audit with respect to the excluded elements and attributes.
The additions to Sec. 701.12(c)(4) of the proposed regulation set
forth how the requirements of this part may be satisfied. The
revisions, like those discussed above, represent minor changes in
language which are not intended to change the existing regulation's
meaning or provisions. Instead, the revisions incorporate technical
improvements suggested by the AICPA Committee. The additional
requirement that the compensated auditors contract for the audit
engagement only with the supervisory committee and return the written
audit report(s) to the supervisory committee clarifies requirements
contained in the current regulation.
The NCUA Board had considered including a requirement in the
proposed regulation's audit scope for certain credit unions to have an
ongoing internal audit function in the form of
[[Page 55665]]
either an internal auditor or an internal audit department. Such a
function would benefit the credit union, the regulator, and the
insurer. Internal auditors would neither take the place nor diminish
the role of the supervisory committee in any way. Ideally, the internal
auditor would be hired by, receive instructions from, and report to,
the supervisory committee. The work of the internal auditor would
supplement the mandated role and responsibilities of the supervisory
committee. Although the NCUA Board has decided against requiring credit
unions to employ an internal auditor, it encourages credit unions that
have the resources, to consider the benefits of employing an internal
auditor (e.g., testing of the effectiveness of internal controls on an
interim and/or on-going basis; routine and on-going testing for
material errors and omissions, and irregularities and illegal acts;
continuous testing of the electronic data processing system for
reliance thereon; and improving economy and efficiency). Internal
auditors can play an important role in maintaining strong operational
and financial management controls. The NCUA Board invites comments as
to whether it should reconsider mandating an internal audit function
and, if so, whether such a requirement should be imposed on all or only
some credit unions, and on what basis., i.e., according to asset size,
complexity of services, etc.
The NCUA Board is inclined to add requirements in Sec. 701.12(d)
for credit unions which employ compensated auditors to memorialize the
terms and conditions of the engagement in a comprehensive engagement
letter, which constitutes an enforceable contract between the
compensated auditor and the supervisory committee. The proposed
regulation sets forth the minimum requirement of an audit engagement to
be addressed in such a letter. The majority of items required are
fairly consistent with standard items included in engagement letters as
used in current practice: terms and objectives of engagement; nature
and limitations; identification of the basis of accounting to be used;
identification of areas excluded from the scope; and an appendix
setting forth the procedures to be performed (if not an opinion audit).
Other requirements were added to ensure access by NCUA to a complete
set of original working papers and delivery of the required report(s)
to the supervisory committee within a reasonable period of time. The
NCUA Board seeks comment on any additional areas which should be
addressed in the engagement letter memorializing the terms and
conditions of the audit engagement.
Additional reporting requirements have been added in
Sec. 701.12(e)(1). Along with the existing requirement for a written
audit report is a requirement for two additional written reports where
applicable--a written report of internal control exceptions or
reportable conditions noted, if any, and a written report of
irregularities or illegal acts noted during the audit, if any. The
addition of these two reporting requirements does not necessitate
additional audit work (i.e., do not require separate engagements to
report on the credit union's system of internal accounting control or
its compliance with laws and regulations). These are simply reports of
information already obtained in the normal course of the supervisory
committee audit. This requirement corrects the current regulation,
which does not require such reports to be communicated to either the
credit union, the regulator, or the insurer.
A clarifying sentence was added to Sec. 701.12(e)(2) to ensure that
NCUA access to a complete set of original working papers includes all
the existing documentation relative to the audit: audit programs,
working papers documenting conclusions or judgments, supervisory
reviewer's notes (if any), etc. This is a response to increasing
instances where NCUA examiners find that information deemed by the
auditor to be ``proprietary information'' is excluded from the working
papers. The exclusion of this additional and pertinent documentation
(e.g., audit programs) impairs NCUA's ability to assess the adequacy of
the work performed by the auditor to satisfy the requirements of this
section. Proposed Sec. 701.12(d)(1)(vii) requires the supervisory
committee to incorporate in the comprehensive engagement letter a
certification by the outside compensated auditors that a complete set
of original working papers supporting the audit, including the audit
program, will be provided upon request for inspection by NCUA.
Finally, the NCUA Board has added an enforcement mechanism to
ensure compliance with the requirements of this section and with the
requirements of the comprehensive engagement letter memorializing the
audit engagement between the supervisory committee and its compensated
auditor. In the event of failure to comply, proposed Sec. 701.12(e)(3)
authorizes the Regional Director, as a first step toward enforcement,
to reject as deficient the supervisory committee audit and the reports
thereof. An additional and more severe sanction for failure to comply
is available under section 206(r) of the FCU Act, 12 U.S.C. 1786(r),
which authorizes NCUA to seek formal administrative sanctions (e.g., an
order to cease and desist, or imposition of civil money penalties)
against the supervisory committee and/or its compensated auditor as
``institution affiliated parties'' of the credit union.
Parts of the existing regulation relating to the independence and
verification of members' accounts were unchanged in substance, although
redesignated as subsections 701.12 (f) and (g), respectively.
One change to part 701.13 was made to give recognition to the
redesignation of old Sec. 701.12(e) to new Sec. 701.12(g).
