issue-1995-12-04•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-04
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-04
issue-1995-12-04Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-04Proposed 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. 95-29453 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Accelerator Control Systems
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62061-62064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29453]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-93; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AF76
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Accelerator Control
Systems
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NHTSA is considering issuing a proposal to amend the Federal
motor vehicle safety standard on accelerator control systems. The
standard was last revised in 1973, when only mechanical systems were
common on motor vehicles. In order to determine whether to propose
amending the standard to include requirements specifically tailored for
electronic accelerator control systems and to clarify possibly
ambiguous language, NHTSA poses a series of questions in this document.
NHTSA undertakes this action as part of its effort to implement the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to make regulations
easier to understand and to apply.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section,
Room 5109, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. It is
requested, but not required, that 10 copies of the comments be
provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 9:30 a.m. to 4
p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Patrick
Boyd, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Office of Safety Performance
Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Mr.
Boyd's telephone number is (202) 366-6346, and his FAX number is (202)
366-4329.
For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Rulemaking Division, Office
of Chief
[[Page 62062]]
Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Ms.
Nakama's telephone number is (202) 366-2992, and her FAX number is
(202) 366-3820. Please note that written comments should be sent to the
Docket Section rather than faxed to the above contact persons.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive ``Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative'' from the President to the heads of departments and
agencies, NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations and directives.
During the course of this review, the agency identified rules that it
could propose to eliminate as unnecessary or to amend to improve their
comprehensibility, application or appropriateness. As described below,
NHTSA has identified Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
124, Accelerator control systems, as one rule that may benefit from
amendments.
Background of Standard No. 124
Standard No. 124's purpose is to reduce deaths and injuries
resulting from loss of control of a moving vehicle's engine, due to
malfunctions in the vehicle's accelerator control system. Since 1972,
Standard No. 124 has specified requirements for ensuring the return of
a vehicle's throttle to the idle position under each of the following
two circumstances, (1) when the driver removes the actuating force
(typically, the driver's foot or cruise control) from the accelerator
control, and (2) when there is a severance or disconnection in the
accelerator control system. Standard No. 124 applies to passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.
Paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 124 requires that, under any load
condition, and within the time specified in S5.3, the throttle must
return to the idle position from any accelerator position or any speed
of which the engine is capable, whenever the driver removes the
actuating force. The standard defines the throttle as ``the component
of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated
accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated
accelerator control system controls the engine speed.''
Standard No. 124 has two further requirements to provide safety in
the event of accelerator control failure. The first, specified at S5.1,
requires ``at least two sources of energy,'' each capable of returning
the throttle to idle position within the time limit for normal
operation, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver
removes the opposing actuating force. The second, specified at S5.2,
requires that the throttle return to idle ``whenever any one component
of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a
single point'' and the driver releases the pedal.
Paragraph S5.3 requires that the throttle return to idle within 1
second for vehicles of 10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) and within 2 seconds for vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 10,000. The maximum allowable time is increased to 3 seconds for
any vehicle that is exposed to ambient air at O degrees to -40 degrees
F. during the test or for any portion of a 12 hour conditioning period.
Standard No. 124 Applies to Electronic Accelerator Control Systems
When promulgated, the definitions and requirements of Standard No.
124 were easy to understand and apply because their language was
strongly influenced by the design of mechanical accelerator control
systems and because all control systems were mechanical then. The
``throttle'' of a gasoline engine was the carburetor shaft that opened
and closed the air passages in the base plate. The ``throttle'' of a
diesel engine was the control rod, or rack that controlled fuel flow to
the high pressure injectors. The two energy sources were simply two
return springs acting on the linkages and/or cables between the
accelerator pedal and the throttle. If at least one of those springs
was connected directly to the carburetor or to the diesel fuel
injection rack, it would cause the throttle to return to idle in the
event of a disconnection of the linkage. And, if the single
contemplated failure occurred at one spring, the other would permit
continued driver control.
Subsequent to the promulgation of Standard No. 124, electronic
accelerator controls with on-board computer systems were introduced on
motor vehicles. Their use is steadily increasing, especially in heavy
trucks.
The introduction of electronic systems led to questions about their
status and treatment under the Standard. Stating that some of the
language in Standard No. 124 seemed more appropriate for mechanical
accelerator control systems than for electronic ones, Isuzu Motors
America, Inc., asked the agency a variety of questions concerning
electronic systems. Its central question was whether the Standard
applies to electronic systems. In an August 8, 1988 interpretation
letter to Isuzu, NHTSA stated that the Standard does apply to
electronic accelerator control systems. Among its other questions,
Isuzu asked whether a severance in electric wires in its electronic
accelerator control system is a severance within the meaning of S5.2 of
Standard No. 124. Isuzu expressed its belief that because the electric
wires were not a ``moving part,'' the answer should be ``no.'' NHTSA
disagreed.
It interpreted Standard No. 124's requirement that the throttle
return to idle ``whenever any one component of the accelerator control
system is disconnected or severed at a single point,'' to include all
severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator
control system as within the standard, not just disconnections of
moving parts.
Need To Amend Standard No. 124
Most accelerator linkages on the largest classes of trucks (i.e.,
those over 33,001 lbs. GVWR) are now electronic. A mechanical
accelerator linkage controlling a fuel rack (i.e., a device that
controls fuel flow to the high pressure injectors) is now rare on the
largest classes of trucks. Most of today's heavy diesel trucks have no
mechanical connection between the accelerator pedal and the throttle.
Although the agency has been issuing interpretations about the
Standard's application to electronic accelerator control systems for
the last seven years, the flow of interpretation requests remains
unabated. Manufacturers continue to ask the basic question of whether
the Standard applies to electronic accelerator control systems. One
correspondent presumed that since those systems do not include springs
and linkages, as described in Standard No. 124, electronic accelerator
controls are not regulated. Another asked for a legal interpretation of
``throttle,'' as applied to electronic accelerator control systems.
Other correspondents have understood Standard No. 124 to mean simply
that two return springs should be placed on the treadle assembly. In
response, the agency has recited in its interpretation letters the
requirement that the sources of energy must be capable of returning the
throttle to idle in the event of a single severance or disconnection.
The correspondents did not submit sufficient information to enable the
agency to determine whether the proper mechanical operation of the
treadle was sufficient to assure return to idle in the event of an
electrical severance.
NHTSA notes that although the use of two springs on the treadle
assembly may
[[Page 62063]]
represent good treadle design, it does not intrinsically overcome a
disconnection anywhere within an electronic accelerator control system.
Thus, good treadle design does not provide an electronic accelerator
control system with the same degree of fail-safe operation provided a
mechanical system by redundant return springs on a traditional fuel
control rack. Those springs on a traditional rack could overcome an
accelerator control disconnection and return the throttle to idle.
Further, providing good treadle design does not solve the problem of
single point disconnection in electronic systems which now would
include connectors, wires, computer components and possibly even
software elements. Even parties recognizing the analogy between wire
severance and linkage severance have asked whether the standard applies
to subsequent short circuits as well as open disconnections.
NHTSA believes that the volume of requests for interpretation might
be reduced if, instead of answering these questions by drawing
analogies between traditional mechanical components and new electronic
systems, it amended the Standard to include provisions and language
specifically tailored to electronic systems. There are limitations to
the agency's ability to make regulatory language, which reflects the
design of mechanical systems, serve the purpose of regulating both
mechanical and electronic systems. NHTSA also believes that amending
the Standard not only to update it, but also possibly to redefine what
constitutes fail safe operation might give manufacturers more
flexibility in designing electronic systems and enable the agency to
better ensure that electronic systems function safely. In order to do
this, the agency must identify the most common predictable failures for
electronic systems and ascertain the most appropriate response to those
failures.
