issue-1995-12-07•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-07
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-07
issue-1995-12-07Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-07Proposed 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. 95-29897 Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62794-62806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29897]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-5342-6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) today is
proposing to grant a petition submitted by Bethlehem Steel Corporation
(``BSC''), Lackawanna, New York, to exclude (or ``delist''), on a one-
time basis, certain solid wastes contained in a landfill from being
listed hazardous wastes. Based on careful analyses of the waste-
specific information provided by the petitioner, the Agency has
concluded that BSC's petitioned waste will not adversely affect human
health and the environment. This action responds to BSC's petition to
delist these wastes on a ``generator-specific'' basis from the
hazardous waste lists. If the proposed decision is finalized, the
petitioned waste will not be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Agency is also proposing the use of a fate and transport model
(the ``EPACML'' model) to evaluate the potential impact of the
petitioned waste on human health and the environment, based on the
waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. Specifically,
EPA proposes to use this model to predict the concentration of
hazardous constituents that may be released from the petitioned waste
into groundwater if the petitioned waste is delisted and then disposed
of in a Subtitle D landfill.
DATES: EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision and
on the applicability of the fate and transport model used to evaluate
the petition. Comments will be accepted until January 22, 1996.
Comments postmarked after the close of the comment period will be
stamped ``late''.
Any person may request a hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with the Director, Hazardous Waste Identification
Division, Office of Solid Waste, whose address appears below, by
December 22, 1995. The request must contain the information prescribed
in Sec. 260.20(d).
ADDRESSES: Send three copies of your comments to EPA. Two copies should
be sent to the Docket Clerk, Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code 5305),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
[[Page 62795]]
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. A third copy should be sent to
James Kent, Waste Identification Branch, Office of Solid Waste (Mail
Code 5304), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Identify your comments at the top with this
regulatory docket number: ``F-95-B5EP-FFFFF''.
Requests for a hearing should be addressed to the Director,
Hazardous Waste Identification Division, Office of Solid Waste (Mail
Code 5304), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
The RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule is located at
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,
VA, and is available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (703) 603-9230 for
appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket
at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at a cost of $0.15 per page for
additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346, or at (703) 412-9810. For
technical information concerning this notice, contact Chichang Chen,
Waste Identification Branch, Office of Solid Waste (Mail Code 5304),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC
20460, (202) 260-7392.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Authority
On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing Section 3001 of RCRA, EPA published an amended
list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources. This
list has been amended several times, and is published in Sec. 261.31
and Sec. 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous because they
exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes
identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and toxicity) or meet the criteria for listing contained in
Sec. 261.11 (a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be. For this reason, Sec. 260.20 and Sec. 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, allowing persons to demonstrate that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility should not be
regulated as a hazardous waste.
To have their wastes excluded, petitioners must show, first, that
wastes generated at their facilities do not meet any of the criteria
for which the wastes were listed. See Sec. 260.22(a) and the background
documents for the listed wastes. Second, the Administrator must
determine, where he/she has a reasonable basis to believe that factors
(including additional constituents) other than those for which the
waste was listed could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste, that
such factors do not warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
Accordingly, a petitioner also must demonstrate that the waste does not
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability,
reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity), and must present sufficient
information for the Agency to determine whether the waste contains any
other toxicants at hazardous levels. See Sec. 260.22(a), 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 6921(f), and the background documents for the listed wastes.
Although wastes which are ``delisted'' (i.e., excluded) have been
evaluated to determine whether or not they exhibit any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste, generators remain obligated under
RCRA to determine whether or not their waste remains non-hazardous
based on the hazardous waste characteristics.
In addition, residues from the treatment, storage, or disposal of
listed hazardous wastes and mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes
are also considered hazardous wastes. See Secs. 261.3 (a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), referred to as the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Such wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the ``mixture/derived
from'' rules and remanded them to the Agency on procedural grounds.
Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d 741 (D.C. Cir. 1991). On March 3, 1992,
EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-from rules, and solicited
comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and residues (57 FR
7628). The Agency plans to address issues related to waste mixtures and
residues in a future rulemaking.
B. Approach Used To Evaluate This Petition
This petition requests a delisting for a hazardous waste listed as
K060. In making the initial delisting determination, the Agency
evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors
cited in Secs. 261.11 (a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, the
Agency agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. (If the Agency had found,
based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the
factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition.) EPA then evaluated the waste with
respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a
reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause
the waste to be hazardous. See Secs. 260.22 (a) and (d). The Agency
considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, and considered the
toxicity of the constituents, the concentration of the constituents in
the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible
and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the
quantities of waste generated, and waste variability.
For this delisting determination, the Agency used such information
to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., groundwater, surface
water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the petitioned waste.
The Agency determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the
most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for BSC's petitioned
waste, and that the major exposure route of concern would be ingestion
of contaminated groundwater. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to use
a particular fate and transport model (the ``EPACML'' model) to predict
the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may
be released from the petitioned waste after disposal and to determine
the potential impact of the disposal of BSC's petitioned waste on human
health and the environment.
Specifically, the Agency used the maximum estimated waste volume
and the maximum reported leachate concentrations as inputs to estimate
the constituent concentrations in the groundwater at a hypothetical
receptor well downgradient from the disposal site. The calculated
receptor well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point
concentrations) were then compared directly to the health-based levels
used in delisting decision-making for the hazardous constituents of
concern.
EPA believes that this fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for disposal of the petitioned waste in
a landfill, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate
when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective
management constraints of
[[Page 62796]]
RCRA Subtitle C. The use of a reasonable worst-case scenario results in
conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures
that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not
pose a threat to human health or the environment. Because a delisted
waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, the Agency is
generally unable to predict and does not control how a waste will be
managed after delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is
inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying
the fate and transport model. For example, a generator may petition the
Agency for delisting of a metal hydroxide sludge which is currently
being managed in an on-site landfill and provide data on the nearest
drinking water well, permeability of the aquifer, dispersivities, etc.
If the Agency were to base its evaluation solely on these site-specific
factors, the Agency might conclude that the waste, at that specific
location, cannot affect the closest well, and the Agency might grant
the petition. Upon promulgation of the exclusion, however, the
generator is under no obligation to continue to manage the waste at the
on-site landfill. In fact, the generator may well choose to either send
the delisted waste off site immediately, or eventually reach the
capacity of the on-site facility and subsequently send the waste off
site to a facility which may have very different hydrogeological and
exposure conditions.
The Agency also considers the applicability of ground-water
monitoring data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this
case, the Agency determined that, because BSC is seeking a delisting
for waste managed on-site, ground-water monitoring data collected from
the area where the petitioned waste is contained are necessary to
determine whether hazardous constituents have migrated to the
underlying groundwater. Ground-water monitoring data collected from
BSC's monitoring wells will help characterize the potential impact (if
any) of the disposal of BSC's waste on human health and the
environment.
The Agency provides notice and an opportunity for comment before
granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, a final decision will not
be made until all timely public comments (including those at public
hearings, if any) on today's proposal are addressed. Late comments will
be considered to the extent possible.
II. Disposition of Delisting Petition Bethlehem Steel Corporation,
Lackawanna, New York
A. Petition for Exclusion
Bethlehem Steel Corporation (BSC), located in Lackawanna, New York,
was engaged in primary metal-making and coke-making operations prior to
1983. BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude, on a one-time basis, the
waste contained in an on-site landfill, presently listed as EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K060--``Ammonia still lime sludge from coking
operations''. The listed constituents of concern for EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K060 are cyanide, naphthalene, phenolic compounds, and
arsenic. BSC refers to this landfill as Hazardous Waste Management Unit
No. 2 (HWM-2). Although only a portion of the waste in the landfill is
the ammonia still lime sludge, the entire volume of waste is considered
to be a listed waste in accordance with Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (i.e., the
mixture rule). The mixture of listed ammonia still lime sludge and
solid waste contained in HWM-2 is the subject of this petition.
BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude its waste because it does not
believe that the waste meets the criteria of the listing. BSC claims
that the mixture of ammonia still lime sludge and solid waste is not
hazardous because the constituents of concern, although present in the
waste, are present in either insignificant concentrations or, if
present at significant levels, are essentially in immobile forms. BSC
also believes that this waste is not hazardous for any other reason
(i.e., there are no additional constituents or factors that could cause
the waste to be hazardous). Review of this petition included
consideration of the original listing criteria, as well as the
additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) of 1984. See Section 222 of HSWA, 42 USC 6921(f), and 40 CFR
260.22(d)(2)-(4). Today's proposal to grant this petition for delisting
is the result of the Agency's evaluation of BSC's petition.
B. Background
On July 18, 1984, BSC petitioned the Agency to exclude the waste
contained in its on-site landfill identified as HWM-2, and subsequently
provided additional information. After evaluating the petition, the
Agency proposed to deny BSC's petition to exclude the waste contained
in HWM-2 on April 7, 1989 (see 54 FR 14101). The Agency's evaluation of
the petition, which used the ``VHS'' fate and transport model and the
analytical data provided by BSC, indicated that the petitioned waste
exhibited significant concentrations of leachable lead and
benzo(a)pyrene. Furthermore, the Agency considered the sampling and
analysis program conducted in support of the petition to be incomplete.
Moreover, groundwater monitoring data collected from wells monitoring
this on-site landfill indicated that the landfill may have been
adversely impacting groundwater quality at the site. The Agency
received public comments on the April 7, 1989 proposed decision between
April and June 1989. On January 29, 1990, the Agency re-opened the
comment period to enable public review of information supporting the
proposed delisting health-based level for benzo(a)pyrene (see 55 FR
2847). The Agency published a final denial, including responses to
public comments, in the Federal Register on August 26, 1991 (see 56 FR
41944). On October 30, 1991, BSC petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn EPA's denial decision.
Subsequently, BSC agreed to stay this litigation for a re-evaluation by
EPA using a new fate and transport model (EPACML) and updated health-
based levels, and on November 17, 1992 submitted extensive supplemental
waste characterization and groundwater monitoring data. After reviewing
the new data in conjunction with the existing petition information, the
Agency now believes that the petitioned waste is eligible for an
exclusion based on the current evaluation criteria. Therefore, the
Agency hereby proposes to withdraw its final denial decision and to
grant BSC's petition. The Agency's decision to re-evaluate BSC's
petition was based on additional waste characterization and groundwater
data that was collected subsequent to the publication of the final
denial decision. The Agency's re-evaluation of BSC's petitioned waste
contained in the HWM-2 landfill is the subject of today's proposal.
In support of its petition, BSC submitted: (1) detailed
descriptions and schematics of its manufacturing process; (2) a list of
all raw materials and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all trade
name materials that might be expected to have contributed to the waste;
(3) results from total constituent analyses for the eight Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) metals listed in Sec. 261.24, antimony, nickel,
thallium, and cyanide; (4) results from the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP; SW-846, Method 1311) for the eight TC metals,
antimony, nickel, and thallium; (5) results from the EP leachate
procedure for the eight TC
[[Page 62797]]
metals, nickel, and cyanide; (6) results from total constituent
analyses for sulfide and reactive sulfide; (7) results from total oil
and grease analyses; (8) results from characteristics testing for
ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity; (9) results from total
constituent analyses for 70 volatile organic and semivolatile organic
constituents, including the TC organic constituents (excluding
pesticides and herbicides); (10) results from the TCLP analyses for 63
volatile organic and semivolatile organic constituents, including the
TC organic constituents (excluding pesticides and herbicides); and (11)
groundwater monitoring data collected from wells monitoring the on-site
landfill.
BSC conducted primary metal-making and coke-making operations
during the period the ammonia still lime sludge was generated. In
October 1983, BSC discontinued its primary metal-making operations and
modified its coking processes so that the ammonia still lime sludge was
no longer generated. (BSC now uses sodium hydroxide as the strong base
at the ammonia still rather than lime slurry, and therefore ammonia
still lime sludge is no longer generated.)
BSC's steel-making process involved refining molten iron with
oxygen, flux (i.e., dolomite or lime), and alloying materials in a
basic oxygen furnace to produce carbon steels. BSC's iron-making
process involved smelting of iron-bearing materials (i.e., iron ore,
sinter, and scrap) with coke, flux (i.e., dolomite and lime), and
preheated air in blast furnaces. The blast furnace slurry disposed of
in BSC's landfill originated from the water scrubbing of blast furnace
gas. According to BSC, blast furnace sludge has not been produced since
the final removal of sludge from the thickener in November 1983.
Coke-making involves the destructive distillation of bituminous
coal in coke ovens. Volatile matter evolves during the coking process
(including the moisture content of the coal) and leaves the ovens
through coke oven gas off-takes. This hot coke oven gas is cooled by
spraying it with recycled flushing liquor consisting of a weak ammonia
liquor (WAL) solution. As the coke oven gas is cooled, water and tar
are condensed. The tar fraction is separated from the aqueous WAL in a
decanter. The majority of the WAL is recycled back to the coke oven gas
cooling process as flushing liquor. Any excess WAL is processed by
solvent extraction to recover phenol or sodium phenolate. The excess
WAL then is processed by steam stripping to release aqueous ammonia
into the gas phase in an ammonia still. In the upper portion of the
still, free ammonia is stripped by steam (at temperatures of about 100
deg.C) and ammonia vapor rising from the lower portion. In the lower
portion of the still, fixed ammonia compounds are dissociated by
adjusting the pH with lime slurry and then injecting steam. The spent
ammonia still lime slurry is drawn off the bottom and discharged to one
of two settling basins. The sludge that settles out in these basins
(i.e., ammonia still lime sludge) is subsequently placed in the on-site
landfill.
As stated previously, BSC disposed of its ammonia still lime sludge
in its on-site HWM-2 landfill with other solid wastes between 1969 and
November of 1983. BSC is not currently disposing of wastes in this
landfill. Based on available records, BSC estimates that approximately
two percent of the waste placed in the landfill is ammonia still lime
sludge. The most significant wastes that were disposed of in the
landfill include: blast furnace thickener sludge, basic oxygen furnace
thickener sludge, sinter plant sludge, sludges generated from the
treatment of wastewaters from a cold rolling mill, a steel pickling
operation, and a hot-dip galvanizing line, and dredging spoils (from
Smokes Creek). Only the ammonia still lime sludge is a listed hazardous
waste.
BSC's preliminary sampling demonstration included data on ten
samples collected from the landfill in January 1984. A detailed
description of procedures used to collect three of these samples was
not provided and is not available. For the remaining seven samples, BSC
divided the landfill into four sections and randomly selected a partial
core sample (i.e., two-foot core samples were taken as opposed to full-
depth core samples) from each of the four sections, two partial core
samples from the central portion of the landfill, and an additional
partial core sample from the southeast section. A grab sample was then
taken from each of these seven core samples, resulting in seven grab
samples. The three samples for which sampling procedure descriptions
were not provided were analyzed for total constituent (i.e., mass of a
particular constituent per mass of waste) and extraction procedure (EP)
leachable (i.e., mass of a particular constituent per unit volume of
extract) concentrations of arsenic, cyanide, naphthalene, and phenolic
compounds. The extraction procedure used in these analyses, however,
was not equivalent with the procedure described in SW-846 Method 1310
and therefore these data were not considered in the evaluation of BSC's
petition. (For a more detailed description of the extraction procedure
used by BSC, see the RCRA public docket for today's notice.) The
remaining seven grab samples were analyzed (using the EP) for leachable
concentrations of the eight TC metals, nickel, cyanide, and sulfide;
and the characteristics of corrosivity and reactivity.
BSC collected a second set of samples during April 1984. To collect
these samples, BSC divided the landfill into six sections of
approximately equal size. Within each section, six discrete samples
were taken at random depths from evenly spaced boring locations. The
samples then were composited, by section, to form six representative
samples, one composite per section. These six composite samples were
analyzed for total constituent concentrations of the eight TC metals,
nickel, cyanide, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, phenolic
compounds, and tetrachloroethylene. In addition, these six composite
samples were analyzed (using the EP) for leachable concentrations of
the eight TC metals, nickel, and cyanide; total oil and grease content;
and the characteristic of ignitability.
At EPA's request, BSC conducted additional sampling and testing of
the central portion of the landfill in February of 1985. Specifically,
BSC collected approximately ten two-foot long core samples from six
locations within the central portion of the landfill. For each
location, grab samples were taken from each of the core samples
(approximately ten) and composited. These six composite samples were
analyzed for total constituent and leachable concentrations (using the
EP) of the eight TC metals (excluding mercury, selenium, and silver),
nickel, and cyanide. In addition, these six composite samples were
analyzed for total constituent concentrations of sulfide, benzene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, and phenolic compounds; and total
oil and grease content.
In its comments to the Agency's April 7, 1989 proposed denial of
its petition, BSC submitted the analytical results of an additional
sampling event. In September 1988, four full-depth core samples were
obtained from the landfill and were composited to form one composite
sample. This sample was analyzed using the TCLP to quantify leachable
concentrations of the TC contaminants listed in Sec. 261.24 (excluding
the pesticides/herbicides) and thirteen other organic constituents.
In June 1992, following the publication of the final denial notice
for
[[Page 62798]]
BSC's petition in the Federal Register (see 56 FR 41944; August 26,
1991), BSC conducted additional sampling and testing of its petitioned
waste. BSC established a uniform grid over the landfill dividing the
landfill into seventeen sections, each 100 feet by 100 feet. Within
each grid section a second uniform grid of 10-foot intervals was
established for the selection of the individual boring locations.
Alternating 10,000 square foot grid sections were selected for
sampling. BSC used a random number table to select five boring
locations within each 10,000 square foot grid section. This resulted in
the selection of eight grid sections to yield eight composite samples
of the material in the landfill, with each composite representative of
five full-core sample aliquots from each grid section. These eight
composite samples were analyzed for total constituent concentrations of
83 toxicants of potential concern1 (including the eight TC
metals). These eight composite samples were also analyzed for TCLP
leachate concentrations of the toxicants of potential concern
(excluding cyanide and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)); and total oil
and grease.
\1\BSC chose to analyze waste samples for these constituents
because they were: (1) identified by EPA during previous actions
concerning this petition as constituents of regulatory concern, or
(2) identified as constituents that reasonably may be expected to be
potentially present in the petitioned waste, based on the processes
from which the waste components were derived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSC claims that the analytical data obtained from the four sampling
events that occurred from April 1984 through June 1992 are
representative of any variation in the constituent concentrations in
the petitioned waste. BSC believes that the data from the preliminary
grab samples obtained in January 1984 are not representative of the
entire waste volume contained in the landfill. BSC also believes that
it has addressed the Agency's concern regarding the number of samples
collected and the target analyses, as originally noted by the Agency in
the April 7, 1989 proposal to deny BSC's petition. Specifically, in
that proposal the Agency noted that, based on the dimensions of the
landfill containing the petitioned waste, BSC should have collected at
least one sample for every 10,000 square foot section of the landfill.
BSC's original estimate of the areal extent of the landfill was 5.3
acres; however, as discussed later in today's notice, BSC has
demonstrated through detailed calculations (discussed later in today's
notice) that a better estimate of the landfill area is 3.5 acres.
Therefore, based on this revised estimate, BSC should have collected at
least 15 composite samples. Since the April 1989 proposal, BSC has
conducted additional sampling of the waste, bringing the total number
of composite samples to 21, including 8 composite samples collected in
June 1992 that have been analyzed for total constituent concentrations
of 70 volatile organic and semivolatile organic constituents. The
Agency believes, based on its re-evaluation of BSC's petition, that the
combined results of BSC's sampling events are sufficient to
characterize any variation in the constituent concentrations in the
petitioned waste.
BSC also submitted ground-water monitoring information collected
from wells monitoring the landfill to demonstrate that the petitioned
waste was not adversely impacting ground-water quality. The ground-
water monitoring information submitted by BSC, and more recent data
received from State and EPA Regional authorities, included: (1) Well
location information; (2) boring logs and well construction information
for each well; (3) water levels and water level contour maps; and (4)
results of the analysis of ground-water samples.
C. Agency Analysis
BSC used SW-846 Methods 7060 through 7760 (January 1984, April
1984, and February 1985 samples) to quantify the total constituent
concentrations of the eight TC metals and nickel. BSC used SW-846
Method 6010 (June 1992 samples) to quantify the total constituent
concentrations of the eight TC metals (with the exception of mercury
and selenium, for which BSC used SW-846 Methods 7471 and 7740,
respectively), nickel, antimony, and thallium. ``Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes'' Method 335.2 (April 1984 samples), SW-
846 Method 9010 (February 1985 samples) and SW-846 Method 9012 (June
1992 samples) were used to quantify total cyanide concentrations in the
petitioned waste. SW-846 Method 9030 (February 1985 samples) was used
to quantify total sulfide levels in the petitioned waste. SW-846 Method
7.3.4.1 (June 1992 samples) was used to quantify reactive sulfide
levels in the petitioned waste. SW-846 Method 1310 (samples prior to
1988) was used to determine the leachable concentrations of the eight
TC metals, nickel, and cyanide. BSC prepared a toxicity characteristic
leachate (according to the procedure in 51 FR 21685, June 13, 1986) to
determine the leachable concentrations of the eight TC metals in the
September 1988 sample. SW-846 Method 1311 was used to determine the
leachable concentrations of the eight TC metals, nickel, antimony, and
thallium in the June 1992 samples. Table 1 presents the maximum
reported, and 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) total constituent
concentrations of the eight TC metals listed in Sec. 261.24, nickel,
antimony, thallium, cyanide, and sulfide. Table 1 also identifies the
number of samples in which each constituent was detected. Table 2
presents the maximum reported, and 95% UCL EP leachate and TCLP
leachate concentrations of the eight TC metals listed in Sec. 261.24,
nickel, antimony, thallium, and cyanide. (Analysis for leachable
concentrations of sulfide or reactive sulfide is not necessary because
the Agency's level of regulatory concern is based on the total
constituent concentration of reactive sulfide.)
