issue-1995-12-18•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-18
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-18
issue-1995-12-18Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-18Proposed 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. 95-30766 Government Securities Act Regulations: Large Position Rules
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65214-65229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30766]
[[Page 65213]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of the Treasury
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance
_______________________________________________________________________
17 CFR Parts 400 and 420
Government Securities Act Regulations: Large Position Rules; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65214]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance
17 CFR Parts 400 and 420
RIN: 1505-AA53
Government Securities Act Regulations: Large Position Rules
AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance, Treasury.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury (``Department'' or
``Treasury'') is publishing for comment proposed rules that would
establish a new Part 420 providing recordkeeping and reporting
requirements pertaining to large positions in certain Treasury
securities. The proposed regulations are being issued pursuant to the
Government Securities Act Amendments of 1993, which authorized the
Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe rules requiring persons holding,
maintaining or controlling large positions in to-be-issued or recently-
issued Treasury securities to keep records and file reports of such
large positions.
The proposed recordkeeping rules require any person or entity that
controls a position equal to or greater than $2 billion in a Treasury
security to maintain and preserve certain records that enable the
entity to record, compile, aggregate and report large position
information. The proposed reporting rules require entities to file a
large position report with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York if
their reportable position equals or exceeds the large position
threshold in a particular Treasury security as specified by the
Treasury in a notice requesting large position information. The
Department's proposed large position rules are intended to provide the
Treasury and other securities regulators with information on
concentrations of control that would enable them to better understand
the possible reasons for apparent significant price distortions and the
causes of market shortages in certain Treasury securities.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Government Securities
Regulations Staff, Bureau of the Public Debt, Department of the
Treasury, 999 E Street, N.W., Room 515, Washington, D.C. 20239-0001.
Comments received will be available for public inspection and copying
at the Treasury Department Library, Room 5030, Main Treasury Building,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Papaj, Director, or Don Hammond,
Assistant Director, Government Securities Regulations Staff, at 202-
219-3632. (TDD for the hearing impaired is 202-219-3988.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Statutory Authority
In response to certain events that occurred in the government
securities market in 1990-1991--short squeezes in the two-year Treasury
notes issued in April and May 1991 and bidding improprieties in several
auctions of Treasury securities in 1990-19911--Congress included
in the Government Securities Act Amendments of 1993 (GSAA)2 a
provision granting the Department the authority to write rules for
large position reporting in certain Treasury securities. Specifically,
Section 104 of the GSAA, which amended Section 15C of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934,3 authorizes the Treasury to adopt rules
requiring specified persons holding, maintaining or controlling large
positions in to-be-issued or recently-issued Treasury securities to
maintain records and file reports regarding such positions.4 This
provision is intended to improve the information available to the
Treasury and other regulators regarding very large positions of
recently-issued Treasury securities held by market participants and to
ensure that regulators have the tools necessary to monitor the Treasury
securities market.
\1\For a discussion of the events that gave rise to the
establishment of large position reporting authority, see the Joint
Report on the Government Securities Market, Department of the
Treasury, Securities and Exchange Commission and Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System, (1992); Salomon Brothers Inc. Press
Releases dated August 9 and 14, 1991; S. Rep. No. 103-109 (July 27,
1993); H.R. Rep. No. 103-255 (September 23, 1993); and 60 FR 4576
(January 24, 1995).
\2\Pub. L. No. 103-202, 107 Stat. 2344 (1993).
\3\15 U.S.C. 78o-5.
\4\Pub. L. No. 103-202, Sec. 104; 107 Stat. 2344, 2346-2348; 15
U.S.C. 78o-5(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GSAA gave the Department wide latitude and discretion in
determining several key features and conditions that would form the
underpinnings of the large position recordkeeping and reporting rules.
Among the most significant of these features were: defining which
persons (individually or as a group) hold, maintain or control large
positions; determining the minimum size of positions to be reported;
determining what constitutes ``control'' for the purposes of the rules;
prescribing the manner in which positions and accounts are to be
aggregated; identifying the types of positions to be reported;
determining the securities that would be subject to the rules; and
developing the form, manner and timing of reporting. The proposed rules
address these points.
Participation in Rulemaking Process/Solicitation of Comments
In formulating the process to be used to develop large position
rules, the Department, early on, made a decision to obtain the views of
the market participants who would be directly affected by such
regulations. We also decided that it would be useful to explain the
Department's initial thoughts on the structure and purposes of the
rules, to explore various conceptual approaches to designing a large
position recordkeeping and reporting system and to obtain industry
comment and feedback before actually drafting proposed rules. We
believed that market participant involvement in the rulemaking
initiative from its outset would facilitate greater understanding of,
and support for, the final rules when implemented.
Accordingly, in order to involve market participants and other
interested parties at the earliest phase of the rulemaking process, the
Department issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on
January 24, 1995.\5\ The ANPR addressed several key issues, concepts
and approaches to be considered in developing large position
recordkeeping and reporting rules, and solicited comments, suggestions
and recommendations regarding how the requirements should be
structured. Rather than repeating that information here, readers are
encouraged to review the ANPR to familiarize themselves with these
issues. The ANPR also contains a detailed historical background that
provides a fuller understanding of the events and circumstances that
resulted in the establishment of this regulatory authority, the
purposes and objectives to be achieved from large position rules, and
the Congressional intent behind this legislation.
\5\60 FR 4576 (January 24, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 90-day comment period on the ANPR was extended, in response to
an industry request, for an additional 30 days through May 24, 1995.\6\
In response to the ANPR, the Department received seven comment letters
which are summarized in the next section of the preamble.
\6\60 FR 20065 (April 24, 1995).
[[Page 65215]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to considering the views expressed by the commenters to
the ANPR, Department staff has also consulted with various regulatory
agencies (i.e., staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
(FRBNY)) in developing this proposal. We intend to continue to involve
interested market participants and the regulatory agencies in the
development of the large position regulations through the completion of
the rulemaking process. Accordingly, the Department welcomes and
strongly encourages market participants to submit comments on the
proposed rules and any suggestions for reducing burdens on the industry
while still achieving the objectives of the rules.
Balancing of Regulatory and Market Needs
The Department has attempted to strike a balance between achieving
the purposes and objectives of the statute and minimizing costs and
burdens to those entities affected by the regulations. For the
following reasons, we believe that the rules being proposed
successfully achieve this balance.
First, the proposed rules envision reports to be submitted only in
response to a specific request by the Treasury for large position
information on a particular Treasury security issue. Under this
approach, reporting should be an infrequent event required primarily in
response to pricing anomalies in a specific Treasury security rather
than a regular, on-going process resulting from a certain pre-
determined large position threshold being exceeded in a broader range
of securities.
Second, the proposed rules establish a minimum large position
threshold of $2 billion below which the Treasury would not request
large position reports. As a result, we believe that very few entities
would be required to file large position reports.
Third, the recordkeeping requirements would generally not apply to
any reporting entity (as defined in the rules) that did not control a
position that equalled or exceeded $2 billion in a Treasury security.
Fourth, for those entities currently subject to recordkeeping rules
of the SEC, the Treasury or the bank regulatory agencies, the proposed
rules impose only minor additional recordkeeping requirements and only
if certain conditions are present. Finally, the proposed rules adopt
several concepts from the Treasury's auction rules (e.g., positions to
be included in a reportable large position, definition of a reporting
entity and method of aggregating positions) which have been in effect
since March 1993 and are understood by many of the major participants
in the Treasury securities market.\7\ This should reduce the time and
costs that affected entities will need for training their employees on
the large position rules.
\7\Uniform Offering Circular for the Sale and Issue of Treasury
Bills, Notes and Bonds, 31 CFR Chapter II, Subchapter B, Part 356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of Large Position Rules
It is important for all market participants to recognize that large
position rules create a requirement to maintain records and report
information about such positions. However, these requirements only
apply to entities that hold or control (i.e., exercise investment
discretion) large positions, as determined by the Department, in
specific Treasury security issues. Accordingly, there is no obligation
on executing brokers and dealers to report large trades nor is there an
affirmative duty to inform their customers of the large position
recordkeeping and reporting requirements being proposed as part of this
rulemaking.
The Department reiterates that large positions are not inherently
harmful and there is no presumption of manipulative or illegal intent
on the part of the controlling entity merely because a position is
large enough to be subject to the Treasury rules. In addition, the
proposed rules do not establish trading or position limits or require
the identification of large traders or the reporting of large trades.
Finally, the GSAA specifically provides that the Department shall not
be compelled to disclose publicly any information required to be kept
or reported for large position reporting. In particular, such
information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information
Act.8
\8\5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Comments Received in Response to ANPR
Seven comment letters were received in response to the ANPR. The
letters were submitted by two trade organizations, one primary dealer,
a Federal Reserve Bank, a bank regulatory agency, a commercial bank and
an insurance company.9 While all comments are summarized below,
each letter did not necessarily address all aspects of the ANPR.
\9\Public Securities Association, Investment Company Institute,
Chemical Securities Inc., the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Chemical Bank, and
CNA Insurance Companies, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six commenters were largely supportive of a large position
reporting system provided that such a reporting system would not be
overly burdensome for market participants. However, one commenter
opposed the concept of large position reporting entirely. This party
believed that ``the current auction reporting rules have already
addressed adequately the prior problems with market manipulation,'' and
that an unintended consequence of large position rules could be fewer
participants in the government securities market, which, in turn, would
result in higher borrowing costs.
On-Demand vs. Automatic Reporting
Five commenters supported an on-demand reporting system which would
be triggered by specific requests from the Treasury for large position
information on a particular Treasury security. One respondent, however,
favored an automatic, regular reporting system triggered whenever a
reporting entity's holdings in a security reached a certain threshold.
The primary reason expressed by those commenters favoring an on-
demand reporting system was that this approach would be significantly
less burdensome and costly than an automatic reporting system. Many
commenters noted that an automatic reporting method would impose more
complex systems development requirements and greater operational costs
due to the need for daily monitoring of positions across multiple
securities. In addition, automatic reporting could create a
disincentive to buy and hold large positions that exceed a fixed
reporting threshold. Finally, on-demand reporting was viewed by several
respondents as being better able to address price distortions and
provide more useful information since the request for large position
information would be targeted to specific market situations and
security issues.
The respondent favoring an automatic reporting system argued that
on-demand reporting ``would be difficult and costly to communicate to
all relevant parties.'' The commenter also felt that on-demand requests
might trigger unwanted market reactions, while a regular reporting
system ``would provide more consistent monitoring of the market and
would be less confusing to the market over time.''
Definition of Reporting Entity
Six commenters were in agreement that the definition of ``reporting
entity'' should conform with the definition of ``bidder'' as defined in
the uniform
[[Page 65216]]
offering circular.10 The aggregation rule with regard to
affiliates, for example, is a concept with which many market
participants are already familiar and provides an appropriate model for
a large position reporting rule. Similarly, the commenters supported a
process, similar to the ``separate bidder'' process provided for in the
uniform offering circular, by which separately managed entities within
a corporate or partnership structure can request that Treasury
recognize them as separate reporting entities.
\10\31 CFR 356.2 and Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of ``Control''
There was similar concurrence on the definition of ``control.''
Nearly all parties that addressed this issue expressed the view that
control should be evidenced by either proprietary ownership or
investment discretion over a Treasury security. The commenters were in
similar agreement that the concept of ``control'' should not be
extended to merely beneficial ownership or custodians. Specifically,
the commenters held that entities acting as custodians should not be
required to report positions in Treasury securities over which they
have no investment discretion.
Definition of ``Large'' Position
The commenters generally felt that the large position threshold
should be large enough to both detect concentrations of control and
avoid overly burdensome, frequent reporting by market participants.
Opinions were fairly evenly divided on whether a securities position
should be defined as ``large'' based on a percentage of the total
outstanding issue size or a specific dollar amount.
Those preferring a percentage standard commented that this method
is a better indicator of concentration of control than a straight
dollar standard, given the large range of issue sizes among various
maturities. Suggested percentages ranged from 10 percent to 25 percent
of a particular issue. One commenter felt that, if an automatic
reporting system is implemented, the percentage should be consistent
with the Treasury's auction rules, i.e., ``large'' should be defined as
35 percent of the securities awarded in an auction.
Those favoring a fixed-dollar threshold did so on the basis of
clarity, ease of administration, and, consequently, improved
compliance. Suggested dollar thresholds ranged from $2 billion, to
correspond to the net long position reporting threshold for
auctions,11 to $4-5 billion. Some commenters also expressed the
view that the threshold should be larger under an automatic reporting
system than under an on-demand system to minimize the compliance burden
associated with automatic reporting. One commenter said that there is
no need to define ``large position'' in advance under an on-demand
reporting system (the large position threshold would be specified in
the Treasury notice requesting large position reports), and there may
be no ``one-size-fits-all'' threshold.
\11\31 CFR 356.13(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition of ``Recently-Issued''
The scope of Treasury's large position reporting authority is
limited to recently-issued and to-be-issued Treasury securities.
Discretion to define the term ``recently-issued'' was given to the
Treasury. Although the commenters differed somewhat on the specifics of
the preferred meaning of ``recently-issued,'' all agreed that it should
include the ``on-the-run''12 (most-recently issued) security of a
particular type. Opinions were fairly evenly divided on whether
``recently-issued'' also should include only the most recent ``off-the-
run'' issue or the two most recent ``off-the-run'' issues. One
commenter said that there is no need to define ``recently-issued''
under an on-demand reporting system.
\12\A Treasury security is considered to be ``on-the-run'' when
it is the newest security issue of its maturity (e.g., in October
the two-year note issued September 30 would be ``on-the-run'' while
the two-year note issued August 31 would be ``off-the-run''). An on-
the-run security is normally the most liquid issue for that
maturity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Securities Covered
Based largely upon the presumption that Treasury note and bond
issues are more likely to be ``on special''13 (in short supply)
than bills, two commenters said that bills should be excluded from
large position reporting. One such commenter also cited the complexity,
burdens and costs ``associated with implementing systems to track
positions on weekly-issued securities * * *.'' One commenter, however,
said that all types of Treasury securities (bills, notes and bonds)
should be eligible for reporting, ``since any type of Treasury security
could be the subject of a concentration of control.'' Another commenter
took a more neutral position, saying that excluding bills may be
appropriate, ``but a good case will need to be made that short interest
is always small relative to the net supply, or that supply conditions
and price movements preclude sustained and possibly injurious
squeezes.''
\13\When securities are ``on special,'' market participants
desiring to borrow the particular security must accept an interest
rate significantly lower than the prevailing repo rate for
unspecified collateral. Conversely, the owners of the securities can
finance their position at exceptionally low interest rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components of a Position
The four commenters addressing this issue agreed as a starting
point that net long settled cash positions should be included in a
``large position.''