NHTSA is also concerned that regulating electronic systems by
drawing analogies to mechanical systems may have the effect of limiting
the permissible responses to failures in electronic systems to the
fail-safe modes of mechanical systems. At present, the failure modes
(i.e., disconnection and severance) specified in Standard No. 124 are
the predictable failure modes of a mechanical system. The agency
believes that the regulation of electronic systems in a manner tailored
to them can be beneficial to manufacturers, vehicle users, and the
public. For example, with electronic systems, there may be failure
modes in which it is wiser to either shut down the engine or to provide
for a fail-safe mode in which the engine has just enough power to
permit the vehicle to be driven to the side of the road, than to
require that the engine be returned to idle. Since such choices were
not feasible with mechanical controls, they were not included in
Standard No. 124.
Through this request for comments, NHTSA wishes to determine
whether it can propose amendments which identify the predictable
failure modes of electronic systems and specify an acceptable safe
response for each mode.
Normal v. Failure Modes
On many trucks, locking hand controls are necessary for the
operation of engine-driven vocational equipment, i.e., work-performing
equipment such as garbage compactors or cement mixers, when the vehicle
is parked. Similar locking hand controls are also provided to
facilitate engine warm-up. Obviously, locking hand controls can be
thought of as preventing the return to normal idle speed when the
accelerator pedal is released (defined in the Standard as a failure).
Several requests for interpretation have resulted. However, locking
hand controls do not affect highway safety because the locking controls
are not meant to be used to drive vehicles. Explicit specification in
the standard of what is or is not permissible with respect to the
operation of locking hand controls could eliminate a source of
ambiguity.
Likewise, the lack of absolute repeatability in the normal
operation of some electronic accelerator controls results in the return
to a range of idle speeds instead of a single idle speed. While this
range is narrow enough to permit safe operation of a vehicle, the
return to a range of speeds instead of a single speed nevertheless
introduces questions about whether a range is narrow enough to be
regarded as complying with the requirements of the standard for return
to idle speed. A revision of the standard offers an opportunity to
adopt language that distinguishes between normal safe characteristics
of accelerator controls and instances of failure.
Questions for Comment
In order to determine whether the agency should propose to amend
Standard No. 124 and to obtain a better idea of technology that is
presently available, NHTSA asks the following questions to clarify
engineering issues. Sections A and B apply to electronic systems only.
Sections C, D, E and F are of general applicability.
A. Industry Consensus
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has developed recommended
practices for electronic signal interfaces for heavy diesel vehicle
engine control processors and for some aspects of accelerator pedal
position sensor performance. The SAE's recommended practice specifies
that the accelerator position sensor (APS) assembly shall comply with
all appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
A1. Has the SAE or other industry consensus standards organizations
considered fail-safe provisions for electronic accelerator controls? Is
there industry agreement (informal or formal) concerning what fail-safe
provisions should be adopted for electronic accelerator control
systems?
A2. What fail-safe strategies are now being employed by vehicle and
component manufacturers?
B. Technical Considerations of a Fail-Safe Electronic Accelerator
Control System
NHTSA believes that the potential points of failure of an
electronic accelerator control system are:
--the mechanical linkage and return springs between the pedal and the
accelerator position sensor (APS);
--the electrical connections between the APS and the engine control
processor;
--the electrical connections between the engine control processor and
other critical sensors;
--the electrical connections between the engine control processor and
fuel or air metering devices which determine engine speed;
--power to the engine control processor, the APS and critical sensors;
and
--the integrity of the engine control processor, APS, and other
critical sensors.
A single point disconnection would mean the severance of a single
wire or the disconnection of all the terminals housed in a single
connector. The consequences both of an open circuit or a short circuit
would ordinarily be relevant, but NHTSA does not exclude the
possibility that some designs could prevent either a short circuit or
an open circuit in the event of a disconnection. Critical sensors are
those whose malfunction or disconnection could cause a significant
uncontrolled engine overspeed. The agency is not aware that sensors
other than the APS are critical in a safety sense.
With this background, NHTSA asks the following questions:
B1. Are there other predictable points of failure of an electronic
control system?
[[Page 62064]]
B2. Are sensors other than the APS critical to safety on either
gasoline or diesel engines?
B3. Are engine development trends pushing other sensors toward
safety critical operation (i.e., to become a sensor whose malfunction
or disconnection could cause a significant uncontrolled engine
overspeed)?
B4. Is it practical (from an engineering standpoint) to expect a
fail-safe design of a unitary electronic accelerator control system,
even in the limited sense of ensuring fail-safe performance in the case
of single point failures at predictable locations? Would it be more
practical (and still meet the need for safety) to use a redundant,
simplified APS and engine controller, active only at the idle position
of the pedal? Is the use of redundant systems more practical than a
single system to achieve fail-safe performance?
B5. Do any currently produced vehicles with electronic accelerator
control systems use redundancy to achieve fail-safe operation?
C. Vehicle Drive Functions v. Vocational Functions
NHTSA legal interpretations regarding hand throttle controls view
their operation as setting a new idle speed to which the throttle
should return in the prescribed time limits ``upon release of the
driver-operated accelerator control system.'' This view is accurate for
traditional ``fast idle'' setting devices for cold engine operation.
But, it may also have resulted in interpretations that do not
distinguish between accelerator control systems that drive the vehicle,
and auxiliary accelerator controls meant to allow the operation of
vocational equipment (such as the compactor on a garbage truck) on a
parked vehicle.
C1. How is the cold engine fast idle function accomplished with
electronic accelerator controls?
C2. How is the engine of a parked vehicle held at the appropriate
speed to operate vocational equipment when the vehicle is equipped with
an electronic accelerator control system?
C3. Is there a general way to distinguish between accelerator
controls affecting the driving of the vehicle and those affecting only
the vehicle's operation as a power source for vocational equipment,
presumably without effect on highway safety?
D. Initial Idle Speed
Manufacturers have been concerned with the question of how
consistently a vehicle's engine must return to exactly the same idle
speed to meet Standard No. 124. Apparently, the resolution and
hysteresis of the various sensors and the discrete nature of digital
systems create idle speed variations that do not in any way indicate
failure.
D1. Would it be practical to designate a range about a vehicle's
initial idle speed to clarify the difference between normal and
abnormal performance of an accelerator control system? Please describe
the desirable extent of such a range and provide a rationale for that
range.
E. Public Technical Meeting
NHTSA believes that the development of any proposal to amend
Standard No. 124 may benefit from a direct, oral exchange of ideas
among NHTSA, vehicle manufacturers, and other affected parties.
Reliance solely on written public comments may not be the most
effective means of assessing the appropriate steps for ensuring the
safe operation of electronic accelerator control systems.
E1. Once the agency has analyzed the written comments submitted in
response to this document, should it hold a public technical meeting to
discuss possible proposals for amending the Standard No. 124? If so, on
which issues should such a public technical meeting focus?
F. Other Issues
F1. Should the agency propose to amend Standard No. 124 in any
other respect that has not been discussed above? If so, please describe
how the agency should propose to amend the Standard, and provide a
rationale for the recommended change.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This request for comment was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). NHTSA has analyzed the impact
of this request for comment and determined that it is not
``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency
anticipates if a proposal and ultimately a final rule should result
from this request for comment, new requirements would not be imposed on
manufacturers with respect to the currently regulated systems. The
request for comment seeks to find cost effective means to make Standard
No. 124 more understandable when applied to electronic accelerator
control systems. If NHTSA decides to initiate rulemaking, it is NHTSA's
intent that the rulemaking not impose any additional costs.
Procedures for Filing Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this request
for comment. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be
submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received after
the comment due date will be considered as suggestions for any future
rulemaking action. Comments on the request for comment will be
available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file
relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after the
closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to
examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: November 28, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-29453 Filed 12-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29443 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62051-62053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29443]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-58-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series
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 certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100
series airplanes. This proposal would require modification of the
thrust reverser doors, and replacement of the Collins multifunction
display units (MFDU) with new MFDU's. This proposal would also require
installation of a placard, for certain airplanes. This proposal is
prompted by a report that cracks were found in the flanges of the main
hinge fittings of the horizontal stabilizer due to higher than
anticipated loads induced during thrust reverser operation. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to ensure structural
integrity of the horizontal stabilizer by reducing the thrust reverser
loads on the horizontal stabilizer.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-58-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments
[[Page 62052]]
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 the proposed rule may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. This information may be examined at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2141; Fax (206) 227-1149.