Table 1.--Total Constituent Concentrations (mg/kg) Inorganic
Constituents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Concentrations (mg/ Number of
kg) Samples in
----------------------------- which
Constituents detected/
total
Maximum\1\ 95% UCL\2\ number of
samples
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony...................... <12 <12 0/8
Arsenic....................... 16.2 10.3 12/23
Barium........................ 1,660 791 13/20
Cadmium....................... 3.3 2.1 12/20
Chromium...................... 172 100 20/20
Lead.......................... 7,520 2,810 20/20
[[Page 62799]]
Mercury....................... 0.268 0.16 6/14
Nickel........................ 64.6 30.6 12/20
Selenium...................... 2.6 2.2 6/14
Silver........................ 3.0 2.1 8/14
Thallium...................... 43 32.6 5/8
Cyanide (total)............... 43.1 36.0 20/23
Reactive Sulfide.............. 140 130.0 7/8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the detection limit
specified in the table.
\1\ These levels represent the highest detected concentrations of each
inorganic constituent found in any sample of the petitioned waste,
and, if not detected, the highest detection limit. These levels do not
necessarily represent the specific levels found in one sample.
\2\ 95% Upper Confidence Limit (UCL) is the estimated upper 95 percent
confidence interval for the average of sample concentrations based on
the Student-t distribution applied to random samples. The average was
calculated by considering nondetectable measurements to be
measurements at the detection limits, except for arsenic, for which
high detection limits (<100 mg/kg) for eight samples were not
included.
Table 2.--EP/TCLP Leachate Concentrations (mg/l) Inorganic Constituents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EP/TCLP Leachate Concentrations (mg/l)
-------------------------------------------------------
Constituents Maximum\1\ 95% UCL\2\
-------------------------------------------------------
EP TCLP EP TCLP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony................................................ NA <0.06 NA <0.06
Arsenic................................................. 0.034 <0.3 0.016 0.16
Barium.................................................. 1.48 0.7 0.85 0.54
Cadmium................................................. 0.015 <0.005 0.005 <0.005
Chromium................................................ 0.144 0.023 0.034 0.024
Lead.................................................... 1.61 0.11 0.37 0.059
Mercury................................................. 0.0007 <0.005 0.0004 <0.002
Nickel.................................................. 0.59 0.21 0.28 0.15
Selenium................................................ 0.008 <0.3 0.003 <0.15
Silver.................................................. <0.001 <0.01 <0.001 <0.01
Thallium................................................ NA \3\<0.3 NA <0.17
Cyanide (total)......................................... 0.06 \4\2.1 0.03 NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29877 Hopi Tribe Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Plan
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62786-62789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29877]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 756
[SPATS No. HO-003-FOR]
Hopi Tribe Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation (AMLR) Plan
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Hopi
Tribe AMLR plan (hereinafter, the ``Hopi Tribe plan'') under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The
proposed amendment consists of revisions of and additions to the Hopi
Tribe plan pertaining to the purpose of the plan; eligible lands and
water subsequent to certification; coordination with other programs;
land acquisition, management, and disposal; reclamation on private land
and rights of entry; public participation; organization of the Hopi
Tribe; personnel staffing policies; purchasing policies, procurement
procedures, and accounting systems; economic conditions on the Hopi
Reservation; a description of flora and fauna at abandoned mine sites;
the Hopi Tribe's authority to administer its plan, as amended in the
absence of a specific statute; changing the name of the designated
agency; and affirmation that the manual for purchasing policies and
procedures manual is in accordance with the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Common Rule. Additionally, the Hopi Tribe is proposing
numerous editorial and recodification changes. The amendment is
intended to revise the Hopi Tribe plan to meet the requirements of and
incorporate the additional flexibility afforded by the revised Federal
regulations and SMCRA, as amended, and improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m. m.s.t., January
8, 1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will
be held on January 2, 1996. Requests to present oral testimony at the
hearing must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.s.t., December 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to Donna
J. Griffin at the address listed below.
Copies of the Hopi Tribe plan, the proposed amendment, and all
written comments received in response to this document will be
available for public review at the addresses listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each
requester may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by
contacting OSM's Albuquerque Field Office.
Donna J. Griffin, Acting Director, Albuquerque Field Office, Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 505 Marquette Avenue, NW.,
Suite 1200, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102
Norman Honie, Abandoned Mine Land Program Director, Office of Mining
and Minerals, Department of Natural Resources, The Hopi Tribe, P.O. Box
123, Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna J. Griffin, Telephone: (505)
248-5070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Hopi Tribe Plan
On June 28, 1988, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Hopi
Tribe plan. General background information on the Hopi Tribe plan,
including the Secretary's findings and the disposition of comments, can
be found in the June 28, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 24262).
Subsequent actions concerning the Hopi Tribe's plan and plan amendments
can be found at 30 CFR 756.14(a).
[[Page 62787]]
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated November 2, 1995, the Hopi Tribe submitted a
proposed amendment to its plan (administrative record No. HO-148)
pursuant to SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). The Hopi Tribe submitted
the proposed amendment at its own initiative and in response to a
September 26, 1994, letter (administrative record No. HO-145.1) that
OSM sent to the Hopi Tribe in accordance with 30 CFR 884.15(b). The
provisions of the Hopi Tribe plan that the Hopi Tribe proposes to
revise and/or add are: the ``Table of Contents;'' a preface to the
amended reclamation plan; a list of addenda and errata; the Chairman's
letter of designation and Hopi Tribe resolution; the General Counsel's
opinion on the authority of the Hopi Tribe to conduct an AMLR program;
Part I, purpose of the Hopi Tribe plan; Part II, eligible lands and
water subsequent to certification; Part III, coordination of the Hopi
AMLR Program with other programs; Part IV, land acquisition,
management, and disposal; Part V, reclamation on private land; Part VI,
rights of entry; Part VII, Hopi Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
policy on public participation; Part VIII, organization of the Hopi
Tribe; Part IX, personnel staffing policies; Part X, purchasing
policies and procurement procedures; Part XI, accounting systems and
management accounting; Part XII, economic conditions on the Hopi
Reservation; and Part XIII, a description of flora and fauna at
abandoned mine sites.
Specifically, the Hopi Tribe proposes to:
(1) revise the ``Table of Contents'' to reflect the proposed
recodification changes and include a list of appendices;
(2) add a new part called ``Preface to Amended Reclamation Plan''
that provides an explanation of the Hopi AMLR Program goals and
objectives and describes eligible projects and their priorities;
(3) add a cover page for the ``List of Addenda and Errata'' and
revise the ``List of Figures'' to retitle ``Figure 4'' and delete
``Figure 5;''
(4) add new cover pages for the ``Chairman's Letter of Designation
and Hopi Tribe Resolution'' and ``Opinion of Legal Counsel'' and delete
the cover pages titled ``Section 884.13(a)'' and ``Section
884.413(b);''
(5) redesignate Section 884.13(c)(1) as Part ``I'' and revise this
part to include in the purpose of Hopi Tribe plan provisions that (a)
allow for the protection and replacement of water supplies and
protection, repair, replacement, construction, or enhancement of public
facilities adversely affected by mining and processing practices, (b)
provide that the ``Director'' shall be to the ``Director of the Hopi
Office of Mining and Mineral Resources (OMMR)'' or his designee within
the OMMR or in the Hopi AMLR Program and that the ``OMMR is an office
within the DNR, and oversees operations of the Hopi Abandoned Mine Land
Program,'' and (c) reclamation priorities similar to those allowed at
section 403 of SMCRA, and provide for deletion of language concerning
the allocation of funds collected annually for purposes of the Hopi
AMLR Program;
(6) redesignate Section 884.13(c)(2) as Part ``II;'' retitle this
part as ``Eligible Lands and Water Subsequent to Certification;'' add
language (a) consistent with the requirements of the Federal
regulations at 30 CFR 874.12 for eligible coal lands and water, 30 CFR
874.16 for contractor responsibility, 30 CFR Part 875 for noncoal
reclamation, and 30 CFR 886.23 for reports and (b) to provide for the
construction of public facilities in villages impacted by mining
activities on Hopi Indian lands as provided in sections 411 (e) and (f)
of SMCRA and include a description of needs and proposed construction
and activities; and delete (a) ``Table 1, Comprehensive/Problem
Evaluation Matrix'' and (b) language concerning filling voids and
sealing tunnels and evaluating and ranking reclamation projects;
(7) redesignate Section 884.13(c)(3) as Part ``III'';
(8) redesignate Section 884.13(c)(4) as Part ``IV;'' revise the
procedures concerning the acquisition of lands to (a) include lands
adversely affected by ``coal and noncoal mining'' practices and (b) add
new language to require that the Hopi AMLR Program shall obtain ``from
a qualified appraiser a valuation'' of the fair market value of all
land to be acquired and that the fair market value of the land ``shall
consider the principle of the best and highest use'' of the land as
adversely affected by past mining and that such ``valuation of fair
market value shall be approved by the Hopi Tribal council;'' revise the
language concerning purchases by (a) deleting the provision that allows
affected lands to be acquired with monies from the abandoned mine land
(AML) fund if approved by the OSM Field Office Director and the Hopi
Tribal Council and such acquisition meets the requirements of OSM's
regulations, (b) replacing it with new language requiring that ``the
Tribe may acquire land and water under this section if approved in
advance by OSM based on written findings made by OSM in accordance with
the provisions of 30 CFR 879.11, and as approved by the Hopi Tribal
Council,'' and (c) deleting the requirement that ``improvements to the
land may be acquired if such interest is necessary to the reclamation
work planned or the post reclamation use of the land;''
(9) redesignate Sec. 884.13 (c)(5) as Part ``V'' and revise the
language of this part to include a reference to ``the General Allotment
Act of 1887''(25 U.S.C.A. 331 et seq.);
(10) redesignate Sec. 884.13(c)(6) as Part ``VI'' and delete
language concerning emergency entry and the requirement that ``if
written notice cannot be obtained for the purposes of emergency
reclamation and if notice cannot be given prior to entry, notice will
be given to the landholders as soon after entry as practical;''
(11) redesignate Sec. 884.13(c)(7) as Part ``VII'' and add language
clarifying procedures concerning public participation in the
development of the Hopi Tribe plan and listing the 1991 and 1992 public
meetings held in connection with the Hopi Tribe's certification of
completion of reclamation of all known coal-related problems and to
review projects and needs relevant to sections 411(e) and (f) of SMCRA;
(12) redesignate Sec. 884.13(d)(1) as Part ``VIII'' and add
language to (a) provide that the Hopi Tribal Council on ``December 07,
1987, passed Resolution H-03-88,'' which designates DNR as the agency
responsible for implementing the Hopi Tribe plan, (b) reference ``the
Chairman's Letter of Designation and Hopi Tribe Resolution section of
this plan,'' and (c) reference ``Figure 4,'' which presents ``the
relationship of the DNR to others in the Tribal organization;''
(13) redesignate Sec. 884.13(d)(2) as Part ``IX'' and add
references to the Tribe's ``Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual,''
``The Civil Rights Act of 1964,'' and ``The Rehabilitation Act of
1973;''
(14) redesignate Sec. 884.13(d)(3) as Part ``X'' and add references
to the ``Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual,'' which was adopted
by the Tribe by Executive Action dated April 15, 1978, and OMB's
``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State and Local Governments'' dated March 11, 1988, which
is also known as ``the Common Rule;''
(15) redesignate Sec. 884.13(d)(4) as Part ``XI'' and add
references to ``The Hopi Tribe Financial Policies and Procedures
[[Page 62788]]
Manual,'' which was adopted by Tribal Council Resolution H-102-82 on
August 9, 1982, and the ``Standards for Audit of Governmental
Organizations, Program Activities, and Functions,'' which provides
standards for the performance of audits;
(16) delete the following sections in their entirety: (a) ``Section
884.13(e)(1), Eligible Lands and Water,'' and provide for its
replacement at Part II, Eligible Lands and Waters Subsequent to
Certification, (b) ``Section 884.13(e)(2), Problem Descriptions,'' and
provide that current problems and needs are described in Part II,
Section H of the Hopi Tribe plan, and (c) ``Section 884.13(e)(3),
Problem Abatement Proposals,'' and provide that current proposals are
described in Part II, Section H of the Hopi Tribe plan;
(17) redesignate Section 884.13(f)(1) as Part ``XII;'' add language
to provide that (a) the ``[o]riginal text of this part, Economic
Conditions on the Hopi Reservation, is replaced in its entirety by the
FY 1993-1995 Annual OEDP [Overall Economic Development Plan] Report * *
*,'' (b) the ``[c]urrent economic conditions on the Hopi Reservation
are discussed in the following Annual OEDP Report,'' and (c) ``[t]he
figures included in the OEDP Report also provide data on economic and
socioeconomic conditions on the Hopi Reservation, and reveal the
importance of coal mining and the minerals industry to the reservation
economic base and the tribal government revenue system;'' and attach
the referenced report to the Hopi Tribe plan;
(18) delete ``Section 884.13(f)(2), Description of Aesthetic,
Cultural and Recreational Conditions of the Hopi Reservation,'' in its
entirety;
(19) redesignate Section 884.13(f)(3) as part ``XIII'';
(20) provide as ``Appendix 1'' the ``Constitution and By-Laws of
the Hopi Tribe,'' which was approved December 19, 1936, and amended on
August 1, 1969, February 14, 1980, and December 7, 1993;
(21) provide cover pages for Appendices 2 through 12 and change the
title of Appendix 7 from ``Hopi Tribe Resolution H-93-80'' to ``Hopi
Tribe Resolution H-93-80 and Subsequent Correspondence to the Bureau of
Census;'' and
(24) numerous minor editorial and grammatical revisions and
recodification changes.
The Hopi Tribe also proposes adding the following items to its
plan: (1) a memorandum dated May 18, 1995, from the Hopi Tribe's
Assistant General Counsel affirming the authority of the Tribe's AMLR
Program to administer the Hopi Tribe plan as amended in the absence of
any AMLR statute; (2) Hopi Tribal Resolution H-134-89 that provides
documentation of the Tribe's action changing the name of the Office of
Natural Resources to the Department of Natural Resources; and (3) a
memorandum dated August 31, 1995, from the Tribe's Office of Financial
Management that affirms that the Hopi Tribe ``Purchasing Policies and
Procedures Manual'' is in accordance with OMB's Common Rule.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 884.15(a), OSM is
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable plan approval criteria of 30 CFR 884.14. If the amendment is
deemed adequate, it will become part of the Hopi Tribe plan.
1. Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under DATES or at locations other than the Albuquerque Field Office
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the administrative record.
2. Public Hearing
Persons wishing to testify at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,
m.s.t., December 22, 1995. Any disabled individual who has need for a
special accommodation to attend a public hearing should contact the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The location
and time of the hearing will be arranged with those persons requesting
the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to testify at the public
hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to testify have been heard. Persons in the audience
who have not been scheduled to testify, and who wish to do so, will be
heard following those who have been scheduled. The hearing will end
after all persons scheduled to testify and persons present in the
audience who wish to testify have been heard.
3. Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to testify at a hearing,
a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendment may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings will be open to the
public and, if possible, notices of meetings will be posted at the
locations listed under ADDRESSES. A written summary of each meeting
will be made a part of the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not
applicable to the actual language of Tribe or State AMLR plans and
revisions thereof since each such plan is drafted and promulgated by a
specific Tribe or State, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed Tribe or
State AMLR plans and revisions thereof submitted by a Tribe or State
are based on a determination of whether the submittal meets the
requirements of title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and the
applicable Federal regulations at 30 CFR parts 884 and 888.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
agency decisions on proposed Tribe or State AMLR plans and revisions
thereof are categorically excluded from compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the
Department of the Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
[[Page 62789]]
5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The Tribe or State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based
upon Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared
and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
established by SMCRA or previously promulgated by OSM will be
implemented by the Tribe or State. In making the determination as to
whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the
Department relied upon the data and assumptions in the analyses for the
corresponding Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 756
Abandoned mine reclamation programs, Indian lands, Surface mining,
Underground mining.
Dated: November 29, 1995.
James F. Fulton,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 95-29877 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29875 Colorado Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62789-62792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29875]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 906
[SPATS No. CO-029-FOR]
Colorado Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the
Colorado regulatory program (hereinafter, the ``Colorado program'')
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
The proposed amendment consists of revisions to and additions of rules
pertaining to Colorado's responsibility as regulatory authority for
regulating surface coal mining and reclamation operations and coal
exploration; definitions; commercial use or sale of coal extracted
during coal exploration; public availability of information; right of
entry and operation information; public notice and comment on permit
applications; procedures for review of permit applications; criteria
for permit approval or denial; permit conditions; permit revisions;
allowance of self-bonds; terms and conditions for self-bonds; criteria
and schedule for release of performance bonds; termination of
jurisdiction; performance standards for signs and markers, haul and
access roads, effluent standards for discharges of water from areas
disturbed by surface coal mining and reclamation operations, blasting,
and coal mine waste returned to underground mine workings; inspection
frequency at abandoned sites; inspections based upon citizen requests;
enforcement actions at abandoned sites; show cause orders and patterns
of violations involving violations of water quality effluent standards;
and award of costs and expenses including attorney's fees. The
amendment is intended to revise the Colorado program to be consistent
with the corresponding Federal regulations, incorporate the additional
flexibility afforded by the revised Federal regulations, and improve
operational efficiency.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4 p.m., m.s.t. January 8,
1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will be
held on January 2, 1996. Requests to present oral testimony at the
hearing must be received by 4 p.m., m.s.t., on December 22, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to James
F. Fulton at the address listed below.
Copies of the Colorado program, the proposed amendment, and all
written comments received in response to this document will be
available for public review at the addresses listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each
requester may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by
contacting OSM's Denver Field Division.
James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field Division, Western Regional
Coordinating Center, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3300, Denver, CO 80202
Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, Department of Natural
Resources, 215 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver,
Colorado 80203, Telephone: (303) 866-3567.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James F. Fulton, telephone: (303) 672-5524.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Colorado Program
On December 15, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Colorado program. General background information on the
Colorado program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition
of comments, and the conditions of approval of the Colorado program can
be found in the December 15, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 82173).
Subsequent actions concerning Colorado's program and program amendments
can be found at 30 CFR 906.11, 906.15, 906.16, and 906.30.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated November 20, 1995, Colorado submitted a proposed
amendment to its program (administrative record No. CO-676) pursuant to
SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
Colorado submitted the proposed amendment at its own initiative; in
partial response to May 7, 1986, and March 22, 1990, letters
(administrative record No. CO-282 and CO-496) that OSM sent to Colorado
in accordance with 30 CFR 732.17(c); and in response to (1) the
condition of Colorado's program approval at 30 CFR 906.11(mm) and (2)
the requirement that Colorado amend its program at 30 CFR 906.16(a).