Regulatory Procedures
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis
to describe any significant economic impact a proposed regulation may
have on a substantial number of small credit unions (primarily those
under $1 million in assets). The NCUA Board has determined and
certifies that the proposed amendment, if adopted, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit
unions. As to small credit unions, the proposed amendment clarifies
without imposing additional burden. Accordingly, the NCUA Board
determines and certifies that this proposed amendment does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit
unions and that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
NCUA has determined that the three requirements: (1) to prepare and
sign an engagement letter memorializing the terms and conditions of the
audit engagement in a comprehensive engagement letter, which
constitutes an enforceable contract between the compensated auditor and
the supervisory committee; (2) to provide a written report of internal
control exceptions or reportable conditions noted, if any; and (3) to
provide a written report of irregularities or illegal acts noted during
the audit, if any; do constitute a collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
regulations of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) require that
the public be provided an opportunity to comment on information
collection requirements, including an
[[Page 55666]]
agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information. NCUA
estimates that most federal credit unions will be affected by this
regulation. However, it is the NCUA's view that the time a credit union
spends developing an enforceable engagement contract and provides in
writing, known internal control exceptions and reportable conditions,
if any, and/or irregularities and illegal acts, if any, is necessary to
the effectiveness of the audit and verification function and thus, the
safety and soundness of the credit union. The paperwork burden created
by this rule is the requirement that such actions be put in writing.
NCUA estimates that it should reasonably take one hour per requirement
(thus, 1 hour minimum--3 hours maximum) to comply with the three
requirements, if applicable to a given circumstance. Therefore, 12,000-
36,000 total burden hours are required to comply with the collection
requirement. For the majority of credit unions, 1 hour would be
required, or 12,000 total burden hours.
The NCUA Board invites comment on: (1) whether the collection of
the information is necessary for the proper performance of the
functions of NCUA, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NCUA's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of collection of information. Send comments to
Attn: Milo Sunderhaug, OMB Reports Management Branch, New Executive
Office Building, Rm. 10202, Washington, DC 20530.
Executive Order 12612
Executive Order 12612 requires NCUA to consider the effect of its
actions on state interests. The proposed amendment will not have a
substantial direct effect on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of
rights and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 701
Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board on October 19,
1995.
James Engel,
Acting Secretary of the Board.
Accordingly, it is proposed that 12 CFR, part 701 be amended to
read as set forth below:
PART 701--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 701 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1759, 1761a,
1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1787, 1789, 1798 and Public Law 101-
73. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3717. Section
701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., 42 U.S.C. 1981
and 42 U.S.C. 3601-3610.
2. Section 701.12 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (d) and
(e) as paragraphs (f) and (g), by revising paragraphs (a) through (c),
and by adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 701.12 Supervisory committee audits and verifications.
(a) Definitions. As used in this chapter:
(1) Agreed-upon procedures means the performance by an independent,
licensed certified public accountant of an engagement in which the
scope is limited to applying specified agreed-upon procedures to one or
more specified elements, accounts, or items of a financial statement.
Such procedures are insufficient to express an opinion regarding either
the financial statements taken as a whole, or the specified elements,
accounts, or items.
(2) Applicable generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) means
generally accepted auditing standards to the extent applicable in the
circumstances. The second general standard of GAAS relating to
independence and the four standards relating to reporting are not
applicable to a compensated auditor who is not an ``independent,
licensed, certified public accountant'' as defined in paragraph (a)(9)
of this section; all other requirements of GAAS would apply to such an
auditor.
(3) Audit or Opinion audit means an examination of the financial
statements performed by an independent, licensed, certified public
accountant in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
The objective of an ``audit'' or ``opinion audit'' is to express an
opinion as to whether those financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position and the results of its
operations and its cash flows in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles or an ``other comprehensive basis of
accounting,'' as defined in paragraph (a)(11) of this section.
(4) Compensated auditor means any accounting/auditing professional
who is compensated for performing the supervisory committee audit and/
or verification services.
(5) Financial statements means a presentation of financial data,
including accompanying notes, derived from accounting records of the
credit union, and intended to disclose a credit union's economic
resources or obligations at a point in time, or the changes therein for
a period of time, in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP) or an ``other comprehensive basis of accounting,'' as
defined in paragraph (a)(11) of this section. Each of the following is
considered to be a financial statement: a balance sheet or statement of
financial condition; statement of income or statement of operations;
statement of retained earnings; statement of cash flows; statement of
changes in owners' equity; statement of assets and liabilities that
does not include owners' equity accounts; statement of revenue and
expenses; summary of operations; and statement of cash receipts and
disbursements.
(6) Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) means the
conventions, rules, and procedures which define accepted accounting
practice. GAAP includes both broad general guidelines and detailed
practices and procedures, provides a standard by which to measure
financial statement presentations, and encompasses not only accounting
principles and practices but also the methods of applying them.
(7) Generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) means the
standards approved and adopted by the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants which apply when an ``independent, licensed
certified public accountant'' audits financial statements. Auditing
standards differ from auditing procedures in that ``procedures''
address acts to be performed, whereas ``standards'' measure the quality
of the performance of those acts and the objectives to be achieved by
use of the procedures undertaken. In addition, auditing standards
address the auditor's professional qualifications as well as the
judgment exercised in performing the audit and in preparing the report
of the audit. Copies of GAAS may be obtained from Harcourt Brace & Co.,
6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32887.
(8) Independence and Independent means to be without bias with
respect to the credit union so as to maintain the impartiality
necessary for the reliability of the compensated auditor's findings.
Independence requires the exercise of fairness toward credit union
management, members, creditors and others who may rely upon the
independent, compensated auditor's
[[Page 55667]]
report. Auditors must be independent in fact and in appearance.
(9) Independent, licensed, certified public accountant means an
individual who has passed the Uniform Certified Public Accounting
Examination, is licensed by a state board of accountancy to practice
accounting/auditing, and is independent as defined in paragraph (a)(8)
of this section.