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-58-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-58-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-
4056.
Discussion
The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is the airworthiness
authority for the Netherlands, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe
condition may exist on certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series
airplanes. The RLD advises that, during full scale fatigue testing of
the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, cracks were found in the
flanges of the left- and right-hand main hinge fittings of the
horizontal stabilizer on a Model F28 Mark 0100 test article.
Investigation revealed that such cracking is the result of higher than
anticipated loads induced on the tail of the airplane during thrust
reverser operation. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a
deteriorated fatigue life of the main hinge fitting structure on the
horizontal stabilizer and reduced structural integrity of the
horizontal stabilizer.
Fokker has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-78-010, Revision 1, dated
April 26, 1994, which describes procedures for modification of the
thrust reverser doors. This modification involves installation of
extended bumper fittings on the thrust reverser doors. Accomplishment
of this modification will reduce the reverse thrust at a given engine
pressure ratio by increasing the spillage gap.
Fokker has also issued Service Bulletin SBF100-31-036, dated
February 7, 1994, which describes procedures for replacement of the
Collins multifunction display units (MFDU) having part number (P/N)
622-8047-412 or 622-8047-422 with new MFDU's having P/N 622-8047-414 or
622-8047-423, respectively. Accomplishment of this replacement will
reduce thrust reverser loads on the horizontal stabilizer.
Additionally, Fokker has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-31-038,
dated April 26, 1994, which describes procedures for installation of a
placard on the main instrument panel, if the replacement of the MFDU is
accomplished prior to modification of the thrust reverser door. The
placard provides current engine limits for these airplanes.
The RLD classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued
Netherlands airworthiness directive BLA 94-062(A), dated April 29,
1994, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes
in the Netherlands.
This airplane model is manufactured in the Netherlands 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 RLD has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
RLD, 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 airplanes of the same type design registered
in the United States, the proposed AD would require modification of the
thrust reverser doors. The proposed AD would also require replacement
of certain Collins multifunction display units (MFDU) with certain new
MFDU's, and installation of a placard, if the replacement of the MFDU
is accomplished prior to modification of the thrust reverser door. The
actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletins described previously.
The FAA estimates that 102 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 127 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $19,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$2,715,240, or $26,620 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is 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 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.
[[Page 62053]]
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:
Fokker: Docket 95-NM-58-AD.
Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes; serial
numbers 11244 through 11460 inclusive, 11463 through 11469
inclusive, 11471, 11474, 11476, 11478, and 11479; 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 (d) 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 accomplished
previously.
To ensure structural integrity of the horizontal stabilizer by
reducing the thrust reverser loads on the horizontal stabilizer,
accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
of this AD concurrently, except as provided by paragraph (b) of this
AD.
(1) Modify the thrust reverser doors in accordance with Fokker
Service Bulletin SBF100-78-010, Revision 1, dated April 26, 1994;
and
(2) Replace the Collins multifunction display units (MFDU)
having part number (P/N) 622-8047-412 or 622-8047-422 with new
MFDU's having P/N 622-8047-414 or 622-8047-423, respectively; as
applicable; in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-31-
036, dated February 7, 1994.
(b) Paragraph (a)(2) of this AD may be accomplished prior to
paragraph (a)(1) of this AD provided that a placard is installed on
the main instrument panel in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin
SBF100-31-038, dated April 26, 1994, and removed, prior to further
flight, after accomplishment of the requirements of paragraph (a)(1)
of this AD.
(c) For airplanes that have been modified in accordance with
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD: No person may install a
Grumman Aerospace aft engine cowling having part number 1159P41440
on any airplane unless it has been previously modified in accordance
with Fokker Component Service Bulletin P41440-78-02, dated December
17, 1993, as revised by Fokker Component Service Bulletin Change
Notification P41440-78-02/001, dated February 25, 1995.
(d) 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, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(e) 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 November 28, 1995.
S. R. Miller,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-29443 Filed 12-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29425 Transactions With Affiliates
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62050-62051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29425]
========================================================================
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. 232 / Monday, December 4, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62050]]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 250
[Docket No. R-0902]
Transactions With Affiliates
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is proposing to conform the definition of capital
stock and surplus for purposes of section 23A of the Federal Reserve
Act to the definition of unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus used
in Regulation O and to the definition of capital and surplus used by
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in calculating the
limit on loans by a national bank to a single borrower. The proposed
rule seeks to reduce the burden for member banks and other insured
depository institutions monitoring lending to their affiliates.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. R-0902, and may be
mailed to William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20551. Comments also may be delivered to the Board's
mail room in the Eccles Building between 8:45 am and 5:15 pm weekdays,
or to the guard station in the Eccles Building courtyard on 20th
Street, N.W. (between Constitution Avenue and C Street) at any time.
Comments may be inspected in Room MP 500 of the Martin Building between
9 am and 5 pm weekdays, except as provided in 12 CFR 261.8 of the
Board's rules regarding availability of information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela G. Nardolilli, Senior Attorney
(202/452-3289) Legal Division, or Barbara Bouchard, Supervisory
Financial Analyst (202/452-3072), Division of Banking Supervision and
Regulation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. For users
of the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, please
contact Dorothea Thompson (202/452-3544).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, 12
U.S.C. 371c, regulates certain transactions between insured depository
institutions and their affiliates, including transactions between
affiliated depository institutions. Section 23A is designed to protect
insured depository institutions from abuses that may result from
lending and asset purchase transactions with their affiliates. In
general, section 23A prohibits an insured depository institution from
engaging in covered transactions (which include extensions of credit
and purchases of assets) with any single affiliate in excess of 10
percent of the institution's capital stock and surplus. A 20 percent
aggregate limit is imposed on the total amount of covered transactions
by an insured depository institution with all affiliates. Under section
23A, all extensions of credit between an insured depository institution
and its affiliate must meet certain collateral requirements. Section
23A also prohibits an insured depository institution from purchasing
any low-quality assets from an affiliate, and requires that all
transactions with an affiliate must be conducted on terms that are
consistent with safe and sound banking practices. Although section 23A,
by its terms, applies only to member banks, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act applies section 23A to all nonmember insured banks (12
U.S.C. 1828 (j)) and the Home Owners' Loan Act applies section 23A to
savings associations (12 U.S.C. 1468).
Section 23A does not include an explicit definition of ``capital
stock and surplus.'' A 1964 Board interpretation refers to the
definition of capital as ``the amount of unimpaired common stock plus
the amount of preferred stock outstanding and unimpaired'' but
explicitly excluded debt-like instruments from the definition of
capital and surplus. 12 CFR 250.161. In the interpretation, the Board
recognized that certain notes and debentures could be considered as
capital or capital stock for purposes of membership in the Federal
Reserve System, but concluded that for purposes of certain Federal
Reserve Act limitations and requirements, such instruments could not be
regarded as part of either capital or capital stock. A subsequent Board
interpretation issued in 1971 states that capital stock and surplus, as
used in provisions of the Federal Reserve Act, includes reserves for
loan losses and valuation reserves for securities. 12 CFR 250.162. As a
practical matter, this definition of capital and surplus has been
implemented as total equity capital and the allowance for loan and
lease losses (ALLL) as set forth in the bank's Report of Condition and
Income (Call Report).