Colorado proposes for the following provisions of 2 CCR 407-2,
Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for
Coal Mining:
Revisions at Rule 1.03.1(1)(a) to clarify that Colorado's
responsibility for the regulation of surface coal mining and
reclamation operations and coal exploration includes, among other
things, approval or disapproval of revisions and renewals of existing
permits;
Recodification of existing Rule 1.04(1) as Rule 1.04(1a), and
addition at Rule 1.04(1) of a definition for ``Abandoned site'' to
identify (1) those sites which could have a decreased frequency of
inspection under proposed Rule 5.0202(8) and (2) the enforcement
provisions applicable to sites which meet the conditions of the
definition;
Addition at Rule 1.04(31a) of a definition for ``Current assets''
to mean ``cash or other assets or resources which are reasonably
expected to be converted to cash or sold or consumed within one year or
within the normal operating cycle of the business;''
Addition at Rule 1.04(31b) of a definition for ``Current
liabilities'' to mean ``obligations which are reasonably expected to be
paid or liquidated within
[[Page 62790]]
one year or within the normal operating cycle of the business;''
Addition at Rule 1.04(47a) of a definition for ``Fixed assets'' to
mean ``plants and equipment, but does not include land or coal in
place;''
Revision at Rule 1.04(71a) of the definition for ``Net worth'' to
mean ``total assets minus total liabilities and is equivalent to
owners' equity;''
Addition at Rule 1.04(83b) of a definition for ``Parent
corporation'' to mean ``a corporation which owns or controls the
applicant;''
Revision at Rule 1.04(89) of the definition for ``Permit area'' to
require that the area ``be identified through a complete and detailed
legal description'' as required by Rule 2.03.6;
Revision at Rule 1.04(92) of the definition for ``Person'' to
clarify that it applies to listed entities conduction ``surface coal
mining and reclamation operations outside Indian lands;''
Addition at Rule 1.04(116) of a definition for ``Self-bond'' to
mean ``an indemnity agreement in a sum certain executed by the
applicant or by the applicant and any corporate guarantor and made
payable to the regulatory authority, with or without separate surety;''
Addition at Rule 1.04(135a) of a definition for ``Tangible net
worth'' to mean ``net worth minus intangibles such as goodwill and
rights to patents or royalties;''
Recodification of existing Rule 2.02.7, concerning public
availability of information, as Rule 2.02.8 and (1) addition of Rule
2.02.7(1), which requires that persons who intend to commercially use
or sell coal extracted during coal exploration operations to first
obtain a permit to conduct a surface coal mining operation, and (2)
addition of Rule 2.02.7(2) which provides that no such permit need be
obtained if the applicant demonstrates as set forth in the rule that
such sale or commercial use of the extracted coal would be for testing
purposes only;
Revision of Rule 2.03.3(8) to require that an applicant file three,
rather than five, reproducible copies of the complete permit
application with original signatures;
Revision of Rule 2.03.4(10), concerning information required by
Rules 2.03.4 and 2.03.5, to delete the requirement that the information
be submitted ``on a form approved by the Board;''
Revision of Rule 2.03.6(1) to require that each permit application
contain a ``complete and detailed legal description of all lands within
the proposed permit boundary,'' and clarification that it also contain
a ``statement as to'' whether the right upon which the applicant bases
his or her legal right to enter and begin surface coal mining
operations in the permit area is the subject of pending litigation;
Revision of Rule 2.07.3(2), concerning public notice of a proposed
surface coal mining operation, to clarify that the rule applies not
only to applications for a new permit but also to applications for a
permit revision, a technical revision, or a renewal of an existing
permit;
Revision of Rules 2.07.3(2) (e) and (f), concerning proposed
permits in which, respectively, either the affected area would be
within 100 feet of the outside right-of-way of a public road or the
applicant seeks relocation or closure of a public road, to add the
requirement that the public notice for the permit application include a
``statement indicating that a public hearing in the locality of the
proposed mining operation for the purpose of determining whether the
interests of the public and affected landowners will be protected may
be requested by contacting the Division in writing within 30 days after
the last publication of the notice;''
Revision of Rules 2.07.3(3)(a) and (3)(a)(iii) to clarify that
Colorado will, upon receipt of a complete application for a ``technical
revision,'' issue written notification of where a copy of the
application may be ``inspected'' rather than ``submitted;''
Revision of Rule 2.07.3(4)(a) , concerning the requirement that the
applicant make a copy of his or her complete application, excluding
confidential information, available for the public to inspect or copy,
to clarify that the rule applies to an application for a technical
revision;
Revision of Rule 2.07.4(2), concerning the procedures applicable to
Colorado's proposed decision, to clarify that the rule applies to
decisions on applications for a permit, permit revision, or permit
renewal;
Revision of Rule 2.07.4(3)(b) to state that if Colorado approves
the granting of a permit, the permit will be issued ``upon filing and
approval of the performance bond pursuant to 2.07.4(2)(e);''
Revision of Rule 2.07.4(3)(c), concerning Colorado's issue and
implementation of a proposed decision on an application package as
final, to require that no permit shall be issued until the applicant
has filed a performance bond that has been approved;
Addition at Rule 2.07.5(2)(c), concerning public availability of
information in permit applications and information required by Rules
2.07.5(1) (b) and (c) to be kept confidential, of the requirement that
information requested to be held as confidential shall not be made
publicly available until after the notice and opportunity to be heard
is afforded both persons seeking disclosure and those persons opposing
disclosure of information and such information is determined by
Colorado not to be confidential, proprietary information;
Revision of Rule 2.07.6(2), concerning criteria for permit
approval, to clarify that the rule applies to an application for a
permit revision;
Revision of Rules 2.07.6(2)(d) and 2(d)(iii)(E), concerning the
findings that must be made by Colorado prior to approval of an
application for a permit or a permit revision, to clarify that the
rules apply to the area affected by the proposed surface coal mining
operations rather than to the proposed operation or proposed permit
area;
Revision of Rules 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv) (A) through (C), concerning
proposals to either relocate or close public roads, or to allow the
affected area to be within 100 feet of a public road, to require that
Colorado, or the appropriate public road authority designated as the
responsible agency by Colorado, (1) provide opportunity for a public
hearing and public notice if a hearing is requested and (2) if a
hearing is held, make a written finding within 30 days of the close of
the hearing as to whether the interests of the public and the affected
landowners will be protected;
Revision of Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv)(D), to require, whether a public
hearing is held or not, that no affected area shall be allowed within
100 feet of the outside right-of-way line of a public road, nor may a
public road be relocated or closed, unless the applicant has obtained
all necessary approval of the authority with jurisdiction over the
public road, and that Colorado or the public road authority has made a
written finding that the interests of the public and the affected
landowners will be protected;
Revision of Rule 2.07.7, concerning conditions of each permit
issued by Colorado, to add at Rules 2.07.7 (6), (7), (8), and (9),
conditions requiring that a permittee shall, respectively, (1) conduct
operations only on lands specifically designated as the permit area and
contain areas disturbed and affected within the boundaries authorized
on permit application maps for the term of the permit and on areas
subject to a performance bond; (2) conduct all operations only as
described in the approved application, except as otherwise directed by
Colorado in the permit; (3) comply with the terms and
[[Page 62791]]
conditions of the permit, all applicable performance standards of the
Act, and the requirements of Colorado's rules; and (4) maintain
continuous, uninterrupted bond coverage in adequate amount;
Revision of Rule 2.08.4 to clarify by reorganization of Rules
2.08.4 (1) through (3) the types of permitting modifications pertinent
to, respectively, permit revisions, technical revisions, and minor
revisions, and to state at Rule 2.08.4(4) that the operator may not
implement any permit revision, technical revision, or minor revision
prior to obtaining final approval;
Deletion of Rule 2.08.4(1)(c), which provided allowance for a
permit revision in order to continue operation after the cancellation
or material reduction of the liability insurance policy, capability of
self-insurance, or performance bond, upon which the original permit was
issued;
Recodification of existing Rules 2.08.4 (4) and (5) as Rules 2.08.4
(5) and (6), and revision of Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(i) to specify that
availability of the informal conference process need not be included in
the newspaper advertisement for a technical revision;
Addition to Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(ii) to provide a 10-day public
comment period on technical revision applications;
Recodification of existing Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(ii) as Rule
2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) and revision of it to delete the statement that the
``requirements of the State Administrative Procedure Act shall not
apply to the conduct of the public hearing'' provided for by the rule;
Revision of Rule 2.08.6(4)(a), concerning findings made upon permit
transfer, sale, or assignment of rights, to correctly cite the
reference to Rule 2.07.6(2)(h);
Revision of Rule 3.02.4(1)(c) to provide for a self-bond as an
acceptable form of performance bond;
Revision of Rule 3.02.4(2)(e) to identify at (1) Rule
3.02.4(2)(e)(i) the conditions for a self-bond that must be met by the
applicant or its corporate guarantor; (2) Rule 3.02.4(2)(e)(ii) the
terms of a corporate guarantee for an applicant's self-bond based on a
parent corporate guarantor; (3) Rule 3.02.4(2)(e)(iii) the terms of a
nonparent corporate guarantee for an applicant's self-bond based on any
corporate guarantor; (4) Rule 3.02.4(2)(e)(iv) the percent net worth of
the applicant, parent corporate guarantor, or nonparent corporate
guarantor necessary to support the total amount of the outstanding and
proposed self-bonds; (5) Rule 3.02.4(2)(e)(v) the terms of an indemnity
agreement if Colorado accepts an applicant's self-bond; (6) Rule
3.02.4(2)(e)(vi) the right of Colorado to require updated information
within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year following the
issuance of a self-bond or corporate guarantee; and (7) Rule
3.02.4(2)(e)(vii) the requirement that if at any time during the period
when a self-bond is posted, the certain financial conditions of the
applicant, parent or nonparent corporate guarantors change, the
permittee shall notify Colorado immediately and shall within 90 days
post an alternate form of bond in the same amount of the self-bond and
that the provisions of Rule 3.02.4(2)(b)(v) shall apply should the
permittee fail to do so;
Addition of Rule 3.03.1(5) to specify terms for release of bond
liability on areas associated with temporary drainage and sediment
control facilities and clarify that the bond liability period does not
restart when sediment control facilities are removed and reclaimed;
Addition of Rule 3.03.3 to provide for termination of jurisdiction
over a reclaimed site of a completed surface coal mining and
reclamation operation;
Recodification of Rules 4.02.2(2)(a) and (b) to add paragraph (c)
which requires that the name, address, and telephone number of the
Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology be included on mine
identification signs which are posted at the entrance to mine sites;
Revision of Rules 4.03.1(d) and 4.03.2(1)(f) to require a showing
that a road meets the performance standards of Rules 4.03.1 and 4.03.2,
respectively, rather than an engineer's construction or reconstruction
certification for haul and access roads not within the disturbed area
for which the construction or reconstruction was complete prior to
August 1, 1995;
Revision of Rule 4.05.2(7), concerning discharges of water from
areas disturbed by surface coal mining and reclamation operations, to
reference the Environmental Protection Agency effluent limitations at
40 CFR Part 434;
Revision of Rule 4.08.3(2)(b)(i) to remove the provision forbidding
a blasting area in excess of 300 acres;
Revision of Rule 4.11.3, concerning coal mine waste returned to
underground mine workings, to reference Rule 2.05.3(9);
Revision of Rule 5.02.2(4)(b) to clarify that an inactive site is
one for which at least 85, rather than 100, percent of the performance
bond has been released;
Addition of Rule 5.02.2(8) to allow for a decreased inspection
frequency on abandoned sites which would be subject to public notice
and opportunity for comment and based on assessment of earthen
structures, erosion and sediment control, proximity to occupied
dwellings, schools and other public or commercial buildings, the degree
of stability of reclaimed and/or unreclaimed areas, and the rate at
which adverse environmental or public health and safety conditions have
and can be expected to progressively deteriorate;
Revision of Rule 5.02.5(1) to allow any person believing that a
violation of ``the Act, the rules, or the permit, or if imminent danger
or harm exists'' to request an inspection, and revision of Rule
5.02.5(1)(a) to set forth specific time frames in which the inspection
is to be conducted;
Addition of Rules 5.03.2(1)(e) and 5.03.2(2)(h), concerning
cessation orders and notices of violation, to allow Colorado to refrain
from issuing a cessation order or a notice of violation for a violation
at an abandoned site, if abatement of the violation is required under
any previously issued order or notice;
Revision of Rule 5.03.2(3) to allow Colorado to refrain from
issuing a failure-to-abate cessation order for failure to abate a
violation or failure to accomplish an interim step, if the operation is
an abandoned site;
Revision of Rules 5.03.3.1 (1)(a), (2)(a) (i) and (ii), and (2)(b),
concerning show cause orders and patterns of violations, to incorporate
notices of violation issued by the Colorado Department of Health, Water
Quality Control Division (which cite a one day exceedance of EPA's
effluent standards referenced in Rule 4.05.2) into Colorado's pattern
of violation and show cause process;
Revision of Rule 5.03.6, concerning costs, expenses, and attorney's
fees, to include wording in the introductory paragraph specifying that
any sum awarded for costs and expenses may include those costs and
expenses incurred in seeking the award; and
Addition of Rule 5.03.6(4)(e) to provide that appropriate costs and
expenses including attorney's fees may be awarded from Colorado to
``any person, other than a permittee or his representative, who
initiates or participates in any administrative proceeding under the
Act, and who prevails in whole or in part, achieving at least some
degree of success on the merits, upon a finding that such person made a
substantial contribution to a full and fair determination of the
issues.''
Colorado also proposes minor editorial revisions at Rule 2.07.7(1),
concerning permit conditions; Rule 2.08.6(2)(b)(iii), concerning
transfer, assignment, or sale of permit rights; and Rule 4.08.4(10),
concerning the table
[[Page 62792]]
showing the maximum peak particle velocity in blasting operations.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Colorado program.
1. Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under DATES or at locations other than the Denver Field Division will
not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included in
the administrative record.
2. Public Hearing
Persons wishing to testify at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m.,
m.s.t., on December 22, 1995. Any disabled individual who has need for
a special accommodation to attend a public hearing should contact the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The location
and time of the hearing will be arranged with those persons requesting
the hearing. If no one requests an opportunity to testify at the public
hearing, the hearing will not be held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to testify have been heard. Persons in the audience
who have not been scheduled to testify, and who wish to do so, will be
heard following those who have been scheduled. The hearing will end
after all persons scheduled to testify and persons present in the
audience who wish to testify have been heard.
3. Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to testify at a hearing,
a public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representative to discuss the proposed
amendment may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
for further information contact. All such meetings will be open to the
public and, if possible, notices of meetings will be posted at the
locations listed under addresses. A written summary of each meeting
will be made a part of the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12778
The Department of the interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not
applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and
program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA
(30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11,
732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with
SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other
requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 906
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: November 30, 1995.
James F. Fulton,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 95-29875 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29871 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Phoenix, AZ
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62782-62783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29871]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-42]
Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Phoenix, AZ
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Phoenix, AZ to provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft
arriving at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The intended
effect of this proposal is to improve service to the users and reduce
controller workload.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Attn: Manager, System Management Branch, AWP-
530 Docket No. 95-AWP-42, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box 92007,
Worldway Postal Center, Los Angeles, California, 90009.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Western Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 6007, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business at
the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air Traffic
Division at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Speer, Airspace, Specialist, System Management Branch, AWP-530,
Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation
Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261,
telephone (310) 725-6533.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposal
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, are 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, aeronautical, 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 the comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
AWP-42.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
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 received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
at 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261, both before
and after their 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 NPRM
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
System Management Branch, P.O. Box 92007, Worldway Postal Center, Los
Angeles, California 90009. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's 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 amend the Class E airspace
area at Phoenix, AZ. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
additional controlled airspace for aircraft arriving at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport, Phoenix, AZ. 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
this Order.
[[Page 62783]]
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 10034; 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 not affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposal rule would 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
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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 the 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.
* * * * *
AWP AZ E5 Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, AZ [Revised]
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix, AZ
(Lat. 33 deg.26'10'' N, long. 112 deg.00'34'' W)
Williams Gateway Airport, AZ
(Lat. 33 deg.18'28'' N, long. 111 deg.39'19'' W)
Luke AFB, AZ
(Lat. 33 deg.32'06'' N, long. 111 deg.22'59'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 17.4-mile radius of Luke AFB and within a 17.4-mile radius
of Williams Gateway Airport and within 2 parallel tangent lines
connecting the two 17.4-mile radius circles, and that airspace
northwest of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport bounded by a
line beginning at lat. 33 deg.59'00'' N, long. 112 deg.38'03'' W; to
lat. 33 deg.49'24'' N, long. 112 deg.25'34'' W, thence
counterclockwise via the 17.4-mile radius of Luke AFB to lat.
33 deg.42'00'' N, long. 112 deg.40'00'' W; to lat. 33 deg.44'00'' N,
long. 112 deg.45'03'' W; to lat. 33 deg.55'00'' N, long.
112 deg.45'03'' W, to the point of beginning. That airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 34 deg.10'00'' N, long. 112 deg.39'03'' W; to lat.
34 deg.10'00'' N, long. 111 deg.30'03'' W; to lat. 34 deg.00'00'' N,
long. 110 deg.52'02'' W; to lat. 32 deg.33'00'' N, long.
110 deg.52'02'' W; to lat. 32 deg.33'00'' N, long. 112 deg.00'02''
W; to lat. 32 deg.51'00'' N, long. 112 deg.37'03'' W; to lat.
32 deg.51'00'' N, long. 113 deg.00'03'' W; to lat. 33 deg.19'00'' N,
long. 113 deg.00'03'' W; to lat. 33 deg.19'00'' N, long.
113 deg.10'03'' W; to lat. 34 deg.00'00'' N, long. 113 deg.10'03''
W; to lat. 34 deg.00'00'' N, long. 112 deg.52'03'' W, thence to the
point of beginning. That airspace extending upward from 5,500 feet
MSL west of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport bounded on the
north by the south edge of V-16, on the east by the west boundary of
the 1,200 foot portion of the Class E airspace area; on the south by
the north edge of V-66 and on the west by long. 114 deg.00'03'' W,
excluding that airspace within Restricted Areas R-2308A, R-2308B, R-
2308C, and R-2307. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 MSL
bounded on the north by lat. 34 deg.00'00'' N, on the east by long.
113 deg.10'03'' W; on the south by the north edge of V-16 and on the
west by long. 114 deg.00'03'' W. That airspace extending upward from
9,500 feet MSL bounded on the north by the south edge of V-12, on
the east by the west edge of V-327, on the south and southeast by
the north and northwest boundary of the 1,200 foot portion of the
Class E airspace area, and on the southwest by a line extending from
lat. 34 deg.08'48'' N, long. 112 deg.40'37'' W, to the point of
intersection on long. 113 deg.10'03'' W, and on the south edge of V-
12. That airspace extending upward from 10,500 feet MSL bounded on
the north by the south edge of V-12/264, on the southeast by the
northwest edge of V-567 and on the west by the east edge of V-327.
That airspace extending upward from 10,500 feet MSL bounded on the
northwest by the southeast edge of V-567, on the southeast by the
northwest edge of V-95 and on the south by the north boundary of the
1,200 foot portion of the Class E airspace area.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on November 27, 1995.
Harvey R. Riebel,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 95-29871 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29860 Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation) Models PA31, PA31-300, PA31-325, and PA31- 350 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62779-62782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29860]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 90-CE-63-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly
Piper Aircraft Corporation) Models PA31, PA31-300, PA31-325, and PA31-
350 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 80-14-06, which currently requires the following on The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Models PA31, PA31-300, PA31-325, and PA31-350
airplanes: repetitively inspecting the outboard flap tracks, wing rib
flanges, and the rear spar web at Wing Station (WS) 147.5 on each wing,
and modifying the area at WS 147.5 on both wings if any cracks are
found as terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement.
The Federal Aviation Administration's policy on aging commuter-class
aircraft is to eliminate or, in certain instances, reduce the number of
certain repetitive short-interval inspections when improved parts or
modifications are available. The proposed action would retain the
current repetitive inspections contained in AD 80-14-06, and would
require modifying the area at WS 147.5 on both wings as terminating
action for the repetitive inspections. The actions specified in the
proposed AD are intended to prevent structural failure under certain
load conditions caused by cracked areas at WS 147.5, which, if not
[[Page 62780]]
detected and corrected, could result in loss of control of the
airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 90-CE-63-AD, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted.
Service information that relates to the proposed AD may be obtained
from The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive,
Vero Beach, Florida 32960. This information also may be examined at the
Rules Docket at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701
Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748;
telephone (404) 305-7362; facsimile (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned
with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 90-CE-63-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, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 90-CE-63-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
The FAA has determined that reliance on critical repetitive
inspections on aging commuter-class airplanes carries an unnecessary
safety risk when a design change exists that could eliminate or, in
certain instances, reduce the number of those critical inspections. In
determining what inspections are critical, the FAA considers (1) the
safety consequences if the known problem is not detected during the
inspection; (2) the probability of the problem not being detected
during the inspection; (3) whether the inspection area is difficult to
access; and (4) the possibility of damage to an adjacent structure as a
result of the problem.
These factors have led the FAA to establish an aging commuter-class
aircraft policy that requires incorporating a known design change when
it could replace a critical repetitive inspection. With this policy in
mind, the FAA conducted a review of existing AD's that apply to Piper
Models PA31-350 and PA31T3 airplanes. Assisting the FAA in this review
were (1) The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.; (2) the Regional Airlines
Association (RAA); and (3) several operators of the affected airplanes.
From this review, the FAA has identified AD 80-14-06, Amendment 39-
3805, as one that should be superseded with a new AD that would require
a modification that would eliminate the need for short-interval and
critical repetitive inspections. AD 80-14-06 currently requires the
following on Piper Models PA31, PA31-300, PA31-325, and PA31-350
airplanes:
--Repetitively inspecting the outboard flap tracks, wing rib flanges,
and the rear spar web at Wing Station (WS) 147.5 on each wing and
modifying the area at WS 147.5 on both wings if any cracks are found as
terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement; and
--Allowing for the provision of modifying the area at WS 147.5 on both
wings as terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement.
Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No. 647A, dated November 24, 1980,
references Kit 763 986, which, when incorporated, provides a
modification of the area at WS 147.5 on both wings that would eliminate
the need for the repetitive inspection requirement of AD 80-14-06. Kit
763 986 also contains procedures for incorporating this modification.