(10) Internal controls means the process, established by the credit
union's board of directors, officers and employees, designed to provide
reasonable assurance of reliable financial reporting and safeguarding
of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition. A
credit union's internal control structure consists of five components:
control environment; risk assessment; control activities; information
and communication; and monitoring. Reliable financial reporting refers
to preparation of financial statements that ``present fairly'' the
financial position and results of its operations and its cash flows, in
conformity with GAAP or an ``other comprehensive basis of accounting,''
as defined in paragraph (a)(11) of this section. Internal control over
safeguarding of assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or
disposition refers to prevention or timely detection of transactions
involving such unauthorized access, use, or disposition of assets which
could result in a loss which is material to the financial statements. -
-
(11) Other comprehensive basis of accounting means a comprehensive
basis of accounting or definite set of criteria, other than GAAP,
having substantial support. In this case the ``other comprehensive
basis of accounting'' is limited to applicable regulatory accounting
practices (RAP), i.e., that basis of accounting which has the
substantial support of NCUA or the state supervisor, when applicable.
(12) Related party transactions means transactions among or between
parties where one party controls or can significantly influence the
management or operating policies of the other so as to prevent the
other party from pursuing exclusively its own interests. Examples of
related parties include: credit union members and their families, and
credit union officials and their families. Examples of ``related party
transactions'' include: interest-free loans or loans at below market
rates; sale of real estate significantly below appraised value;
nonmonetary exchange of property; and making of loans lacking scheduled
terms for repayment.
(13) Reportable Conditions means a matter coming to the compensated
auditor's attention that, in his or her judgment, represents a
significant deficiency in the design or operation of the internal
control structure of the credit union, which could adversely affect its
ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data
consistent with the representations of management in the financial
statements.
(14) Substantive testing means testing of details and analytical
procedures to detect material misstatements in the account balance,
transaction class, and disclosure components of financial statements.
(15) Supervisory committee means a supervisory committee as defined
in Section 111(b) of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1761(b).
For some federally-insured state chartered credit unions, the ``audit
committee'' designated by state statute or regulation is the equivalent
of a supervisory committee.
(16) Supervisory committee audit means an examination of the credit
union's financial statements in accordance with applicable GAAS, which
is performed by the supervisory committee or its designated
representative as prescribed in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. An
audit as defined in paragraph (a)(3) of this section satisfies the
definition of a ``supervisory committee audit.''
(17) Working papers means the principal record, in any form, of the
work performed by the auditor and/or supervisory committee to support
its findings and/or conclusions concerning significant matters.
Examples include the written record of procedures applied, tests
performed, information obtained, and pertinent conclusions reached in
the engagement, audit programs, analyses, memoranda, letters of
confirmation and representation, abstracts of credit union documents,
reviewer's notes, if retained, and schedules or commentaries prepared
or obtained by the independent, compensated auditor.
(b) Supervisory committee responsibilities. (1) The supervisory
committee is responsible for ensuring that:
(i) The credit union's financial statements, taken as a whole,
fairly present, in all material respects, the financial position, the
results of its operations and its cash flows, in conformity with GAAP
or an ``other comprehensive basis of accounting,'' although this
requirement should not be interpreted to necessarily require an opinion
audit.
(ii) The credit union's management practices and procedures are
sufficient to safeguard members' assets.
(2)(i) To satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, the supervisory committee shall determine whether:
(A) Internal controls are established and effectively maintained to
achieve the credit union's financial reporting objectives which, at a
minimum, must support the satisfaction of the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section;
(B) The credit union's accounting records and financial reports are
promptly prepared and accurately reflect operations and results;
(C) The plans, policies, and control procedures established by the
board of directors are properly administered; and
(D) Policies and control procedures are sufficient to safeguard
against error, carelessness, conflict of interest, self-dealing and
fraud.
(ii) The audit and verification of members' accounts, as mandated
in Section 115 of the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1761d, are
the minimum requirements for satisfying this paragraph (b).
(c) Supervisory committee audit. (1) A supervisory committee audit
of each Federal credit union's financial statements shall occur at
least once every calendar year and shall cover the period elapsed since
the last audit. The supervisory committee audit shall be made by the
supervisory committee or its designated representative, as described in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, using applicable GAAS.
(2) The scope of the supervisory committee audit shall include:
(i) Gaining an understanding of the internal control structure;
(ii) Assessing the level of control risk; and
(iii) Based on paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, determining
the nature, timing, and extent of substantive testing necessary to
confirm the assertions made by management, in the financial statements,
regarding each of assets, liabilities, equity, income, and expenses for
the following attributes:
(A) Existence or occurrence;
(B) Completeness;
(C) Valuation or allocation;
(D) Rights and obligations; and
(E) Presentation and disclosures.
(3) For the compensated auditor, audit testing of the following
areas must satisfy applicable GAAS for expressing an opinion on the
financial statements taken as a whole: internal controls, cash, loans
and interest thereon, investments and interest thereon, shares and
dividends and/or interest thereon, related party transactions, and the
detection and reporting of errors and irregularities with regard to
each of these areas.
[[Page 55668]]
(4)(i) The requirements of the annual supervisory committee audit
may be satisfied by one or more of the following:
(A) An audit of the credit union's financial statements performed
by an independent, licensed, certified public accountant in accordance
with GAAS;
(B) An ``agreed-upon procedures engagement'' performed by an
independent, licensed, certified public accountant in accordance with
applicable GAAS, which by itself or in combination with procedures
performed by the supervisory committee, fulfills the required scope of
the supervisory committee audit;
(C) A supervisory committee audit performed by an independent,
compensated auditor other than an independent, licensed, certified
public accountant in accordance with applicable GAAS, which by itself
or in combination with procedures performed by the supervisory
committee, fulfills the scope of a supervisory committee audit; or
(D) A supervisory committee audit by the supervisory committee or
its designated, uncompensated representative, performed in accordance
with applicable GAAS.
(ii) In all cases, an independent, compensated auditor is required
to contract directly with the supervisory committee for the audit
engagement and to deliver its written reports directly to the
supervisory committee.