Revisions to the Definition of Capital and Surplus
In February 1995, the OCC amended its regulation, 60 FR 8526
(February 15, 1995) (to be codified at 12 CFR 32.2(b)), setting forth
lending limits on the amount a national bank may lend to a single
counterparty and revised the definition of capital and surplus upon
which lending limits are based. In June 1995, the Board amended its
Regulation O, 60 FR 31053 (June 13, 1995) (to be codified at 12 CFR
215.2), to revise the definition of unimpaired capital and unimpaired
surplus used to limit loans to insiders, to a definition that is
consistent with that used for purposes of the OCC's single borrower
lending limits to eliminate discrepancies in the definitions of capital
used for different lending limit purposes and to reduce regulatory
burden for banks monitoring lending to their insiders. Under the
revised OCC regulation, capital and surplus is defined as Tier 1 and
Tier 2 capital as calculated under the risk-based capital guidelines
plus the balance of the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL)
excluded from Tier 2 capital.1
\1\ Under the banking agencies' risk-based capital guidelines,
Tier 1 capital includes common stock, some noncumulative perpetual
preferred stock and related surplus, and minority interest in equity
accounts of consolidated subsidiaries. Tier 2 capital includes the
ALLL up to 1.25 percent of the bank's weighted risk assets,
perpetual preferred stock and related surplus, hybrid capital
instruments, and certain subordinated debt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board is recommending the adoption of a definition of ``capital
stock and surplus'' for purposes of section 23A that is the same as the
general capital definitions that are used for Regulation O and the
national bank lending limits. Based on June 1995 Call Report data, the
revised definition would decrease the limits for
[[Page 62051]]
transactions with affiliates for a majority of banks. Unlike the
current capital stock and surplus definition for section 23A, the
revised definition would permit banks to include in the calculation of
capital stock and surplus, subordinated debt that qualifies for
inclusion in Tier 2 capital. On the other hand, unlike equity capital,
Tier 1 capital does not include securities revaluation reserves, in
particular gains and losses on available-for sale securities, which
under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards Number 115 (FAS 115)
are considered a component of equity capital. Overall, it is estimated
that the revised definition of capital stock and surplus would result
in a change for most banks of 5 percent or less from their current
limit, although a few community and mid-sized banks would experience
substantial changes as a result of their having large gains or losses
on available-for-sale securities.
Notwithstanding the decrease for many banks in the amount of
capital stock and surplus that would be used to calculate their section
23A limit under the revised definition, the Board believes that, over
all, revising the definition would be beneficial for all insured
depository institutions for two reasons. First, it would provide
consistency in the capital definition used for Regulation O and the
national bank lending limits. Second, the revised definition would
result in a more stable limit over time than the current definition
because it excludes revaluation gains and losses on available-for-sale
securities, a component of equity capital that tends to be volatile.
The Board also proposes to amend 12 CFR 250.161 and 12 CFR 250.162
to delete the reference to section 23A to reflect the proposed change.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with any
notice of proposed rulemaking. Two of the requirements of an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603(b))--a description of the
reasons why the action by the agency is being considered and a
statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed
rule--are contained in the supplementary information above.
Another requirement for the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. The proposed rule
would apply to all insured depository institutions, regardless of size.
The Board has determined that its proposed rule would impose no
additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements, and that there are
no relevant federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule. In addition, the proposed rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on small institutions. Instead, the
proposed rule is expected to relieve the regulatory burden on a
majority of insured depository institutions.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1.), the Board
reviewed the proposed rule under authority delegated to the Board by
the Office of Management and Budget. No collections of information
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 250
Credit, Federal Reserve System.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to
amend 12 CFR part 250 as set forth below:
PART 250--MISCELLANEOUS INTERPRETATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 250 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 248(i) and 371c(e).
Sec. 250.161 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 250.161 paragraph (d) is amended by removing the words
``loans to affiliates (12 U.S.C. 371c),'' in the first sentence.
Sec. 250.162 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 250.162, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words
``Loans to affiliates (12 U.S.C. 371c), purchases'' in the first
sentence and adding ``Purchases'' in their place.
4. A new Sec. 250.242 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 250.242 Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act--definition of
capital and surplus.
(a) An insured depository institution's capital stock and surplus
for purposes of section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c)
is defined as:
(1) An institution's Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital included in the
institution's risk-based capital under the capital guidelines of the
appropriate Federal banking agency, based on the institution's most
recent consolidated report of condition filed under 12 U.S.C.
1817(a)(3); and
(2) The balance of an institution's allowance for loan and lease
losses not included in the institution's Tier 2 capital for purposes of
the calculation of risk-based capital by the appropriate Federal
banking agency, based on the institution's most recent consolidated
report of condition filed under 12 U.S.C. 1817(a)(3).
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the terms
appropriate Federal banking agency and insured depository institution
are defined as those terms are defined in section 3 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1813.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, November 28, 1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-29425 Filed 12-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29370 Radio Broadcasting Services; Machias, ME
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29370]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-169, RM-8722]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Machias, ME
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Dr.
James Whalen proposing the allotment of Channel 266B to Machias, Maine,
as that community's second FM broadcast service. Canadian concurrence
will be requested for the alotment of Channel 266B at coordinates 44-
45-22 and 67-36-50. There is a site restriction 12.8 kilometers (7.9
miles) west of the community.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before January 8, 1996, and reply
comments on or before January 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: John C. Dodge, Cole, Raywid
& Braverman, 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC
20006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-169, adopted October 31,
1995, and released November 15, 1995. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-29370 Filed 12-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29369 Radio Broadcasting Services; Jackson, WY
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62060-62061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29369]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-171; RM-8724]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Jackson, WY
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Roy E.
Henderson d/b/a Mountain Broadcasting Co., proposing the allotment of
Channel 227C at Jackson, Wyoming, as the community's third local
commercial FM transmission service. Channel 227C can be allotted to
Jackson in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements without the imposition of a site restriction at center
city coordinates. The coordinates for Channel 227C at Jackson are North
[[Page 62061]]
Latitude 43-28-42 and West Longitude 110-45-42.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before January 16, 1996 and reply
comments on or before January 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Henry
E. Crawford, Esq., 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 900, Washington,
DC 20036 (Counsel for Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-171, adopted November
3, 1995, and released November 24, 1995. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-29369 Filed 12-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29354 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Webster City, IA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62053-62054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29354]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-13]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Webster City, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Webster City Municipal Airport, Webster City, IA. The development of a
new Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) based on the Global
Positioning System (GPS) has made the proposal necessary. The intended
effect of this proposal is to provide additional controlled airspace
for aircraft executing the SIAP at Webster City Municipal Airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposed in triplicate to: Manager, Air
Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ACE-13, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri
64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9 a.m.
and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic Operations Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Air Traffic Operations Branch,
ACE-530C, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone number: (816)426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
ACE-13.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments
[[Page 62054]]
received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in
the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the application procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to provide additional controlled
airspace for a new Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedure at the
Webster City Municipal Airport. The additional airspace would segregate
aircraft operating under VFR conditions from aircraft operating under
IFR procedures. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical
charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise
comply with IFR procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace
areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the
earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Webster City, IA [Revised]
Webster City Municipal Airport, IA
(lat. 42 deg.26'12'' N., long. 93 deg.52'08'' W)
Webster City NDB
(lat. 42 deg.26'29'' N., long. 93 deg.52'10'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Webster City Municipal Airport and
within 2.6 miles each side of the 155 deg. bearing from the Webster
City NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.4 miles southeast
of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on November 14, 1995.
Richard L. Day,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 95-29354 Filed 12-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29330 Licensing of Private Remote-Sensing Space Systems
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62054-62057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29330]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 960
[Docket No. 951031259-5259-01]
Licensing of Private Remote-Sensing Space Systems
AGENCY: National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
(NESDIS), NOAA, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
considering revisions to its regulations for the licensing of private
remote sensing space systems under Title II of the Land Remote Sensing
Policy Act of 1992, 15 U.S.C. 5601 et seq. To promote the process, NOAA
is using an informal Task Group, of NOAA and Commerce employees, to
compile and consider public comment on the more significant issues
involved in the licensing process. NOAA will use these comments to
decide the extent to which it needs to revise its regulations and what
issues should be addressed. Should NOAA decide that new regulations are
necessary a proposed rule would be published to solicit public comment.