Two commenters said that the definition of ``large position''
should be consistent with the definition of ``net long position'' in
the uniform offering circular.14 Both felt that financing
transactions (repos, securities borrowed, etc.) should be excluded from
the large position calculation since it is too difficult to apply the
concept of control to securities used in such transactions. Calculating
a net financing position is particularly difficult, according to one of
the commenters. Examples provided included the problems of
differentiating deliver-out from hold-in-custody and tri-party
repurchase agreements, and of separating overnight repos from term
repos, particularly those with mandatory substitution provisions. Both
of these commenters, however, could support a requirement to report
financing transactions on a gross basis if Treasury believes financings
need to be included.
\14\31 CFR 356.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other two commenters felt that financing transactions should be
included in the definition of a reportable position to encompass a
wider range of transactions from which an entity can exert immediate
control over a Treasury security. Both advocated reporting such
transactions on a gross basis. One commenter noted that a position that
might look flat on a net basis may in fact be exposed if fails become a
problem. Moreover, the commenter contended, matched-book and tri-party
repo activity might result in a small net position, and yet be used as
a tool to achieve a short squeeze.
Recordkeeping Requirements
The issue of what records should be kept by reporting entities was
largely unaddressed except that the commenters felt that these records,
and their associated retention periods, should closely correspond to
records already required to be maintained by reporting entities under
existing securities and banking laws. Most respondents stated that
reporting entities should not be required to keep records in electronic
form, since such a
[[Page 65217]]
requirement could be burdensome for entities that do not have systems
for electronic recordkeeping.
III. Section-by-Section Analysis of Proposed Regulations
A. Section 400.1. Scope of Regulations
A new paragraph is proposed to be added to Part 400 to describe the
statutory basis for the large position rules. The paragraph also states
that the large position rules are located in Part 420.
B. Part 420. Large Position Reporting
1. Section 420.1
Applicability. This section sets out the scope of the large
position recordkeeping and reporting rules by identifying the types of
Treasury securities covered and by defining the universe of entities
potentially affected. Section 420.1 reflects the Department's initial
determination that all marketable Treasury securities--bills, notes and
bonds--should be included within the scope of the rules. However,
arguments have been made that features and characteristics of the bill
market, such as the frequency of issues (i.e., weekly) and reopenings,
the size of bill auctions and the availability of several instruments
that are close substitutes for bills (e.g., various money market
instruments), make it more difficult to accumulate concentrations of
ownership of Treasury bills. Comments are specifically requested on
whether Treasury bills should be included in the large position
recordkeeping and reporting rules.
On its face, part 420 applies to any type of entity, foreign or
domestic, that might control a large position in a specific Treasury
security. This broad construct of potential application is consistent
with the statutory purpose: ``Large position reporting also would be
useful in assuring that regulators can monitor the positions of major
market participants other than government securities brokers or dealers
under certain circumstances. In particular, it will provide assurance
that the government can compel disclosure of position information when
necessary from all large market participants, including a group of
relatively unregulated entities called `hedge funds.'''15 As
described in the preamble discussion of sections 420.3 and 420.4, the
number of entities that may actually be affected by large position
rules is significantly narrowed when the minimum size for a large
position is applied.
\15\H.R. Rep. 103-255, September 23, 1993, at pg. 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe it is appropriate to exclude certain entities from the
application of the rules based on the existing availability of position
information on these organizations and/or concerns about the
confidentiality of this information. Accordingly, paragraphs (b) and
(c) of section 420.1 provide exemptions from part 420 to the holdings
of foreign central banks, foreign governments, international monetary
authorities and Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs). The exemptions for the
foreign entities are limited to their respective positions maintained
at the FRBNY. The exemptions are also consistent with the position
expressed by the Senate and House during consideration of the
legislation.16
\16\139 Cong. Rec. H-10967 (daily ed. November 22, 1993)
Statement of Chairman Dingell on S. 422.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter, responding to the ANPR, expressed concern about
granting exemptions specifically to these foreign entities. However,
the Department believes the proposed approach is appropriate since the
exemptions are limited in their scope by applying only to the portion
of the organization's position that is maintained at the FRBNY. Any
positions held by the exempt entities at locations other than the FRBNY
are not exempted and will be subject to the large position
recordkeeping and reporting rules. The proposed exemption for those
Treasury securities that FRBs hold and control for their own accounts
is also based on the Department's access to this information.
The Department recognizes that on rare occasions it may be
necessary to request large position information on Treasury securities
that are not within the parameters of the proposed definition of
recently-issued (paragraph 420.2(g)) but that are within the scope of
the intent of the statute. For example, in August 1991, Treasury might
have sought large position information on the April 1991 two-year note,
given that the security was still ``on special'' in the repurchase
agreement market and there was a significant concentration of
ownership. While this security, at that time, would have been outside
the scope of the currently proposed definition, the Department believes
it is necessary to reserve the right to collect large position
information in such circumstances. Accordingly, we have included within
the rule a reservation to request information on additional Treasury
security issues consistent with the purposes of the GSAA.
2. Section 420.2
Definitions. This section provides for the definitions of terms
that are integral to the large position rules. Unless otherwise defined
in this section, terms used in part 420 have the same meanings provided
in section 400.3.
``Control''--The concept of control revolves around three elements:
beneficial ownership, possession (custody) and investment discretion.
The beneficial owner is the party with the actual ownership interest in
the Treasury security. The beneficial owner may or may not always be
aware of its ownership position in a given security if it does not
manage its own investments and it may not have possession of the
Treasury securities even if it makes its own investment decisions
(especially likely with book-entry Treasury securities). Possession or
custody is evidenced by an organization's ability to service the
securities directly (e.g., transfer the securities, receive interest
and principal payments). The beneficial owner may perform this function
for its own holdings, but the mechanics of book-entry Treasury
securities require that a depositary institution act in this capacity
on behalf of others at some level in the custody chain for all Treasury
securities. Additionally, book-entry Treasury securities may involve
more than one custodian in the holding of a specific security
entitlement.17 Investment discretion is the authority to make and
execute decisions about the purchase, sale and retention of securities.
In the institutional market for Treasury securities, which is of
critical importance in developing large position reporting rules, the
granting of investment discretion to an investment adviser to manage
all or some portion of an entity's portfolio is common.
\17\The Federal Reserve Banks maintain book-entry security
accounts for depository institutions and other entities such as
government and international agencies and certain foreign central
banks. In their book-entry accounts at the Federal Reserve, the
depository institutions may maintain their own security holdings and
holdings for customers, which may include other depository
institutions, dealers, brokers, institutional investors and
individuals. In turn, the depository institution's customers may
maintain accounts for their customers. This creates a tiered chain
of custodial relationships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is our view that, for the purposes of large position reporting,
the most important criterion in the definition of control is that of
investment discretion. While beneficial owners receive the economic
benefit of holding a Treasury security, frequently, they do not make
the decision to purchase/sell/retain the Treasury security and, as
mentioned, may not, on a day to day basis, be aware
[[Page 65218]]
of their ownership interest. Since a purpose of large position
reporting is to understand better any pricing anomalies for a
particular Treasury security issue in a timely fashion, defining
control based on beneficial ownership would not be particularly useful
because a reporting entity could have difficulty assembling the
information needed to file a large position report and would be
potentially unaware of the reasons why the security involved was
purchased.
Likewise, custody (without investment discretion) does not provide
a good basis for determining control. A definition based on custody
would most certainly involve multiple reporting of the same security
position since each tier in the custody chain would be required to
report. This approach would diminish the value of any large position
reports received. Also, because under these circumstances the custodian
would not be a party to the investment decision, reporting on the
positions held in safekeeping would shed very little light on the
objectives of the investor.
Therefore, Treasury has decided to define control as the authority
to exercise investment discretion. This definition is supported in six
of the seven comment letters. Investment discretion can be exercised by
the beneficial owner, a custodian or an investment adviser. The party
responsible for making investment decisions, regardless of where it is
in the tiered system, is the most relevant reporting entity for large
position reporting since the actions and objectives of the decision
maker are what we are trying to determine. A single party exercising
investment discretion for multiple beneficial owners could control a
potentially large amount of Treasury securities without any single
beneficial owner having a reportable position. Additionally, such
investment advisers could possibly distribute custody of the securities
in a manner that would keep any individual custodian below the
reporting threshold. However, using the exercise of investment
discretion as a measure of control, an investment adviser's aggregate
positions would be reportable regardless of the number of beneficial
owners or custodians involved and would be treated separately from any
positions over which the beneficial owners had retained investment
discretion. Finally, a definition of control based on investment
discretion is consistent with the treatment of investment advisers
under the uniform offering circular.18
\18\Treasury intends to clarify this treatment in a proposed
rule in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following this definition, an investor would only be responsible
for reporting its proprietary holdings if it retained investment
discretion over the positions. This approach would avoid double
reporting of these positions. Additionally, a custodian would only have
responsibility for reporting on any large positions for which it had
investment discretion. A custodian would not have any obligation to
report on positions for which it maintained securities solely in a
safekeeping capacity.
``Reporting Entity''--This term is defined to be consistent with
the definition of a bidder in the uniform offering circular.19
This concept provides for the treatment of all affiliated entities as a
single entity for purposes of determining the quantity of Treasury
securities controlled. Additionally, the definition permits specific
affiliates to be treated separately or ``carved-out'' from the
reporting entity based on stated principles of separateness.
\19\See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying this approach, a ``reporting entity'' will aggregate each
of the positions in a specific Treasury security that is held by itself
and all affiliates that control positions, and will report a single
position to the FRBNY. Any affiliate that exercises independent
investment discretion, and whose position information is not available
to other affiliates, will be permitted to report separately from the
overall entity provided it has requested such a ``carve-out'' and
received written recognition from the Treasury. Merely establishing
``Chinese walls'' or similar procedures is not sufficient. If an entity
has already received such written recognition under the uniform
offering circular, it will not have to reapply for the purposes of
large position reporting.
Defining the term ``reporting entity'' based on the bidder concept
from the auction rules has the advantage of relying on an existing body
of regulations, thus minimizing confusion and the need for market
participants to learn new rules. The bidder definition is well known to
most large participants in the Treasury market (from their auction
participation) and has functioned effectively since March 1993 when the
rules were implemented. This approach was also endorsed in four comment
letters.
This definition also introduces a new term, ``aggregating entity,''
which is defined separately. An aggregating entity is a single legal
entity (e.g., a parent company or affiliate within a reporting entity)
that may control elements of a large position. If an aggregating entity
has no affiliates, then it is also a reporting entity. Each component
of a reporting entity is individually an aggregating entity.
``Reportable Position''20--The scope of the definition of
reportable position directly affects the complexity of calculating such
a position and the amount of time needed to file a large position
report. The definition of a reportable position should be broad enough
to encompass the most significant ways that an investor may control a
Treasury security issue, balanced against the difficulty and cost of
compiling the information. Additionally, because of the complexity in
defining this term, it is useful to base the definition, to the maximum
extent feasible, on concepts familiar to market participants.
\20\A reportable position for the purposes of the large position
rules differs from a reportable position for purposes of the uniform
offering circular. In the uniform offering circular, a reportable
net long position is a position that has met the necessary criteria
to be reported on a tender. In the context of the large position
rules, a reportable position defines the components of a potential
large position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For participants in the Treasury securities market, a familiar
concept is that of ``net long position'' in the uniform offering
circular.21 The uniform offering circular definition includes the
par amount of: (1) Immediate (cash) positions; (2) when-issued
positions for to-be-issued and reopened issues; (3) forward settling
positions; (4) positions in futures contracts requiring delivery of the
specific security; and (5) STRIPS (Separate Trading of Registered
Interest and Principal of Securities) principal components of the
specific security. This is an appropriate place to begin development of
a reportable position because it is not only familiar to many market
participants but also includes the most common elements of control in
the cash market. The combination of these five elements is defined as
the net trading position--the first component of a reportable position.
\21\See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department is requesting that commenters specifically address
the treatment of forward positions. While forward positions are a
component of the net long position defined in the uniform offering
circular, there may be reasons to exclude them from the definition of
reportable position because forward positions may be less effective in
controlling a security or may act to conceal settled positions. For
example, the proposed large position rules permit a reporting entity to
reduce the size of its settled position by the amount of a
[[Page 65219]]
short forward settling position. Should this treatment be permitted?
Treasury especially welcomes the views of market participants on this
subject.
Options and certain futures contracts (i.e., cash-settled or those
requiring delivery of securities other than the specific security that
is the focus of large position reporting) continue to be excluded
because they do not provide the holder with either immediate control or
an effective way to manipulate the price of a specific security. For
options, an entity would only gain control of the security at the time
the position is exercised, at which time the security would become a
component of a reportable position. Large positions in the excluded
futures contracts are already reported to the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.22 Thus, this information will be available to the
Department and other regulatory agencies, if needed, without imposing
additional reporting requirements.
\22\17 CFR Parts 15 to 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financing transactions are proposed to be included in a reportable
position because of the important influence they have on the available
supply of a Treasury security. The legislative history behind the large
position reporting authority supports the inclusion of financings,
especially repurchase agreements.23 The approach for including
financing transactions is addressed below in the definition of a gross
financing position. The gross financing position is the second
component of a reportable position.
\23\See supra note 15 at pg. 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Department believes that a third component--
``fails''--should be included in the definition of reportable position.
An investor's net fails position (fails to receive less fails to
deliver) indicates ownership rights to a security without the cost of
financing. All fail positions should be included without
differentiating between types of counterparties (i.e., broker-dealers,
customers). A large ``fail-to-receive'' position may exacerbate, or
benefit from, a squeeze by maintaining high demand for a specific
security. In analyzing existing market discontinuities, the knowledge
of the existence of any large net fail-to-receive positions could help
determine the cause and potential resolution of a tight supply
condition.
Commenters are also requested to address the treatment of fails.
Specifically, the Department is interested in receiving comments on
whether the proposed treatment of fails positions is more appropriate
than excluding fails from the determination of a large position and
instead requiring submitters of large position reports to disclose
information about fails as a memorandum entry. Since a position that
remains unsettled after its scheduled settlement date is not included
in the computation of a net trading position, including fails may act
to artificially increase the size of the reported position. This result
is apparent if fails-to-deliver were to be a positive addition to a
reportable position since a past settlement date short trade, unlike a
short forward position, would not reduce the size of an entity's
reportable position. Additionally, commenters are asked to consider
whether fails should be treated differently from forwards given their
similarities.
The sum of the net trading position, gross financing position and
the net fails position is a reporting entity's total reportable
position.
``Gross Financing Position''--To achieve the statutory intent,
financing transactions should be included in a reportable position. The
more difficult question is how to include them. Within the generic
construct of financing transactions, there are multiple types of
transactions including: repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements,
securities borrowed and loaned, securities pledged and received in
pledge, and any other form of credit collateralized by Treasury
securities.
Since the intent of large position reporting is to obtain
information about the control of Treasury security positions, an
effective approach for incorporating financing transactions is to
include them on a gross basis (no netting) in the reportable position
of the entity that has received the securities. Under this approach,
the seller/lender of the securities would not include the financing
transaction in its calculation of the gross financing position since it
would already have reflected the positions that provided it with
control of the securities (i.e., cash positions, reverse repos) in the
calculation. Reporting in this manner would provide regulators with
information about the broader universe of market participants that had
possible control of the Treasury security, regardless of how they might
have subsequently financed or transferred it.