(d) Engagement letter. (1) The engagement of a compensated auditor
to perform all or part of the scope of a supervisory committee audit
shall be evidenced by an engagement letter. The engagement letter shall
be signed by the compensated auditor and acknowledged therein by the
supervisory committee prior to commencement of a supervisory committee
audit. The engagement letter shall:
(i) Specify the terms, conditions, and objectives of engagement;
(ii) Identify the basis of accounting to be used, e.g., GAAP or an
``other comprehensive basis'' as defined in paragraph (a)(11) of this
section;
(iii) Include an appendix setting forth the procedures to be
performed (if not an opinion audit);
(iv) Specify the compensation to be paid for audit;
(v) Provide that the auditor shall, upon completion of the
engagement, deliver to the supervisory committee written reports. All
such reports may be based on work performed during the normal course of
the audit; separate engagements are not required to report on the
credit union's system of internal accounting control or its compliance
with laws and regulations. The written reports shall consist of:
(A) The supervisory committee audit;
(B) Any internal control exceptions or reportable conditions noted
in the internal control review phase of the audit; and
(C) Any irregularities or illegal acts noted during the audit;
(vi) Specify a date of delivery of the written reports required by
paragraph (d)(1)(v) of this section; and
(vii) In the case of a compensated auditor, certify that NCUA staff
or its designated representative will be provided unconditional access
to a complete set of original working papers, as defined in paragraph
(a)(17) of this section, either at the credit union or at a mutually
agreeable location.
(2) In the case of a supervisory committee audit engagement which
will address all of the financial statement elements and attributes
prescribed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the engagement letter
shall, in addition to the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, include a certification that the audit is a complete
supervisory committee audit.
(3)(i) In the case of a supervisory committee audit engagement
which will exclude any financial statement elements and attributes
prescribed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the engagement letter
shall, in addition to requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section:
(A) Specifically identify the elements and attributes excluded from
the audit;
(B) State that, because of the exclusion(s), the resulting audit
will not, in and of itself, fulfill the scope of a supervisory
committee audit; and
(C) Caution that the supervisory committee will remain responsible
for fulfilling the scope of a supervisory committee audit with respect
to the excluded elements and attributes.
(ii) A compensated audit fully satisfies the requirements of a
supervisory committee audit when it meets the requirements of
paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) of this section and addresses all of the
financial statement elements and attributes prescribed in paragraphs
(c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section.
(e) Audit reports and working paper access. (1) Upon completion or
receipt of the supervisory committee audit reports prescribed in
paragraph (d)(1)(v) of this section, the supervisory committee shall
provide the reports to the board of directors. The supervisory
committee shall ensure that the compensated auditor and its reports
comply with the terms of the engagement letter prescribed by paragraph
(d) of this section. The supervisory committee shall, upon request,
provide to the National Credit Union Administration a copy of each of
the written reports received from the auditor.
(2) The supervisory committee shall be responsible for preparing
and maintaining, or making available, a complete set of original
working papers (as defined in paragraph (a)(17) of this section)
supporting each supervisory committee audit. The supervisory committee
shall, upon request, provide NCUA staff unconditional access to such
complete set of original working papers either at the offices of the
credit union or at a mutually agreeable location.
(3) Failure of a supervisory committee and/or its compensated
auditor to comply with the requirements of this section, or the terms
of an engagement letter required by this section, may be grounds for:
(i) The Regional Director to reject the supervisory committee
audit; and
(ii) The NCUA to seek formal administrative sanctions against the
supervisory committee and/or its compensated auditor pursuant to
section 206(r) of the FCU Act, 12 U.S.C. 1786(r).
* * * * *
Sec. 701.13 [Amended]
3. Section 701.13 is amended in paragraph (a)(2) by revising
``Sec. 701.12(e)'' to read ``Sec. 701.12(g)''.
[FR Doc. 95-27045 Filed 11-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27031 Communications With the Patent and Trademark Office
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 212 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55691-55695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27031]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Parts 1, 5 and 10
[Docket No. 951006247-5247-01]
RIN 0651-AA70
Communications With the Patent and Trademark Office
AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Patent and Trademark Office (Office) is proposing to amend
the rules of practice in patent and trademark cases to simplify and
streamline existing mailing procedures. The new procedures will include
specific addresses for most mail to ensure faster and more accurate
mail delivery. A definition of ``Federal holiday within the District of
Columbia'' is provided and the procedure for ``Express Mail'' will be
simplified.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 2, 1996. No hearing will be
held.
ADDRESSES: Address written comments to Assistant Commissioner for
Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513, marked
to the attention of Lynne G. Beresford. In addition, written comments
may also be sent by facsimile transmission to (703) 308-7220 with a
confirmation copy mailed to the above address, or by electronic mail
messages over the Internet to [email protected].
Written comments will be available for public inspection on January
16, 1996, in the Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks' suite on the
10th floor of the South Tower Building, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington,
Virginia 22202-3513.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lawrence E. Anderson (for patent-related matters) by telephone at (703)
305-9285, by electronic mail at [email protected], or by mail to his
attention addressed to the Assistant Commissioner for Patents, Box DAC,
Washington, D.C. 20231; or Lynne G. Beresford (for trademark-related
matters) by telephone at (703) 308-8900, extension 44, or by mail
marked to their attention and addressed to the Assistant Commissioner
for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addresses for correspondence with the Office
are proposed to be changed to reflect the creation of a mailroom site
at the South Tower Building for processing most trademark-related mail;
to distinguish correspondence intended for organizations reporting to
the Assistant Commissioner for Patents from other correspondence; and
to add a separate mailing address in the Office of the Solicitor for
disciplinary matters
The proposed rulemaking entitled ``Changes in Requirements for
Addressing Trademark Applications and Trademark-Related Papers'' (0651-
AA73) has been merged with this notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Office will now have three separate general mailing addresses:
(1) Assistant Commissioner for Patents for correspondence processed by
organizations reporting to the Assistant Commissioner for Patents; (2)
Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks for all trademark-related mail,
except for trademark documents sent to the Assignment Division for
recordation and requests for certified and uncertified copies of
trademark documents which should be addressed to the Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks; and (3) Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
for all other correspondence. Notwithstanding the above, it is proposed
that there will be separate mailing addresses in the Office of the
Solicitor for certain disciplinary matters and cases involving pending
litigation.