NOAA will then circulate its final draft of proposed regulations in the
informal rulemaking process. NOAA intends that soliciting comments on
the issues proposed in this notice prior to the issuance of any
proposed rule will ensure that NOAA's regulations include provisions
advantageous to industry, as well as to Government. This Notice
solicits such comments, particularly from the regulated industry.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to, Michael Mignogno, NOAA, National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Federal
Building 4, Room 3301-E, Washington, D.C. 20233.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Mignogno at (301) 457-5210 or
Catherine Shea, NOAA, Office of General Counsel at (301) 713-0053.
Additional Discussion Packages are available from Michael Mignogno at
the above address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1987, NOAA published its licensing
regulations that set forth procedures for submission and Government
review of an application pursuant to the Land Remote Sensing
Commercialization Act of 1984. Only one license was issued
[[Page 62055]]
under this act. When Congress passed the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act
of 1992 (the Act), it made several revisions to the licensing process
to stimulate commercial interest in operating systems. On March 10,
1994, the President issued his policy to promote U.S. competitiveness
in remote sensing space capabilities while protecting U.S. national
security and foreign policy interests. Since 1993, NOAA has issued nine
licenses.
NOAA is considering updating its 1987 regulations to reflect
statutory changes, intervening events, and recent licensing experiences
and to ensure that the Government's oversight is simple, transparent,
and predictable. Particularly, NOAA seeks to support the President's
policy that long term U.S. national security and foreign policy
interests are best served by ensuring the U.S. industry continues to
lead this emerging market.
In order to foster the policy of transparency in the licensing
process, NOAA is seeking public input on whether extensive new
regulations are necessary and, if so, what issues should be addressed
in such rule. To assist this process, NOAA developed, for the Task
Group, a series of Discussion Packages that highlight some of the more
significant areas for discussion. NOAA is seeking early public input on
these and on other significant aspects of the licensing process. NOAA
is especially interested in suggestions for innovative methods to carry
out its statutory licensing responsibilities in ways that enhance U.S.
competitiveness. The significant issues identified to date and
highlighted in the discussion packages can be summarized as follows:
1. Review Procedures for License Applications
A. How can the process be improved and modified to provide greater
transparency and predictability and shorter response time?
NOAA seeks to eliminate uncertainty from the licensing process that
could potentially threaten commercial practices while preserving
essential national security and foreign policy interests. For each new
system, these interests are first addressed during the review of the
license application. The review must be thorough and careful, but at
the same time transparent, predictable, and timely so as not to deter
pursuit of and investment in potential systems. The Government must
complete its review within the statutory time limit of 120 days or, if
possible, within a shorter time limit.
To address these legitimate interests and comply with the intent of
the Act and the President's policy, NOAA is considering whether the
Government should institute more formal administrative time limits and
more detailed record keeping requirements in making determinations on a
license application. It is contemplated that under such a system any
reviewing agency unable to comply with a time limit would be required
to submit a satisfactory explanation and specify the additional time
required. The administrative record would be opened as soon as an
application is received and would include all comments on that
application. Ex parte communications would not be permitted and oral
input should not influence the process in any way. The applicant would
have the right to inspect this record during business hours.
To promote timely and transparent decisions NOAA is considering
additional procedures pursuant to its enforcement authority under
section 203 of the Act. This section establishes the right to a hearing
on the record in the event NOAA takes certain adverse actions such as
the denial of a license or imposition of conditions in a license. NOAA
is considering defining adverse actions to include the Government's
failure to act within the applicable time limit and/or advise the
applicant of the reasons for the delay.
In the event of an appeal, the administrative record would stand
alone as evidence for all determinations made during the application
review. NOAA would have to demonstrate that a preponderance of the
evidence in this record establishes, for example, that the system
proposed would compromise identified national security or foreign
policy interests. As such, the record would have to include information
from the appropriate secretary sufficient to identify the interest at
risk and describe why the proposed system would not preserve that
interest. (This information may be classified where necessary). Should
NOAA establish such an appeal process, the record would have to contain
this information and the evidence would have to be sufficient to meet
the requisite test or the agency determination would not prevail.
B. What are the minimum informational requirements for a complete
application?
A related issue in terms of ensuring expeditious review is
determining when an application is considered complete. It is important
that applicants and the Government agree on what basic information must
be provided in order to enable the Government to perform a thorough
review and, at the same time, avoid over-burdening the applicant. Such
an understanding also will avoid frequent requests for additional
information which delay the process. Particularly important is the
information that describes the operational aspects of a proposed system
which are significant in terms of its national security and foreign
policy implications. NOAA is interested in assessing what information
is necessary before a review can begin and what level of burden is
imposed by gathering the information necessary for a complete
application. Any comments received on this issue also will be relevant
in terms of compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The existing informational requirements are found at 15 CFR 960.6.
A more complete list, that includes additional items identified as
significant by the reviewing agencies during recent license application
reviews, is contained in Discussion Package 1. This Discussion Package
also sets forth in more detail the type of process that NOAA is
considering for reviewing license applications.
2. Restricting Imaging To Preserve National Security/Foreign Policy
Interests--What Standard Must Be Applied and What Procedures Must Be
Followed?
Once a license is issued and a remote sensing satellite is
operational, the most critical issue for the licensee is when the
Government might restrict imaging of a particular area and for how long
because of national security or foreign policy considerations.
The basic license condition, derived from the President's policy,
provides:
The Secretary of Commerce may, after consulting with the
Secretary of Defense or State, as appropriate, require the licensee
to limit imaging an area and/or limit distributing data from an area
during any period when national security or foreign policy interests
may be compromised.
To ensure that restrictions will be invoked only where appropriate,
this consultation and any decision to implement this condition will be
controlled at the Secretarial level and any Secretarial disagreement
will be elevated to the Presidential level.
While the above standard and process appears to have achieved
considerable consensus, questions have been raised whether such a
standard is too vague. For example, representatives of the media
addressed this issue in the 1989 Petition for Rulemaking. The media
representatives have maintained that imaging could be restricted only
if ``there is clear evidence that such action is necessary to prevent
serious and immediate injury to distinct and
[[Page 62056]]
compelling national security and foreign policy interests of the United
States.'' (Petition for Rulemaking filed by Radio Television News
Directors Association, April 5, 1988)
In 1989, NOAA responded to this Petition for Rulemaking announcing
that it would reopen its regulations and would incorporate the
principle that ``conditions imposed in a license will be the least
burdensome possible.'' 54 FR 1945. This rulemaking was interrupted by
passage of the Act in 1992 and NOAA is now considering a number of
provisions to implement the President's policy. These could include
ensuring that limitations on imaging would be imposed only over the
smallest area and for the shortest period of time possible and would
not be imposed at all if comparable data is otherwise available.
Ultimately, any standard and process for making decisions
concerning the need for restrictions on imaging must ensure that the
Government has the ability to protect its national security and
international obligation interests adequately while preserving First
Amendment rights and other U.S. interests, including that of protecting
industry's position in global competition. NOAA believes that it is now
an appropriate time for a full discussion of this issue before systems
become operational. Comments from previous rulemaking actions and other
relevant material are contained in Discussion Package 2.
3. Review of Foreign Agreements
Section 202(b)(6) of the Act requires that licensees ``notify the
Secretary [of Commerce] of any agreement the licensee intends to enter
with a foreign nation, entity, or consortium involving foreign nations,
or entities.'' To implement this section, NOAA's licenses now require
licensees to provide notice of a significant or substantial foreign
agreement at least 60 days before conclusion. This requirement reflects
interagency consensus that sixty days is needed for meaningful
notification but that, consistent with the President's policy, this
burden is justified only if agreements are significant or substantial.