No differentiation is made in the computation between the types of
financing transactions (e.g., repos, securities lending) since, despite
different legal frameworks, they are generally equally effective ways
of obtaining control. The first part of the gross financing position
computation also does not differentiate between types of repos (e.g.,
overnight, term). As an example, a security that has been received
through a reverse repo and contemporaneously repoed out to a third
party will be included at the gross par amount of the reverse in the
entity's long position. Gross reporting yields this result even though
the security was no longer in the possession of the reporting entity
since it had been contemporaneously repoed out. The proposed approach
will result in the potential for multiple entities including a position
for the same specific Treasury security in their respective
computations and reportable positions. However, the resultant double
counting is not considered to be a problem because it provides
additional information about entities that have various legal claims to
the security and that may potentially benefit from any possible market
disruptions.
An optional exclusion is proposed that will permit a reporting
entity to voluntarily exclude from the computation of its gross
financing position certain securities received through financing
transactions. This exclusion would apply to situations in which the
securities received were subject to a right of substitution on behalf
of the delivering counterparty, tri-party custodial relationships, or
custody of the securities being retained by the party granting the
legal interest in the securities (hold-in-custody). These Treasury
securities would be eligible for exclusion based on a presumption that
the receiving organization did not have effective control of the
securities despite having ``received'' them. The exclusion is optional
because its use, while benefiting the entity taking advantage of it,
does not diminish the usefulness of the resultant large position
reports. If it were made mandatory, many potential reporting entities
might find it too costly and burdensome to differentiate information on
financings at this level of detail. If the amount excluded is large
enough to cause the reporting entity to fall below the reporting
threshold, then a report should not be filed.
The gross financing position is then combined with the other two
components of a reportable position to determine the total reportable
position held by a reporting entity. For purposes of the calculation,
all positions would be valued at the par amount of the securities
involved.
``Large Position Threshold''--The large position threshold is the
dollar amount of a reportable position at or above which the
requirement to file a large position report is triggered. Since
[[Page 65220]]
the large position rules take an ``on-demand'' approach to reporting,
the specific large position threshold for any given Treasury security
issue may vary. However, since the threshold would not be known in
advance, we believe that it will be beneficial to provide some
certainty to market participants by setting a minimum dollar amount
(``floor'')--$2 billion--below which reports would not be requested.
Establishing a floor should minimize compliance costs. For example,
many entities, based on this level of the floor, may decide that no
modifications would be needed to their computer systems or trading
strategies since the rule would not apply to them (i.e., the firms
would not expect their positions ever to reach the floor amount). Of
the six commenters who addressed this issue, three endorsed a variable
threshold method (one respondent actually supported a fixed percentage
method, which would lead to a variable dollar level since it would be
based on the amount issued of a specific security).
``Recently-Issued''--Despite the determination that any large
position reporting would be done on an on-demand basis, the Department
believes that it is useful to set out a general description of which
Treasury securities would be within the scope of the rule. For
convenience, the definition of recently-issued includes when-issued
securities from the time of announcement of the issue. Thus, when-
issued securities would be considered the most recent issue of a
security type. In response to the commenters and in consideration of
the Treasury securities that could be of most interest to regulators,
we have proposed that as a regular matter, recently-issued would be
limited to the three most recent issues of a Treasury security (bill,
note or bond) if issued quarterly or more frequently and the two most
recent issues if issued less frequently. Currently, this latter
condition exists only for the 30-year bond. The definition of recently-
issued for this security, which is currently issued semi-annually, was
limited to the two most recent issues because a three-most-recent
definition would have, on a regular basis, encompassed a time period of
nearly a year and a half. As discussed earlier, the Department intends
to reserve the right to broaden the scope of this definition, on a
limited exception basis, consistent with the purposes of the GSAA.
3. Section 420.3
Reporting. The provisions of this section require large position
reports to be filed by the designated filing entity of any reporting
entity that has a reportable position that equals or exceeds the large
position threshold in a particular Treasury security issue as specified
by the Department. This section also specifies the method by which
Treasury will provide notice to the marketplace requesting large
position reports, the specific information that must be provided on the
large position reports, where they must be filed and the time frame for
their submission. This section also permits either the Treasury or the
FRBNY, acting as the Treasury's agent, to request additional
information from a reporting entity if either organization, after
analyzing the large position reports, requires further data to gain a
more complete understanding of the extent and nature of the
concentration of positions in a particular Treasury security. A sample
reporting format for large position information is illustrated in
Appendix B to the rule.
Analysis of Alternative Reporting Methods
The method of reporting large positions is a central issue in the
development of large position rules, since the method selected will
significantly affect the compliance burdens of, and costs incurred by,
the entities subject to the large position regulations.
The Department evaluated two distinct approaches for reporting
large position information: an ``automatic'' or regular reporting
method and an ``on-demand'' reporting method. Under an automatic,
regular reporting process, large position reports would be required to
be filed whenever a reporting entity equalled or exceeded the large
position threshold stated in the rules for any covered Treasury
security. Depending upon the particular method used in a regular
reporting system, reports could either be required on a one-time basis
or they could continue to be required each day the entity exceeded the
large position threshold and would cease only when its positions in the
Treasury security fell below the threshold level. In contrast, in an
on-demand reporting system, reports would be triggered by a notice from
the Treasury requesting large position information on a specific issue
of a Treasury security from those reporting entities whose positions at
that time equalled or exceeded the large position threshold specified
in the notice.
In evaluating the method of reporting that should be employed, the
Department took into consideration the events that gave rise to
Congress' grant of authority to prescribe large position reporting
rules as well as the purposes and objectives of the statutory authority
underlying such rules. The main focus of our analysis involved
selecting the approach that best balanced the purposes of the statute
and any new regulatory burdens that would be created. (Readers are
referred to the ANPR for a more detailed discussion of these issues and
other background information pertaining to large position
reporting.)24
\24\See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary purpose of any large position reporting system is to
enable the Treasury and the other regulators to understand better the
possible reasons for apparent significant price distortions and the
causes of market shortages in certain Treasury securities. Large
position reports are also intended to provide regulators with
information on concentrations of control for market surveillance
purposes and for enforcement of the securities laws, as well as to
enable Treasury policy makers to make better decisions concerning any
possible government actions that might be taken in response to apparent
price anomalies. A critical factor in evaluating the two alternative
large position reporting methods was the extent to which they would
meet the overriding legislative and policy objective of strengthening
the ability of the regulatory agencies to deter possible manipulation
of the Treasury securities market.
On-Demand Reporting System
The requirements outlined in paragraph 420.3(a) reflect the
Department's decision to propose an on-demand reporting system for
large position information. Reports would be required in response to a
specific request, issued by the Treasury, for large position
information.
An on-demand reporting approach will enable the Department to
target large position reporting to a specific issue of a Treasury
security in response to particular circumstances or unusual market
activity. This would ensure the availability of information for market
surveillance and enforcement purposes in those specific instances where
it is most needed, thus satisfying the primary objective of this
regulatory authority, while obviating the need to collect information
on securities that are not of interest. In contrast, under a regular
reporting system, reports would be required when the large position
threshold had been exceeded; therefore, reports would be filed even in
situations where there were no price distortions, anomalies or evidence
of possible
[[Page 65221]]
market manipulation. This would result in unnecessary costs for, and
burdens on, both market participants and the government. In addition, a
regular reporting method could increase the possibility that investors
would take deliberate actions to reduce their holdings of Treasury
securities to avoid exceeding the ``large'' position reporting
threshold. This could result in decreased market participation, reduced
liquidity and increased borrowing costs.
An on-demand reporting system would avoid the need to set a uniform
large position threshold that would apply to some or all Treasury
issues as would be required under an automatic reporting approach. The
Treasury would have the flexibility and latitude to establish a tailor-
made large position threshold each time it requests large position
reports. This permits a large position threshold to be based on the
latest supply of, and market conditions for, a specific Treasury
security, which can vary considerably.
On-demand reporting should be less onerous and costly for market
participants. Any modifications to existing computer systems to
compile, summarize, compare and report the positions would be less
complex than for the required continual review of multiple securities
positions under a regular reporting method. Under a regular reporting
approach, firms would need to modify existing computer systems or
develop entirely new systems to continuously collect, monitor and
report positions in when-issued and recently-issued Treasury
securities. Since reports would need to be filed whenever positions
equalled or exceeded the large position threshold, the systems would
have to be designed to compute the overall positions in a large number
of separate Treasury security issues (approximately 23 separate
CUSIPs25 based on the definition of recently-issued in paragraph
420.2(g)) and then compare the amount of the positions to the large
position threshold on a daily basis to determine if reports would have
to be produced. There would be an even greater burden on those entities
that would manually compile this information.
\25\The CUSIP number is the unique identifying number assigned
to each separate security issue and each separate STRIPS component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognition of the costs that would be imposed on market
participants has been a critical consideration in our attempt to
develop large position rules that strike a balance between regulatory
oversight and market efficiency. We believe that an on-demand reporting
system significantly minimizes the regulatory costs and burdens on
market participants compared to those that would be incurred if the
Treasury were to require regular reporting.
In analyzing the different reporting models, the Treasury also took
into consideration the fact that a large segment of market participants
who are likely to be subject to Treasury's large position reporting
rules--the 37 primary dealers--already submit regular position reports
to the FRBNY on a voluntary basis for on-the-run Treasury notes and
bonds. By adopting an on-demand reporting system, we have attempted to
minimize, as much as possible, any duplicate reporting by these
entities.
Triggering Event: Treasury Request for Information
The provisions of paragraph 420.3(a) propose that the requirement
to report large position information would be triggered by a notice
issued by the Treasury specifically requesting such information. The
notice would identify the specific Treasury security issue to be
reported, the applicable large position threshold (in no case less than
$2 billion) for that issue and the date or dates26 as of which the
large position information must be reported.
\26\To understand the price and supply dynamics of the security
under scrutiny better, the Treasury reserves the right to request
that entities submit positions covering a multi-day, historical time
frame rather than just one day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notice requesting large position reports would be communicated
by issuing a press release and subsequently publishing the notice in
the Federal Register. Given the relatively short reporting deadline in
the proposed rules, this two-pronged notice approach satisfies the dual
objectives of operational efficiency and legal sufficiency. A Treasury
press release has the advantage of achieving wide, timely distribution
of the notice without a significant time lag. Although this approach
relies on third-party services over which the Treasury has no control,
it is reasonable to expect that the major news and financial
publications and the various electronic financial wire services (e.g.,
Telerate, Reuters, Bloomberg, Knight-Ridder) would disseminate the
Treasury notice as quickly as their respective technological
capabilities allow. The electronic financial wire services and news
publications can also be relied upon to accurately present the
Treasury's request for large position information. We believe that any
market participant, including a foreign entity, that may control a
large position in a Treasury security is likely to subscribe, or have
access, to one or more of the electronic financial wire services. Thus,
the likelihood that the Treasury notice requesting large position
reports would fail to come to the attention of a potential reporting
entity is extremely remote.
The press release would include information about how to obtain a
sample large position report and the name and telephone number of a
Departmental contact person to answer questions about the report.
Since the Federal Register is the designated federal publication
for providing official notice, publishing the Treasury notice in that
document is legally sufficient for ``constructive notice'' of the
request despite lagging the issuance of the press release.
Designated Filing Entity
Under paragraph 420.3(b), the designated filing entity is
responsible for preparing and submitting the large position reports on
behalf of a reporting entity in response to a Treasury notice
requesting large position information. The identity of the designated
filing entity must be given on any large position report submitted.
Each reporting entity, as defined in paragraph 420.2(i), whose
reportable position equals or exceeds the large position threshold,
must have one, and only one, designated filing entity. A reporting
entity that consists of only one component is the designated filing
entity. For those reporting entities that consist of multiple
affiliates or aggregating entities, one entity must be selected to be
the designated filing entity. That entity is responsible for receiving
and compiling the large position information from each of the
aggregating entities, computing the reportable position and preparing
and filing the large position report.
An official authorized to file reports on behalf of the designated
filing entity shall sign the large position report and certification
attesting to the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the
information being reported. This official must be one of the following:
the chief financial officer, the chief operating officer, the chief
executive officer, or the managing partner or equivalent of the
designated filing entity. The contact person named on the large
position report should also be a representative of the designated
filing entity but need not be the authorized official.
Further, any designated filing entity is required, under the
applicable provision in section 420.4, to make and maintain
[[Page 65222]]
additional records on behalf of the entire reporting entity.27
\27\ Since designated filing entities are also aggregating
entities, they would also be required under Secs. 420.4(b) or (c) to
maintain records pertaining solely to their own securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Required on Large Position Reports
Paragraph 420.3(c), together with Appendix B, sets forth the
specific information that must be provided in the large position
report. For those reporting entities that have a number of aggregating
entities or affiliates, the amount to be reported for each of the
positions is the total, combined net amount. All positions are to be
reported as of the close of the business/transaction day for the date
specified. In those instances where Treasury requests positions
covering multiple dates, separate reportable position calculations must
be submitted for each date. The rule does not require, nor does the
Treasury intend, for firms to calculate their positions as of some
specific point during the trading day. However, in order to meet the
deadline for reporting, the designated filing entity may need to
determine a cut-off time for foreign entities.
The following administrative information must be provided on the
large position report:
(a) The name of the reporting entity;
(b) The address of the principal place of business of the reporting
entity;
(c) The name and address of the designated filing entity;
(d) The description of the Treasury security being reported,
including the CUSIP number;
(e) The date or dates for which the information is being reported
(which should be the same date(s) as that (those) stated in the
Treasury notice requesting the large position reports);
(f) The date the report was submitted;
(g) The name and telephone number of a contact person of the
designated filing entity to whom questions can be directed regarding
any information on the report;
(h) The name and title of the person authorized to submit the
report (as previously described);
(i) A certification statement attesting to the accuracy,
completeness and reliability of the information being submitted; and
(j) The signature of the authorized official specified in (h).
The following large position information must be reported in the
exact order as noted:
(a) Line 1, cash/immediate net settled positions;
(b) Line 2, net when-issued positions for to-be-issued and reopened
issues;
(c) Line 3, net forward settling positions, including next-day
settling positions;
(d) Line 4, net positions in futures contracts that require
delivery of the specific security that is the subject of the large
position report (but not futures contracts for which the security that
is the subject of the large position report is one of several
securities that may be delivered and not futures contracts that are
cash-settled);
(e) Line 5, net holdings of STRIPS principal components of the
specific security that is the subject of the large position report;
(f) Line 6, the gross financing position, which is the sum of the
gross par amounts of a security issue received from financing
transactions (e.g., reverse repurchase transactions, bonds borrowed,
securities received in pledge and collateralized credit extended);
(g) Line 7, net fails position, which is fails to receive less
fails to deliver in the specific security issue; and
(h) Line 8, Total Reportable Position, which is the sum of lines 1-
7.
All amounts must be reported in millions at par value. See Appendix
B for a sample reporting format.
The large position report provides for two memoranda entries.