Those who correspond with the Office are requested to use separate
envelopes directed to the different areas.
Because patent-related mail will be sent to the Assistant
Commissioner for Patents, the requirement to designate patent
application correspondence as ``PATENT APPLICATION'' is proposed to be
deleted from section 1.5(a).
In addition, it is proposed that ``Federal holiday within the
District of Columbia'' be defined as including Official closings.
It is further proposed that a ``Certificate of Mailing by Express
Mail'' (currently necessary to obtain the benefit of the date of
deposit with the United States Postal Service (U.S.P.S.) as the filing
date of the Paper) no longer be required for correspondence actually
received in the Office.
Patent-Related Mail
Section 1.1 is proposed to be amended to provide for correspondence
which is processed by organizations reporting to the Assistant
Commissioner for Patents to be addressed to the ``Assistant
Commissioner for Patents, Washington, DC 20231.'' The Office first
announced the new address for patent-related mail in a notice (Change
of Address for Patent Applications and Patent Related Papers) published
in the Official Gazette at 1173 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 13 (April 4,
1995).
This change will affect correspondence such as: patent
applications, responses to notices of informality, requests for
extension of time, notices of appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (the Board), briefs in support of an appeal to the Board,
requests for oral hearing before the Board, extensions of term of
patent, requests for reexamination, statutory disclaimers, certificates
of correction, petitions to the Commissioner, submission of information
disclosure statements, petitions to institute a public use proceeding,
petitions to revive abandoned patent applications, and other
correspondence related to patent applications and patents which is
processed by organizations reporting to the Assistant Commissioner for
Patents. When patent-related documents are filed with a certificate of
mailing, pursuant to section 1.8, the certificate of mailing should be
completed with the new address: Assistant Commissioner for Patents,
Washington, D.C. 20231.
Unless otherwise specified, correspondence not processed by
organizations reporting to the Assistant Commissioner for Patents, such
as communications with the Board, patent services including patent copy
sales, assignments, requests for lists of patents and SIRs in a
subclass, requests for the status of maintenance fee payments, as well
as patent practitioner enrollment matters including admission to
[[Page 55692]]
examination, registration to practice, certificates of good standing,
and financial service matters including establishing a deposit account
should continue to be addressed to the Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231. Documents to be recorded with the
Assignment Division, except those filed with new applications, should
be addressed to: Box Assignment, Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231. Orders for certified and
uncertified copies of Office documents should be addressed to: Box 10,
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231.
Special Office mail boxes as currently listed in each issue of the
Official Gazette should continue to be used to allow forwarding of
particular types of mail to the appropriate areas as quickly as
possible. Use of special box designations will facilitate the Office's
timely and accurate identification and processing of the designated
correspondence.
Checks should continue to be made payable to the Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks.
Trademark-Related Mail
Most trademark-related mail should be sent directly to the
Trademark Operation at: Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900
Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513. When trademark-related
documents are filed with a certificate of mailing, pursuant to section
1.8, the certificate of mailing should be completed with the new
address: Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive,
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513. Use of the correct address will avoid
processing delays. Trademark documents to be recorded with the
Assignment Division, except those filed with new applications, should
be addressed to: Box Assignment, Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231. Orders for certified and
uncertified copies of trademark documents should be addressed to: Box
10, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231.
The Office announced the new address for trademark-related mail in
a notice (Change of Address for Trademark Applications and Trademark
Related Papers) published in the Federal Register at 59 FR 29275 (June
6, 1994) and in the Trademark Office Official Gazette at 1163 Off. Gax.
Trademark Office 80 (June 28, 1994) (republished in 1170 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 303 (January 3, 1995)).
The Office will continue to maintain the special box designations
and FEE/NO FEE indicators for trademark mail as currently listed in
each issue of the Official Gazette. In addition to addressing
trademark-related mail as set forth above, the boxes should also be
used to allow forwarding of particular types of mail to the appropriate
areas as quickly as possible.
Checks should continue to be made payable to the Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks.
Mail intended for the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board should be
addressed to: Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal
Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513, including BOX TTAB/FEE or BOX
TTAB/NO FEE, whichever is applicable.
Hand-Carried Correspondence
All correspondence with the Office, except for communications
relating to pending litigation as specified currently in section
1.1(g), may continue to be filed directly at the Attorney's Window
located in Room 1B03 of Crystal Plaza Building 2, 2011 South Clark
Place, Arlington, Virginia. Trademark-related papers may also be filed
at the ``walk-up'' window located on the third floor of the South Tower
Building, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
Federal Holidays Within The District of Columbia
When the Patent and Trademark Office is officially closed for an
entire day (for reasons due to weather or other causes), the Office
will consider each such day a ``Federal holiday within the District of
Columbia'' under 35 U.S.C. 21. Any action or fee due on such a day may
be taken, or fee paid, on the next succeeding business day the Office
is open.