As required by the President's policy, NOAA anticipates defining such
agreements in these regulations and solicits comments on this issue (as
well as the appropriateness of the 60 day review period).
This provision of the Act is subject to differing legal opinions.
One view of the Act is that it requires that licensees notify the
Secretary of every agreement. The Department of Commerce disagrees with
this interpretation. Legislation has been introduced on this subject;
however, to date no subsequent legislative action has occurred.
Should NOAA's legal interpretation not be upheld and no legislation
be passed, comments might want to address whether NOAA should consider
defining different classes of agreements with corresponding
notification requirements. For example, the regulations could retain a
60 day notice requirement for significant or substantial agreements
while requiring that notice of other agreements be provided only prior
to their effective date.
A. What agreements must be submitted for review?
The threshold question with respect to the notification requirement
of section 202(b)(6) of the Act is what agreements are covered. The
purpose of such notification is to ensure continued preservation of
U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Existing licenses
require notification of those types of agreements that could have
particular national security or foreign policy implications such as:
those that give a foreign party control over the operation of the
system, e.g., the ability to operate the spacecraft, task the sensors,
or exercise managerial control; and those that provide for a
significant role in distributing the data from the system, e.g., by
operating a foreign ground station.
Routine data sales have traditionally been excluded from the
definition of significant agreement because an advance notice
requirement would put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Furthermore, scrutinizing all direct sales to foreign customers would
not effectively preserve U.S. interests inasmuch as a determined buyer
could purchase any scene or scenes desired through a variety of legal
channels.
More specifically, existing licenses require notice of the
following types of foreign agreements:
(1) cooperation in the launch and/or operation of the spacecraft;
(2) Tasking of the satellite sensors, modifying satellite tasking
commands, revising the priority of tasking requests, or otherwise
providing an opportunity to exercise managerial control over the
system's operation;
(3) Real-time direct access to unenhanced data; or
(4) Distributorship arrangements involving the receipt of high
volumes of unenhanced data;
(5) An equity interest in the Licensee. (A license amendment is
required if the aggregate equity interest in the Licensee by foreign
nations and/or persons exceeds or will exceed 25 percent.)
These licenses exclude agreements that provide only for the sale of
data or value added products, or for the establishment of marketing
outlets in foreign countries established in the ordinary course of
business if described in the plan for sale and distribution contained
in the license application.
NOAA seeks comment on whether the above criteria are adequate to
define ``significant or substantial'' agreements. In particular, NOAA
is searching for appropriate criteria to determine when review is
necessary for agreements providing solely for foreign investment in a
licensee. Every sale of stock to a foreign investor cannot be subject
to review. On the other hand, a threshold for review is necessary to
ensure that the technology remains secure and that the operator remains
sufficiently under U.S. ownership or control that it must respond
appropriately when necessary to preserve national security.
Furthermore, in accordance with the President's policy, aggregate
foreign investment in excess of a particular amount would not only be
subject to notification but to approval, i.e., by amendment to the
license. NOAA is particularly interested in industry views about what
criteria should trigger a review of a foreign investment agreement.
B. What process should be in place to inform applicants when the
Government has identified a concern with a potential foreign agreement?
When the Government raises a concern and issues negative advice, what
rights of appeal should be available to an applicant or licensee?
To promote more timely and transparent decisions on the review of
significant foreign agreements NOAA is considering a process that would
be similar to the review of an initial license application in that the
Government would institute more formal administrative time limits and
more detailed record keeping requirements. However, this process would
recognize that, unlike the case of an initial application, the
Secretary does not have the legal authority to approve or disapprove
these agreements. Therefore, if the Secretary does not advise a
licensee of any conflicts within sixty days of notification, the
licensee is free to enter into the agreement.
A possible process to be considered and on which NOAA seeks
comments is as follows: If the Secretary does advise a licensee of a
conflict, i.e., that the proposed agreement will compromise national
security or foreign policy interests, the licensee may at that point
[[Page 62057]]
request a hearing on the record to determine whether a preponderance of
the evidence in the record supports that conclusion. In circumstances
where waiting for the normal hearing process could jeopardize relations
among parties to the agreement, NOAA would provide an expedited hearing
process.
Discussion Package 3 sets forth in more detail the type of process
under consideration.
6. Miscellaneous
Comments on the above issues are specifically solicited but all
comments on improving and simplifying the regulations are welcome and
will be reviewed and considered in the course of the normal agency
process of issuing proposed regulations, should such regulations be
deemed necessary. NOAA is also interested in comments on whether or not
NOAA should sponsor a public meeting on the issues presented in this
notice or others related to the regulations.
NOAA intends that all information obtained from the public in
connection with this Notice be a matter of public record. Consequently,
comments must be in writing to be considered. Oral comments are
discouraged. NOAA will not accept submissions made on a confidential
basis. The record containing all comments will be maintained with the
above listed contacts, NOAA, Federal Building 4, Room 3301, Suitland,
MD. From 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., it may be inspected, by appointment, and any
comments copied in accordance with regulations published in Part 4 of
Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Further information about
inspection and copying of records at this facility may be obtained from
the above contacts.
Commentors can request copies of the Discussion Packages referenced
in this document from the contacts listed above.
Robert S. Winokur,
Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information Services.
[FR Doc. 95-29330 Filed 12-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-12-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29293 Registration of Claims to Copyright, Group Registration of Photographs
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 232 (Monday, December 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62057-62060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29293]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. RM 95-7]
Registration of Claims to Copyright, Group Registration of
Photographs
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Proposed regulations with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is proposing
regulations that permit group registration of unpublished or published
photographs without the deposit of copies of the works. These proposed
regulations would enable photographers and photography businesses to
seek the benefits of registration by making it less burdensome for them
to register a claim to copyright in a large number of photographs taken
by a single photographer or photography business. The Office seeks
comment on the proposed regulations.
DATES: Comments on the proposed regulation should be in writing and
received on or before January 18, 1996. Reply comments should be
received February 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: If sent BY MAIL, fifteen copies of written comments should
be addressed to Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General Counsel,
Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C.
20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366. If BY HAND,
fifteen copies should be brought to: Office of the General Counsel,
Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-407, First
and Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20540.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General
Counsel, Telephone: (202) 707-8380 or Telefax (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 408 of 17 U.S.C. provides that a
copyright owner may obtain registration of a copyright claim by
delivering to the Copyright Office a deposit, an application and a fee.
With respect to the deposit, the nature of the copy to be deposited is
set out in general terms, e.g., one complete copy of an unpublished
work. However, broad authority is granted to the Register to provide
for alternative forms of deposit. Section 408(c)(1) provides that the
Register may require or permit the deposit of identifying material in
lieu of an actual copy of the work. Congress' intent is reflected in
the various legislative reports that accompanied the enactment of the
copyright law. Congress instructed the Office to keep the deposit
provisions flexible ``so that there will be no obligation to make
deposit where it serves no purpose, so that only one copy or
phonorecord may be deposited where two are not needed, and so that
reasonable adjustments can be made to meet practical needs in special
cases.'' H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 151 (1976); S. Rep.
No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 134 (1975). The law also authorizes the
Register to require or permit ``a single registration of a group of
related works.''
Registration can be made at any time. Section 412 of 17 U.S.C.
prohibits the awarding of statutory damages and attorney's fees where
the work has not keen registered before an infringement occurs. 1
Although actual damages as well as injunctions are always available
remedies, the Copyright Office recognizes the significant benefits of
early registration.