Based on its aging commuter-class aircraft policy and after
reviewing all available information related to this subject including
the referenced service information, the FAA has determined that AD
action should be taken to eliminate the repetitive short- interval
inspections required by AD 80-14-06, and to prevent structural failure
under certain load conditions caused by cracked areas at WS 147.5,
which, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of control
of the airplane.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Piper Models PA31, PA31-300, PA31-325, and
PA31-350 airplanes of the same type design, the proposed AD would
supersede AD 80-14-06 with a new AD that would (1) retain the
requirement of repetitively inspecting the outboard flap track, wing
rib flanges, and the rear wing web at WS 147.5, and, if any cracks are
found, modifying the area of WS 147.5 by incorporating Piper Kit 763
986 as terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement;
and (2) require incorporating Piper Kit 763 986 at a specified hours
TIS time-period for airplanes where no cracks were found during the
inspections as terminating action for the repetitive inspection
requirement. Accomplishment of the proposed modification would be in
accordance with the instructions included with Piper Kit 763 986, as
referenced in Piper SB No. 647A, dated November 24, 1980.
The FAA estimates that 2,906 airplanes in the U.S. registry would
be affected by the proposed AD, that it would take approximately 30
workhours per airplane to accomplish the proposed modification, and
that the average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost
approximately $468 per airplane. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact of the proposed modification on U.S. operators is estimated to
be $6,590,808 or $2,268 per airplane.
Piper has informed the FAA that parts have been distributed to
enough owners/operators to equip 234 of the affected airplanes.
Assuming that each set of parts has been installed on an affected
airplane, the cost impact of the proposed AD upon U.S. owners operators
of the affected airplanes would be reduced by $530,712 from $6,590,808
to $6,060,096.
The intent of the FAA's aging commuter airplane program is to
ensure safe operation of commuter-class
[[Page 62781]]
airplanes that are in commercial service without adversely impacting
private operators. The FAA believes that a large number of the
remaining 2,672 affected airplanes (2,906 airplanes--234 sets of parts
distributed) that would be affected by the proposed AD are operated in
various types of air transportation. This includes scheduled passenger
service, air cargo, and air taxi.
The proposed AD would allow 1,000 hours time-in- service (TIS)
after the effective date of the proposed AD before mandatory
accomplishment of the design modification. The average utilization of
the fleet for those airplanes in air transportation is between 25 to 40
hours TIS per week. Based on these figures, operators of commuter-class
airplanes involved in commercial operation would have to accomplish the
proposed modification within 6 to 10 months after the proposed AD would
become effective. For private owners, who typically operate between 100
to 200 hours TIS per year, this would allow 5 to 10 years before the
proposed modification would be mandatory.
The FAA established the 1,000 hours TIS modification compliance
time based on its engineering evaluation of the problem. Among the
issues examined during this engineering evaluation were analysis of
service difficulty reports, the difficulty level of the inspection, and
how critical the situation would be if cracks occurred in the subject
area despite accomplishment of the repetitive inspections.
Usually, the FAA establishes the mandatory design modification
compliance time on AD's affecting aging commuter-class airplanes upon
the accumulation of a certain number of hours TIS on the airplane. For
this action, the FAA is proposing to mandate the modification for all
operators ``within the next 1,000 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD.'' The total TIS levels of the airplane fleet varies from under
1,000 hours TIS to over 5,000 hours TIS, and annual accumulation rates
vary from 50 hours TIS to over 1,000 hours TIS. Establishing a long-
term set compliance time of hours TIS accumulated on a Piper Model
PA31, PA31-300, PA31-325, or PA31-350 airplane (such as 5,000 hours
TIS) would impose an undue burden on the manufacturer of having to
maintain a supply of replacement parts for the entire fleet when many
airplanes in the fleet may never reach this compliance time.
Instead, the FAA believes that Piper should maintain parts for
several years; in this case about 10 years to allow low-usage airplanes
time to accumulate the ``1,000 hours after the effective date of the
AD.'' The FAA has determined that the compliance time of the proposed
rule provides the level of safety required for commuter air service
while still minimizing the impact on the private airplane owners of
Piper Models PA31, PA31-300, PA31-325, and PA31-350 airplanes.
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 action (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) 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 has been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of
it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location
provided under the caption Addresses.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 80-14-06, Amendment 39-3805, and by adding a new AD to read as
follows:
The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation):
Docket No. 90-CE-63-AD. Supersedes AD 80-14-06, Amendment 39-3805.
Applicability: The following model and serial number airplanes,
certificated in any category, that do not have Piper Kit 763 986
incorporated in the area of Wing Station (WS) 147.5:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA31 and PA31-300................... 31-2 through 31-8012010.
PA31-325............................ 31-7512006 through 31-8012010.
PA31-350............................ 31-5001 through 31-8052025.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated in the body of this AD, unless
already accomplished.
To prevent structural failure under certain load conditions
caused by cracked areas at WS 147.5, which, if not detected and
corrected, could result in loss of control of the airplane,
accomplish the following:
(a) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) after the effective date of this AD, unless already
accomplished (compliance with AD 80-14-06), and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS until the modification
required by paragraph (b) or (c) of this AD is incorporated, inspect
the
[[Page 62782]]
outboard flap tracks, wing rib flanges, and the rear spar web on both
wings in the area of WS 147.5 by accomplishing the following:
(1) Lower the flaps to 40 degrees.
(2) Inspect the attachment of the flap track rib to the rear
spar on the inboard and outboard sides of the flap track using 10-
power magnification.
(3) Remove the rectangular access plate from the bottom wing
skin. The rectangular access plate is located forward of the wing
spar at WS 153.
(4) Inspect the WS 147.5 rib attachment angle using 10-power
magnification.
Note 2: The 100-hour TIS repetitive inspection interval was
established to coincide with regularly scheduled maintenance.
(b) If cracks are found during any of the inspections required
in paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, incorporate
Piper Kit 763 986 in accordance with the instructions included with
this kit, as referenced in Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No. 647A,
dated November 24, 1980.
(c) Within the next 1,000 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, unless already accomplished as required by paragraph (b) of
this AD, incorporate Piper Kit 763 986 in the area of WS 147.5.
Accomplish this action in accordance with the instructions included
with this kit, as referenced in Piper SB No. 647A, dated November
24, 1980.
(d) Incorporating Piper Kit 763 986 as required by paragraphs
(b) and (c) of this AD is considered terminating action for the
repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.
(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.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748. The request shall be
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
Note 4: Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 80-14-06 (superseded by this action) are not considered
approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
(g) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the document referred to herein upon request to The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; or may
examine this document at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106.
(h) This amendment supersedes AD 80-14-06, Amendment 39-3805.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 1, 1995.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-29860 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29859 Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation) PA31, PA31P, and PA31T Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62776-62779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29859]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 90-CE-62-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly
Piper Aircraft Corporation) PA31, PA31P, and PA31T Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62777]]
SUMMARY: This document proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 88-05-05, which currently requires the following on certain The
New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) PA31, PA31P, and PA31T series
airplanes: repetitively inspecting both the left and right main landing
gear (MLG) forward sidebrace, and replacing any cracked MLG forward
sidebrace. The Federal Aviation Administration's policy on aging
commuter-class aircraft is to eliminate or, in certain instances,
reduce the number of certain repetitive short-interval inspections when
improved parts or modifications are available. The proposed action
would retain the current repetitive inspections contained in AD 88-05-
05, and would require incorporating both a left and right MLG forward
sidebrace of improved design as terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirement. The actions specified in the proposed AD are
intended to prevent the MLG from retracting because of a cracked MLG
forward side brace, which, if not detected and corrected, could result
in gear collapse and loss of control of the airplane during landing
operations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 90-CE-62-AD, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted.
Service information that relates to the proposed AD may be obtained
from The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive,
Vero Beach, Florida 32960. This information also may be examined at the
Rules Docket at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701
Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748;
telephone (404) 305-7362; facsimile (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned
with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 90-CE-62-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, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 90-CE-62-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
The FAA has determined that reliance on critical repetitive
inspections on aging commuter-class airplanes carries an unnecessary
safety risk when a design change exists that could eliminate or, in
certain instances, reduce the number of those critical inspections. In
determining what inspections are critical, the FAA considers (1) the
safety consequences if the known problem is not detected during the
inspection; (2) the probability of the problem not being detected
during the inspection; (3) whether the inspection area is difficult to
access; and (4) the possibility of damage to an adjacent structure as a
result of the problem.
These factors have led the FAA to establish an aging commuter-class
aircraft policy that requires incorporating a known design change when
it could replace a critical repetitive inspection. With this policy in
mind, the FAA conducted a review of existing AD's that apply to Piper
Models PA31-350 and PA31T3 airplanes. Assisting the FAA in this review
were (1) The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.; (2) the Regional Airlines
Association (RAA); and (3) several operators of the affected airplanes.
From this review, the FAA has identified AD 88-05-05, Amendment 39-
5861, as one that should be superseded with a new AD that would require
a modification that would eliminate the need for short-interval and
critical repetitive inspections. AD 88-05-05 currently requires the
following on certain Piper PA31, PA31P, and PA31T series airplanes:
--Repetitively inspecting both the left and right main landing gear
(MLG) forward sidebrace for cracks, and replacing any cracked MLG
forward sidebrace stud. Accomplishment of the inspections required by
AD 88-05-05 is in accordance with Piper Service Bulletin (SB) No. 845A,
dated October 9, 1987; and
--Allowing for the provision of replacing both the left and right MLG
forward sidebrace with a part of improved design, part number (P/N)
85165-02 (left) and 85165-03 (right) or P/N 85166-02 (left) and 85166-
03 (right), as applicable. This installation is accomplished in
accordance with the applicable maintenance manual.
Based on its aging commuter-class aircraft policy and after
reviewing all available information related to this subject including
the referenced service information, the FAA has determined that AD
action should be taken to eliminate the repetitive short-interval
inspections required by AD 88-05-05, and to prevent the MLG from
retracting because of a cracked MLG forward side brace, which, if not
detected and corrected, could result in gear collapse and loss of
control of the airplane during landing operations.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Piper PA31, PA31P, and PA31T series airplanes
of the same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 88-05-05
with a new AD that would (1) retain the requirement of repetitively
inspecting both the left and right MLG forward sidebrace for cracks,
and replacing any cracked MLG forward sidebrace; and (2) require
replacing both the left and right MLG forward sidebrace with a part of
improved design, part number (P/N) 85165-02 (left) and 85165-03 (right)
or P/N 85166-02 (left) and 85166-03 (right), as applicable, as
terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Accomplishment of
the proposed inspections would be in accordance with Piper SB No. 845A,
dated October 9, 1987. The improved MLG forward sidebrace installations
would be accomplished in accordance
[[Page 62778]]
with the applicable maintenance manual.
The FAA estimates that 2,384 airplanes in the U.S. registry would
be affected by the proposed AD, that it would take approximately 8
workhours per airplane to accomplish the proposed replacement, and that
the average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost
approximately $1,000 per airplane (2 MLG forward sidebraces per
airplane at approximately $500 per sidebrace). Based on these figures,
the total cost impact of the proposed replacement on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $3,528,320 or $1,480 per airplane. This figure is based
on the assumption that no affected airplane owner/operator has
accomplished the proposed replacement.
Piper has informed the FAA that parts have been distributed to
owners/operators to equip 2,123 of the affected airplanes (4,246 MLG
forward sidebraces of improved design). Assuming that each set of parts
has been installed on an affected airplane, the cost impact of the
proposed replacement upon U.S. owners operators of the affected
airplanes would be reduced by $3,142,040 from $3,528,320 to $386,280.
The intent of the FAA's aging commuter airplane program is to
ensure safe operation of commuter-class airplanes that are in
commercial service without adversely impacting private operators. The
FAA believes that a large number of the remaining 261 affected
airplanes (2,384 affected airplanes--2,123 airplanes with a set of
parts distributed) that would be affected by the proposed AD are
operated in various types of air transportation. This includes
scheduled passenger service, air cargo, and air taxi.
The proposed AD would allow 1,200 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
the effective date of the proposed AD before mandatory accomplishment
of the design modification. The average utilization of the fleet for
those airplanes in air transportation is between 25 to 40 hours TIS per
week. Based on these figures, operators of commuter-class airplanes
involved in commercial operation would have to accomplish the proposed
modification within 7 to 12 months after the proposed AD would become
effective. For private owners, who typically operate between 100 to 200
hours TIS per year, this would allow 6 to 12 years before the proposed
replacement would be mandatory.
The FAA established the 1,200 hours TIS replacement compliance time
based on its engineering evaluation of the problem. Among the issues
examined during this engineering evaluation were analysis of service
difficulty reports, the difficulty level of the inspection, and how
critical the situation would be if cracks occurred in the subject area
despite accomplishment of the repetitive inspections.
Usually, the FAA establishes the mandatory design modification
compliance time on AD's affecting aging commuter-class airplanes upon
the accumulation of a certain number of hours TIS on the airplane. For
this action, the FAA is proposing to mandate the modification for all
operators ``within the next 1,200 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD.'' The total TIS levels of the airplane fleet vary from under
1,000 hours TIS to over 5,000 hours TIS, and annual accumulation rates
vary from 50 hours TIS to over 1,000 hours TIS. Establishing a long-
term set compliance time of hours TIS accumulated on Piper PA31, PA31P,
and PA31T series airplanes (such as 5,000 hours TIS) would impose an
undue burden on the manufacturer of having to maintain a supply of
replacement parts for the entire fleet when many airplanes in the fleet
may never reach this compliance time.
Instead, the FAA believes that Piper should maintain parts for
several years; in this case about 12 years to allow low-usage airplanes
time to accumulate the 1,200 hours TIS after the effective date of the
AD. The FAA has determined that the compliance time of the proposed
rule provides the level of safety required for commuter air service
while still minimizing the impact on the private airplane owners of
Piper PA31, PA31P, and PA31T series airplanes.
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 action (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) 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 has been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of
it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location
provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 88-05-05, Amendment 39-5861, and by adding a new AD to read as
follows:
The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation):
Docket No. 90-CE-62-AD. Supersedes AD 88-05-05, Amendment 39-5861.
Applicability: The following model and serial number airplanes,
certificated in any category, that do not have left and right main
landing gear (MLG) forward sidebraces of improved design installed,
part number (P/N) 85165-02 (left) and 85165-03 (right) or P/N 85166-
02 (left) and 85166-03 (right).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA31, PA31-300, and PA31-325........ 31-2 through 31-8312019.
PA31-350............................ 31-5001 through 31-8553002.
PA31P............................... 31P-2 through 31P-7730012.
[[Page 62779]]
PA31P-350........................... 31P-8414001 through 31P-8414050.
PA31T............................... 31T-7400002 through 31T-8120104.
PA31T1.............................. 31T-7804001 through 31T-8304003
and 31T-1104004 through 31T-
1104017.
PA31T2.............................. 31T-8166001 through 31T-8166076
and 31T-1166001 through 31T-
1166008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated in the body of this AD, unless
already accomplished.
To prevent the MLG from retracting because of a cracked MLG
forward side brace, which, if not detected and corrected, could
result in gear collapse and loss of control of the airplane during
landing operations, accomplish the following:
(a) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished (compliance
with AD 88-05-05), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100
hours TIS until the modification required by paragraph (c) or (d) of
this AD is incorporated, inspect (using dye penetrant methods) both
the left and right MLG sidebrace for cracks. Accomplish the
inspections in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper
Service Bulletin No. 845A, dated October 9, 1987.
(b) The initial dye penetrant inspection type must be utilized
for all future repetitive inspections. Dye penetrant inspection
types consist of Type I: fluorescent; Type II: non-fluorescent or
visible dye; and Type III: dual sensitivity.
(c) If cracks are found during any of the inspections required
in paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, replace the
cracked MLG sidebrace with a part of improved design, P/N 85165-02
(left) or 85165-03 (right) or P/N 85166-02 (left) or 85166-03
(right), as applicable. Accomplish this replacement in accordance
with the applicable maintenance manual.
(d) Within the next 1,200 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, unless already accomplished as required by paragraph (c) of
this AD, replace both the left and right MLG side brace with parts
of improved design, P/N 85165-02 (left) and 85165-03 (right) or P/N
85166-02 (left) and 85166-03 (right), as applicable. Accomplish
these replacements in accordance with the applicable maintenance
manual.
(e) Installing both the left and right MLG side brace with parts
of improved design, P/N 85165-02 (left) and 85165-03 (right) or P/N
85166-02 (left) and 85166-03 (right), as applicable, as required by
paragraph (d) of this AD is considered terminating action for the
repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.
(f) 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.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748. The request shall be
forwarded through an appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may
add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
Note 3: Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 88-05-05 (superseded by this AD) are not considered approved
for this AD.
(h) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the document referred to herein upon request to The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; or may
examine this document at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106.
(i) This amendment supersedes AD 88-05-05, Amendment 39-5861.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 1, 1995.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-29859 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29858 Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation) Models PA31, PA31-325, PA31-350, PA31P, PA31T1, and PA31T Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62774-62776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29858]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 90-CE-59-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Formerly
Piper Aircraft Corporation) Models PA31, PA31-325, PA31-350, PA31P,
PA31T1, and PA31T Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 80-26-05, which currently requires the following on The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Models PA31, PA31-325, PA31-350, PA31P, PA31T1,
and PA31T airplanes: repetitively inspecting the main landing gear
(MLG) inboard door hinges and attachment angles for cracks, and
replacing any cracked MLG inboard door hinge or attachment angle. The
Federal Aviation Administration's policy on aging commuter-class
aircraft is to eliminate or, in certain instances, reduce the number of
certain repetitive short-interval inspections when improved parts or
modifications are available. The proposed action would retain the
current repetitive inspections contained in AD 80-26-05, and would
require incorporating a MLG inboard door hinge and attachment angle
assembly of improved design (part number 47529-32) or approved hinges
and angles made of steel as terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirement. The actions specified in the proposed AD are
intended to prevent separation of the inboard MLG door from the
airplane caused by a cracked inboard door hinge or attachment angle,
which, if not detected and corrected, could result in the MLG jamming
and loss of control of the airplane during landing operations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 21, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 90-CE-59-AD, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted.
Service information that relates to the proposed AD may be obtained
from The New Piper Aircraft, Inc., Customer Services, 2926 Piper Drive,
Vero Beach, Florida 32960. This information also may be examined at the
Rules Docket at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701
Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748;
telephone (404) 305-7362; facsimile (404) 305-7348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned
with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 90-CE-59-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, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 90-CE-59-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
The FAA has determined that reliance on critical repetitive
inspections on aging commuter-class airplanes carries an unnecessary
safety risk when a design change exists that could eliminate or, in
certain instances, reduce the number of those critical inspections. In
determining what inspections are critical, the FAA considers (1) the
safety consequences if the known problem is not detected during the
inspection; (2) the probability of the problem not being detected
during the inspection; (3) whether the inspection area is difficult to
access; and (4) the possibility of damage to an adjacent structure as a
result of the problem.
These factors have led the FAA to establish an aging commuter-class
aircraft policy that requires incorporating a known design change when
it could replace a critical repetitive inspection. With this policy in
mind, the FAA conducted a review of existing AD's that apply to Piper
Models PA31-350 and PA31T3 airplanes. Assisting the FAA in this review
were (1) The New Piper Aircraft, Inc.; (2) the Regional Airlines
Association (RAA); and (3) several operators of the affected airplanes.
[[Page 62775]]
From this review, the FAA has identified AD 80-26-05, Amendment 39-
3994, as one that should be superseded with a new AD that would require
a modification that would eliminate the need for short-interval and
critical repetitive inspections. AD 80-26-05 currently requires the
following on Piper Models PA31, PA31-325, PA31-350, PA31P, PA31T1, and
PA31T airplanes:
--Repetitively inspecting the main landing gear (MLG) inboard door
hinges and attachment angles for cracks, and replacing any cracked MLG
inboard door hinge or attachment angle. Accomplishment of the
inspections required by AD 80-26-05 is in accordance with Piper Service
Bulletin (SB) No. 682, dated July 24, 1980; and
--Allowing for the provision of installing inboard door hinges and
attachment angles made of steel as terminating action for the
repetitive inspections.
Piper SB No. 682, dated July 24, 1980, references a new improved
door hinge assembly, part number (P/N) 47529-32, which, when
incorporated, provides terminating action for the repetitive
inspections of the MLG inboard door hinge and attachment angles. Piper
SB No. 682 contains procedures for incorporating this new improved door
hinge assembly.
Based on its aging commuter-class aircraft policy and after
reviewing all available information related to this subject including
the referenced service information, the FAA has determined that AD
action should be taken to eliminate the repetitive short- interval
inspections required by AD 80-26-05, and to prevent separation of a MLG
door from the airplane caused by a cracked inboard door hinge or
attachment angle, which, if not detected and corrected, could result in
the MLG jamming and loss of control of the airplane during landing
operations.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Piper Models PA31, PA31-325, PA31-350, PA31P,
PA31T1, and PA31T airplanes of the same type design, the proposed AD
would supersede AD 80-26-05 with a new AD that would (1) retain the
requirement of repetitively inspecting the MLG inboard door hinges and
attachment angles for cracks, and replacing any cracked MLG inboard
door hinge or attachment angle; and (2) require incorporating a MLG
inboard door hinge and attachment angle assembly of improved design
(part number 47529-32) or FAA-approved hinges and angles made of steel
as terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement.