Legal holidays considered ``Federal holidays within the District of
Columbia'' are New Year's Day (January 1), Martin Luther King, Jr.'s
Birthday (third Monday in January), Presidential Inauguration Day,
Washington's Birthday (third Monday in February), Memorial Day (last
Monday in May), Independence Day (July 4), Labor Day (first Monday in
September), Columbus Day (second Monday in October), Veterans Day
(November 11), Thanksgiving Day (fourth Thursday in November) and
Christmas Day (December 25). In the past, the Office has published
notices concerning unscheduled closings. See, e.g., ``Closing of Patent
and Trademark Office on Thursday, January 20, 1994 and Friday, February
11, 1994,'' 1161 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 12 (April 5, 1994) (republished
in 1170 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 8 (January 3, 1995)) and ``Filing of
Papers During Unscheduled Closings of the Patent and Trademark
Office,'' 1097 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 53 (December 20, 1988)
(republished in 1170 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 8 (January 3, 1995)). The
proposed rule change will further implement the existing policy.
Express Mail Provisions
Section 1.10 is proposed to be amended by deleting the requirement
for a ``Certificate of Mailing by Express Mail'' to obtain the benefit
of the date of deposit with the United States Postal Service (U.S.P.S.)
as the filing date of the paper. The title of section 1.10 is proposed
to be revised and section 1.10 is also proposed to be amended to
incorporate requirements for the resubmission of misplaced
correspondence which parallel section 1.8.
Under the current rule, the filer is required to include a
Certificate of Mailing by Express Mail, certifying the date of deposit
as Express Mail. Some papers filed with the Office, although deposited
as Express Mail with the U.S.P.S., have been denied the filing date of
the date of deposit as Express Mail because the required Certificate of
Mailing by Express Mail was omitted or deficient. The lost filing date
for a significant number of these papers has resulted in the loss of
substantive rights. For example, a trademark registration may be
canceled if the required affidavit of continued use or excusable non-
use is not filed by the end of the sixth year of registration. 15
U.S.C. 1058.
In light of the problematic nature of the requirement for a
Certificate of Mailing by Express Mail, inasmuch as the date of deposit
has already been entered by a disinterested third party, the Office
proposes to delete this requirement from section 1.10.
Miscellaneous Changes
Miscellaneous changes are proposed to change the word
``communications'' to ``correspondence'' for purposes of consistency.
Also, since the certificate of mailing by ``Express Mail'' will no
longer be a requirement of the proposed rules, the provisions of Part
10 relating to misconduct are proposed to be amended to delete
reference to this requirement.
Discussion of Specific Rules
If revised as proposed, the heading of section 1.1 will be changed
to state that the section contains the addresses for correspondence to
the Patent and Trademark Office.
Section 1.1 is proposed to be revised to set out all pertinent
Office mailing
[[Page 55693]]
addresses in paragraph (a) and in added paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and
(a)(3). It should be noted that the remaining paragraphs of section 1.1
contain directions for using box designations rather than addresses.
Paragraph (a)(1) is proposed to be added to set out the new mailing
address to which most patent-related documents should be sent.
Paragraph (a)(2) is proposed to be added to set out the new mailing
address to which most trademark-related documents should be sent. The
Solicitor's mailing address, formerly set out in paragraph (g) of the
section is moved to a new paragraph (a)(3). Paragraph 1.1(g) is
proposed to be removed and reserved.
Sections 1.1 and 1.3 are proposed to be amended so that the word
``communications'' is changed to ``correspondence.''
Section 1.5(a) is proposed to be amended by removing the
requirement of the words ``PATENT APPLICATION'' on letters concerning
patent applications.
Section 1.8(a) is proposed to be revised to state that papers and
fees must be addressed as set out in 1.1(a). For the purposes of
1.8(a)(1)(i)(A), first class mail is interpreted as including ``Express
Mail'' and ``Priority Mail'' deposited with the U.S.P.S.
Section 1.9 is proposed to be amended to add a definition of
``Federal holiday within the District of Columbia'' to include Federal
holidays and days when the Patent and Trademark Office is officially
closed for the entire day (for reasons due to adverse weather or other
causes).
Section 1.10 is proposed to be revised to state that ``Express
Mail'' must be addressed as set out in Sec. 1.1(a). The title of
section 1.10 is proposed to be revised to reflect this change. Further,
for all correspondence actually received in the Office, the Office will
consider the correspondence filed on the date shown by the ``date in''
notation on the ``Express Mail'' label unless the ``date in'' is a
Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia.
Because of the reliance on the ``date in'' marked by the Postal
Service, correspondence should be deposited directly with a person at
the United States Postal Service, rather than in a drop box, to ensure
that the person making the deposit receives a copy of the ``Express
Mail'' label at the time of making the deposit to verify that the
``date in'' is accurately and clearly written by the Postal Service
employee. Persons using an Express mail receptacle (such as a drop box)
do so at the risk of not receiving an accurate and legible copy of the
Express mail label at the time of deposit from which the Office may
determine the ``Express mail'' ``date in,'' and, therefore, may not
later argue that they should be entitled to the date on which they
deposited the correspondence into a receptacle. Moreover, if the ``date
in'' is found to be illegible or unclear, a person dealing directly
with a Postal Service employee must take corrective action to ensure
that a clear and accurate date is marked at the time of deposit.
Persons choosing to use a receptacle (or the like) obviously do not
oversee the marking by a Postal Service employee and thus may not later
argue for the benefit of a section 1.10 filing date if the ``date in''
on the ``Express Mail'' label is improperly or not clearly marked. The
determinative factor is when the Postal Service marks the ``date in''
and the mere deposit into a receptacle does not entitle one to an
``Express Mail'' ``date in'' under section 1.10.
Paragraph (b) of section 1.10 is proposed to be amended by deleting
the requirement for a ``Certificate of Mailing by Express Mail''
currently necessary to obtain the benefit of the date of deposit with
the United States Postal Service (U.S.P.S.) express mail service as the
filing date of the paper.
Paragraph (c) of section 1.10 is proposed to be amended to set
forth the requirements for the treatment of correspondence not received
by the Office for which the ``Express Mail'' procedure was utilized.