Memorandum Entry #1 is the sum of the gross par amounts of a security
issue delivered as part of a financing transaction (e.g., repurchase
agreements, securities loaned, securities pledged and collateralized
loans). This amount should not be included in the gross financing
position (line 6) as noted in item (f) above. Memorandum Entry #1 is
required.
Memorandum Entry #2 is to be reported by those entities that take
the voluntary exclusion pursuant to paragraph 420.2(c) to reduce the
gross financing position reported on line 6. The amount shown is the
amount of securities received from financing positions over which the
reporting entity does not have effective control due to arrangements
such as third-party custodial structures, hold-in-custody relationships
or substitution rights. This amount should not be included in the
amount reported on line 6.
Lines 1-5 of the large position report are consistent with the
items that determine the net long position for auction reporting
purposes.28 As with the auction rules, the amounts to be reported
for each of the items on lines 1-5 are the net of any long and short
positions, so that the entry can be a positive number (long position),
a negative number (short position), which should be shown in
parentheses, or zero (flat position). Only securities trades that have
actually settled should be included in line 1, cash/immediate net
settled positions. Accordingly, auction purchases that have not yet
been settled or issued should be included in the total reported on line
2, when-issued positions.
\28\See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For line 6, Gross Financing Position, netting of these positions is
not permitted although certain items may be excluded. (See paragraph
420.2(c).) For reporting entities that take advantage of this limited
exclusion, the gross financing position should not include the amount
of security issues received from financing positions over which the
reporting entity does not exercise control. Rather, the amount
associated with the exclusion should be reported in the Memorandum
Entry #2.
Line 7, Net Fails Position, can only be reported as a positive
number (which indicates fails to receive exceed fails to deliver) or
zero (which reflects fails to receive are totally offset by, or are
less than, fails to deliver).
Reporting Format
Rather than designing and mandating a specific reporting form, the
Treasury is proposing to allow the reporting entities to develop their
own large position reports, provided the reports contain all of the
required information as prescribed in the rules, in the order stated in
Appendix B. By permitting the reporting entities to design their own
large position report, firms will be able to integrate the report into
their existing systems as they see fit and avoid the unnecessary burden
of transferring the information from internally generated reports to a
Treasury-mandated form. While firms will have a certain amount of
latitude and discretion in designing a large position report, the
information on the various positions that constitute the total
reportable position must be reported in the order shown in paragraph
420.3(c) and in the sample/prototype report in Appendix B. This will
facilitate analysis of the data. Failure to include any of the required
information, including administrative information, on the large
position report will constitute non-compliance with the rule.
Filing of Large Position Reports: Where, When and How
Pursuant to paragraph 420.3(d) the large position report must be
submitted to the FRBNY. The report must be received before 12:00 noon,
Eastern time, on the second business day after
[[Page 65223]]
the issuance of the Treasury press release requesting large position
reports. Given that large position reports would generally be requested
by the Department in response to certain market conditions or activity,
the proposed rule has a fairly short response time for submission of
the reports. The one and one-half day reporting deadline balances the
need for timely information with the recognition that some time is
required to compile the information. The reporting time frame should
not present significant problems since the information would be derived
from records required to be maintained by the reporting entities.
Additionally, we understand that most large firms engaged in the
securities business compile their positions on a daily basis. Finally,
since reporting is ``on-demand,'' the filing of a large position report
will be an exceptional event not requiring regular preparation.
The Treasury requests comments from market participants on the
proposed reporting time frame, specifically concerning any potential
obstacles, burdens or other factors that would make meeting the
deadline problematic, and the extent of any extra costs that would be
incurred.
The rule, in paragraph 420.3(d), also provides that the large
position report may be filed in any manner or media (i.e., hard copy,
facsimile or other electronic transmission) that is acceptable to the
FRBNY. As mentioned earlier, the reporting entities are permitted to
produce or generate their own large position reports.
Follow-Up Inquiries
The requirement to file a large position report in response to a
specific Treasury notice requesting this information is expected to be
an occasional event. The requirement is satisfied upon receipt of the
report by the FRBNY within the required time frame and in the required
format as prescribed in paragraph 420.3. The proposed rule does not
impose a continuous reporting requirement. However, the Treasury and
the FRBNY staff may contact a designated filing entity after receiving
a large position report to discuss any aspect of the report, seek
clarification of the information provided or request additional
documents or information. The purpose of such inquiries or requests for
data would be to understand the concentration of positions better. The
Treasury or the FRBNY staff may also request further detail on any
position reported, such as breaking out the gross financing position
into its component parts or identifying repurchase agreements by their
terms or types (e.g., overnight repos, term repos, tri-party repos,
hold-in-custody repos). Reporting entities are required to make good
faith attempts to respond to inquiries and provide any additional data
requested in an expeditious manner.
Testing of Large Position Reporting Systems
The Department wishes to underscore the importance of accurate,
reliable and timely reporting of large position information by affected
market participants. As the agency of the Federal government most
concerned with minimizing the interest cost on the public debt, the
Treasury believes that the United States is best served by a liquid and
efficient market for Treasury securities that is not overburdened with
regulation, but, at the same time, is not viewed as being subject to
manipulation. In developing these proposed rules, the Treasury has
attempted to pursue a modest approach that balances the need for
additional regulation with a desire to minimize the burdens on, and
costs to, the industry and to preserve the efficiency of the Treasury
securities market.
Compliance with these large position rules--the maintenance of
reliable records and the accurate and timely reporting of large
position information--is essential to preserving and strengthening the
integrity of the Treasury securities market. One of the primary
concerns with an on-demand reporting system is the increased potential
for inaccurate or incomplete information on large positions due to
unfamiliarity by market participants with the reporting requirements.
Large position information will be extremely important for policymakers
at
FR Doc. 95-30766 Government Securities Act Regulations: Large Position Rules
Treasury, in consultation with other regulatory officials, in
determining whether, and what course of, action should be taken to
alleviate a concentration of control in a particular Treasury security.
Thus, it is imperative that market participants fully understand and
comply with the large position recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
To ensure that market participants remain knowledgeable about the
rules, specifically how to calculate and report a reportable position,
the Treasury intends to ``test'' the reporting system by requesting
large position reports at least annually, regardless of market
conditions for a particular security. The Treasury does not intend to
notify market participants that its request for large position reports
is merely a test. Commenters are asked to address this proposed
treatment of ``test'' reporting. The notice and reporting requirements
are proposed to be identical to a call for large position information
in which the Department is concerned about price anomalies and
concentrated ownership. ``Test'' reporting is consistent with the
statutory purpose since the Department believes it is both necessary
and appropriate to help ensure that an on-demand program of large
position reporting is conducted effectively.
4. Section 420.4
Recordkeeping. Section 15C(f)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 authorizes the Secretary to promulgate rules requiring large
position holders to make and preserve records related to large position
reporting requirements. Section 420.4 sets forth the proposed
recordkeeping rules supporting large position reporting under that
authority. The proposed recordkeeping rules are divided into two
classes: (1) records required for entities that are currently subject
to recordkeeping rules of federal securities or federal bank regulators
(paragraph 420.4(b)); and (2) records required for all other entities,
such as hedge funds, insurance companies, and pension funds (paragraph
420.4(c)).
Under paragraph 420.4(a)(1), the recordkeeping rules would apply to
all aggregating entities that may control components of their
respective reporting entity's reportable position as of the effective
date of the final large position rules, but only if the aggregating
entities' respective reporting entity had a reportable position in any
Treasury security equal to or in excess of $2 billion (the minimum
large position threshold) at any time during the prior two-year period
ending 90 days after publication of the final rule. Thus, all reporting
entities (through their respective aggregating entities) will be
responsible for determining whether they have controlled a reportable
position of at least $2 billion in a Treasury security during the two-
year period. For some firms, this will necessitate a thorough review of
their records to determine if their reportable positions reached that
level.
In addition, under paragraph 420.4(a)(2), in instances where a
reporting entity controlled a reportable position of at least $2
billion in a Treasury security during the two-year period, its
designated filing entity will be required to submit a letter to the
FRBNY certifying that it has in place, or will have in place by the
effective date of the final rules, a recordkeeping system (including
policies and procedures) capable of making, verifying the accuracy of,
and preserving the requisite records. This
[[Page 65224]]
letter must be signed by one of the following officials of the
designated filing entity: the chief financial officer, the chief
operating officer, the chief executive officer, or the managing partner
or equivalent. The letter must be received by the FRBNY within 120 days
after publication of the final rule.
The Department believes this requirement would ensure that entities
having a history of controlling large Treasury securities positions
would have supporting records in place in the event their reportable
positions reach an announced large position threshold for a specific
issue, thereby triggering the submission of a large position report.
These potential large position holders would have several months to
develop methods to meet the proposed recordkeeping requirements since
there will be a delayed effective date for the rules. Subsequent to the
effective date of the rules, aggregating entities within a reporting
entity that had not previously had a reportable position in a Treasury
security equal to or greater than $2 billion but whose reportable
position reaches or exceeds $2 billion would be subject to the large
position recordkeeping requirements from that point forward.
Regardless of the date aggregating entities become subject to the
recordkeeping rules, their being subject to the rules is based on
whether the reportable position of their reporting entity reaches the
large position threshold, not on whether the position of the
aggregating entity itself reaches that threshold. Thus, an aggregating
entity may be subject to the recordkeeping rules even though its own
position has been substantially below the threshold.
Entities Subject to Recordkeeping Rules of Federal Securities or
Federal Bank Regulators (Paragraph 420.4(b))
In developing the proposed recordkeeping rules, the Department
sought to strike an appropriate balance between ensuring that large
position holders maintain records that document and facilitate the
generation of accurate reports and minimizing recordkeeping burdens on
large position holders. Accordingly, the Department examined existing
securities-related recordkeeping rules of the SEC, the Treasury, and
the bank regulatory agencies to determine if the records required under
those rules include the type of information necessary to create large
position reports.
Specifically, the Department examined the following recordkeeping
regulations: SEC recordkeeping regulations applicable to registered
broker-dealers, registered investment advisors, and registered
investment companies; Treasury recordkeeping rules applicable to
registered government securities broker-dealers, financial institutions
that have filed or should file notice as government securities broker-
dealers, and depository institutions that hold government securities as
custodians; and bank regulatory agency recordkeeping rules applicable
to banks that conduct securities transactions for customers.29
\29\17 CFR 240.17a-3, 240.17a-4, and 240.17a-7 (for registered
brokers and dealers); 17 CFR 275.204-2 (for registered investment
advisers); 17 CFR 270.31a-1, 270.31a-2, and 270.31a-3 (for
registered investment companies); 17 CFR 404.2 and 404.3 (for
registered government securities brokers and dealers); 17 CFR 404.4
(for noticed financial institutions); 17 CFR 450 (for depository
institution custodians that exercise investment discretion); and 12
CFR Part 12, Part 208, or Part 344 (for banks conducting securities
transactions for customers), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that all of these recordkeeping rules
require the affected entities to make and keep records of original
entry (i.e., journals, blotters, or similar records) containing
itemized records of all of the entities' securities transactions,
including information pertaining to the amount and identification of
each security or instrument. Records of original entry are basic,
detailed records that cover, among other things, all transactions
related to the components of a reportable position. Most of the
existing regulations of the federal securities and federal bank
regulators also require the affected entities to maintain order tickets
or memos and various ledgers containing much of the same information
required in the records of original entry.30
\30\Most of the existing recordkeeping rules also require
affected entities to maintain position records, which provide a
composite listing of the long and short positions in each security
for which the broker-dealer or other entity is responsible. However,
position records do not include information on positions resulting
from certain unsettled and off-balance sheet transactions (e.g.,
when-issued trades and futures).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed treatment of depository institutions that exercise
investment discretion warrants specific discussion with respect to
recordkeeping requirements because such entities are potential
reporting entities. Depository institutions that exercise investment
discretion are generally subject to the securities recordkeeping
requirements of the bank regulatory agencies (12 CFR 12, 12 CFR 208, or
12 CFR 344), regardless of whether or not they exercise investment
discretion within their trust departments.
In addition, for those rare cases in which depository institutions
exercise investment discretion and act as custodians of government
securities outside of their trust departments, the recordkeeping
provisions of paragraph 450.4(c) of the GSA regulations also
apply.31 The Department views the information required by the
recordkeeping rules of paragraph 450.4(c) as comparable to the basic
information required in the records of original entry under the
existing rules of the SEC, the Treasury, and the bank regulatory
agencies.
\31\Recordkeeping requirements for depository institutions
acting solely as custodians were not considered because these
entities do not meet the proposed definition of having control under
paragraph 420.2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes that reportable positions can be
constructed relatively easily from the aforementioned records required
by the federal regulatory agencies. As a result, the Department has
decided, with respect to large position rules, not to propose any new
recordkeeping rules for aggregating entities that are: (1) subject to
the existing federal recordkeeping requirements, and (2) not designated
filing entities.
However, an aggregating entity that is also a designated filing
entity would be required to maintain specific large position-related
records in addition to its existing securities-related records. (Each
reporting entity would have only one designated filing entity.) First,
the designated filing entity would be required to make and maintain
copies of all of the large position reports it filed. Also, since the
designated filing entity, in some cases, would have to collect and
combine information received from other aggregating entities within its
reporting entity, the designated filing entity would be required to
make and maintain supporting documents or schedules (e.g., worksheets)
that are used to compute the reportable position and to prepare large
position reports. The designated filing entity would also be required
to make and keep a chart showing the organizational entities (e.g.,
aggregating entities, if applicable) whose data is combined for
purposes of calculating a reportable position.
The Department believes that requiring supporting schedules would
enhance the ability of the designated filing entity to produce accurate
and timely large position reports. Moreover, the retention of
supporting schedules and organizational charts would be indispensable
in responding to follow-up inquiries from the regulatory agencies and
in the course of any in-depth review or reconstruction of a reporting
entity's reportable position conducted by the Treasury, the FRBNY, or
the SEC.
[[Page 65225]]
Designated filing entities would be required to retain the
additional records for the same period specified in their existing
securities-related recordkeeping rules.32 In instances where
recordkeeping rules contain more than one retention period (e.g., SEC
Rule 17a-4), paragraph 420.4(b)(4) of the proposed rule specifies that
the longest retention period will apply.
\32\See supra note 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Entities (Paragraph 420.4(c))
Certain entities that have the potential to control large
positions, or portions thereof, in Treasury securities within a
reporting entity (e.g., hedge funds and insurance companies) are not
currently subject to federal requirements to make and preserve
securities-related records. To ensure that such entities make and
preserve records that document and facilitate the generation of
accurate large position reports--while minimizing the burden on these
entities--the Department proposes that all aggregating entities (within
their respective reporting entities) in this category make and maintain
records of original entry (the equivalent of blotters or journals).
These documents should be relatively easy for large, sophisticated
investors to implement. In fact, it is our understanding that most such
investors already produce and maintain such records as part of their
on-going business and accounting control systems.