\1\ A three month grace period, measured from the date of first
publication, is provided for published works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration Concerns Raised by Photographers
During the congressional hearings on the Copyright Reform Act of
1993, photographers complained that they were unable to take advantage
of the benefits of registration because the Copyright Office practices
were exceedingly burdensome. Photographers stated that it required a
tremendous amount of time and effort to submit a copy of each image
included in a collection and was financially burdensome. Prior to 1993,
the Office revised its practices in an attempt to make registration
easier for photographers. However, a copy of each image continued to be
required. These changes did not sufficiently ease the burdens, and few
photographers have registered their works. Consequently, photographers
urge that they have been given a clear legal right by the copyright
law, but no effective remedy; and this reality encourages infringers to
continue unlawful conduct. See, Copyright Reform Act of 1993: Hearings
on H.R. 897 Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Property and Judicial
Administration of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 103d Cong., 1st
Sess. 370 (1993). See also Copyright Reform Act of 1993: Hearing on S.
373 Before the Subcomm. on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks of the
Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 169 (1993).
(Testimony of Andrew Foster, Executive Director of the Professional
Photographers of America, Inc.)
In June 1993, the Librarian of Congress appointed an Advisory
Committee on Registration and Deposit (ACCORD). That Committee
recommended that the Copyright Office ``greatly expand the use of group
registration and optional deposit to reduce the present burdens'' and
``consult more actively and frequently with present and potential
registrants to
[[Page 62058]]
hear their problems and to respond to them whenever possible.'' Library
of Congress, Advisory Committee on Copyright Registration and Deposit
31 (1993).
For the past year the Office has met with photographers and their
representatives who have urged that the nature of photography, where
thousands of images may be created with only a few, if any, being
published makes registration difficult. At the time registration may be
sought, the photographer does not know which photographs, if any, will
be published. The definition of publication was also cited as
problematic; in many cases it is unclear whether a photograph has been
published. Even when it is clear that a photograph has been published,
the photographer may be unaware of the publication. Finally,
photographers and their representatives noted that often the film is
turned over to the photographer's client for processing and use, thus
leaving the photographer with nothing to deposit with the Copyright
Office.
Photographs are generally copyrightable; an individual selects a
camera, lens, film, and an image to capture taking into consideration
choices such as lighting and composition. Since photographs are usually
entirely new works, for examination purposes there is no issue with
respect to whether or not a photograph is copyrightable. Therefore, it
is possible to consider registration without an actual deposit of the
work. Moreover, in the past the Library of Congress has not relied on
the copyright registration system as a source for its photography
collections. This is not the case with works such as music, motion
pictures, plays, poems, choreography or novels. If the Library depended
on the copyright deposits for its photograph collections, the Copyright
Office would not be able to consider registration without a deposit of
a copy of the work. In proposing this regulation, the Office is not
waiving the Library's rights to receive photographs that are
registered. The Library may select from five to ten photographs from
each registered group of photographs.
Recognizing the difficulties that photographers face in registering
their works and desiring to ameliorate these problems, the Office is
seeking a workable solution for photographers which does not cause
unforeseen problems for publishers, photofinishers and other users of
photographs. To this end, under the authority granted in 17 U.S.C.
408(c)(1), the Office is proposing regulations that permit a single
registration for a group of unpublished and published related works and
also permit registration with identifying material in place of actual
photographs.
We believe that those who use photographs should not be adversely
affected. The Office already will register a claim in an unlimited
number of photographs as an unpublished collection; that collection
would bear only a collective title, and the deposit would consist of
contact sheets or a videotape. There would be no individual identifiers
for individual images contained in the collection.
Guidelines for Group Registration of Photographs
The proposed regulations permit group registration of unpublished
and published photographs on a single application with a fee of $40,
and a deposit of identifying material, if certain conditions are met.
The conditions are that the photographs must be by a single author, be
owned by the same copyright claimant (who need not be the author), be
created on or after March 1, 1989, be created during a single calendar
year, and bear a title which identifies the group as a whole. Published
works whose exact date of publication is known may be included in a
collection as long as the dates of publication do not exceed a three
month period. For example, in one collection a photographer may include
both unpublished photographs created in 1995, and photographs that are
known to have been published between March 1, 1995, and May 31, 1995.
The approximate number of photographs in the group must be
indicated on the application and in the identifying material; where the
collection contains clearly published works, the approximate number of
such photographs must be included in the identifying material. Where a
group contains both unpublished and published photographs, the
Copyright Office will assign a registration number, VAu (for
unpublished works) or VA (for published works) based on the
preponderant status of the photographs as indicated in the identifying
material.
Identifying Material
The identifying material must contain the following information:
name of the author; the name and address of the claimant; the title
given to the group as a whole; the approximate number of photographs
included in the group, and, if the group includes photographs known to
be published, an approximate number of the works that have been
published. It must also contain the range of dates (month, year) during
which the photographs were created (taken)--i.e., the earliest and the
latest; the range of dates of first publication (month, day, year) for
those photographs that have been published; a general description of
the subject matter captured by the photographs; where more than one
subject is included, a general description of each, with particular
emphasis on newsworthy subjects, e.g., bombing of Federal Building in
Oklahoma City, April 1995; ghost towns of Arizona; Million Man March in
Washington, D.C., October 1995. The identifying material must include
the name of the person to contact about using the work if that
information is not already given.
It may also contain any additional identifiers, such as an
identification coding that is used to administer rights. Since the
deposit will not be a copy of each photograph and a question could
arise as to whether or not a particular photograph has been registered,
it is in the claimant's best interest to include as much information as
possible to describe the photographs covered by the registration.
Other Group Registration Possibilities
The Office already permits or requires a single registration for a
number of works. These include the following: contributions to
periodicals by the same author who is an individual (not an employee
for hire) which are published in a twelve month period. For this, a
basic application, for example Form VA for photographs, must be
submitted with an adjunct application, Form GR/CP. All component parts
of a multipart work that are owned by the same claimant and that are
part of the unit of publication should be registered together on a
single application. A single registration may be made for all
categories of unpublished works as unpublished collections if certain
conditions are met. The deposit must contain the entire copyrightable
content of each work included in the collection. 37 CFR 202.20
Separate Registration for an Individual Photograph
Individual photographs may be separately registered. To make a
separate registration for an individual photograph, an applicant should
submit a Form VA, a fee of $20, and a copy of the photograph which
complies with the existing deposit requirements found at 37 CFR 202.20.
Selection of Archival Prints for the Collections for the Library of
Congress
One of the conditions of this proposed group registration procedure
is that the Library of Congress be able to select between five to ten
photographs from
[[Page 62059]]
each registration for its collections. Within six months of
registration, the Library of Congress will determine whether it wishes
to consider certain photographs for its collections. Generally, the
Library is interested in photographs covering newsworthy events by
specific photographers, and it does not anticipate making a large
number of requests for samples or archival quality prints.
Submission of Sample, if Requested
In order for the Library of Congress to determine whether it wishes
to make a selection, it will need to examine a sample of the
photographs included in the registration. The Library will first review
the application and identifying material which identify the photographs
included in the group registration. The Library may then request that
the photographer or photography business send a sample of from fifty to
one hundred images of the photographs in the format that is the least
expensive, but will still facilitate the Library's selection process,
e.g., slides, contact prints in black and white or in color, or good
quality photocopies in black or white. For registrations of up to five
thousand photographs, fifty images may be requested as a sample; for
registrations of over five thousand photographs, another ten images may
be requested for each additional one thousand photographs covered in
the registration. A maximum of one hundred images may be requested for
registrations covering over ten thousand photographs.
Deposit of Archival Quality Photographs
After reviewing the sample, the Library of Congress may request
from five to ten archival quality photographs, depending on the number
of photographs included in the group registration. The Library's
guidelines for deposit of photographs are included in the new proposed
Copyright Office regulation found at 37 CFR 202.20(c)(2)(xx).
The number of photographs that the Library may select depends on
the number of photographs covered in one group registration. For any
group registration of up to five thousand photographs, the Library may
select five photographs for its collections; for each additional one
thousand photographs included in a group registration up to ten
thousand, the Library may select another photograph. For any group over
ten thousand, the deposit would remain ten, archival quality
photographs.