Correspondence not received by the Office will be considered filed in
the Office on the date shown by the ``date in'' notation entered by the
Postal Service if the party who forwards the correspondence:
(1) Places the number of the ``Express Mail'' mailing label on the
correspondence prior to the original mailing by ``Express Mail,''
(2) Informs the Office of the previous deposit of the
correspondence promptly after becoming aware that the Office has no
evidence of receipt of the correspondence,
(3) Supplies an additional copy of the previously deposited
correspondence showing the number of the ``Express Mail'' label
thereon,
(4) Supplies a copy of the ``Express Mail'' label clearly
displaying the ``date in'' entered by the United States Postal Service,
and
(5) Includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of
the Commissioner, the previous deposit and that the copies of the
correspondence and ``Express Mail'' label are true copies of the
original correspondence and ``Express Mail'' label. Such statement must
be on the basis of personal knowledge, whenever possible, and must be a
verified statement if made by a person other than a practitioner as
defined in section 10.1(r) of this chapter.
In addition, although the requirement for a certificate of express
mail has been proposed to be eliminated from section 1.10, applicants
are strongly encouraged to continue using the certificate of express
mail, as well as the placement of the Express Mail label number in the
upper right corner of the first page of each separate piece of
correspondence and to retain a clearly marked Express Mail label, to
facilitate complying with the requirements of paragraph (c) if the
correspondence is not received in the Office or if reliance on the
U.S.P.S. ``date in'' is not possible. Moreover, paragraph (d) is
proposed to be added so that additional evidence may be required if the
Office so determines.
Section 5.33 (entitled ``Correspondence'') is proposed to be
amended to change the correspondence address to ``Assistant
Commissioner for Patents (Attention: Licensing and Review), Washington,
DC 20231.''
Section 10.23(c)(9) is proposed to be revised to reflect the
proposed change to section 1.10 that the certificate of mailing by
``Express Mail'' is no longer a requirement of the rules.
Other Considerations
The proposed rule changes are in conformity with the requirements
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. et seq.), Executive Order
12612, and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Information collection requirements are not affected by the change of
address. This proposed rule has been determined to not be significant
for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Office has determined that this proposed rule change has no
Federalism implications affecting the relationship between the National
Government and the States as outlined in Executive Order 12612.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
Small Business Administration, that the proposed rule changes would not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
(Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The proposed rule change
has no effect on patent fees.
These proposed rule changes contain collections of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., which are currently approved by the Office of
Management and Budget
[[Page 55694]]
under Control No. 0651-0009 and 0651-0031. The public reporting burden
for these collections of information for certificate of mailing is
estimated to average six minutes per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to the Office of System Quality
and Enhancement Division, Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C.
20231, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. (Attn: Paperwork
Reduction Act Projects 0651-0009 and 0651-0031).
List of Subjects
37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Inventions and patents, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
37 CFR Part 5
Classified information, Foreign relations, Inventions and patents.
37 CFR Part 10
Administrative Practice and procedure, Conflicts of interest,
Courts, Inventions and patents, Lawyers.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority
granted to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks by 35 U.S.C. 6
and 15 U.S.C. 1123, 37 CFR Parts 1, 5 and 10 are proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR Part 1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 6, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 1.1 is proposed to be amended by removing and reserving
paragraph (g) and by revising the heading and paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.1 Addresses for correspondence with the Patent and Trademark
Office.
(a) Except for those documents identified in paragraphs (a)(1), (2)
and (3) of this section, all correspondence intended for the Patent and
Trademark Office must be addressed to ``Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks, Washington, D.C. 20231.'' When appropriate, correspondence
should also be marked for the attention of a particular office or
individual.
(1) Patent correspondence. All correspondence concerning patent
matters processed by organizations reporting to the Assistant
Commissioner for patents should be addressed to ``Assistant
Commissioner for Patents, Washington, D.C. 20231.''
(2) Trademark correspondence. All correspondence concerning
trademark matters, except for trademark-related documents sent to the
Assignment Division for recordation and requests for certified and
uncertified copies of trademark application and registration documents,
should be addressed to ``Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900
Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513.'' This includes
correspondence intended for the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
(3) Office of Solicitor correspondence. (i) Correspondence relating
to pending litigation required by court rule or order to be served on
the Solicitor shall be hand-delivered to the Office of the Solicitor or
shall be mailed to: Office of the Solicitor, P.O. Box 15667, Arlington,
Virginia 22215; or such other address as may be designated in writing
in the litigation. See Secs. 1.302(c) and 2.145(b)(3) for filing a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
(ii) Correspondence relating to disciplinary proceedings pending
before an Administrative Law Judge or the Commissioner shall be mailed
to: Office of the Solicitor, P.O. Box 16116, Arlington, Virginia 22215.
(iii) All other correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor shall
be addressed to: Box 8, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks,
Washington, D.C. 20231.
(iv) Correspondence addressed to the wrong Post Office Box will not
be filed elsewhere in the Patent and Trademark Office and might be
returned.
* * * * *
(g) [Reserved]
* * * * *
3. Section 1.3 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.3 Business to be conduced with decorum and courtesy.
Applicants and their attorneys or agents are required to conduct
their business with the Patent and Trademark Office with decorum and
courtesy. Papers presented in violation of this requirement will be
submitted to the Commissioner and will be returned by the
Commissioner's direct order. Complaints against examiners and other
employees must be made in correspondence separate from other papers.
4. Section 1.5(a) is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.5 Identification of application, patent, or registration.