Accomplishment of the proposed inspections would be in accordance with
Piper SB No. 682, dated July 24, 1980.
The FAA estimates that 2,448 airplanes in the U.S. registry would
be affected by the proposed AD, that it would take approximately 2
workhours per airplane to accomplish the proposed replacement, and that
the average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost
approximately $1,664 per airplane ($416 per assembly x 4 assemblies
per airplane). Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $4,367,232 or $1,784
per airplane. This figure is based on the assumption that no affected
airplane owner/operator has accomplished the proposed replacement.
Piper has informed the FAA that hinge assemblies have been
distributed to equip approximately 400 (1,600 separate assemblies) of
the affected airplanes. Assuming that 400 of the affected airplanes
have four of these hinge assemblies incorporated, the cost impact of
the proposed AD upon U.S. owners operators of the affected airplanes
would be reduced by $713,600 from $4,367,232 to $3,653,632.
The intent of the FAA's aging commuter airplane program is to
ensure safe operation of commuter-class airplanes that are in
commercial service without adversely impacting private operators. The
FAA believes that a large number of the remaining 2,048 affected
airplanes (2,448 affected airplanes--400 airplanes) that would be
affected by the proposed AD are operated in various types of air
transportation. This includes scheduled passenger service, air cargo,
and air taxi.
The proposed AD would allow 800 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
the effective date of the proposed AD before mandatory accomplishment
of the design modification. The average utilization of the fleet for
those airplanes in air transportation is between 25 to 40 hours TIS per
week. Based on these figures, operators of commuter-class airplanes
involved in commercial operation would have to accomplish the proposed
modification within 5 to 8 months after the proposed AD would become
effective. For private owners, who typically operate between 100 to 200
hours TIS per year, this would allow 4 to 8 years before the proposed
modification would be mandatory.
The FAA established the 800 hours TIS replacement compliance time
based on its engineering evaluation of the problem. Among the issues
examined in this engineering evaluation were analysis of service
difficulty reports, the difficulty level of the inspection, and how
critical the situation would be if cracks occurred in the subject area
despite accomplishment of the repetitive inspections.
Usually, the FAA establishes the mandatory design modification
compliance time on AD's affecting aging commuter-class airplanes upon
the accumulation of a certain number of hours TIS on the airplane. For
this action, the FAA is proposing to mandate the modification for all
operators ``within the next 800 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD.'' The total TIS levels of the airplane fleet vary from under
1,000 hours TIS to over 5,000 hours TIS, and annual accumulation rates
vary from 50 hours TIS to over 1,000 hours TIS. Establishing a long-
term set compliance time of hours TIS accumulated on Piper Models PA31,
PA31-325, PA31-350, PA31P, PA31T1, and PA31T airplanes (such as 5,000
hours TIS) would impose an undue burden on the manufacturer of having
to maintain a supply of replacement parts for the entire fleet when
many airplanes in the fleet may never reach this compliance time.
Instead, the FAA believes that Piper should maintain parts for
several years; in this case about 8 years to allow low-usage airplanes
time to accumulate the 800 hours after the effective date of the AD.
The FAA has determined that the compliance time of the proposed rule
provides the level of safety required for commuter air service while
still minimizing the impact on the private airplane owners of Piper
Models PA31, PA31-325, PA31-350, PA31P, PA31T1, and PA31T airplanes.
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 action (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) if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
[[Page 62776]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation
prepared for this action has been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of
it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location
provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Airworthiness Directive
(AD) 80-26-05, Amendment 39- 3994, and by adding a new AD to read as
follows:
The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. (formerly Piper Aircraft Corporation):
Docket No. 90-CE-59-AD. Supersedes AD 80-26-05, Amendment 39-3994.
Applicability: The following model and serial number airplanes,
certificated in any category, that are not equipped with Piper part
number (P/N) 47529-32 door hinge assemblies or FAA-approved inboard
door hinges and attachment angles made of steel at all four hinge
assembly locations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Models Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA31 and PA31-325................... 31-2 through 31-8012077.
PA31-350............................ 31-5001 through 31-8052168.
PA31P............................... 31P-3 through 31P-7730012.
PA-31T1............................. 31T-7804001 through 31T-8004040.
PA-31T.............................. 31T-7400002 through 31T-8020076.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated in the body of this AD, unless
already accomplished.
To prevent separation of a main landing gear (MLG) door from the
airplane caused by a cracked inboard door hinge or attachment angle,
which, if not detected and corrected, could result in the MLG
jamming and loss of control of the airplane during landing
operations, accomplish the following:
(a) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished (compliance
with AD 80-26-05), and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100
hours TIS until the modification required by paragraph (c) or (d) of
this AD is incorporated, inspect (using dye penetrant methods) the
MLG inboard door hinges and attachment angles for cracks. Accomplish
the inspections in accordance with the INSTRUCTIONS section of Piper
Service Bulletin No. 682, dated July 24, 1980.
(b) The initial dye penetrant inspection type must be utilized
for all future repetitive inspections. Dye penetrant inspection
types consist of Type I: fluorescent; Type II: non-fluorescent or
visible dye; and Type III: dual sensitivity.
(c) If cracks are found during any of the inspections required
in paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, incorporate a
Piper P/N 47529-32 MLG inboard door hinge and attachment angle
assembly or install FAA-approved hinges and angles made of steel.
(d) Within the next 800 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, unless already accomplished as required by paragraph (c) of
this AD, incorporate a Piper P/N 47529-32 MLG inboard door hinge and
attachment angle assembly or install FAA-approved hinges and angles
made of steel in all four hinge assembly locations.
(e) Incorporating a Piper P/N 47529-32 MLG inboard door hinge
and attachment angle assembly or installing FAA-approved hinges and
angles made of steel in all four assembly locations as required by
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this AD is considered terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirement of this AD.
(f) 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.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, suite 2-160, College
Park, Georgia 30337-2748. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
Note 3: Alternative methods of compliance approved in accordance
with AD 80-26-05 (superseded by this action) are not considered
approved as alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
(h) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the document referred to herein upon request to The New Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32960; or may
examine this document at the FAA, Central Region, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106.
(i) This amendment supersedes AD 80-26-05, Amendment 39-3994.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 1, 1995.
John R. Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-29858 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29843 Airworthiness Directives; Sensenich Propeller Manufacturing Company Inc. Models M76EMM, M7EMMS, 76EM8, and 76EM8S() Metal Propellers
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62772-62774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29843]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-03]
Airworthiness Directives; Sensenich Propeller Manufacturing
Company Inc. Models M76EMM, M7EMMS, 76EM8, and 76EM8S() Metal
Propellers
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise an existing airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to Sensenich Propeller Manufacturing Company
Inc. Models M76EMM, M7EMMS, 76EM8, and 76EM8S() metal propellers, that
currently restricts operators from continuously operating the propeller
at engine speeds from 2,150 to 2,350 revolutions per minute (RPM). This
action would remove propellers installed on certain additional Textron
Lycoming O-360 series reciprocating engines with solid crankshafts from
this requirement, and update the referenced Sensenich Propeller Company
Inc. service bulletin to the latest revision. Reworking of all affected
propeller models remains a requirement of the proposed AD, regardless
of engine installation. This proposal is prompted by inquiries
concerning tachometer red arc restrictions on certain Textron Lycoming
O-360 series reciprocating engines with solid crankshafts. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent propeller blade
tip fatigue failure, which can result in loss of control of the
aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-03, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Sensenich Propeller Manufacturing Company Inc., 519
Airport Road, Lititz, PA 17543; telephone (717) 569-0435, fax (717)
560-3725. This information may be examined at the FAA, New England
Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond J. O'Neill, Aerospace
Engineer, New York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and
Propeller Directorate, 10 Fifth St., Valley Stream, NY 11581; telephone
(516) 256-7505, fax (516) 568-2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-ANE-03.'' 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, New England Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-ANE-03, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
On May 6, 1969, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 69-09-03, Amendment 39-761 (34 FR 7371,
May 7, 1969), applicable to Sensenich Propeller Manufacturing Company
Inc. Models M76EMM, M7EMMS, 76EM8, and 76EM8S() metal propellers.
Revision 1, Amendment 39-808 (34 FR 12563, August 1, 1969); and
Revision 2, Amendment 39-1102 (35 FR 17030, November 5, 1970), were
subsequently
[[Page 62773]]
issued. That AD restricts operators from continuously operating the
propeller at engine speeds from 2,150 to 2,350 revolutions per minute
(RPM) and requires reworking the propeller by reducing blade thickness
and stiffness. That action was prompted by reports of propeller blade
tip failures due to continuous operation in an RPM range of relatively
high vibration stresses aggravated by impact-related mechanical damage
such as cuts, nicks, and dents. That condition, if not corrected, could
result in propeller blade tip fatigue failure, which can result in loss
of control of the aircraft.
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has received numerous
inquiries from the field concerning tachometer red arc restrictions on
certain Textron Lycoming O-360 series reciprocating engines with solid
crankshafts that are identified by suffixes having a digit ``4'' or
higher in the second position, e.g. A4AD, A4M, etc. The FAA has
determined that these additional engines, with solid crankshafts, have
vibration characteristics that closely approximate engines to which the
current AD does not apply, and can therefore also be removed from the
AD's applicability and requirement for tachometer restriction. Contrary
to the requirements of AD 69-09-03 R2, this AD would require reworking
all affected propellers, regardless of engine installation.
When propeller blade reworking is accomplished, the resulting
reduction in blade thickness and stiffness reduces blade second order-
first mode peak resonance RPM to lower values. The reworked propeller
(later adopted in production) is marked with the letter ``K.''
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of
Sensenich Propeller Service Bulletin (SB) No. R-13, dated April 11,
1969, that describes avoiding continuous operation between 2150 and
2350 RPM; and Sensenich Propeller SB No. R-14A, dated November 15,
1994, that describes reworking the propeller by reducing blade
thickness and stiffness in order to avoid propeller blade tip failures.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would revise AD 69-09-03 R2 to remove from the AD's
applicability propellers installed on certain Textron Lycoming O-360
series reciprocating engines with solid crankshafts that are identified
by suffixes having a digit ``4'' or higher in the second position, e.g.
A4A, A4G, etc., and from the tachometer restriction, and update the
referenced Sensenich Propeller SB No. R-14 to R-14A, dated November 15,
1994.
There are approximately 100 propellers of the affected design that
may not have been modified to the ``K'' standard in the worldwide
fleet. The FAA estimates that 50 propellers installed on aircraft of
U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take
approximately 2.5 work hours per propeller to accomplish the proposed
actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $7,500. However, since this proposed rule
further restricts the applicability by exempting propellers installed
on certain Textron Lycoming engine models from the tachometer
restriction, there is a potential overall cost savings of $4,395,000,
if all the affected Sensenich propellers are installed on the newly
exempted engines.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-1102 (35 FR
17030, November 5, 1970), and by adding a new airworthiness directive,
to read as follows:
Sensenich Propeller Manufacturing Company Inc.: Docket No. 95-ANE-
03. Revises AD 69-09-03, Amendment 39-1102.
Applicability: Sensenich Propeller Manufacturing Company Inc.
Models M76EMM, M7EMMS, 76EM8, and 76EM8S() metal propellers.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this airworthiness directive (AD) do not
apply to those propellers installed on the following solid
crankshaft Textron Lycoming O-360 series reciprocating engines: O-
360-A4A, -A4D, -A4G, -A4J, -A4K, -A4M, -A4N, -A4P, and -A5AD, or
additional engines identified by suffixes having a digit ``4'' or
higher in the second position. These propellers are installed on but
not limited to the following aircraft: Piper PA-28-180, PA-28-181,
American General Aircraft Holding Co. Inc. (formerly Gulfstream
American) AA-5 series, Beech B23 and C23, Cessna 172Q, Avions Pierre
Robin R-3000/160, and aircraft modified under various Supplemental
Type Certificates (STC's).
Note: This AD applies to each propeller 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 propellers that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (f) to request approval from the Federal
Aviation Administration (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 propeller from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent propeller blade tip fatigue failure, which can result
in loss of control of the aircraft, accomplish the following:
(a) Commencing with the next flight after the effective date of
this AD, do not operate the engine in continuous operation between
2,150 and 2,350 RPM.
(b) Within the next 25 hours time in service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD, mark engine tachometer with a red arc
from 2150 RPM to 2350 RPM, in accordance with Sensenich Propeller
Service Bulletin (SB) No. R-13, dated April 11, 1969.
[[Page 62774]]
(c) For propellers with 500 or more total hours TIS, or unknown
TIS on the effective date of this AD, inspect, and rework or
replace, as necessary, within the next 50 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD, in accordance with Sensenich Propeller SB
No. R-14A, dated November 15, 1994.
(d) For propellers with less than 500 total hours TIS on the
effective date of this AD, inspect, and rework or replace, as
necessary, prior to accumulating 550 total hours TIS, in accordance
with Sensenich Propeller SB No. R-14A, dated November 15, 1994.
(e) Mark with a suffix letter ``K'' propellers that have been
inspected, reworked, or replaced in accordance with Sensenich
Propeller SB No. R-14A, dated November 15, 1994, and found
satisfactory. New production propellers include change ``K'' or
subsequent changes.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety
may be used if approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office. The request should be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York Aircraft Certification Office.
(g) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the aircraft to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 28, 1995.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-29843 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29837 Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; San Diego Air Pollution Control District, California
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29837]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5341-6]
Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits
Program; San Diego Air Pollution Control District, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the title V operating
permits program submitted by the San Diego Air Pollution Control
District (San Diego or District) for the purpose of complying with
federal requirements for an approvable state program to issue operating
permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources.
Today's action also proposes approval of San Diego's mechanism for
receiving delegation of section 112 standards as promulgated.
In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
promulgating interim approval of San Diego's title V program as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this
submittal as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for this approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this proposed
rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this
rulemaking. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to:
Celia Bloomfield, Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Copies of the District's submittal, EPA's Technical Support
Document, and other supporting information used in developing the
proposed approval are available for public inspection at EPA's Region
IX office during normal business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Bloomfield (telephone 415/744-
1249), Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct
final rule of the same title which is located in the Rules section of
this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: November 8, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-29837 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29835 Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; Mariposa Air Pollution Control District, California
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62793-62794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29835]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5341-8]
Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits
Program; Mariposa Air Pollution Control District, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the title V operating
permits program submitted by the Mariposa Air Pollution Control
District (Mariposa or District) for the purpose of complying with
federal requirements that mandate that states develop, and submit to
EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary
sources and to certain other sources. Today's action also proposes
approval of Mariposa's mechanism for receiving delegation of section
112 standards as promulgated.
In the final rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is
promulgating interim approval of Mariposa's title V program as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this submittal as
noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed
rationale for this approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If
no adverse comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no
further activity is contemplated in relation to this rulemaking. If EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all
[[Page 62794]]
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to: Sara
Bartholomew, Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Copies of the District's submittal, EPA's Technical Support
Document, and other supporting information used in developing the
proposed approval are available for public inspection at EPA's Region
IX office during normal business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Bartholomew (telephone 415/744-
1170), Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct
final rule of the same title which is located in the Rules section of
this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: November 13, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-29835 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29824 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Florida
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29824]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[FL63-1-7143b;FRL-5340-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of Florida
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Florida for the purpose of
redesignating the Tampa Florida ozone O3 nonattainment area to
attainment. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation
to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct
final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any
parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this
time.
DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSEES: Written comments should be addressed to: Joey LeVasseur,
Regulatory Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air,
Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Copies of the material submitted by the State of Florida may be
examined during normal business hours at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Air Resources Management Division, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.
Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, 1410 North
21st Street, Tampa, Florida 33605.
Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, Division of Air
Quality, 300 S. Garden Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 34616.
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joey LeVasseur, Regulatory Planning and
Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is
404/347-3555, ext. 4215. Reference file FL63-1-7143b.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: October 19, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-29824 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29819 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of New Jersey; Revised Policy Regarding Applicability of Oxygenated Fuels Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62792-62793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29819]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[Region II Docket No. 146, SIPTRAX NJ23-1-7243(b); FRL-5322-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of New Jersey;
Revised Policy Regarding Applicability of Oxygenated Fuels Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request made by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to redesignate Camden
County and nine not-classified areas, which includes the City of
Atlantic City, the City of Burlington, the Borough of Freehold, the
City of Morristown, the Borough of Penns Grove (part), the City of
Perth Amboy, the Borough of Somerville, the City of Toms River, and the
City of Trenton, from nonattainment to attainment for carbon monoxide
(CO). EPA's determination to approve New Jersey's request is based on
the fact that New Jersey demonstrates compliance with the requirements
of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for redesignation.
EPA is also proposing to approve the Camden County and the nine not-
classified CO maintenance plans submitted by NJDEP because EPA
[[Page 62793]]
finds that New Jersey's submittal meets the requirements of section
175(A) of the CAA. In addition, EPA is proposing approval of New
Jersey's 1990 base year CO emissions inventory for Camden County and
the nine not-classified areas. In the Final Rules Section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving New Jersey's redesignation request,
maintenance plan, and emission inventory as identified therein, as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to that direct
final rule no further activity is contemplated in relation to this
proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this proposed rule. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before January 8,
1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: William S. Baker,
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Office, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866.
Copies of the State submittal(s) are available at the following
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Library 16th Floor,
290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air
Quality Management, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401 East State
Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William S. Baker, Chief, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: October 24, 1995.
William J. Muszynski,
Deputy Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-29819 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29773 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Corrections
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29773]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 9
[FAR Case 95-007 Correction]
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Corrections
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council are issuing a correction to FAR case
95-007, Responsibility Determinations, published at 60 FR 55960,
November 3, 1995. The correction reflects the changes implemented by
Federal Acquisition Circular 90-32, FAR case 94-790, Acquisition of
Commercial Items, Item III.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FAR Secretariat, Room 4037, GS
Building, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 501-4755. Please cite correction
to FAR case 95-007.
Correction
PART 9--CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
In proposed rule document 95-27294 on page 55960 in the issue of
Friday, November 3, 1995, in the third column, under amendatory
instruction 3, the revised text should read as follows:
9.106-1 Conditions of preaward surveys.
(a) A preaward survey is normally required only when the
information on hand or readily available to the contracting officer,
including information from commercial sources, is not sufficient to
make a determination regarding responsibility. However, if the
contemplated contract will have a fixed price at or below the
simplified acquisition threshold or will involve the acquisition of
commercial items (see part 12), the contracting officer should not
request a preaward survey unless circumstances justify its cost.
* * * * *
Dated: December 1, 1995.
Edward C. Loeb,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-29773 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29711 Truth in Lending
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62764-62772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29711]
========================================================================
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. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62764]]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 226
[Regulation Z; Docket No. R-0903]
Truth in Lending
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed rule; official staff interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is publishing for comment proposed revisions to the
official staff commentary to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending). The
commentary applies and interprets the requirements of Regulation Z. The
proposed update provides guidance mainly on issues relating to reverse
mortgages and mortgages bearing rates above a certain percentage or
fees above a certain amount. It also addresses issues of general
interest, such as the treatment of debt cancellation contracts and a
card issuer's responsibilities when a cardholder asserts a claim or
defense relating to a merchant dispute.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. R-0903, 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, DC 20551. Comments also may be delivered to Room B-2222 of
the Eccles Building between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. 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 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. weekdays, except as provided in 12 CFR 261.8 of the Board's
rules regarding the availability of information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Subparts A and B (open-end
credit), Jane Jensen Gell or Obrea O. Poindexter, Staff Attorneys; for
Subparts A, C and E (closed-end credit, reverse mortgages, and
mortgages bearing rates or fees above a certain percentage or amount),
Jane Ahrens, Senior Attorney, or Kyung Cho-Miller, Kurt Schumacher, or
Manley Williams, Staff Attorneys, Division of Consumer and Community
Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, at (202)
452-3667 or 452-2412. For users of Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (TDD) only, please contact Dorthea Thompson, at (202) 452-3544.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The purpose of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA; 15 U.S.C. 1601 et
seq.) is to promote the informed use of consumer credit by requiring
disclosures about its terms and cost. The act requires creditors to
disclose credit terms and the cost of credit as an annual percentage
rate (APR). The act requires additional disclosures for loans secured
by a consumer's home, and permits consumers to cancel certain
transactions that involve their principal dwelling. It also imposes
limitations on some credit transactions secured by a consumer's
principal dwelling. The act is implemented by the Board's Regulation Z
(12 CFR part 226). The Board also has an official staff commentary (12
CFR part 226 (Supp. I)) that interprets the regulation, and provides
guidance to creditors in applying the regulation to specific
transactions. It is updated periodically to address significant
questions that arise, and is a substitute for individual staff
interpretations. The Board expects to adopt amendments in final form in
March 1996 with compliance optional until October 1, 1996, the
effective date for mandatory compliance.