Like the recordkeeping system applicable to entities that are
subject to federal securities-related recordkeeping rules, an
aggregating entity that is also a designated filing entity would be
required to make and maintain the following large position-related
records in addition to its records of original entry: copies of all of
the large position reports it filed, supporting documents or schedules
(e.g., worksheets) used to prepare large position reports, and a chart
showing the organizational entities (e.g., aggregating entities, if
applicable) whose data is aggregated in order to calculate a reportable
position. Such records would have to be preserved by the designated
filing entity for at least six years, the first two in an easily
accessible place.
5. Section 420.5
Effective Date. Section 420.5 sets out the effective date for both
the recordkeeping and reporting provisions of the large position rules.
The rule provides for a delayed effective date approximately six months
after publication of the final rule. This period of time is provided in
order to give affected entities sufficient time to make the necessary
preparations for compliance. Only subsection 420.4(a) is not subject to
this date but instead contains its own specific dates for compliance.
IV. Special Analysis
The proposed rules reflect the Treasury's interest in meeting
regulators' informational needs while minimizing the costs and burdens
on market participants. The rules propose to adopt an on-demand
reporting system, which will significantly minimize operational and
compliance costs for market participants compared with the costs that
would have been incurred if a regular reporting system were required.
Further, in an effort to avoid imposing new requirements, the proposed
regulations adopt, for the most part, existing federal recordkeeping
requirements for the largest segment of market participants that would
be subject to the rules. The proposal requires limited records to be
maintained by those entities that are not currently subject to federal
rules to make and preserve securities-related records. Additionally,
the establishment of a minimum floor of $2 billion for the large
position threshold will also greatly reduce the number of market
participants potentially subject to the proposed rules. Therefore,
based on the very limited impact of the proposal, it is the
Department's view that the proposed regulations are not a ``significant
regulatory action'' for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
In addition, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act,\33\ it is
hereby certified that the proposed regulations, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities since the proposal establishes a minimum large position
threshold of $2 billion. This assures market participants that the
Treasury would not request large position reports for positions below
that minimum amount. The Department does not believe that small
entities will control positions of $2 billion or greater in any
Treasury security. Accordingly, the inapplicability of the proposed
regulations to small firms indicates that there is no significant
impact. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
\33\5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires that collections of
information prescribed in the proposed rules be submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review and approval.\34\ In accordance
with this requirement, the Department has submitted the collection of
information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking for review.
Under the Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a valid OMB control number. Comments on the collection of
information may be submitted to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk
Officer for Department of the Treasury, Washington, D.C. 20503; and to
the Government Securities Regulations Staff, Bureau of the Public Debt,
at the address specified at the beginning of this document.
\34\44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The collection of information in this proposed regulation is
contained in proposed Secs. 420.3 and 420.4. The proposed reporting
requirements in Sec. 420.3 would require the designated filing entity
of any market participant, whose position equals or exceeds the
announced large position threshold for a specific issue of a Treasury
security, to report information to FRBNY. Although the Treasury cannot
be certain of the number of market participants that would have large
reportable positions for a specific issue on which information is
requested, we believe that very few entities would likely have to file
reports because the proposed minimum reporting threshold is $2 billion.
Further, Treasury expects that its requests for information will be
relatively infrequent, and estimates that there will only be an average
of five reports filed in response to any particular request.
The proposed recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 420.4 require any
aggregating entity to make and preserve certain records as of the
effective date, but only if it has, during a specified period,
controlled a portion of its reporting entity's reportable position in
any Treasury security when that reportable position is equal to or in
excess of the $2 billion minimum large position threshold specified in
Sec. 420.2(d). For each reporting entity subject to the recordkeeping
rules as of the effective date, the designated filing entity will be
required to submit a letter, on a one-time basis, certifying that it
has in place, or will have in place, a recordkeeping system capable of
making, verifying the accuracy of, and preserving the requisite
records. As mentioned above, while Treasury expects that very few
entities would likely control positions in excess of the stated
threshold that would require reporting, a larger group of entities will
[[Page 65226]]
be required to submit the one-time letter.
For aggregating entities currently subject to, and in compliance
with, recordkeeping rules of federal securities or federal bank
regulators, and subject to the large position recordkeeping rules,
there are no additional recordkeeping requirements, with one exception.
If the aggregating entity is the designated filing entity for its
reporting entity, then it is required to make and maintain copies of
any large position reports filed; supporting documents or schedules
used to compute data for such large position reports, including any
information received from aggregating entities within the reporting
entity; and an organizational chart showing the entities that are
aggregated in developing a reportable position.
Those aggregating entities that must comply with the proposed rules
but are not subject to paragraph 420.4(b) must make and preserve
journals, blotters or other records of original entry containing an
itemized record of all transactions that fall within the definition of
a reportable position. This provision accounts for the greatest
percentage of estimated recordkeeping burden hours. However, this
requirement is significantly less than the full range of books and
records requirements currently applicable to entities subject to
federal securities-related recordkeeping requirements. If the
aggregating entity is also a designated filing entity, the requirements
for a designated filing entity are also applicable.
The collection of information is intended to enable the Treasury
and other regulators to understand better the possible reasons for any
apparent significant price distortions and the possible causes of
market shortages in certain Treasury securities. The collection of
information will help ensure that the Treasury securities market
remains liquid and efficient, and is not viewed as subject to
manipulation. The proposed rules apply to all market participants
controlling large positions, as defined in the rules. Per paragraph
420.3(c), it is a mandatory requirement that reporting entities with
reportable positions that equal or exceed the specified threshold in a
Treasury notice respond through their designated filing entities by
filing a report in the required format and within the specified
reporting time frame.
In developing the proposed rules, we have consulted with affected
entities and regulatory agencies, and expect that this process will
continue through the development of a final rule. As previously
mentioned, Treasury published an ANPR\35\ which requested comments on a
number of specific issues, including the approach and structure for a
large position recordkeeping and reporting system. The estimated
reporting and recordkeeping burden hours are based on a review of
tenders submitted in Treasury auctions, position reports that primary
dealers already complete and voluntarily submit to FRBNY, recordkeeping
requirements that are already in place for federally-regulated
participants in the government securities market and discussions with
the industry and other regulators.
\35\See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury invites further comments on: (1) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
functions of the Treasury, including the practical utility of the
information; (2) the accuracy of the Treasury's estimate of the burden;
(3) enhancement of the quality, utility, and clarity of information to
be collected; and (4) minimizing the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 4,940
hours.
Estimated annual number of recordkeepers: 100.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 10.
Estimated annual frequency of response: On occasion.
List of Subjects
17 CFR Part 400
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Brokers,
Government securities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
17 CFR Part 420
Foreign investments in U.S., Government securities, Investments,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 17 CFR Chapter IV,
subchapter A is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 400--RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION
1. The authority citation for part 400 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78o-5.
2. In Sec. 400.1, paragraph (e) is added as follows:
Sec. 400.1 Scope of regulations.
* * * * *
(e) Section 104 of the Government Securities Act Amendments of 1993
(Pub. L. 103-202, 107 Stat. 2344) amended Section 15C of the Act (15
U.S.C. 78o-5) by adding a new subsection (f), authorizing the Secretary
of the Treasury to adopt rules to require specified persons holding,
maintaining or controlling a large position in to-be-issued or
recently-issued Treasury securities to report such a position and make
and keep records related to such a position. Part 420 of this
subchapter contains the rules governing large position reporting.
* * * * *
3. Part 420 is added to read as follows:
PART 420--LARGE POSITION REPORTING
Sec.
420.1 Applicability.
420.2 Definitions.
420.3 Reporting.
420.4 Recordkeeping.
420.5 Effective Date.
Appendix A to Part 420--Separate Reporting Entity
Appendix B to Part 420--Sample Large Position Report
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78o-5(f).
Sec. 420.1 Applicability.
(a) This part, including the Appendices, is applicable to all
persons that participate in the government securities market,
including, but not limited to, government securities brokers and
dealers, depository institutions, registered investment companies,
registered investment advisers, pension funds, hedge funds and
insurance companies, that may control a reportable position in a
recently-issued Treasury bill, note or bond as those terms are defined
in Sec. 420.2.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, foreign central
banks, foreign governments and international monetary authorities are
exempt from this part for the portion of any reportable position they
control that is held at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, Federal Reserve
Banks are exempt from this part for the portion of any reportable
position they control for their own account.
(d) Notwithstanding the definition of recently-issued, the
Department reserves the right to collect large position information on
Treasury security issues that are older than those specified, provided
that such action is consistent
[[Page 65227]]
with the purposes of the Act (15 U.S.C 78o-5(f)).
Sec. 420.2 Definitions.
For the purposes of this part:
(a) ``Aggregating entity'' means a single entity (e.g., a parent
company or affiliate) that is combined with other entities, as
specified in paragraph (i) of this section, to form a reporting entity.
In those cases where an entity has no affiliates, the aggregating
entity is the same as the reporting entity.
(b) ``Control'' means having the authority to exercise investment
discretion over the purchase, sale, retention or financing of specific
Treasury securities. Only one entity should be considered to have
investment discretion over a particular position.
(c) ``Gross financing position'' is the sum of the gross par
amounts of a security issue received from financing transactions,
including, but not limited to, reverse repurchase transactions, bonds
borrowed, securities received in pledge, and collateralized credit
extended. In calculating the gross financing position, a reporting
entity may not net its positions against repurchase transactions,
securities loaned, securities pledged or other deliveries of the
security issue. However, a reporting entity may elect to reduce its
gross financing position by the par amount of the security received in
transactions: in which the counterparty retains the right to substitute
securities; that are subject to third party custodial relationships; or
that are hold-in-custody reverse repurchase agreements.
(d) ``Large position threshold'' means, with respect to a
reportable position, the dollar par amount such position must equal or
exceed in order for a reporting entity to be required to submit a large
position report. The large position threshold will be announced by the
Department and may vary with each notice of request to report large
position information and with each specified Treasury security.
However, under no circumstances will a large position threshold be less
than $2 billion.
(e) ``Net fails position'' is the net par amount of ``fails to
receive'' less ``fails to deliver'' in the same security. The net fails
position, as reported, may not be less than zero.
(f) ``Net trading position'' is the net sum of the following
respective positions in the specific security issue:
(1) Cash/immediate net settled positions;
(2) Net when-issued positions;
(3) Net forward positions, including next-day settling;
(4) Net futures contract positions that require delivery of the
specific security; and
(5) Net holdings of STRIPS principal components of the security.
(g) ``Recently-issued'' means:
(1) With respect to Treasury securities that are issued quarterly
or more frequently, the three most recent issues of the security (e.g.,
in early April, the January, February, and March 2-year notes).
(2) With respect to Treasury securities that are issued less
frequently than quarterly, the two most recent issues of the security.
(3) With respect to a reopened security, the entire issue of a
reopened security (older and newer portions) based on the date the
reopened security is reissued by the Department (or scheduled to be
reissued for when-issued securities).
(4) For all Treasury securities, a security announced to be issued
or auctioned but unissued (when-issued), starting from the date of the
issuance announcement. The most recent issue of the security is the one
most recently announced.
(h) ``Reportable position'' is the sum of the net trading
positions, gross financing positions and net fails positions in a
specified issue of Treasury securities collectively controlled by a
reporting entity.
(i) ``Reporting entity'' means any corporation, partnership, person
or other entity and its affiliates. For the purposes of this
definition, an affiliate is any: entity that is more than 50% owned,
directly or indirectly, by the aggregating entity or by any other
affiliate of the aggregating entity; person or entity that owns,
directly or indirectly, more than 50% of the aggregating entity; person
or entity that owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of any other
affiliate of the aggregating entity; or entity, a majority of whose
board of directors or a majority of whose general partners are
directors or officers of the aggregating entity or any affiliate of the
aggregating entity.
(1) Subject to the conditions prescribed in Appendix A, one or more
aggregating entities, either separately or together with one or more
other aggregating entities, may be recognized as a separate reporting
entity. Any entity that previously has received recognition from the
Treasury as a separate bidder in Treasury auctions pursuant to Appendix
A of 31 CFR Part 356 is also recognized as a separate reporting entity
without further action.
(2) Notwithstanding this definition, any persons or entities that
intentionally act together with respect to the investing in, retention
of, or financing of, Treasury securities are considered, collectively,
to be one reporting entity.
Sec. 420.3 Reporting.
(a) A reporting entity is subject to the reporting requirements of
this section only when its reportable position equals or exceeds the
large position threshold specified by the Department for a specific
Treasury security issue. The Department shall provide notice of such
threshold by issuance of a press release and subsequent publication of
the notice in the Federal Register. Such notice will identify the
Treasury security issue to be reported; the date or dates (as of close
of business) for which the large position information must be reported;
and the applicable large position threshold for that issue. It is the
responsibility of a reporting entity to take reasonable actions to be
aware of such a notice.
(b) A reporting entity shall select one entity from among its
aggregating entities (i.e., the designated filing entity) as the entity
designated to compile and file a report on behalf of the reporting
entity. The designated filing entity shall be responsible for filing
any large position reports in response to a notice issued by the
Department and for maintaining the additional records prescribed in the
applicable paragraph of Sec. 420.4.
(c) (1) In response to a notice issued under paragraph (a) of this
section requesting large position information, a reporting entity with
a reportable position that equals or exceeds the specified large
position threshold stated in the notice shall compile and report the
amounts of the reporting entity's reportable position, as follows:
(i) net trading position comprising:
(A) cash/immediate net settled positions,
(B) net when-issued positions,
(C) net forward positions, including next-day settling,
(D) net futures contracts that require delivery of the specific
security, and
(E) net holdings of STRIPS principal components of the security;
(ii) gross financing position; and
(iii) net fails position.
(2) The large position report should include the following two
additional items as memoranda:
(i) A total that includes the amounts of securities delivered
through repurchase agreements, securities loaned, securities pledged,
and collateralized loans and other securities deliveries. This total
should not be reflected in the gross financing position; and
(ii) If the reporting entity has elected to exercise the option
available in
[[Page 65228]]
Sec. 420.2(c) to reduce the amount of the gross financing position by
the par amount of securities received but over which the reporting
entity did not have effective control, the amount not included. The
total amount of reduction should be deducted from the gross financing
position prior to determining the reportable position.
(3) An illustration of a sample report is contained in Appendix B.
Each of the net trading position elements shall be netted and reported
as the applicable positive or negative number (or zero). The gross
financing position and net fails position should each be reported as a
single entry. If the amount of the net fails position is zero or less,
report zero. All of these items should be reported in the order
specified above. All position amounts and their components should be
reported at par in millions of dollars.
(4) All balances must be reported as of the close of business of
the reporting date(s) specified in the notice.
(5) Each submitted report must include the following administrative
information in addition to the reportable position: the name of the
reporting entity, the address of the principal place of business, the
name and address of the designated filing entity, the Treasury security
that is being reported, the CUSIP number, the report date or dates for
which information is being reported, the date the report was submitted,
the name and telephone number of the person to contact regarding
information reported, and the name and position of the authorized
individual submitting this report. The report must also be signed by
the authorized individual, who must be one of the following: the chief
financial officer, the chief operating officer, the chief executive
officer, or the managing partner or equivalent of the designated filing
entity. The designated filing entity must also include in its report,
immediately preceding the signature, a statement of certification as
follows:
The reporting entity submitting this report and the person(s) by
whom it is executed hereby certify that all information contained in
the report is accurate and complete and that the reporting entity is
in compliance with the requirements of 17 CFR Part 420.