(a) No correspondence relating to an application should be filed
prior to when notification of the application number is received from
the Patent and Trademark Office. When a letter directed to the Patent
and Trademark Office concerns a previously filed application for a
patent, it must identify on the top page in a conspicuous location, the
application number (consisting of the series code and the serial
number; e.g., 07/123,456), or the serial number and filing date
assigned to that application by the Patent and Trademark Office, or the
international application number of the international application. Any
correspondence not containing such identification will be returned to
the sender where a return address is available. The returned
correspondence will be accompanied with a cover letter which will
indicate to the sender that if the returned correspondence is
resubmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office within two weeks of the
mail date on the cover letter, the original date of receipt of the
correspondence will be considered by the Patent and Trademark Office as
the date of receipt of the correspondence. Applicants may use either
the Certificate of Mailing or Transmission procedure under Sec. 1.8 or
the Express Mail procedure under Sec. 1.10 for resubmissions of
returned correspondence if they desire to have the benefit of the date
of deposit in the United States Postal Service. If the returned
correspondence is not resubmitted within the two-week period, the date
of receipt of the resubmission will be considered to be the date of
receipt of the correspondence. The two-week period to resubmit the
returned correspondence will not be extended. If for some reason
returned correspondence is resubmitted with proper identification later
than two weeks after the return mailing by the Patent and Trademark
Office, the resubmitted correspondence will be accepted but given its
date of receipt. In addition to the application number, all letters
directed to the Patent and Trademark Office concerning applications for
patent should also state the name of the applicant, the title of the
invention, the date of filing the same, and, if known, the group art
unit or other unit within the Patent and Trademark Office responsible
for considering the letter and the name of
[[Page 55695]]
the examiner or other person to which it has been assigned.
* * * * *
5. Section 1.8(a)(1)(i)(A) is proposed to be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.8 Certificate of mailing or transmission.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Addressed as set out in Sec. 1.1(a) and deposited with the U.S.
Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail; or
* * * * *
6. Section 1.9 is proposed to be amended by adding a new paragraph
(h) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9 Definitions.
* * * * *
(h) A ``Federal holiday within the District of Columbia'' as used
in this chapter means any day, except Saturdays and Sundays, when the
Patent and Trademark Office is officially closed for business.
7. Section 1.10 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.10 Filing of correspondence by ``Express Mail.''
(a) Any correspondence received by the Patent and Trademark Office
utilizing the ``Express Mail Post Office to Addressee'' service of the
United States Postal Service will be considered filed in the Office on
the date shown by the ``date in'' notation entered by the United States
Postal Service on the ``Express Mail'' label, unless the ``date in'' is
a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday within the District of Columbia.
See Sec. 1.6(a). This procedure can be used to file any correspondence
in the Office.
(b) Any correspondence filed by ``Express Mail'' must be addressed
as set out in Sec. 1.1(a) and should be deposited directly with the
United States Postal Service to ensure that the person depositing the
correspondence receives a copy of the ``Express Mail'' label at the
time of deposit with the ``date in'' clearly marked thereon. Persons
dealing indirectly with the Untied States Postal Service (such as by
deposit in an Express Mail drop box) do so at the risk of not receiving
their copy of the ``Express Mail'' label with the ``date in'' clearly
marked.
(c) Any correspondence mailed to the Patent and Trademark Office
utilizing the ``Express Mail Post Office to Addressee'' service of the
United States Postal Service, but not received by the Office, will be
considered filed in the Office on the date shown by the ``date in''
notation entered by the Untied States Postal Service on the ``Express
Mail'' label, unless the ``date in'' is a Saturday, Sunday or Federal
holiday within the District of Columbia (see Sec. 1.6(a)), if the party
who forwarded such correspondence:
(1) Places the number of the ``Express Mail'' mailing label on the
correspondence prior to the original mailing by ``Express Mail,''
(2) Informs the Office of the previous deposit of the
correspondence promptly after becoming aware that the Office has no
evidence of receipt of the correspondence,
(3) Supplies a copy of the previously deposited correspondence
showing the number of the ``Express Mail'' label thereon,
(4) Supplies a copy of the ``Express Mail'' label clearly
displaying the ``date in'' entered by the United States Postal Service,
and
(5) Includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of
the Commissioner, to the previous deposit and that the copies of the
correspondence and ``Express Mail'' label are true copies of the
original correspondence and ``Express Mail'' label. Such statement must
be on the basis of personal knowledge, whenever possible, and must be a
verified statement if made by a person other than a practitioner as
defined in Sec. 10.1(r) of this chapter.
(d) The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the
correspondence was deposited as ``Express Mail'' with the United States
Postal Service on the date in question.
PART 5--SECRECY OF CERTAIN INVENTIONS AND LICENSES TO EXPORT AND
FILE APPLICATIONS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES
8. The authority citation for 37 CFR Part 5 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 6, 41, 181-188, as amended by the Patent
Law Foreign Filing Amendments Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-418, 102
Stat. 1567; the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2751
et seq., the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011
et seq., and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, 22 U.S.C.
3201 et seq., and the delegations in the regulations under these
acts to the Commissioner (15 CFR 370.10(j), 22 CFR 125.04, and 10
CFR 810.7).
9. Section 5.33 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 5.33 Correspondence.
All correspondence in connection with this part, including
petitions, should be addressed to ``Assistant Commissioner for Patents
(Attention: Licensing and Review), Washington, D.C. 20231.''
PART 10--REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE
10. The authority citation for 37 CFR Part 10 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 500; 15 U.S.C. 1123; 35 U.S.C. 6, 31, 32,
41.
11. Section 10.23(c)(9) is proposed to be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.23 Misconduct.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
* * * * *
(9) Knowingly misusing a ``Certificate of Mailing or Transmission''
under Sec. 1.8 of this chapter.
* * * * *
Dated: October 26, 1995.
Bruce A. Lehman,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks.
[FR Doc. 95-27031 Filed 11-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.