On March 24, 1995, the Board published amendments to Regulation Z
implementing the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994,
contained in the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160 (60 FR
15463). These amendments, which became effective on October 1, impose
new disclosure requirements and substantive limitations on certain
closed-end mortgage loans bearing rates or fees above a certain
percentage or amount. The amendments also impose new disclosure
requirements for reverse mortgage transactions, which provide advances
primarily to elderly homeowners and rely principally on the home's
value for repayment. In large measure, the proposed commentary
incorporates the supplementary information accompanying that
rulemaking, and addresses other issues that have arisen since the
publication of the final rule.
The Congress recently amended TILA provisions concerning finance
charge disclosures for home mortgage loans. The Truth in Lending Act
Amendments of 1995 (``1995 Act,'' Public Law 104-29, 109 Stat. 271)
clarify the treatment of several fees typically associated with real
estate-related lending, and revise tolerances for finance charge
calculations for loans secured by real estate or dwellings. The
statutory amendments, which were enacted in response to a number of
lawsuits, also address consumer remedies for creditors' past and future
disclosure violations. The 1995 Act became effective immediately for
provisions relating to tolerances, past and future liability, and the
exclusion of certain closing costs from the finance charge calculation.
The statutory amendments that exclude certain real estate related
closing costs from the finance charge generally codify interpretations
previously issued by the Board, and no further revisions to the
commentary are contemplated at this time.
Another statutory provision categorizes all brokers fees paid by
the consumer to the broker (or to the creditor for delivery to the
broker) as finance charges; this provision will become effective 60
days after the Board issues a final rule or no later than 12 months
after enactment of the amendments to the act. It is anticipated that
the Board will issue a proposed amendment to Regulation Z addressing
brokers fees during the first quarter of 1996, and will make any
changes to the commentary relating to the treatment of brokers fees as
part of that rulemaking.
II. Proposed Commentary
Subpart A--General
Section 226.4--Finance Charge
4(a) Definition
Proposed comment 4(a)-8 addresses the treatment of fees charged in
connection with debt cancellation agreements. In the case of motor
vehicle loans, debt cancellation agreements (sometimes referred to as
``gap''
[[Page 62765]]
agreements) offer protection to consumers in the event the vehicle is
stolen or destroyed and the motor vehicle insurance proceeds are
insufficient to extinguish the debt. Under these agreements, in return
for a fee paid, the consumer is not held liable for the remaining
balance due on the loan. Other types of agreements may provide for debt
cancellation if the borrower dies or becomes disabled. In some states,
debt cancellation agreements may be regulated as or otherwise
considered insurance contracts.
The Board has received questions from creditors about the proper
treatment of fees for debt cancellation agreements. Section 226.4(d)
allows a creditor to exclude optional credit life and certain property
insurance premiums from the finance charge if the creditor meets
certain conditions, including disclosure of the premium. Some creditors
believe that debt cancellation fees should uniformly be treated as
Sec. 226.4(d) insurance premiums under the regulation. These creditors
generally believe that the fees for optional debt cancellation
contracts should be excluded from the finance charge. An alternative
view is that the fees may be treated as insurance premiums only if the
contract is considered insurance under state law.
Proposed comment 4(a)-8 follows the state law analysis. The
proposed comment provides that if a debt cancellation agreement is
regulated as or considered insurance under state law, the fee may be
excludable from the finance charge in accordance with the rules in
Sec. 226.4(d). That is, under the proposed comment the fee may be
excludable if the insurance is properly characterized as credit life,
accident, health or loss-of-income insurance as specified in
Sec. 226.4(d)(1), or as insurance against loss of or damage to
property, or against liability arising out of the ownership or use of
property as specified in Sec. 226.4(d)(2). Insurance protecting the
creditor against credit loss is a finance charge. (See Sec. 226.4(b)(5)
and accompanying commentary.)
If state law does not regulate or consider the agreement to be
insurance, then the general rules in Sec. 226.4(a) apply. Under
Sec. 226.4(a), debt cancellation fees paid to a creditor are treated as
finance charges because they are charged by the creditor as an incident
to the extension of credit and, although optional, the fees are not of
a type payable in a comparable cash transaction.
4(d) Insurance
Comment 4(d)-5 would be revised to clarify that insurance is deemed
to be required--and the premiums treated and disclosed as finance
charges--when a consumer has several alternatives to fulfill a
condition to a credit extension, one of which is to purchase insurance
from the creditor and the consumer elects that option. For example,
where, as a condition to obtaining a credit card, a consumer must
purchase a life insurance policy from the creditor, assign an existing
policy, or pledge another form of security, such as a certificate of
deposit, if the consumer purchases the insurance from the creditor, the
premiums are finance charges.
Subpart B--Open-end Credit
Section 226.6--Initial Disclosure Statement
6(b) Other Charges
Comment 6(b)-1 would be revised to state that a membership fee to
join an organization is an ``other charge'' if the primary benefit of
membership is the opportunity to apply for a credit card and other
benefits are incidental. For example, if an organization offers, in
addition to the opportunity for a credit card account, only minor
benefits such as a newsletter and a member information hotline, a fee
to join the organization should be disclosed as an ``other charge.''
Section 226.12--Special Credit Card Rules
12(c) Right of Cardholder to Assert Claims or Defenses Against Card
Issuer
12(c)(2) Adverse Credit Reports Prohibited
Proposed comment 12(c)(2)-2 provides guidance on when a card issuer
may consider a dispute settled for purposes of reporting an amount in
dispute as delinquent. Until the card issuer conducts a reasonable
investigation, the disputed amount may not be collected or reported as
delinquent.
Section 226.14--Determination of Annual Percentage Rate
14(c) Annual Percentage Rate for Periodic Statements
Comment 14(c)-10 would provide guidance on calculating the APR on
periodic statements when a transaction occurs at the end of one cycle,
but is posted to the account in a subsequent cycle, such as when a
cardholder obtains a cash advance (for which there is a transaction
fee) on the last day of a billing cycle and the transaction is posted
to the cardholder's account on the second day of the following cycle.
The transaction (and fee, if applicable) are included on the statement
reflecting the cycle in which the transaction posted, and the proposed
comment clarifies how creditors calculate the APR to reflect the delay
in posting.
Subpart C--Closed-end Credit
Section 17--General Disclosure Requirements
17(c) Basis of Disclosure and Use of Estimates
Paragraph 17(c)(1)
Comment 17(c)(1)-10 would be revised to clarify that if a contract
for a variable rate transaction provides for a delay in the
implementation of changes to an index value, the creditor may use any
index value in effect during the delay period. For example, if a
contract specifies that rate changes are based on the index value in
effect 45 days before the change date, the creditor may use any index
value in effect within that 45-day delay period.
Proposed comment 17(c)(1)-18 addresses pawn transactions. There has
been some confusion about the coverage and compliance of pawn
transactions under the TILA. The comment clarifies how some of the
items required to be disclosed under Sec. 226.18 such as the amount
financed, the finance charge, and the percentage should be disclosed.
Disclosure of these transactions under the open-end credit provisions
is not addressed based on the belief that typically pawn transactions
are not open-end credit transactions.
Section 18--Content of Disclosures
18(c) Itemization of Amount Financed
Paragraph 18(c)(1)(iii)
Proposed comment 18(c)(1)(iii)-2 concerns the treatment of certain
charges known as ``upcharges'' that creditors may sometimes add to a
fee charged by a third party for services such as maintenance and
service contracts on automobiles. The comment, which only applies in
cases where a creditor charges the same amount of an upcharge in both
cash and credit transactions, offers flexibility in how creditors can
choose to itemize and disclose the amount charged for the service
(including the amount of the upcharge). The treatment of these fees for
purposes of disclosures under the TILA does not govern the imposition
or amount of such upcharges.
[[Page 62766]]
Section 226.20--Subsequent Disclosure Requirements
20(a) Refinancings
The Board has been asked whether certain actions constitute adding
a variable-rate feature for purposes of this section. Comment 20(a)-3
would be revised to clarify that changing the index on a variable-rate
transaction is not adding a variable-rate feature, nor is substituting
an index for one that no longer exists.
Subpart E--Special Rules for Certain Home Mortgage Transactions
Section 226.31--General Rules
31(c) Timing of Disclosures
31(c)(1) Disclosures for Certain Closed-end Home Mortgages
Numerous creditors have suggested that the rule for furnishing
disclosures should be deemed to be satisfied as long as the creditor
places the disclosures in the mail three days prior to consummation.
The word ``furnish'' for purposes of Sec. 226.32 disclosures has the
same meaning as ``deliver'' for the other disclosure requirements of
Regulation Z. Accordingly, proposed comment 31(c)(1)-1 clarifies that
disclosures are furnished, or delivered, when received by the consumer,
not when mailed by the creditor.
Proposed comment 31(c)(1)-2 clarifies that creditors may rely on
the definition of ``business days'' in comment 2(a)(6)-2 for purposes
of complying with the timing requirements for furnishing disclosures
under this section.
31(c)(1)(i) Change in Terms
Proposed comment 31(c)(1)(i)-1 clarifies that a creditor must
provide new Sec. 226.32(c) disclosures if a change in terms (whether in
the formal written agreement or otherwise, such as an oral agreement
affecting the amount of a fee required to be paid at closing) makes the
previously provided disclosures inaccurate.
31(c)(1)(iii) Consumer's Waiver of Waiting Period Before Consummation
Proposed comment 31(c)(1)(iii)-1 provides guidance on circumstances
in which the consumer may modify or waive the right to the three-day
waiting period to meet bona fide personal financial emergencies.
Generally, whether a bona fide personal financial emergency exists is a
matter to be decided between the parties. The provisions in comments
23(e)-1 and 34(e)-2 apply to this section. For example, a consumer's
waiver does not automatically insulate the creditor from liability for
failing to provide the three-day waiting period.
31(c)(2) Disclosures for Reverse Mortgages
Proposed comment 31(c)(2)-1 clarifies the definition of ``business
day'' for purposes of providing reverse mortgage disclosures to
consumers.
31(d) Basis of Disclosures and Use of Estimates
Section 226.31(d) mirrors the provisions in Sec. 226.5(c) and
Sec. 226.17(c), and allows the use of estimates when information
necessary for an accurate disclosure is unknown to the creditor,
provided that the disclosure is clearly identified as an estimate.
Proposed comment 31(d)-1 clarifies that when a disclosure required by
Sec. 226.32 is marked as an estimate and becomes inaccurate due to a
change in terms that occurs before consummation, new disclosures must
be provided.
Section 226.32--Requirements for Certain Closed-end Home Mortgages
32(a) Coverage
Paragraph 32(a)(1)(i)
Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-1 clarifies when an application is
received, for purposes of determining which Treasury securities yield
should be used to compare the APR. Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-2
provides guidance on comparing loan maturities to yields on Treasury
securities, for purposes of determining whether a mortgage loan is
covered by Sec. 226.32. Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-3 clarifies rules
for calculating the APR for variable-rate, discount, premium, or
stepped-rate loans.
Proposed comment 32(a)(1)(i)-4 clarifies which Treasury security to
use for the APR test, and where the yields on these securities can be
found. Creditors may request the Board statistical release H-15 by
calling (202) 452-3245. Treasury security yields are also available
from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York by calling (212) 720-6619.
Paragraph 32(a)(1)(ii)
Creditors must follow the rules in Sec. 226.32 if, in part, the
total points and fees payable by the consumer at or before loan closing
exceed the greater of $400 or 8 percent of the total loan amount. The
Board is required to adjust the $400 amount, based on the annual
percentage change in the Consumer Price Index as reported on June 1,
effective January 1 of the following year. The Board anticipates that
adjustments to the $400 dollar figure will be published each yearend
and incorporated into the commentary the following spring.
Paragraph 32(b)(1)
Paragraph 32(b)(1)(i)
Comment 32(b)(1)(i)-1 clarifies the scope of items defined as
finance charges under Sec. 226.4 that are considered ``points and
fees.''
Paragraph 32(b)(1)(ii)
Proposed comment 32(b)(1)(ii)-1 addresses the treatment of mortgage
brokers fees. Section 226.32(b)(1) defines ``points and fees'' to
include all finance charges (except interest or the time-price
differential), as well as all compensation paid to mortgage brokers.
Accordingly, compensation paid to a mortgage broker must be included as
``points and fees'' even if the amount is not disclosed as a finance
charge.
Section 32(b)(1)(ii) at the time it was issued was interpreted to
include all mortgage broker fees that are required to be disclosed
under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Under that
interpretation, amounts paid by creditors to mortgage brokers would be
included, as are amounts paid by consumers. Upon further analysis, a
narrower interpretation is being proposed. Proposed comment
32(b)(1)(ii)-1 states that for purposes of the ``points and fees''
test, only mortgage broker fees paid by the consumer are included in
the calculation. The comment further clarifies that mortgage broker
fees should not be double counted; that is, where such fees are
included in the finance charge, they are already included as ``points
and fees'' under Sec. 226.32(b)(1)(i) and should not be counted again
under Sec. 226.32(b)(1)(ii).
32(c)(3) Regular payment
Proposed comment 32(c)(3)-1 clarifies that the regulation
contemplates the disclosure of monthly or other regularly scheduled
periodic payments, such as bimonthy or quarterly. The comment also
clarifies that there must be at least two payments, and they must be in
an amount and occur at such intervals that the payments fully amortize
the loan. For the amount of the payment, proposed comment 32(c)(3)-2
clarifies that creditors may rely on Sec. 226.18(g) for guidance.
32(c)(4) Variable-rate
Proposed comment 32(c)(4)-1 provides additional guidance on
calculating ``worst-case'' payment examples when the transaction has
more than one payment stream.
[[Page 62767]]
32(d) Limitations
32(d)(1)(i) Balloon Payment
The statute and regulation prohibit the use of balloon payments for
mortgages covered by Sec. 226.32 that have a term of less than five
years. For such loans, the repayment schedule must fully amortize the
outstanding principal balance through ``regular periodic payments.''
The proposed comment provides guidance on the definition of ``regular
periodic payments.''
32(d)(2) Negative Amortization
Proposed comment 32(d)(2)-1 clarifies that the prohibition against
including negative amortization in a mortgage covered by Sec. 226.32
does not extend to increases in the principal balance unrelated to the
payment schedule, such as an increase related to the purchase of force-
placed insurance.
32(d)(4) Increased Interest Rate
Proposed comment 32(d)(4)-1 clarifies that a rate increase in a
variable-rate transaction is not prohibited by the act or regulation,
even if the rate increases after the consumer has defaulted on the
obligation.
32(d)(5) Rebates
Section 226.32(d)(5) restricts how creditors may calculate refunds
of interest when a mortgage loan subject to this section is accelerated
due to a consumer's default. The proposed comment clarifies that this
restriction applies to refunds of interest only, and not to refunds of
other items such as origination fees or points. In addition, the
proposed comment clarifies that the refund calculation includes odd-
days interest, regardless of when it is paid.
32(d)(7) Prepayment Penalty Exception
Proposed comment 32(d)(7)-1 provides guidance on calculating a
consumer's debt-to-income ratio. Proposed comment 32(d)(7)-2 clarifies
that verification of employment satisfies the regulation's requirement
that the creditor obtain ``payment records for employment income.''
32(e) Prohibited Acts and Practices
32(e)(1) Repayment Ability
For mortgage loans subject to Sec. 226.32, the regulation prohibits
creditors from engaging in a pattern or practice of extending such
credit based on the consumer's collateral without regard to the
consumer's repayment ability, including the consumer's current and
expected income, current obligations, and employment. Proposed comment
32(e)(1)-1 provides guidance on determining the consumer's repayment
ability. The comment clarifies that creditors may rely on the same
information provided by the consumer in connection with
Sec. 226.32(d)(7), or other information, including information about
unverified income.
Section 226.33--Requirements for Reverse Mortgages
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
modified its software regarding reverse mortgages originated under the
Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program to conform with the
requirements and the terminology used for reverse mortgages under
Regulation Z and the appendices to the regulation. (The HECM program
has been temporarily suspended, pending the reauthorization of funding
by the Congress.) For example, HUD's software now allows creditors to
use the initial interest rate, rather than the ``expected interest
rate,'' in calculating the total annual loan cost rate for a variable-
rate transaction. Although creditors may find HUD's software helpful in
meeting the disclosure requirements under Regulation Z, they should
first take steps to verify the accuracy of the software, including any
instructions, before using it. Neither HUD nor the Board provides a
``safe harbor'' to creditors regarding use of this software.
33(a) Definition
Proposed comment 33(a)-1 addresses an implication relative to the
definition of a reverse mortgage transaction under the regulation. If a
transaction structured as a reverse mortgage loan is a recourse
transaction (that is, one that imposes personal liability on the
consumer for the difference between the loan balance at maturity and
the value of the property), it is not a reverse mortgage under
Sec. 226.33. Thus, if the transaction is also closed-end, and the
annual percentage rate or the points and fees assessed in the
transaction exceed those specified in Sec. 226.32(a)(1), the
transaction is covered by Sec. 226.32. Such transactions may not
generally contain a balloon payment or negative amortization (both of
which are found in reverse mortgages by definition). Open-end credit
plans are exempt from the provisions of Sec. 226.32(a).
33(c)(2) Payments to Consumer
Proposed comment 33(c)(2)-1 provides guidance where the legal
obligation of a reverse mortgage transaction includes a benefit, such
as a ``death benefit,'' in which a payment to the consumer's estate (or
a credit to the outstanding loan balance) will be made upon the
occurrence of an event (for example, the consumer's death within a
certain period of time).
III. Form of Comment Letters
Comment letters should refer to Docket No. R-0903, and, when
possible, should use a standard courier typeface with a type size of 10
or 12 characters per inch. This will enable the Board to convert the
text to machine-readable form through electronic scanning, and will
facilitate automated retrieval of comments for review. Also, along with
an original document in paper form, commenters are encouraged to submit
their comments on 3\1/2\ inch or 5\1/4\ inch computer diskettes in any
IBM-compatible DOS-based format.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 226
Advertising, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Federal
Reserve System, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Truth in lending.
Certain conventions have been used to highlight the proposed
revisions to the regulation. New language is shown inside bold-faced
arrows, while language that would be deleted is set off with bold-faced
brackets. Comments are numbered to comply with new Federal Register
publication rules.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board proposes to
amend 12 CFR part 226 as follows:
PART 226--TRUTH IN LENDING (REGULATION Z)
1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 3806, 15 U.S.C. 1604 and 1637(c)(5).
2. In supplement I to Part 226, under section 226.4--Finance
Charge, the following amendments would be made:
1. Under 4(a) Definition., a new paragraph 8. would be added; and
2. Under 4(d) Insurance., paragraph 5. would be revised.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Supplement I--Official Staff Interpretations
* * * * *
Subpart A--General
* * * * *
Section 226.4--Finance Charge
4(a) Definition.
* * * * *
8. Treatment of Debt Cancellation Agreements. Some
creditors may require debt cancellation agreements while others may
offer them as an option. In the case of motor
[[Page 62768]]
vehicle loans, these agreements, sometimes referred to as ``gap''
agreements, offer protection to consumers if the vehicle is stolen
or destroyed and the motor vehicle insurance proceeds are
insufficient to extinguish the debt. In return for a fee, the
consumer will not be held liable for the remaining balance due on
the loan. Other types of agreements provide for debt cancellation if
the borrower dies or becomes disabled. In some states these
agreements are regulated as or otherwise considered insurance under
state law.
i. Insurance. If the agreement is regulated as or considered
insurance under state law, the fee paid by the consumer may be
excludable from the finance charge if it meets the requirements in
Sec. 226.4(d). Insurance protecting the creditor against credit
loss, however, is a finance charge under Sec. 226.4(b)(5).
ii. Other. If the agreement is not considered insurance under
state law, debt cancellation fees paid to the creditor, whether
required or optional, are incident to the extension of credit and
must be disclosed as a finance charge. An optional debt cancellation
fee paid to a third-party is a finance charge only to the extent
that the third-party shares the fee with the creditor. If a creditor
cannot determine whether state law considers the agreement
insurance, the fees must be treated as if the agreement is not
insurance.
* * * * *
Paragraph 4(d).
* * * * *
5. Required credit life insurance. Credit life, accident,
health, or loss-of-income insurance must be voluntary in order for
the premium or charges to be excluded from the finance charge.
Whether the insurance is in fact required or optional is a factual
question. If the insurance is required, the premiums must be
included in the finance charge, whether the insurance is purchased
from the creditor or from a third party. If the consumer
is required to elect one of several options--such as
[only option the creditor gives the consumer is] to purchase credit
life insurance from the creditor, [or to]
assign an existing life insurance policy, or pledge
security such as a certificate of deposit, and the
consumer purchases the credit life insurance, the premium must be
included in the finance charge. (If the consumer assigns a
preexisting policy instead, no premium is included in the finance
charge. The security interest would be disclosed under
Sec. 226.6(c) or Sec. 226.18(m). See the commentary to
Sec. 226.(4)(b) (7) and (8).)
* * * * *
3. In supplement I to part 226, under section 226.6--Initial
Disclosure Statement, under 6(b) Other charges., paragraph 1.v. would
be revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
Subpart B--Open-End Credit
* * * * *
Section 226.6--Initial Disclosure Statement
* * * * *
6(b) Other charges.