(6) The report must be filed before noon Eastern time on the second
business day following issuance of the press release.
(d) A report to be filed pursuant to paragraph (c) will be
considered filed when received by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The report may be filed in any manner acceptable to the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York.
(e) A reporting entity that has filed a report pursuant to
paragraph (c) shall, at the request of the Department or the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York, timely provide any supplemental information
pertaining to such report.
Sec. 420.4 Recordkeeping.
(a)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this section, an aggregating entity must make and maintain records
pursuant to this part as of its effective date, but only if the
aggregating entity has controlled a portion of its reporting entity's
reportable position in any Treasury security when such reportable
position of the reporting entity has equaled or exceeded the minimum
large position threshold specified in Sec. 420.2(d) (i.e., $2 billion)
during the prior two-year period ending [90 days after publication of
the final rule]. Subsequent to the effective date, an aggregating
entity that controls a portion of its reporting entity's reportable
position in a recently-issued Treasury security, when such reportable
position of the reporting entity equals or exceeds the minimum large
position threshold, shall be responsible for making and maintaining the
records prescribed in this part.
(2) In the case of a reporting entity whose reportable position in
any Treasury security has equaled or exceeded the minimum large
position threshold during the prior two-year period ending [90 days
after publication of the final rule], each such reporting entity's
designated filing entity shall submit a letter to the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York certifying that it has in place, or will have in place
by the effective date, a recordkeeping system (including policies and
procedures) capable of making, verifying the accuracy of, and
preserving the records required pursuant to this section.
(3) The letter specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section must
be signed by one of the following: the chief financial officer, the
chief operating officer, the chief executive officer, or the managing
partner or equivalent of the designated filing entity and must be
received by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York no later than [120
days after publication of the final rule].
(b) Records to be made and preserved by entities that are subject
to the recordkeeping provisions of the Commission, the Department, or
the appropriate regulatory agencies for financial institutions. As an
aggregating entity, compliance by a registered broker or dealer,
registered government securities broker or dealer, noticed financial
institution, depository institution that exercises investment
discretion, registered investment advisor, or registered investment
company with the applicable recordkeeping provisions of the Commission,
the Department, or the appropriate regulatory agencies for financial
institutions shall constitute compliance with this section, provided
that if such entity is also the designated filing entity it:
(1) Makes and keeps copies of all large position reports filed
pursuant to this part;
(2) Makes and keeps supporting documents or schedules used to
compute data for the large position reports filed pursuant to this
part;
(3) Makes and keeps a chart showing the organizational entities
that are aggregated (if applicable) in determining a reportable
position; and
(4) With respect to recordkeeping preservation requirements that
contain more than one retention period, preserves records required by
paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) of this section for the longest record retention
period of applicable recordkeeping provisions.
(c) Records to be made and kept by other entities. (1) An
aggregating entity that is not subject to the provisions of paragraph
(b) of this section shall make and preserve a journal, blotter, or
other record of original entry containing an itemized record of all
transactions that fall within the definition of a reportable position,
including information showing the account for which such transactions
were effected and the following information pertaining to the
identification of each instrument: the type of security, the par
amount, the CUSIP number, the trade date, the maturity date, the type
of transaction (e.g., a reverse repurchase agreement), and the name or
other designation of the person from whom sold or purchased.
(2) If such aggregating entity is also the designated filing
entity, then in addition it shall make and preserve the following
records:
(i) copies of all large position reports filed pursuant to this
part;
(ii) supporting documents or schedules used to compute data for the
large position reports filed pursuant to this part; and
(iii) a chart showing the organizational entities that are
aggregated (if applicable) in determining a reportable position.
(3) With respect to the records required by paragraphs (c) (1) and
(2) of this section, each such aggregating entity shall preserve such
records for a period of not less than six years, the first two years in
an easily accessible place. If an aggregating entity maintains its
records at a location other than its principal place of business, the
aggregating entity must maintain an
[[Page 65229]]
index that states the location of the records, and such index must be
easily accessible at all times.
Sec. 420.5 Effective Date.
The provisions of this part, except for Sec. 420.4(a), shall be
first effective on [180 days from the date of publication of the final
rule. If the date does not fall on the last day of the month, then move
the date to the end of the month.].
Appendix A to Part 420--Separate Reporting Entity
Subject to the following conditions, one or more aggregating
entity(ies) (e.g., parent or subsidiary) in a reporting entity,
either separately or together with one or more other aggregating
entity(ies), may be recognized as a separate reporting entity. All
of the following conditions must be met for such entity(ies) to
qualify for recognition as a separate reporting entity:
(1) Such entity(ies) must be prohibited by law or regulation
from exchanging, or must have established written internal
procedures (i.e., Chinese walls) designed to prevent the exchange of
information related to transactions in Treasury securities with any
other aggregating entity;
(2) Such entity(ies) must not be created for the purpose of
circumventing these large position reporting rules;
(3) Decisions related to the purchase, sale or retention of
Treasury securities must be made by employees of such entity(ies).
Employees of such entity(ies) who make decisions to purchase or
dispose of Treasury securities must not perform the same function
for other aggregating entities; and
(4) The records of such entity(ies) related to the ownership,
financing, purchase and sale of Treasury securities must be
maintained by such entity(ies). Those records must be identifiable--
separate and apart from similar records for other aggregating
entities.
To obtain recognition as a separate reporting entity, each
aggregating entity or group of aggregating entities must request
such recognition from the Department pursuant to the procedures
outlined in Sec. 400.2(c) of this title. Such request must provide a
description of the entity or group and its position within the
reporting entity, and provide the following certification:
``[Name of the entity(ies)] hereby certifies that to the best of
its knowledge and belief it meets the conditions for a separate
reporting entity as described in Appendix A to 17 CFR part 420. The
above named entity also certifies that it has established written
policies or procedures, including ongoing compliance monitoring
processes, that are designed to prevent the entity or group of
entities from:
``(1) Exchanging any of the following information with any other
aggregating entity (a) positions that it holds or plans to acquire
in a Treasury security; (b) investment strategies that it plans to
follow regarding Treasury securities; and (c) financing strategies
that it plans to follow regarding Treasury securities, or
``(2) In any way intentionally acting together with any other
aggregating entity with respect to the purchase, sale, retention or
financing of Treasury securities.
``The above-named entity agrees that it will promptly notify the
Department in writing when any of the information provided to obtain
separate reporting entity status changes or when this certification
is no longer valid.''
Any entity that previously has received recognition as a
separate bidder in Treasury auctions from the Department pursuant to
31 CFR Part 356 is also recognized as a separate reporting entity
without further action.
Appendix B to Part 420--Sample Large Position Report.
Formula for Determining a Reportable Position
[$ Amounts in millions at par value]
Date For Which Information Is Being Reported: ______
1. Cash/Immediate Net Settled Positions...................... $____
2. Net When-Issued Positions for To-Be-Issued and Reopened
Issues...................................................... +$____
3. Net Forward Settling Positions Including Next Day Settling +$____
4. Net Positions in Futures Contracts Requiring Delivery of
the Specific Security....................................... +$____
5. Net STRIPS Principal Components of the Specific Security.. +$____
6. Gross Financing Position (Includes total of securities
received through reverse repos, bonds borrowed, securities
received in pledge, collateralized credit extended.)........ +$____
7. Net Fails Position (Fails to Receive less Fails to
Deliver. If equal to or less than 0, report 0.)............. +$____
8. Total Reportable Position................................. =$____
Memorandum #1: Report one total which includes the gross par
amounts of securities delivered through repurchase
agreements, securities loaned, securities pledged, and
collateralized loans. Not included in item #6 (Gross
Financing Position) as reported above....................... $____
Memorandum #2: If the optional exclusion was taken to reduce
the amount of the Gross Financing Position by the amount of
securities received but that the reporting entity did not
have effective control over (e.g., third party custodial
structures, hold-in-custody relationships, counterparty
retained contractual right to substitute), indicate the
total amount of reduction here. Deduct from item #6 (Gross
Financing Position)......................................... $____
Administrative Information To Be Provided in the Report
Name of Reporting Entity:
Address of Principal Place of Business:
Name and Address of the Designated Filing Entity:
Treasury Security Reported on:
CUSIP Number:
Date or Dates for Which Information Is Being Reported:
Date Report Submitted:
Name and Telephone Number of Person to Contact Regarding
Information Reported:
Name and Position of Authorized Individual Submitting this
Report (Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief
Executive Officer, or Managing Partner or Equivalent of Designated
Filing Entity):
Statement of Certification: ``The reporting entity submitting
this report and the person(s) by whom it is executed hereby certify
that all information contained in the report is accurate and
complete and that the reporting entity is in compliance with the
requirements of 17 CFR Part 420.''
Signature of Authorized Person Named Above:
* * * * *
Date:
Darcy Bradbury,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Federal Finance).
[FR Doc. 95-30766 Filed 12-14-95; 1:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30694 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbia, CA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65045-65046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30694]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-39]
Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Columbia, CA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Columbia, CA. The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 35 has
made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is
to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight (IFR)
operations at Columbia Airport, Columbia, CA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 1996.
[[Page 65046]]
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Attn: Manager, System Management Branch, AWP-
530, Docket No. 95-AWP-39, 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 proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 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-39.'' 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 the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of 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) by amending the Class E airspace
area at Columbia, CA. The development of a GPS SIAP at Columbia Airport
has made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal
is to provide adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing the GPS
RWY 35 SIAP at Columbia Airport, Columbia, CA. Class E airspace
designations for 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.
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 only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed 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 Columbia, CA [Revised]
Columbia Airport, CA
(Lat. 38 deg.01'50'' N, long. 120 deg.24'53'' W )
Columbia NDB
(Lat. 38 deg.01'52'' N, long. 120 deg.24'46'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 5-mile radius of Columbia Airport and within 2.6 miles
radius of each side of the 211 deg. bearing from the Columbia NDB
extending from the 5-mile radius to 10.4 miles south of the NDB and
within 2 miles east of the 189 deg. bearing from the Columbia NDB
extending from the 5-mile radius to 7.8 miles south of the NDB.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on December 1, 1995.
James H. Snow,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30694 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30693 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Stevensville, MD
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65044-65045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30693]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AEA-06]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Stevensville, MD
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish Class E Airspace at
Stevensville, MD. A standard instrument approach procedure (SIAP),
based on the Global Positioning System (GPS), has been developed for
Runway (RWY) 11 at Bay Bridge Airport, Stevensville, MD. The intended
effect of
[[Page 65045]]
this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations to the airport. The area would be
depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposed rule in triplicate to:
Manager, System Management Branch, AEA-530, Docket No. 95-AEA-06 F.A.A.
Eastern Region, Federal Building #111, John F. Kennedy Int'l Airport,
Jamaica, NY 11430.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, AEA-7, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building #111,
John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the System Management Branch, AEA-530, F.A.A. Eastern Region,
Federal Building, #111, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica,
New York 11430.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Francis T. Jordan, Jr., Airspace Specialist, System Management
Branch, AEA-530, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Federal Building, #111, John F.
Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York 11430; telephone:
(718) 553-4521.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 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 those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
AEA-06.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter.
All communications received 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 the light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
the FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, AEA-7, F.A.A. Eastern Region, Fitzgerald Federal Building #
111, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, NY 11430.
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 procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Stevensville, MD. A GPS RWY 11 SIAP has been developed for Bay Bridge
Airport. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface (AGL) is needed to accommodate this SIAP and for IFR
operations at the airport. The area would be depicted on appropriate
aeronautical charts. Class E airspace designations for airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface are published in
Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document
would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that would only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed 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 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.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, is proposed to be amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AEA VA E5 Stevensville, MD
Bay Bridge Airport, MD
(Lat. 38 deg.58'35'' N, long. 76 deg.19' 47''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Bay Bridge Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Jamaica, New York, on November 30, 1995.
John S. Walker,
Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 95-30693 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30691 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Vacaville, CA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65043-65044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30691]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-43]
Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Vacaville, CA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Vacaville, CA. The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 20 has
made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is
to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations at Nut Tree Airport, Vacaville, CA.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 24, 1996.
[[Page 65044]]
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Attn: Manager, System Management Branch, AWP-
530, Docket No. 95-AWP-43, 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 proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 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-43.'' 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 the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of 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) by amending the Class E airspace
area at Vacaville, CA. The development of a GPS SIAP at Nut Tree
Airport has made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing
the GPS RWY 20 SIAP at Nut Tree Airport, Vacaville, CA. 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.
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 only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed 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 Vacaville, CA [Revised]
Nut Tree Airport, CA
(Lat. 38 deg.22'37'' N, long. 121 deg.57'45'' W)
Sacramento VORTAC
(Lat. 38 deg.26'38'' N, long. 121 deg.33'02'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 5-mile radius of Nut Tree Airport and within 2.5 miles
radius of the Nut Tree Airport and within 2.2 miles each side of the
Sacramento VORTAC 259 deg. radial, extending from the 5-mile radius
to 11.3 miles west of the VORTAC and 2.5 miles each side of the
034 deg. bearing from the Nut Tree Airport, extending from the 2.6
mile radius to 10.5 miles northwest of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on December 1, 1995.
James H. Snow,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30691 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30690 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Willcox, AZ
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65042-65043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30690]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWP-28]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Willcox, AZ
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish a Class E airspace area at
Wilcox, AZ. The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 21 and
RWY 3 has made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Cochise County Airport, Willcox, AZ.
[[Page 65043]]
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Attn: Manager, System Management Branch, AWP-
530, Docket No. 95-AWP-28, 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 proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, 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-28.'' 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 the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of 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 establish a Class E airspace
area at Willcox, AZ. The development of GPS SIAPs at Cochise County
Airport has made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing
the GPS RWY 21 and RWY 3 SIAP at Cochise County Airport, Willcox, 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.
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 only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed 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 Willcox, AZ [New]
Cochise County Airport, AZ
(Lat. 32 deg.14'39'' N, long. 109 deg.53'38'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Cochise County Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Los Angeles, California, on December 1, 1995.
Harvey R. Riebel,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30690 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30689 Proposed Amendment to Class D and Class E Airspace; New England Region
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65041-65042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30689]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ANE-60]
Proposed Amendment to Class D and Class E Airspace; New England
Region
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class D airspace areas at
Beverly, MA (BVY); Bedford, MA (BED); Danbury, CT (DXR); Norwood, MA
(OWD); Lebanon, NH (LEB); and Nashua, NH (ASH); and to amend the
associated Class E airspace areas at Beverly (BVY), Lebanon (LEB), and
Nashua (ASH). The FAA has determined after a review of the elevation of
the surrounding terrain in the vicinity of these airports that the
lateral limits of the Class D areas at these airports may be reduced
and the appropriate changes made to the Class E airspace areas.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, ANE-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ANE-60, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-7530; fax (617) 238-7596.