Effective Date
The proposed regulations permitting group registration of
photographs will be effective upon publication of an interim or final
rule. They may be used to register photographs created on or after
March 1, 1989, the effective date of the Berne Convention
Implementation Act of 1988. Prior to March 1, 1989, the copyright law
required that a copyright notice be placed on all copies of published
works; however, for works published after that date, use of the notice
is optional. Therefore, these regulations cover only photographs where
the use of a copyright notice is not an issue.
Further Public Comment
The Office has met with various parties, and has been made aware
both of certain concerns and also the guidelines agreed upon by The
Board of Directors of the American Society of Media Photographers, the
Professional Photographers of America, Photo Marketing Association
International, the Association of Professional Color Laboratories, the
Professional School Photographers Association International and the
Coalition for Consumers' Picture Rights. One of that group's agreements
is to work to eliminate the 17 U.S.C. 412 requirement as a precondition
for statutory damages and attorneys fees for photographers. The Office
takes no position on this particular proposal but observes that
photographers need real relief now; we believe the proposed rule offers
that relief.
The Copyright Office seeks comment on these proposed rules.
Following review of all comments, the Office will adopt interim or
final regulations. The Copyright Office is interested in receiving
information based on actual experience, if possible, including answers
to the following questions.
1. How have courts dealt with deposits consisting of only
identifying material rather than a complete copy of the work?
2. Have such registrations been accorded prima facie evidentiary
effect with respect to copyrightability as well as to the facts in the
certificate?
3. How would the problems of photographs registered under this
regulation differ from those of other registered collections, e.g., in
collections where there are no individual identifiers for the works but
the Copyright Office has a copy of each work included in the
collection?
4. How does this proposed group registration differ from a group
registration for a database covering a three month period of time where
the deposit consists of only a small sample of the copyrightable
authorship from a representative day?
5. What problems would be caused by registrations made under these
proposed regulations that include both unpublished and published works?
6. Will inclusion of information about the agent or licensing
entity be helpful?
7. What might be the abuses, if any?
8. Is the Office proposing too many photographs to be registered on
one application? If yes, what number would be more appropriate?
9. Are there other identifiers that could assist in identifying the
registered works?
Conforming Amendments
The Copyright Office also is proposing to amend 37 CFR
202.3(b)(3)(ii) and footnote 6 to 37 CFR 202.3(c)(2) to conform to the
addition of new 37 CFR 202.3(b)(9).
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202
Claims, Copyright.
Proposed Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office proposes to
amend 37 CFR part 202 in the manner set forth below:
PART 202--REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT
1. The authority citation for part 202 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408 and 702.
Sec. 202.3 [Amended]
2. Section 202.3(b)(3)(ii) is amended by removing ``(b)(8)'' and
adding ``(b)(9).''
3. In Sec. 202.3, paragraph (b)(9) is redesignated as paragraph
(b)(10) and a new paragraph (b)(9) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 202.3 Registration of copyright.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(9) Group registration of photographs.
(i) Pursuant to the authority granted by 17 U.S.C. 408(c)(1), and
without waiving any rights of the Library of Congress to review and
acquire copies of individual photographs, the Register of Copyrights
has determined that, on the basis of a single application, and a single
filing fee of $40, a single registration may be made for a group of
photographs, if the following conditions are met:
(A) The group bears a single title identifying the group as a
whole;
(B) All of the photographs were created by the same author;
[[Page 62060]]
(C) All of the photographs have the same copyright claimant;
(D) All of the photographs were created on or after March 1, 1989;
(E) All of the photographs were created, and if published, were
both created and published during the same year; and
(F) All photographs known to be published were published within a
three month span, e.g., from January 1-March 31, from February 1-April
30.
(ii) Identifying material must consist of:
(A) The name of the author;
(B) The name and address of the claimant;
(C) The title given to the group as a whole;
(D) The approximate number of photographs included in the group;
(E) If the group includes published photographs, an approximate
number of the works that have been published;
(F) The range of dates (month, year) during which the photographs
were created (taken)--i.e., the earliest and the latest;
(G) The range of dates of first publication (month, day, year) for
those photographs that have been published;
(H) A general description of the subject matter captured by the
photographs; where more than one subject is included, a general
description of each, with particular emphasis on newsworthy subjects,
for example, ``Bombing of Federal Building in Oklahoma City, April,
1995;'' ``Ghost Towns of Arizona;'' ``Million Man March in Washington,
D.C., October, 1995;'' and
(I) The identifying material may also contain any additional
identifiers, for example, the identification coding that is used to
administer rights in the photographs.
(iii) The application for group registration must include:
(A) At line 1 of the VA form, a title that identifies the group as
a whole;
(B) Following the title at line 1, the approximate number of
photographs included in the group;
(C) Where all the published works included in the group were
published on the same day, the exact date of first publication;
alternatively, the span of time during which all the published works
were first published, e.g., June 1, 1995 through August 31, 1995; and
(D) If the claimant listed in space 4 is not the agent or licensing
entity for all or some of the photographs in the group, the name,
addresses, telephone and fax numbers of such person or entity. Space 4
should state ``Licensing Information,'' followed by the name, etc.
(iv) If the Library of Congress wishes to review a collection for
possible inclusion of photographs in its collection, the claimant of
record must supply the appropriate material.
(A) The Library may request a maximum of fifty sample images for
the first five thousand photographs covered by one group registration,
and ten more sample images for each additional one thousand photographs
covered, with a maximum of one hundred images for a group registration
covering more than ten thousand or more photographs.
(B) The Library may then select between five and ten specified
photographs to be supplied in prints from each group registration. For
registrations of fewer than five thousand photographs, no more than
five photographs may be selected, and for registrations of ten thousand
or more, no more than ten photographs may be selected.
(C) When photographs from a requested sample have been selected,
the photographer or photography business must provide archival quality
copies of the selected photographs, meeting Library guidelines in
accordance with the deposit requirements of Sec. 202.20(c)(2)(xx).
(D) If any photographer or photography business registering
photographs under this regulation does not provide the required samples
and archival quality copies as requested by the Library, the Copyright
Office may rescind that party's privilege of making further group
registrations under this section.
(v) The fee is $40.
4. Footnote 6 to Sec. 202.3(c)(2) is revised to read as follows:
\6\ In the case of applications for group registration of
newspapers, contributions to periodicals, newsletters, and
photographs, under paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(8) and (b)(9) of
this section, the deposits and fees shall comply with those
specified in the respective paragraphs.
5. Section 202.20 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(xx)
to read as follows:
Sec. 202.20 Deposit of copies and phonorecords for copyright
registration.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(xx) Group registration of photographs. For group photographs
registered under Sec. 202.3(b)(9), works selected for acquisition by
the Library of Congress must consist of prints that:
(A) Measure at least 8'' x 10'' and do not exceed 20'' x 24'';
(B) Are made on fiber-based paper and archivally processed;
(C) Are not mounted in any way; and
(D) Are marked as follows:
Titles or caption information may be written lightly on the back of
photographs with a #1 soft lead pencil or (preferably) supplied on a
separate sheet of paper and keyed to the prints. Archival ink, supplied
by the Library, may be used on the back of the print, if desired, for
copyright stamps and photographer identification. Adhesive labels,
pressure-sensitive tapes, and ballpoint ink should never be applied to
the backs of the photographs. Photographs should be mailed flat between
two sturdy pieces of cardboard.
Sec. 202.21 [Amended]
6. In Sec. 202.21(a), remove ``and (g)'' and add ``, (g) and (i).''
7. In Sec. 202.21, add a new paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 202.21 Deposit of identifying material instead of copies.
* * * * *
(i) For purposes of group registration of photographs under
Sec. 202.3(b)(9), identifying material may consist of titles,
descriptions, or lists identifying the photographs included in the
registration.
Dated: November 22, 1995.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
Approved by:
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 95-29293 Filed 12-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.