1. * * *
v. A membership or participation fee for a package of services
that includes an open-end credit feature, unless the fee is required
whether or not the open-end credit feature is included. For example,
a membership fee to join a credit union is not an ``other charge,''
even if membership is required to apply for credit. For
the fee to be excluded from disclosure as an ``other charge,''
however, the package of services must have some substantive purpose
other than access to the credit feature. For example, if the primary
benefit of membership in an organization is the opportunity to apply
for a credit card, and the other benefits offered are incidental to
the credit feature, the membership fee is an ``other
charge.''
* * * * *
4. In supplement I to part 226, under Section 226.12--Special
Credit Card Provisions, under 12(c)(2) Adverse credit reports
prohibited., new paragraph 2. would be added to read as follows:
* * * * *
Section 226.12--Special Credit Card Provisions
* * * * *
12(c)(2) Adverse credit reports prohibited.
* * * * *
2. Settlement of dispute. A card issuer may not
consider a dispute settled and report an amount disputed as
delinquent or begin collection of the disputed amount until it has
completed a reasonable investigation of the cardholder's claim. In
conducting an investigation, the card issuer may reasonably request
the cardholder's cooperation. The card issuer may not automatically
consider a dispute settled due to the cardholder's failure or
refusal to comply with a particular request.
* * * * *
5. In supplement I to Part 226, under Section 226.14--Determination
of Annual Percentage Rate, under 14(c) Annual percentage rate for
periodic statements., a new paragraph 10. would be added to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Section 226.14--Determination of Annual Percentage Rate
* * * * *
14(c) Annual percentage rate for periodic statements.
* * * * *
10. Transactions at end of billing cycle. The annual
percentage rate reflects transactions and charges imposed during the
billing cycle. However, a transaction that occurs at the end of a
billing cycle may be impracticable to post until the following
cycle, such as a cash advance that occurs on the last day of a
billing cycle. The transaction is posted to the account in the
following cycle. In this case, the annual percentage rate shall be
calculate as follows for the billing cycle in which the transaction
and charges are posted:
i. The denominator shall be calculated as if the transaction
occurred on the first day of the billing cycle, and
ii. The numerator shall include the amount of the transaction
charge plus all finance charges derived from the application of the
periodic rate to the amount of the transaction (including all
charges from a prior cycle).
* * * * *
6. In Supplement I to Part 226, under Section 226.17--General
Disclosure Requirements, under Paragraph 17(c)(1)., paragraph 10. would
be revised and a new paragraph 18. would be added to read as follows:
* * * * *
Subpart C--Closed-End Credit
Section 226.17--General Disclosure Requirements
* * * * *
17(c) Basis of disclosures and use of estimates.
Paragraph 17(c)(1).
* * * * *
10. Discounted and premium variable-rate transactions. In some
variable-rate transactions, creditors may set an initial interest
rate that is not determined by the index or formula used to make
later interest rate adjustments. Typically, this initial rate
charged to consumers is lower than the rate would be if it were
calculated using the index or formula. However, in some cases the
initial rate may be higher. In a discounted transaction, for
example, a creditor may calculate interest rates according to a
formula using the six-month Treasury bill rate plus a 2 percent
margin. If the Treasury bill rate at consummation is 10 percent, the
creditor may forgo the 2 percent spread and charge only 10 percent
for a limited time, instead of setting an initial rate of 12
percent.
i. When creditors use an initial interest
rate that is not calculated using the index or formula for later
rate adjustments, the disclosures should reflect a composite annual
percentage rate based on the initial rate for as long as it is
charged and, for the remainder of the term, the rate that would have
been applied using the index or formula at the time of consummation.
The rate at consummation need not be used if a contract provides for
a delay in the implementation of changes in an index value. For
example, if the contract specifies that rate changes are based on
the index value in effect 45 days before the change date, creditors
may use any [the] index value in effect
during the 45 day period [not more than 45
days] before consummation in calculating a composite annual
percentage rate.
ii. The effect of the multiple rates must
also be reflected in the calculation and disclosure of the finance
charge, total of payments, and payment schedule.
iii. If a loan contains a rate or payment
cap that would prevent the initial rate or payment, at the time of
the first adjustment, from changing to the rate determined by the
index or formula at consummation, the effect of that rate or payment
cap should be reflected in the disclosures.
iv. Because these transactions involve
irregular payment amounts, an annual
[[Page 62769]]
percentage rate tolerance of \1/4\ of 1 percent applies, in accordance
with Sec. 226.22(a)(3) of the regulation.
v. Examples of discounted variable-rate
transactions include:
A. A 30-year loan for $100,000 with no
prepaid finance charges and rates determined by the Treasury bill
rate plus 2 percent. Rate and payment adjustments are made annually.
Although the Treasury bill rate at the time of consummation is 10
percent, the creditor sets the interest rate for one year at 9
percent, instead of 12 percent according to the formula. The
disclosures should reflect a composite annual percentage rate of
11.63 percent based on 9 percent for one year and 12 percent for 29
years. Reflecting those two rate levels, the payment schedule should
show 12 payments of $804.62 and 348 payments of $1,025.31. The
finance charge should be $266,463.32 and the total of payments
$366,463.32.
B. Same loan as above, except with a 2
percent rate cap on periodic adjustments. The disclosures should
reflect a composite annual percentage rate of 11.53 percent based on
9 percent for the first year, 11 percent for the second year, and 12
percent for the remaining 28 years. Reflecting those three rate
levels, the payment schedule should show 12 payments of $804.62, 12
payments of $950.09, and 336 payments of $1,024.34. The finance
charge should be $265,234.76 and the total of payments $365,234.76.
C. Same loan as above, except with a 7\1/
2\ percent cap on payment adjustments. The disclosures should
reflect a composite annual percentage rate of 11.64 percent, based
on 9 percent for one year and 12 percent for 29 years. Because of
the payment cap, five levels of payments should be reflected. The
payment schedule should show 12 payments of $804.62, 12 payments of
$864.97, 12 payments of $929.84, 12 payments of $999.58, and 312
payments of $1,070.04. The finance charge should be $277,040.60, and
the total of payments $377,040.60.
D. This paragraph does not apply to
variable-rate loans in which the initial interest rate is set
according to the index or formula used for later adjustments but is
not set at the value of the index or formula at consummation. For
example, if a creditor commits to an initial rate based on the
formula on a date prior to consummation, but the index has moved
during the period between that time and consummation, a creditor
should base its disclosures on the initial rate.
* * * * *
18. Pawn Transactions. For a transaction in which a
consumer pledges or sells an item to a creditor in return for a sum
of money, and retains the right to redeem the item for a greater sum
(the redemption price) within a specified period of time:
i. The amount financed is the initial sum paid to the consumer.
ii. The finance charge is the difference between the initial sum
paid to the consumer and the redemption price.
iii. The term of the transaction, for calculating the annual
percentage rate, is the specified period of time agreed to by the
creditor and the consumer.
* * * * *
7. In Supplement I to Part 226, under Section 226.18--Content of
Disclosures, under Paragraph 18(c)(1)(iii)., a new paragraph 2. would
be added to read as follows:
* * * * *
Section 226.18--Content of Disclosures
* * * * *
Paragraph 18(c)(1)(iii).
* * * * *
2. Creditor-imposed charges added to amounts paid to
others. A creditor that offers an item for sale in both cash and
credit transactions sometimes adds an amount (often referred to as
an ``upcharge'') to a fee charged to a consumer by a third party for
a service (such as for a maintenance or service contract) that is
payable in an equal amount in both types of transactions, and
retains that amount. At its option, the creditor may list the total
charge (including the portion retained by it) as an amount paid to
others, or it may choose to reflect the amounts in the manner in
which they were actually paid to or retained by the appropriate
parties.
* * * * *
8. In Supplement I to Part 226, under Section 226.20 Subsequent
Disclosure Requirements, under Paragraph 20(a) Refinancings., paragraph
3. would be revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
Section 226.20--Subsequent Disclosure Requirements
Paragraph 20(a) Refinancings.
* * * * *
3. Variable-rate.
i. If a variable-rate feature was properly
disclosed under the regulation, a rate change in accord with those
disclosures is not a refinancing. For example, no new
disclosures are required when the variable-rate feature is invoked
on a renewable balloon-payment mortgage that was previously
disclosed as a variable-rate transaction. [For example, a
renewable balloon-payment mortgage that was disclosed as a variable-
rate transaction is not subject to new disclosure requirements when
the variable-rate feature is invoked. However, even]
ii. Even if it is not accomplished by the
cancellation of the old obligation and substitution of a new one, a
new transaction subject to new disclosures results if the creditor
either:
A. Increases the rate based on a variable-
rate feature that was not previously disclosed, or
B. Adds a variable-rate feature to the
obligation. A creditor does not add a variable-rate
feature by changing the index of a variable-rate transaction or
substituting a new index for one that no longer exists.
iii. If either of the above
[these] two events occur in a transaction secured by a principal
dwelling with a term longer than one year, the disclosures required
under Sec. 226.19(b) also must be given at that time.
* * * * *
9. In Supplement I to Part 226, a new Subpart E--Special Rules for
Certain Home Mortgage Transactions would be added as follows:
* * * * *
Subpart E--Special Rules for Certain Home Mortgage
Transactions
Section 226.31--General Rules
31(c) Timing of disclosure.
Paragraph 31(c)(1) Disclosures for certain closed-end home
mortgages.
1. Furnishing disclosures. Disclosures are considered furnished
when received by the consumer.
2. Pre-consummation waiting period. A creditor must furnish the
special disclosures at least three business days prior to
consummation. For purposes of Sec. 226.32, ``business day'' means
every calendar day except Sundays and federal legal holidays. For
example, if disclosures are provided on Friday, consummation could
occur any time on Tuesday, the third business day following receipt
of disclosures.
Paragraph 31(c)(1)(i) Change in terms.
1. Redisclosure required. Creditors must provide new disclosures
if the regular payment or any other disclosure required by
Sec. 226.32(c) becomes inaccurate.
Paragraph 31(c)(1)(ii) Telephone disclosures.
1. Telephone disclosures. Disclosures by telephone must be
furnished at least three calendar days prior to consummation.
Paragraph 31(c)(1)(iii) Consumer's waiver of waiting period
before consummation.
1. Modification or waiver. A consumer may modify or waive the
right to the three-day waiting period only after receiving the
disclosures required by Sec. 226.32 and only if the circumstances
meet the criteria for establishing a bona fide personal financial
emergency in Sec. 226.23(e). Whether these criteria are met are
determined by the facts surrounding individual situations. The
impending sale of the consumer's home at foreclosure is one example
of a bona fide personal financial emergency. Each consumer entitled
to the three-day waiting period must sign a written statement for
the waiver to be effective.
Paragraph 31(c)(2) Disclosures for reverse mortgages.
1. Business days. For purposes of providing reverse mortgage
disclosures, ``business day'' means a day on which the creditor's
offices are open to the public for carrying on substantially all of
its business functions.
2. Open-end plans. Disclosures for open-end reverse mortgages
must be provided three business days before the first transaction
under the plan (see Sec. 226.5(b)(1)).
31(d) Basis of disclosures and use of estimates.
1. Redisclosure. When a disclosure required by Sec. 226.32 is
based on and labeled as an estimate and becomes inaccurate due to a
change in terms that occurs before consummation, new disclosures
must be provided.
[[Page 62770]]
Section 226.32--Requirements for Certain Closed-End Home Mortgages
32(a) Coverage.
Paragraph 32(a)(1)(i).
1. Application date. An application is deemed received when it
reaches the creditor in any of the ways applications are normally
transmitted. (See Sec. 226.19(a).) For example, if a borrower
applies for a 10-year loan on September 30 and the creditor
counteroffers with a 7-year loan on October 10, the creditor must
measure the annual percentage rate against the appropriate Treasury
security yield as of August 15. An application transmitted through
an intermediary agent or broker is received when it reaches the
creditor, rather than when it reaches the agent or broker.
2. When fifteenth not a business day. If the 15th day of the
month immediately preceding the application date is not a business
day, the creditor must use the yield as of the business day
immediately preceding the 15th.
3. Calculating annual percentage rates for variable-rate loans
and discount loans. Creditors must use the rules set out in the
commentary to Sec. 226.17(c)(1) in calculating the annual percentage
rate for variable-rate loans (assume the rate in effect at the time
of disclosure remains unchanged) and for discount, premium, and
stepped-rate transactions (which must reflect composite annual
percentage rates).
4. Treasury securities. To determine the yield on a Treasury
security for the annual percentage rate test, creditors may use the
Board's Selected Interest Rates (statistical release H-15) or the
actual auction results. Treasury auctions are held at regular
intervals for the different types of securities. These figures are
published by major financial and metropolitan newspapers, and are
also available from Federal Reserve Banks. Creditors must use the
yield on the security that has the nearest maturity at issuance to
the loan's maturity. For example, if a creditor must compare the
annual percentage rate to Treasury securities with either seven-year
or ten-year maturities, the annual percentage rate for an eight-year
loan is compared with securities that have a seven-year maturity;
the annual percentage rate for a nine-year loan is compared with
securities that have a ten-year maturity. If the loan maturity is
exactly halfway between, the annual percentage rate is compared with
the Treasury security that has the lower yield. For example, if the
loan has a maturity of 20 years and comparable securities have
maturities of 10 years with a yield of 6.501 percent and 30 years
with a yield of 6.906 percent, the annual percentage rate is
compared with 10 percentage points over the yield of 6.501 percent,
the lower of the two yields.
Paragraph 32(a)(1)(ii).
1. Total loan amount. For purposes of the ``points and fees''
test, the total loan amount is calculated by taking the amount
financed, as determined according to Sec. 226.18(b), and deducting
any cost listed in Sec. 226.32(b)(1)(iii) that is both included as
points and fees under Sec. 226.32(b)(1) and financed by the
creditor. For example, if a consumer borrows $10,000, finances a
$300 fee for a creditor-conducted appraisal, and pays $400 in points
at closing, the amount financed according to Sec. 226.18(b) is
$9,900 ($10,000 plus the $300 appraisal fee that is financed by the
creditor, less $400 in prepaid finance charges). The $300 appraisal
fee paid to the creditor is added to other points and fees under
Sec. 226.32(b)(1)(iii). It is deducted from the amount financed
under Sec. 226.18(b) ($9,900) to derive a total loan amount of
$9,600. If the $300 appraisal fee is paid in cash at closing, the
$300 is included in the points and fees calculation. However,
because it is not financed by the creditor, the $300 fee is not part
of the amount financed under Sec. 226.18(b) ($10,000, in this case).
The total loan amount is $9,600 ($10,000, less $400 in prepaid
finance charges).
32(b) Definitions.
Paragraph 32(b)(1)(i).
1. General. Items defined as finance charges under Sec. 226.4(a)
and 226.(4)(b) are included under this paragraph as a component of
the total ``points and fees.'' Items excluded from the finance
charge under other provisions of Sec. 226.4 are not included in the
calculation under this paragraph 32(b)(1)(i), although the fee may
be included in ``points and fees'' under paragraphs 32(b)(1)(ii) and
32(b)(1)(iii).
Paragraph 32(b)(1)(ii).
1. Mortgage broker fees. In determining ``points and fees'' for
purposes of this section, compensation paid by a consumer to a
mortgage broker (directly or through the creditor for delivery to
the broker) is included in the calculation whether or not the amount
is disclosed as a finance charge. Mortgage broker fees that are not
paid by the consumer are not included. Broker fees already included
in the calculation as finance charges under Sec. 226.32(b)(1)(i)
need not be counted again under Sec. 226.32(b)(1)(ii).
2. Example. Section 226.32(b)(1)(iii) defines ``points and
fees'' to include all items listed in Sec. 226.4(c)(7), other than
amounts held for future payment of taxes. An item listed in
Sec. 226.4(c)(7) may be excluded from the ``points and fees''
calculation, however, if the charge is reasonable, the creditor
receives no direct or indirect compensation from the charge, and the
charge is not paid to an affiliate of the creditor. For example, a
reasonable fee paid by the consumer to an independent, third-party
appraiser may be excluded from the points and fees calculation
(assuming no compensation is paid to the creditor). A fee paid by
the consumer for an appraisal performed by the creditor must be
included in the calculation, even though the fee may be excluded
from the finance charge if it is bona fide and reasonable in amount.
32(c) Disclosures.
1. Format. The disclosures must be clear and conspicuous but
need not be in any particular type size or typeface, nor presented
in any particular manner. For example, the disclosures need not be a
part of the mortgage.
Paragraph 32(c)(3) Regular payment.
1. General. The regular payment is the amount due from the
borrower at regular intervals, such as monthly, bimonthly,
quarterly, or annually. There must be at least two payments, and the
payments must be in an amount and at such intervals that they fully
amortize the amount owed. If the loan has two payment streams, the
regular payment for each must be disclosed.
2. Discount and premium rates. In disclosing the regular
payment, creditors may rely on the rules set forth in
Sec. 226.18(g). In discounted or premium variable rate transactions
where the creditor sets the initial interest rate and later rate
adjustments are determined by an index or formula, the creditor must
disclose both the payment based on the discount or premium and the
payment that will be in effect thereafter. Additional explanatory
material which does not detract from the required disclosures may
accompany the disclosed amounts. For example, if a monthly payment
is $250 for the first six months and then increases based on an
index and margin, the creditor could use language such as the
following: ``Your regular monthly payment will be $250 for six
months. After six months your regular monthly payment will be based
on an index and margin, which currently would make your payment
$350. Your actual payment at that time may be higher or lower.''
Paragraph 32(c)(4) Variable-rate.
1. Calculating ``worst-case'' payment example. Creditors may
rely on instructions in Sec. 226.19(b)(2)(x) for calculating the
maximum possible increases in rates in the shortest possible
timeframe, based on the face amount of the note (not the
hypothetical loan amount of $10,000 required by
Sec. 226.19(b)(2)(x)). The creditor must provide a maximum payment
for each payment stream, where a payment schedule provides for more
than one payment stream and more than one maximum payment amount is
possible.
32(d) Limitations.
Paragraph 32(d)(1)(i) Balloon payment.
1. Regular periodic payments. The repayment schedule for a
Sec. 226.32 mortgage loan with a term of less than five years must
fully amortize the outstanding principal balance through ``regular
periodic payments.'' A payment is a ``regular periodic payment'' if
it is not more than twice the amount of other payments.
Paragraph 32(d)(2) Negative amortization.
1. Negative amortization. The prohibition against negative
amortization in a mortgage covered by Sec. 226.32 does not preclude
increases in the principal balance that result from events unrelated
to the payment schedule, such as when a consumer fails to obtain
property insurance and the creditor purchases and adds the premium
to the consumer's principal balance.
Paragraph 32(d)(4) Increased interest rate.
1. Variable-rate transactions. The limitation on interest rate
increases does not apply to rate increases resulting from index
changes in a variable-rate transaction, even if the increase occurs
after default by the consumer.
Paragraph 32(d)(5) Rebates.
1. Calculation of refunds. The limitation applies only to
refunds of interest and not to any other charges that are considered
finance charges under Sec. 226.4 (for example, points and fees paid
at closing). The calculation of the refund of interest includes odd-
days interest, whether paid at or after consummation.
[[Page 62771]]
Paragraph 32(d)(6) Prepayment penalties.
1. State law. If using the actuarial method defined by
applicable state law results in a refund that is greater than the
refund calculated by using the method described in section 933(d) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, creditors must
use the state law definition in determining if a refund is a
prepayment penalty under Sec. 226.32(d)(6).
32(d)(7) Prepayment penalty exception.
Paragraph 32(d)(7)(iii).
1. Calculating debt-to-income ratio. ``Debt'' does not include
amounts paid by the borrower in cash at closing or amounts from the
loan proceeds that directly repay an existing debt. Creditors may
consider combined debt-to-income ratios for transactions involving
joint applicants.
2. Verification. Verification of employment satisfies the
requirement for payment records for employment income.
32(e) Prohibited acts and practices.
Paragraph 32(e)(1) Repayment ability.
1. Determining repayment ability. The information provided to
the creditor in connection with Sec. 226.32(d)(7) may be used to
show that the creditor considered the consumer's income and
obligations before extending the credit. Any expected income can be
considered by the creditor, except equity income that the consumer
would obtain through the foreclosure of a mortgage covered by
Sec. 226.32. For example, a creditor may use information about
income other than regular salary or wages such as gifts, expected
retirement payments, or income from housecleaning or childcare. The
creditor also may use unverified income, so long as the creditor has
a reasonable basis for believing that the income exists.
Paragraph 32(e)(2) Home-Improvement Contracts.
Paragraph 32(e)(2)(i).
1. Joint payees. If a creditor pays a contractor with an
instrument jointly payable to the contractor and the consumer, the
instrument must name as payee each consumer who is primarily
obligated on the note.
Paragraph 32(e)(3) Notice to Assignee.
1. Subsequent sellers or assignors. Any person, whether or not
the original creditor, that sells or assigns a mortgage subject to
this section must furnish the notice of potential liability to the
purchaser or assignee.
2. Format. While the notice of potential liability need not be in
any particular format, the notice must be prominent. Placing it on the
face of the note, such as with a stamp, is one means of satisfying the
prominence requirement.