The official docket file may be examined in the Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, New England Region, ANE-7, Room 401, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-
7050; fax (617) 238-7055.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Air Traffic Division, Room 408, by contacting the Manager,
System Management Branch at the first address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Raymond Duda, System Management Branch, ANE-533, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-7533;
fax (617) 238-7596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed first under addresses
above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. 95-ANE-60.'' The postcard will be date/time
stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered before
taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this
notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments
submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket both
before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing
each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future 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 reduce the lateral limits of
the Class D airspace areas at Beverly, MA (BVY); Bedford, MA (BED);
Danbury, CT (DXR); Norwood, MA (OWD); Lebanon, NH (LEB); and Nashua, NH
(ASH); and, as a consequence to those changes, to make the necessary
changes to the associated Class E airspace areas at Beverly (BVY),
Lebanon (LEB), and Nashua (ASH). This action is the result of an
extensive review of the elevation of the surrounding terrain at
airports in the New England region with Class D airspace areas. That
review came in response to concerns expressed by operators and other
interested parties over recent changes to the lateral limits of Class D
airspace areas in the New England Region. By using more detailed
topographical charts and more precise calculations, the FAA has
determined that reductions in the lateral limits of the Class D
airspace areas at BVY, BED, DXR, OWD, LEB, and ASH are appropriate and
will not affect aviation safety. As a result of the reductions to the
Class D airspace areas at BVY, LEB, and ASH, the FAA must also make
minor adjustments to the associated Class E areas at those airports.
Class D airspace designations, and Class E airspace designations for
airspace areas extending upward from the surface of the earth defined
as extensions to Class D airspace areas, are published in paragraphs
5000 and 6004, respectively, 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 D and Class E airspace designations
listed in this document would be published subsequently in this Order.
The FAA has determined that these proposed regulations only involve
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, these proposed regulations--(1) are not ``significant
regulatory actions'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) are not
``significant rules'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) do not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as these routine matters will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that these
proposed rules will not have significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 65042]]
Authority 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace
* * * * *
MANE MA D Beverly, MA [Revised]
Beverly municipal Airport, MA
(Lat. 42 deg.35'03'' N, long. 70 deg.55'01'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Beverly Municipal
Airport, excluding that airspace within the Boston, MA, Class B
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
ANE MA D Bedford MA [Revised]
Bedford, Lawrence G. Hanscom Field, MA
(Lat. 42 deg.28'12'' N, long. 71 deg.17'20'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of Lawrence G. Hanscom
Field, excluding that airspace within the Boston, MA, Class B
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
ANE CT D Danbury, CT [Revised]
Danbury Municipal Airport, CT
(Lat. 41 deg.22'17'' N, long. 73 deg.28'56'' W)
Carmel VORTAC
(Lat. 41 deg.16'48'' N, long. 73 deg.34'53'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 6-mile radius of Danbury Municipal Airport,
and within 1.2 miles on each side of the Carmel VORTAC 039 deg.
radial, extending from the 6-mile radius to the Carmel VORTAC. This
Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
ANE MA D Norwood, MA [Revised]
Norwood Memorial Airport, MA
(Lat. 42 deg.11'27'' N, long. 71 deg.10'23'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of the Norwood Memorial Airport,
excluding that airspace within the Boston, MA, Class B airspace
area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice of Airmen. The
effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published
in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
ANE NH D Lebanon, NH [Revised]
Lebanon Municipal Airport, NH
(Lat. 43 deg.37'35'' N, long. 72 deg.18'15'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,100 feet MSL within a 4.8-mile radius of Lebanon Municipal
Airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the extended centerline
of Runway 36, extending from the 4.8-mile radius to 6 miles north of
the end of Runway 36. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
ANE NH D Nashua, NH [Revised]
Nashua Boire Field, NH
(Lat. 42 deg.46'54'' N, long. 71 deg.30'53'' W)
Sports Center Airport, Pepperell
(Lat. 42 deg.41'45'' N, long. 71 deg.33'03'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Boire Field; excluding that
airspace within a 2-mile radius of Sports Center Airport, Pepperell,
and that airspace within the Manchester Airport, NH, Class C
airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Subpart E--Class E Airspace
* * * * *
Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas extending from the surface
of the earth defined as extensions to Class D airspace areas.
* * * * *
ANE MA E4 Beverly MA [Revised]
Beverly Municipal Airport, MA
(Lat. 42 deg.35'03'' N, long. 70 deg.55'01'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.2 miles
on each side of the Topsfield NDB 317 deg. bearing extending from a
4.1-mile radius of Beverly Municipal Airport to 7 miles northwest of
the Topsfield NDB. This Class E airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
ANE NH E4 Lebanon, NH [Revised]
Lebanon Municipal Airport, NH
(Lat. 43 deg.3735'' N, long. 72 deg.18'15'' W)
BURGR OM
(Lat. 43 deg.43'57'' N, long. 72 deg.20'00'' W)
Hanover NDB
(Lat. 43 deg.42'08'' N, long. 72 deg.10'39'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.3 miles
each side of the BURGR OM 352 deg. bearing from a 4.8-mile radius of
Lebanon Municipal Airport to 8 miles north of the BURGR OM, and
within 2.4 miles each side of the Hanover NDB 051 deg. bearing
extending from the 4.8-mile radius to 7 miles northeast of the
Hanover NBD. This Class E airspace area is effective during specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published
in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
ANE NE E4 Nashua, NH [Revised]
Nashua, Boire Field, NH
(Lat. 42 deg.46'54'' N, long. 71 deg.30'53'' W)
CHERN NDB
(Lat. 42 deg.49'54'' N, long. 71 deg.30'53'' W)
Manchester VORTAC
(Lat. 42 deg.52'06'' N, long. 71 deg.22'10'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.6 miles
on each side of the CHERN NDB 303 deg. bearing extending from a 5-
mile radius of Boire Field to 7 miles northwest of the CHERN NDB,
and that airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.1 miles
on each side of the Manchester VORTAC 231 deg. radial extending from
the 5-mile radius to 8.4 miles northeast of Boire Field. This Class
E airspace area is effective during specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective dates
and times will threafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Issued in Burlington, MA, on December 7, 1995.
John J. Boyce,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 95-30689 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30675 Airworthiness Directives; Brackett Aircraft Company, Inc. Air Filter Assemblies Installed on Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65038-65041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30675]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-61-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Brackett Aircraft Company, Inc. Air
Filter Assemblies Installed on Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to supersede AD 95-03-02, which
currently requires repetitively inspecting (visually) the air filter
frame for a loose or deteriorating gasket on airplanes incorporating
certain Brackett air filter assemblies. The proposed action retains the
repetitive inspection and possible replacement requirements as
contained in AD 95-03-02, and would incorporate additional Brackett air
filter assemblies to the applicability of that AD. Additionally, it
would provide a terminating action for the repetitive inspection. The
Federal Aviation Administration's determination that these additional
Brackett air filter assemblies should be inspected and replaced
prompted this AD action. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent gasket particles from entering the carburetor
because of air filter gasket failure, which, if not detected and
corrected, could result in partial or complete loss of engine power and
loss of control of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-61-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 applies to the proposed AD may be obtained
from Brackett Aircraft Company, Inc., 7045 Flightline Drive, Kingman,
Arizona 86401. This information also may be examined at the Rules
Docket at the address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Bumann, Aerospace Engineer,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone (310) 627-5265;
facsimile (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications 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. 95-CE-61-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. 95-CE-61-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
AD 95-03-02 was published in the Federal Register on August 25,
1994 (59 FR 43784) and applies to airplanes that have a certain
Brackett air filter neoprene gasket installed in accordance with
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA71GL. The action requires
repetitively inspecting (visually) the air filter frame for a loose or
deteriorated gasket, and replacing any gasket found loose or
deteriorated.
The FAA's continuing investigation of these Brackett neoprene
gasket air filter's failure and the continuing unsafe condition
described in AD 95-03-02 suggests that a superseding action be
proposed. The FAA has discovered that additional Brackett air filters
with the same neoprene gasket design are installed as original
equipment and in accordance with STC SA693CE on certain additional
airplanes. These airplanes would also be subject to air filter assembly
failure.
After examining the circumstances and reviewing all available
information related to the information described above, the FAA has
determined that AD action should be taken to prevent gasket particles
from entering the carburetor because of air filter gasket failure,
which could result in partial or complete loss of engine power.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other Brackett air filter frame assemblies of the
same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 95-03-02 with a
new AD that would require incorporating additional Brackett air filter
assemblies to the applicability paragraph of AD 95-03-02,
[[Page 65039]]
retain the repetitive inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 hours
time-in-service (TIS) with replacement of the air filter if damaged,
and mandatory replacement of the air filter assembly at 500 hours TIS,
terminating the repetitive inspection requirement contained in AD 95-
03-02.
The FAA estimates that 50,000 airplanes in the U.S. registry would
be affected by the proposed AD. To accomplish the proposed repetitive
inspection and possible replacement of a damaged air filter would take
approximately 1 hour per airplane, and that the average labor rate is
approximately $60 an hour. To install a new gasket cost approximately
$3 per airplane. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the
proposed repetitive inspection and replacement on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $63 per airplane. The FAA knows that each owner/
operator would have to repetitively inspect four times before the
mandatory replacement of the air filter assembly, and based on the
assumption that no operator would incorporate the modification prior to
the 500 hours TIS, the total cost of four repetitive inspections with
possible replacement of the air filter gasket would be $252 per
airplane plus the cost of the proposed terminating action. Based on
these figures the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators is estimated to be $12,600,000.
In comparison, the cost to incorporate the modification is about 1
workhour per airplane at approximately $60 per workhour. The air filter
assembly replacement is estimated to be $40 per airplane. The total
estimated cost for the proposed modification required at 500 hours TIS
would be $100 per airplane and the total cost impact of the
modification is estimated to be $5,000,000 thereby reducing the total
cost of the proposed AD by $7,600,000 from $12,600,000 to $5,000,000.
The FAA has no way to determine how many owners/operators have
completed the repetitive inspections and replacements or the
terminating action modification and must calculate the cost impact
based on the entire U.S. fleet.
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 14
CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 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) 95-03-02, Amendment 39-9139, and by adding a new AD to read as
follows:
Brackett Aircraft Company: Docket No. 95-CE-61-AD; Supersedes AD 95-
03-02, Amendment 39-9139.
Applicability: Air filter assemblies presented in the following
chart that utilize a neoprene gasket installed on, but not limited
to the following airplanes, certificated in any category:
Note 1: These air filters could be installed as original
equipment or in accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
SA71GL or STC SA693CE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air filter assembly Airplanes installed on
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA-2010................ Beechcraft Model 77 Airplanes.
BA-4106................ Cessna Models 120, 140, 140A, 150, 150A, 150B,
150C, 150D, 150E, 150F, 150G, 150H, 150J,
150K, 150L, 150M, A150M, 152, and A152;
American Champion Models Bellanca (Champion)
(Aeronca) 7ACA, 7ECA, and 7FC; Aviat, Inc.
Models A-1; Luscombe Models 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D,
8E, 8F, and T-8F; Piper Models PA-22, PA-22-
135, PA-22-150, PA-22-160, PA-22-108, PA-20-
115, PA-20-135, PA-38-112, J-3, J3C-65, J3C-
65S, PA-11, PA-11S, J4A, J4A-S, J4E, J5A, J5A-
80, PA-12, PA-12S, PA-16, PA-17, PA-18, PA-
18A, PA-18S, PA-18-``125'' (Army L-21A), PA-
18AS-``125'', PA-18S-``125'', PA18AS-``135'',
PA-18S-``135'', PA-18-``135'', PA-18-``150'',
PA-18A-``150'' (SN 18-1 through 18-6963), PA-
18S-``150'', PA-19, PA-18A (Restricted), PA-
18A-``135'' (Restricted), and PA-18A-``150''
(Restricted) (SN 18-1 through 18-18-6963);
Taylorcraft Models BC65, BCS-65, BC12-65,
BCS12-65, BC12-D, BCS12-D1, BC12D85, BCS12D85,
BC12D-4-85, BCS12D-4-85, 19, F19, F21, DC-65,
DCO-65, F22, F22A, F22B, and F22C; Univair
Models (Alon) A-2, A2-A, (Forney) F-1, F-1A,
and (Mooney) M10; Swift Museum Models (Globe)
GC-1A and GC-1B; Augustair Model Varga
(Morrisey) 2150A; Aeronca Model 65-CA;
American Champion 7ECA (with Cont. O-200-A
engine) and 7ACA; Reims Aviation (Cessna)
F150G, F150H, F150J, F150K, F150L, F150M,
FA150K, FA150L, F152, AND FA152; Socata-Groupe
Aerospatiale Models Rallye Series MS880B,
MS885, and 100S.
BA-4106-1.............. Aviat, Inc. Model (Christian) A-1.
BA-4210................ Gulfstream Models AA-1, AA-1A, AA-1B, AA-1C,
and AA-5.
BA-5110................ Cessna Models 170, 170A, 170B, 172, 172A, 172B,
172C, 172D, 172E, 172F, 172G, 172H, 172I,
172K, 172L, and 172M; Mooney Mite Model M-18C;
Reims Aviation Models (Cessna) F172D, F172E,
F172F, F172G, F172H, F172K, F172L, and F172M;
Socata-Groupe Aerospatiale Models TB9, TB10,
Rallye Series MS892A-150, MS892E-150, MS892E-
150T, and MS892E-150ST; Panstwowe Zakolady
Kotnicze Model PZL-Koliber 150A; Augustair,
Inc. Model Varga (Morrisey) 2180.
BA-5110A............... Cessna Models 172N and 172P; Reims Aviation
Models (Cessna) F172N and F172P.
BA-6110................ Maule Models M-4, M-4C, M-4S, M-4T, M-4-220, M-
4-220C, M-4-220S, M-4-220T, M-4-180C, M-4-
180S, M-4-180T, M-5-220C, M-5-235C, M-5-180C,
M-5-210TC, M-6-180, M-6-235, M-7-235, MX-7-
180, MXT-7-160, MXT-7-180, MX-7-160, MX-7-235,
and MX-8-235; Mooney Models M20, M20A, M20B,
M20C, M20D, and M20G.
BA-8910................ Dynac Models (Aero Commander) 100 and 100A.
[[Page 65040]]
AAF-117................ Cessna Models 120, 140, 140A, 150, 150A, 150B,
150C, 150D, 150E, 150F, 150G, 150H, 150J,
150K, 150L, 150M, A150M, 152, and A152;
American Champion Models Bellanca (Champion)
(Aeronca) 7ACA, 7ECA, and 7FC; Aviat, Inc.