Section 226.33--Requirements for Reverse Mortgages
33(a) Definition.
1. Nonrecourse transaction. A nonrecourse reverse mortgage
transaction limits the homeowner's liability to the proceeds of the
sale of the home (or any lesser amount specified in the credit
obligation). If a transaction structured as a closed-end reverse
mortgage transaction allows recourse against the consumer, and the
annual percentage rate or the points and fees exceed those specified
under Sec. 226.32(a)(1), the transaction is subject to all the
requirements of Sec. 226.32, including the limitations concerning
balloon payments and negative amortization.
Paragraph 33(a)(2).
1. Default. Default is not defined by the regulation, but rather
by the legal obligation between the parties and state or other law.
2. Definite term or maturity date. To meet the definition of a
reverse mortgage transaction, a creditor cannot require any
principal, interest, or shared appreciation or equity to be due and
payable (other than in the case of default) until after the
consumer's death, transfer of the dwelling, or the consumer ceases
to occupy the dwelling as a principal dwelling. Some state laws
require legal obligations secured by a mortgage to specify a
definite maturity date or term of repayment in the instrument. Such
a provision in an obligation does not violate the definition of a
reverse mortgage transaction if the maturity date or term or
repayment required by state law would in no case operate to cause
maturity prior to the occurrence of any of the events recognized in
the regulation. For example, a provision that allows a reverse
mortgage loan to become due and payable only after the consumer's
death, transfer, or cessation of occupancy, or after a specified
term, but which automatically extends the term for consecutive
periods as long as none of the other events has occurred would meet
the definition of a reverse mortgage transaction.
33(c) Projected total cost of credit.
Paragraph 33(c)(1) Costs to consumer.
1. Costs and charges to consumer--relation to finance charge.
All costs and charges to the consumer that are incurred in a reverse
mortgage transaction are included in the projected total cost of
credit, and thus in the total annual loan cost rates, whether or not
the cost or charge is a finance charge under Sec. 226.4 of the
regulation.
2. Annuity costs. As part of the credit transaction, some
creditors require or permit a consumer to purchase an annuity that
immediately--or at some future time--supplements or replaces the
creditor's payments. The amount paid by the consumer for the annuity
is a cost to the consumer under this section, regardless of whether
the annuity is purchased through the creditor or a third party, or
whether the purchase is mandatory or voluntary.
3. Disposition costs excluded. Disposition costs incurred in
connection with the sale or transfer of the property subject to the
reverse mortgage are not included in the costs to the consumer under
this paragraph. (However, see the definition of Valn in
appendix K to the regulation to determine the effect certain
disposition costs may have on the total annual loan cost rates.)
Paragraph 33(c)(2) Payments to consumer.
1. Payments upon a specified event. The projected total cost of
credit should not reflect contingent payments in which a credit to
the outstanding loan balance or a payment to the consumer's estate
is made upon the occurrence of an event (for example, a ``death
benefit'' payable if the consumer's death occurs within a certain
period of time). Thus, the table of total annual loan cost rates
required under Sec. 226.33(b)(2) would not reflect such payments. At
its option, however, a creditor may put an asterisk, footnote, or
similar type of notation in the table next to the applicable total
annual loan cost rate, and state in the body of the note, apart from
the table, the assumption upon which the total annual loan cost is
made and any different rate that would apply if the contingent
benefit were paid.
Paragraph 33(c)(3) Additional creditor compensation.
1. Shared appreciation or equity. Any shared appreciation or
equity that the creditor is entitled to receive pursuant to the
legal obligation must be included in the total cost of a reverse
mortgage loan. For example, if a creditor agrees to a reduced
interest rate on the transaction in exchange for a portion of the
appreciation or equity that may be realized when the dwelling is
sold, that portion is included in the projected total cost of
credit.
Paragraph 33(c)(4) Limitations on consumer liability.
1. In general. Creditors must include any limitation on the
consumer's liability (such as a nonrecourse limit or an equity
conservation agreement) in the projected total cost of credit. These
limits and agreements protect a portion of the equity in the
dwelling for the consumer or the consumer's estate. For example, the
following contractual provisions are limitations on the consumer's
liability that must be included in the projected total cost of
credit:
i. A limit on the consumer's liability to a certain percentage
of the projected value of the home.
ii. A limit on the consumer's liability to the net proceeds from
the sale of the property subject to the reverse mortgage.
2. Uniform assumption for ``net proceeds'' recourse limitations.
If the legal obligation between the parties does not specify a
percentage for the ``net proceeds'' liability of the consumer, for
purposes of the disclosures required by Sec. 226.33, a creditor must
assume that the costs associated with selling the property will
equal 7 percent of the projected sale price (see the definition of
the Valn symbol under appendix K(b)(6)).
* * * * *
10. In Supplement I to Part 226, a new Appendix K--Total Annual
Loan Cost Rate Computations for Reverse Mortgage Transactions and a new
Appendix L--Assumed Loan Periods for Computations of Total Annual Loan
Cost Rates would be added to read as follows:
* * * * *
Appendix K--Total Annual Loan Cost Rate Computations for
Reverse Mortgage Transactions
1. General. The calculation of total annual loan cost rates
under appendix K is based on the principles set and the estimation
or ``iteration'' procedure used to compute annual percentage rates
under appendix J. Rather than restate this iteration process in
full, the regulation cross-references the procedures found in
appendix J. In other aspects the appendix reflects the special
[[Page 62772]]
nature of reverse mortgage transactions. Special definitions and
instructions are included where appropriate.
(b) Instructions and equations for the total annual loan cost
rate.
(b)(5) Number of unit-periods between two given dates.
1. Assumption as to when transaction begins. The computation of
the total annual loan cost rate is based on the assumption that the
reverse mortgage transaction begins on the first day of the month in
which consummation is estimated to occur. Therefore, fractional
unit-periods (as used under appendix J for calculating annual
percentage rates) are not used.
(b)(9) Assumption for discretionary cash advances.
1. Amount of credit. Creditors should compute the total annual
loan cost rates for transactions involving discretionary cash
advances by assuming that 50 percent of the initial amount of the
credit available under the transaction is advanced at closing or, in
an open-end transaction, when the consumer becomes obligated under
the plan. (For the purposes of this assumption, the initial amount
of the credit is the principle loan amount less any costs to the
consumer under section 226.33(c)(1).)
(b)(10) Assumption for variable-rate reverse mortgage
transactions.
1. Initial discount or premium rate. Where a variable-rate
reverse mortgage transaction includes an initial discount or premium
rate, the creditor should apply the same rules for calculating the
total annual loan cost rate as are applied when calculating the
annual percentage rate for a loan with an initial discount or
premium rate (see the commentary to Sec. 226.17(c)).
(d) Reverse mortgage model form and sample form.
(d)(2) Sample form.
1. General. The ``clear and conspicuous'' standard for reverse
mortgage disclosures does not require disclosures to be printed in
any particular type size. Disclosures may be made on more than one
page, and use both the front and the reverse sides, so long as the
pages constitute an integrated document.
Appendix L--Assumed Loan Periods for Computations of Total Annual Loan
Cost Rates
1. General. The life expectancy figures used in this appendix
are those found in the U.S. Decennial Life Tables for women, as
rounded to the nearest whole year and as published by the U. S.
Department of Health and Human Services. The figures contained in
this appendix must be used by creditors for all consumers (men and
women). This appendix will be revised periodically by the Board to
incorporate revisions to the figures made in the Decennial
Tables.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated
authority, December 1, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-29711 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-29534 When You Are A Full-Time Elementary Or Secondary School Student
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62783-62786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29534]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
20 CFR Part 404
[Regulation No. 4]
RIN 0960-AE21
When You Are A Full-Time Elementary Or Secondary School Student
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to revise our rule on full-time elementary or
secondary school students to include students enrolled in home
schooling or independent study programs authorized by State or local
law, e.g., political subdivision, tribal government, or the District of
Columbia. The current rule covers only students in traditional
institutional educational settings; however, many States (or other
jurisdictions) provide for home schooling and independent study
programs considered equivalent to traditional schools. We also propose
to clearly show that nonpayment provisions apply to certain prisoners
and certain other inmates of publicly funded institutions who otherwise
would meet student benefit requirements. In addition, we propose to
remove outdated rules on student benefits relating to months before
August 1982.
DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive
them no later than February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in writing to the Commissioner
of Social Security, P.O. Box 1585, Baltimore, MD 21235, sent by telefax
to (410) 966-2830, sent by E-mail to ``[email protected]'', or
delivered to the Division of Regulations and Rulings, Social Security
Administration, 3-B-1 Operations Building, 6401 Security Boulevard,
Baltimore, MD 21235, between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. on regular
business days. Comments may be inspected during these same hours by
making arrangements with the contact person shown below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Bridgewater, Legal
Assistant, Division of Regulations and Rulings, Social Security
Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)
965-3298 for information about these rules. For information on
eligibility or claiming benefits, call our national toll-free number,
1-800-772-1213.
[[Page 62784]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background
The Social Security Amendments of 1965, Public Law 89-97, section
306, defined a full-time student as ``an individual who is in full-time
attendance as a student at an educational institution.'' An
``educational institution'' was defined as ``(i) a school or college or
university operated or directly supported by the United States, or by
any State or local government or political subdivision thereof, or (ii)
a school or college or university which has been approved by a State or
accredited by a State-recognized or nationally-recognized accrediting
agency or body, or (iii) a non-accredited school or college or
university whose credits are accepted, on transfer, by not less than
three institutions which are so accredited * * *.'' This definition
of an educational institution was chosen by Congress, as explained in
the Senate report, ``to establish that the institution the child
attends is a bona fide school.'' (See S. Rep. No. 404, 89th Cong., 1st
Sess., reprinted in 1965 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1943, 2036-37.)
The Senate report also stated: ``The committee believes that a
child over age 18 who is attending school full-time is dependent just
as a child under 18 or a disabled older child is dependent, and that it
is not realistic to stop such a child's benefit at age 18.'' Ibid. We
understand this to mean that the committee believed that full-time
students attending class are less likely to be able to support
themselves through employment than are part-time or correspondence
students.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Public Law 97-35,
section 2210, replaced the term ``educational institution'' and its
definition with the requirement that the student be in full-time
attendance at an ``elementary or secondary school,'' which is defined
as a ``school which provides elementary or secondary education,
respectively, as determined under the law of the State or other
jurisdiction in which it is located.'' (See section 202(d)(7)(C)(i) of
the Social Security Act (the Act) as amended.) The purpose of this
amendment was to eliminate child's insurance benefits in the case of
children age 18 or older who attend postsecondary schools. Section 2210
also eliminated child's insurance benefits for children in elementary
or secondary school after they attained age 19. (See S. Rep. No. 139,
97th Cong., 1st Sess. 427, reprinted in 1981 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.
News 396, 693.)
Present Policy
Child's insurance benefits under sections 202(d)(6) and (7) of the
Act usually terminate when the child attains age 18. However, there is
an exception that allows for continuation of entitlement to child's
benefits for persons age 18 until attainment of age 19 who are full-
time elementary or secondary school students.
Section 202(d)(7)(A) of the Act defines a full-time elementary or
secondary school student as ``an individual who is in full-time
attendance as a student at an elementary or secondary school, as
determined by the Commissioner (in accordance with regulations
prescribed by him) in the light of the standards and practices of the
schools involved * * *.''
Section 404.367 of our current regulations states, in pertinent
part:
* * * You are a full-time elementary or secondary school
student if you meet all the following conditions:
(a) You attend a school which provides elementary or secondary
education, respectively, as determined under the law of the State or
other jurisdiction in which it is located;
(b) You are in full-time attendance in a day or evening
noncorrespondence course of at least 13 weeks duration and are
carrying a subject load which is considered full-time for day
students under the institution's standards and practices.
Additionally, your scheduled attendance must be at the rate of at
least 20 hours per week unless we find that:
(1) The school attended does not schedule at least 20 hours per
week and going to that particular school is your only reasonable
alternative; or
(2) Your medical condition prevents you from having scheduled
attendance of at least 20 hours per week. To prove that your medical
condition prevents you from scheduling 20 hours per week, we may
request that you provide appropriate medical evidence or a statement
from the school.
Proposed Policy
Current regulations do not provide guidance on alternative
education programs covered under the laws of the State (or other
jurisdiction) in which a student resides. Before the development of
such programs, our policy had been in keeping with the traditional
definition of educational institutions. Such traditional institutional-
type schools include public, private, and religious schools. Except for
the two specific exceptions noted in the regulations, we also
consistently have required that the student be scheduled to attend
school for at least 20 hours per week to be considered a full-time
student.
Because most States (or other jurisdictions) have begun providing
for education based on alternative education methods, we evaluated
cases involving home schooling or independent study programs on an
individual basis. This evaluation has provided sufficient information
to formulate these proposed regulations.
Many States or other jurisdictions have laws recognizing home
schooling. Home schooling is an educational program in which the
student is generally taught within the home by a parent/teacher. The
State or other jurisdiction specifies the requirements that must be met
and the procedures that must be followed in these situations. There
must be a parent or other home school teacher participating in the home
school instruction. This participation may be in the form of actual
instruction, answering questions, administering tests, keeping
attendance records, etc. The student must be carrying a course load
that is considered full-time using the same standards and practices
used for full-time day students in the traditional setting, as
determined under the law of the State or other jurisdiction in which
the student resides.
The child's home schooling teacher must submit evidence that legal
requirements for home schooling are met. Depending on these
requirements, this evidence might include a copy of the certificate of
intent that is filed with the local school or school district,
documentation that State-mandated tests were taken, a list of the
courses being taught, and a copy of the attendance log or chart.
Also, some States or other jurisdictions authorize the governing
board of a school district or a county office of education to offer
independent study to meet the educational needs of pupils in accordance
with certain requirements. An independent study course could (but need
not) include instruction in the student's home or elsewhere outside the
classroom. The study program is conducted in accordance with written
policies and rules. It is coordinated, evaluated, and under the
supervision of an employee of the school district or county office of
education who has been certified to act as a home teacher. Independent
study programs which involve instruction and supervision by a teacher
employed by the school (or local school district) include written
agreements for each independent study student specifying, among other
things, the duration of the agreement and a statement of the number of
course credits to be earned by the pupil upon completion. The effect of
the written agreement is to extend the educational setting beyond the
[[Page 62785]]
traditional classroom. It is a situation similar to those students who
are in school-approved work-study programs that extend the educational
setting.
We therefore propose to revise Sec. 404.367 to include students
enrolled in home schooling or independent study programs authorized by
State (or other jurisdiction) laws. The student must be carrying a
course load considered to be full-time under the standards and
practices used for day students who are in full-time attendance at
traditional educational institutions. Students in these types of
situations include a wide range of individuals. For example, home
schooling students may be in that situation for religious reasons or
because the parents do not agree with the local school curriculum.
Students in independent study programs may include those
individuals who cannot take advantage of the traditional school
setting, such as hard-to-keep-in-school students (unable to adjust or
delinquents), single mothers, or expectant mothers. All students--those
in traditional programs and those in alternative programs--who work are
subject to the annual earnings test.
A home schooling program must meet the requirements set forth by
the State (or other jurisdiction). An independent study program
organized in accordance with the State (or other jurisdiction)
requirements must be coordinated, evaluated and supervised by an
employee of the school district or county office of education and must
comply with the policies of the school district or county office of
education. To be entitled to child's insurance benefits as a student,
an individual enrolled in either type of program must meet both the
Federal and the State (or other jurisdiction) full-time attendance
(FTA) requirements.
When determining FTA, the home schooling teacher will be the
certifying school official for FTA purposes. In independent study
situations, the school teacher/official supervising the performance of
the student under the written agreement between the school and the
student will be the certifying official for FTA.
When determining the number of hours spent in school attendance for
an approved independent study program, we will combine the number of
agreed upon hours spent in independent study with the number of hours
in actual school attendance. The course load must be equivalent to that
of a student in the school's full-time day program.
We will continue to exclude from eligibility those individuals who
are enrolled solely in correspondence courses. We do not believe that
such courses satisfy the definition of an elementary or secondary
school in the Act, and usually they would not meet State (or other
jurisdiction) requirements.
We also propose to revise Sec. 404.367 to clearly show that section
202(x) of the Act, regarding nonpayment of benefits to certain
prisoners and certain other inmates of publicly funded institutions,
applies to those individuals who otherwise meet student benefit
requirements. Section 202(x) is applicable to those who otherwise would
qualify for benefits under section 202(d)(7)(A) of the Act.
Further, we propose to remove Sec. 404.369 since it applies only to
child's benefits for full-time students for months before August 1982.
This section has not been applicable for over 10 years and there is no
longer a need to retain it. Sections that refer to Sec. 404.369 (i.e.,
Secs. 404.350-404.353) will be revised to remove such references.
Electronic Version
The electronic file of this document is available on the Federal
Bulletin Board (FBB) at 9:00 A.M. on the date of publication in the
Federal Register. To download the file, modem dial (202) 512-1387. The
FBB instructions will explain how to download the file and the fee.
This file is in WordPerfect and will remain on the FBB during the
comment period.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866
We have consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
and determined that this proposed rule does not meet the criteria for a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Thus, it was
not subject to OMB review.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
We certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since it
affects only individuals. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis
as provided in Public Law 96-354, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is
not required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget clearance.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 96.001 Social
Security--Disability Insurance; 96.002 Social Security--Retirement
Insurance; 96.004 Social Security-- Survivors Insurance)
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 404
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits,
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Social security.
Dated: November 27, 1995.
Shirley S. Chater,
Commissioner of Social Security.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, subpart D of part 404 of
chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 404--FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE
(1950- )
Subpart D--[Amended]
1. The authority citation for subpart D of part 404 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 202, 203 (a) and (b), 205(a), 216, 223, 225,
228(a)-(e), and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402,
403 (a) and (b), 405(a), 416, 423, 425, 428(a)-(e), and 902(a)(5)).
2. Section 404.350 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(5) to read
as follows:
Sec. 404.350 Who is entitled to child's benefits.
(a) * * *
(5) You are under age 18; you are 18 years old or older and have a
disability that began before you became 22 years old; or you are 18
years or older and qualify for benefits as a full-time student as
described in Sec. 404.367.
* * * * *
3. Section 404.351 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 404.351 Who may be reentitled to child's benefits.
* * * * *
(a) The first month in which you qualify as a full-time student.
(See Sec. 404.367.)
* * * * *
4. Section 404.352 is amended by revising the fourth sentence of
paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 404.352 When child's benefits begin and end.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * * If you become 18 years old and you qualify as a full-time
student who is not disabled, your entitlement ends with the last month
you are a full-time student or, if earlier, the month before the month
you become age 19. * * *
* * * * *
[[Page 62786]]
5. Section 404.353 is amended by revising the second sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 404.353 Child's benefit amounts.
(a) * * * The amount of your monthly benefit may change as
explained in Sec. 404.304.
* * * * *
6. Section 404.367 is amended by revising the first sentence of the
introductory text; revising paragraphs (a) and (b); redesignating
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) as paragraphs (d), (e), and (f),
respectively; adding paragraph (c); and, revising paragraph (f) to read
as follows:
Sec. 404.367 When you are a ``full-time elementary or secondary school
student''.
You may be eligible for child's benefits if you are a full-time
elementary or secondary school student. * * *
(a) You attend a school which provides elementary or secondary
education as determined under the law of the State or other
jurisdiction in which it is located. Participation in the following
programs also meets the requirements of this paragraph:
(1) You are instructed in elementary or secondary education at home
in accordance with a home school law of the State or other jurisdiction
in which you reside; or
(2) You are in an independent study elementary or secondary
education program in accordance with the law of the State or other
jurisdiction in which you reside which is administered by the local
school or school district/jurisdiction;
(b) You are in full-time attendance in a day or evening
noncorrespondence course of at least 13 weeks duration and you are
carrying a subject load which is considered full-time for day students
under the institution's standards and practices. If you are in a home
schooling program as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, you
must be carrying a subject load which is considered full-time for day
students under standards and practices set by the State or other
jurisdiction in which you reside;
(c) To be considered in full-time attendance, your scheduled
attendance must be at the rate of at least 20 hours per week unless one
of the exceptions in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section
applies. If you are in an independent study program as described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, your number of hours spent in school
attendance are determined by combining the number of hours of
attendance at a school facility with the agreed upon number of hours
spent in independent study. You may still be considered in full-time
attendance if your scheduled rate of attendance is below 20 hours per
week if we find that:
(1) The school attended does not schedule at least 20 hours per
week and going to that particular school is your only reasonable
alternative; or
(2) Your medical condition prevents you from having scheduled
attendance of at least 20 hours per week. To prove that your medical
condition prevents you from scheduling 20 hours per week, we may
request that you provide appropriate medical evidence or a statement
from the school;
* * * * *
(f) You are not subject to the provisions in Sec. 404.468 for
nonpayment of benefits to certain prisoners and certain other inmates
of publicly funded institutions.
Sec. 404.3691 [Removed]
7. Section 404.369 is removed.
[FR Doc. 95-29534 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.