Models A-1; Luscombe Models 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, 8D,
8E, 8F, and T-8F; Piper Models PA-22, PA-22-
135, PA-22-150, PA-22-160, PA-22-108, PA-20-
115, PA-20-135, PA-38-112, J-3, J3C-65, J3C-
65S, PA-11, PA-11S, J4A, J4A-S, J4E, J5A, J5A-
80, PA-12, PA-12S, PA-16, PA-17, PA-18, PA-
18A, PA-185, PA-18-``125'' (Army L-21A), PA-
18AS-``125'', PA-185-``125'', PA-18AS-``135'',
PA-18S-``135'', PA-18-``135'', PA-18-``150'',
PA-18A-``150'' (SN 18-1 through 18-6963), PA-
18S-``150'', PA-19, PA-18A (Restricted), PA-
18A-``135'' (Restricted), and PA-18A-``150''
(Restricted) (SN 18-1 through 18-18-6963);
Taylorcraft Models BC65, BCS-65, BC12-65,
BCS12-65, BC12-D, BCS12-D1, BC12D85, BCS12D85,
BC12D-4-85, BCS12D-4-85, 19, F19, F21, DC-65,
DCO-65, F22, F22A, F22B, and F22C; Univair
Models (Alon) A-2, A2-A, (Forney) F-1, F-1A,
and (Mooney) M10; Swift Museum Models (Globe)
GC1A and GC-1B; Augustair Model Varga
(Morrisey) 2150A; Aeronca Model 65-CA;
American Champion 7ECA (with Cont. O-200-A
engine) and 7ACA; Reims Aviation (Cessna)
F150G, F150H, F150J, F150K, F150L, F150M,
FA150K, FA150L, F152, AND FA152; Socata-Groupe
Aerospatiale Models Rallye Series MS880B,
MS885, and 100S, F22B, and F22C; Univair
Models (Alon) A-2, A2-A, (Forney) F-1, F-1A,
and (Mooney) M10; Swift Museum Models (Globe)
GC-1A and GC-1B; Augustair Model Varga
(Morrisey) 2150A; Aeronca Model 65-CA;
American Champion 7ECA (with Cont. O-200-A
engine) and 7ACA; Reims Aviation (Cessna)
F150G, F150H, F150J, F150K, F150L, F150M,
FA150K, FA150L, F152, AND FA152; Socata-Groupe
Aerospatiale Models Rallye Series MS880B,
MS885, and 100S.
AAF-118................ Cessna Models 170, 170A, 170B, 172, 172A, 172B,
172C, 172D, 172E, 172F, 172G, 172H, 172I,
172K, 172L, and 172M; Mooney Mite Model M-18C;
Reims Aviation Models (Cessna) F172D, F172E,
F172F, F172G, F172H, F172K, F172L, and F172M;
Socata-Groupe Aerospatiale Models TB9, TB10,
Rallye Series MS892A-150, MS892E-150, MS892E-
150T, and MS892E-150ST; Panstwowe Zakolady
Kotnicze Model PZL-Koliber 150A; Augustair,
Inc. Model Varga (Morrisey) 2180.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 2: 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 within the next 100 hours time-in-service
(TIS) after the effective date of this AD, or within the next 100
hours (TIS) after the last inspection accomplished in accordance
with AD 95-03-02, whichever occurs first, and thereafter as
indicated in the body of this AD, unless already accomplished in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.
To prevent gasket particles from entering the carburetor because
of air filter gasket failure, which could result in partial or
complete loss of engine power, accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect (visually) the inside and outside of the air filter
frame for gasket looseness, movement, or deterioration in accordance
with Brackett Document I-194, dated March 16, 1994. Continue this
repetitive inspection at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS,
until accomplishment of the terminating action required in paragraph
(c) of this AD.
(b) If the gasket is found to be damaged, prior to further
flight, replace the air filter assembly with one having a retaining
lip in accordance with the Brackett INSTALLATION INSTRUCTION SHEET
corresponding to the new air filter assembly part number that is
applicable to the owner/operator's particular model of airplane:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace with
Air filter assembly assembly Instruction sheet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BA-2010..................... BA-2010 Revision A.. BA-2004, dated 6/6/
95.
BA-4106..................... BA-4106 Revision D.. BA-4105, dated 6/15/
95.
BA-4106-1................... BA-4106-1 Revision A RM-1, dated 7/6/95.
BA-4210..................... BA-4210 Revision B.. BA-4205, dated 6/14/
95.
BA-5110..................... BA-5110 Revision H.. BA-5105, dated 5/8/
95.
BA-5110A.................... BA-5110A Revision D. BA-5111, dated 5/8/
95.
BA-6110..................... BA-6110 Revision C.. BA-6105, dated 6/5/
95.
BA-8910..................... BA-8910 Revision B.. BA-8910-3, dated 6/6/
95.
AAF-117..................... BA-4106 Revision D.. BA-4105, dated 6/15/
95.
AAF-118..................... BA-5110 Revision H.. BA-5105, dated 5/8/
95.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Within the next 500 hours TIS after the effective date of
this AD, replace the air filter assembly as a terminating action to
this AD in accordance with the Brackett INSTALLATION INSTRUCTION
SHEET corresponding to the new air filter assembly part number that
is applicable to the owner/operator's particular model of airplane
as specified in paragraph (b) of this AD.
(d) The replacement in paragraphs (b) and (c) are considered
terminating action for the repetitive inspection required by this
AD.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 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
repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent level of
safety may be approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
(g) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
the documents referred to herein upon request to Brackett Aircraft
Company, Inc., 7045 Flightline Drive, Kingman, Arizona 86401; or may
examine these documents 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 95-03-02, Amendment 39-9139.
[[Page 65041]]
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 11, 1995.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30675 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30670 Milk in the Carolina, Tennessee Valley, and Louisville-Lexington- Evansville Marketing Areas; Decision on Proposed Amendments to Marketing Agreements and to Orders
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65023-65032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30670]
========================================================================
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. 242 / Monday, December 18, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65023]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1005, 1011, and 1046
[Docket No. AO-388-A8 et al.; DA-94-12]
Milk in the Carolina, Tennessee Valley, and Louisville-Lexington-
Evansville Marketing Areas; Decision on Proposed Amendments to
Marketing Agreements and to Orders
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 CFR
part Marketing area AO Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1005.. Carolina...................... AO-388-A8
1011.. Tennessee Valley.............. AO-251-A39
1046.. Louisville-Lexington- AO-123-A66
Evansville.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final decision proposes to amend the pooling standards of
the Tennessee Valley and Carolina orders; modifies the marketing areas
of the Tennessee Valley and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville orders;
changes the location adjustment under the Carolina order for plants
located in the Middle Atlantic marketing area; and changes the base-
paying months under the Carolina order. The decision is based upon
industry proposals presented at a public hearing in Charlotte, North
Carolina, on January 4, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist,
USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 690-1932.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This administrative action is governed by
the provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of Title 5 of the United States
Code and therefore is excluded from the requirements of Executive Order
12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires the
Agency to examine the impact of a proposed rule on small entities.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator of the Agricultural
Marketing Service has certified that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The amended orders will promote more orderly marketing of milk by
producers and regulated handlers.
These proposed amendments have been reviewed under Executive Order
12778, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a
retroactive effect. If adopted, this proposed rule will not preempt any
state or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an
irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with
the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in
accordance with the law and requesting a modification of an order or to
be exempted from the order. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a
hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on
the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United
States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has
its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review
the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is
filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Prior documents in this proceeding;
Notice of Hearing: Issued November 21, 1994; published November 25,
1994 (59 FR 60574).
Recommended Decision: Issued August 17, 1995; published August 24,
1995 (60 FR 43986).
Preliminary Statement
A public hearing was held upon proposed amendments to the marketing
agreements and the orders regulating the handling of milk in the
Carolina, Tennessee Valley, and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville
marketing areas. The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), and the applicable rules of practice (7 CFR Part 900), at
Charlotte, North Carolina, on January 4, 1995. Notice of such hearing
was issued on November 21, 1994, and published November 25, 1994 (59 FR
60574).
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at the hearing and the
record thereof, the Administrator, on August 17, 1995, issued a
recommended decision containing notice of the opportunity to file
written exceptions thereto. Two comments were received in response to
the notice, both of which fully support the findings and conclusions of
the recommended decision.
The material issues, findings and conclusions, rulings, and general
findings of the recommended decision are hereby approved and adopted
and are set forth in full herein, with no material modifications.
The material issues on the record of the hearing relate to:
1. Marketing area modifications to the Tennessee Valley and
Louisville-Lexington-Evansville orders;
2. Where to regulate a distributing plant that meets the pooling
standards of more than one order;
3. Supply plant pooling standards under the Tennessee Valley order;
4. Distributing plant pooling standards under the Carolina order;
5. Location adjustments under the Carolina order; and
6. Base-paying months under the Carolina order.
Findings and Conclusions
The following findings and conclusions on the material issues are
based on evidence presented at the hearing and the record thereof:
1. Marketing Area Modifications to the Tennessee Valley (Order 11) and
Louisville-Lexington-Evansville (Order 46) Orders
Six now-unregulated Kentucky counties between the Order 11 and
Order 46 marketing areas should be added to the Order 11 marketing area
and one county that is now part of the Order 46 marketing area should
be removed and added to the Order 11 marketing area.
A spokesman for Southern Belle Dairy Company, Inc., testified that
the six unregulated counties--Clay, Jackson, Laurel, McCreary, Owsley,
and Rockcastle--and the one Order 46
[[Page 65024]]
county--Pulaski--are in an area that is closely associated with the
Tennessee Valley marketing area. He pointed out, for example, that two
Order 11 pool plants--the Flav-O-Rich plant at London and the Southern
Belle plant at Somerset--are in Laurel and Pulaski Counties,
respectively.
The witness indicated that Southern Belle had sales in each of the
counties proposed to be added to the marketing area. He also introduced
data showing that 79 percent of the fluid milk sales in the seven-
county area came from the Southern Belle and Flav-O-Rich plants. He
said that a majority of the sales in Pulaski County also came from
Order 11 plants.
There was no opposition to this proposal either at the hearing or
in post-hearing briefs.
The six now-unregulated Kentucky counties should be added to the
Order 11 marketing area and Pulaski County should be removed from the
Order 46 marketing area and added to the Order 11 marketing area. This
seven-county area is closely associated with the Tennessee Valley
market and its addition to the Order 11 marketing area, in conjunction
with the pooling standards adopted in this decision, will add
regulatory stability for the plants with sales in this area. There are
no plants in this seven-county area other than the Southern Belle and
Flav-O-Rich plants and none outside of this area that would become
regulated as a result of the addition of this territory to the
Tennessee Valley marketing area.
A conforming change should be made in Sec. 1011.52(a)(3) to include
the counties of Jackson, Owsley, and Rockcastle with the other Kentucky
counties now included in the minus 32-cent location adjustment zone.
Although there are no plants located in these three counties, should a
plant be built there the appropriate location adjustment should be
minus 32 cents, the same location adjustment that is applicable in the
neighboring counties of Laurel, Pulaski, Clay, and Breathitt.
2. Where To Regulate a Distributing Plant That Meets the Pooling
Standards of More Than One Order
The pooling standards of the Tennessee Valley and Carolina orders
should be modified to fully regulate a distributing plant that is
located within their respective marketing areas and that meets the
pooling standards of Secs. 1011.7(a) or 1005.7(a), respectively, even
if the plant meets the pooling standards of another order and has more
route disposition in such other order's marketing area.
These amendments will allow a distributing plant at Kingsport,
Tennessee, that is located within the Tennessee Valley marketing area
and that meets all of the pooling standards of the Tennessee Valley
order to be regulated under that order rather than under the Carolina
order, despite the plant's having greater sales in the Carolina
marketing area. Similarly, they will allow a distributing plant located
at Somerset, Kentucky--which, as recommended under Issue No. 1, would
be part of the Order 11 marketing area--to be regulated under Order 11
even if the plant should develop greater sales in the marketing area of
Order 46 or some other order's marketing area. Finally, the amendments
will permit a plant located at Greenville, South Carolina (in the Order
5 marketing area), to be regulated under Order 5 even if the plant has
more sales in the Southeast marketing area (Order 7).
These amendments and the proposals which prompted them stem from
various pricing problems under these orders that have come about for a
variety of reasons, including the fact that the marketing areas may not
have grown as fast as handlers' distribution areas. The pricing
problems identified on the record of this proceeding relate to Land-O-
Sun Dairies, Inc., at Kingsport, Tennessee; Southern Belle Dairy
Company at Somerset, Kentucky; and Superbrand Dairy Products, Inc., at
Greenville, South Carolina.
Land-O-Sun Dairies, Inc., operates a plant at Kingsport, Tennessee,
which is in the Tennessee Valley marketing area. Because of this
plant's greater route disposition in the Carolina marketing area, it
has been regulated under that order. During the past three years
(January 1992-November 1994), the blend price at Kingsport under Order
5 has averaged 14 cents below the blend price at that location under
Order 11. In some months, the difference has been as high as 32 cents.
Although the Class I price at Kingsport is identical under both of
these orders, the Tennessee Valley order's higher Class I utilization--
e.g., 82.03 percent for Order 11 compared to 77.96 percent for Order 5
during the first 10 months of 1994--has led to a higher blend price
under that order at Kingsport during nearly every month for the past
three years.
A spokesman for Land-O-Sun testified that the Kingsport plant
handles approximately 12 million pounds of milk per month and that
about one-third of its Class I sales are distributed on routes within
the Tennessee Valley marketing area and the remaining two-thirds within
the Carolina marketing area.
The witness testified that Land-O-Sun purchases its raw milk supply
from 140 dairy farmers located in northeast Tennessee and southwest
Virginia within 100 miles of the Kingsport plant. He noted that this
area is also the supply area for other Order 11 pool plants. As a
result, he said, any blend price difference to producers in this common
supply area leads to market instability. Because the Order 11 blend
price is higher than the Order 5 blend price, he stated, Land-O-Sun is
forced to pay over-order prices to retain its producers. He indicated
that Land-O-Sun could not consistently pay these higher prices and
remain a viable business entity.
Southern Belle Dairy at Somerset, Kentucky, has been regulated
under Order 11 since 1989. In recent years, the plant has had nearly
equal sales in the Order 46 and Order 11 marketing areas. If regulation
of the plant had shifted to Order 46, the applicable Class I
differential price would be 19 cents lower than under Order 11 (i.e.,
$2.26 compared to $2.45), but the blend price difference would be even
more substantial. For example, in the past 35 months (January 1992-
November 1994), the Order 46 blend price averaged 30 cents below the
Order 11 blend price at Somerset. In some months during this period,
the difference in blend prices was as much as 67 cents.
At the hearing, a Southern Belle spokesman testified that the
handler sought the marketing stability that would be provided by
regulating the plant under Order 11 based upon its location within the
Order 11 marketing area. The spokesman stated that Southern Belle would
experience procurement problems if it could only pay its producers the
Order 46 blend price in competition with Order 11 handlers--such as the
Flav-O-Rich plant at London, Kentucky, 37 miles east of Somerset--which
also procure milk from the same supply area. He also cited the
marketing instability that would result from the plant shifting back
and forth between the two orders, particularly in view of the differing
base and excess payment plans to producers in each of these orders.
Superbrand Dairy Products at Greenville, South Carolina, has been
regulated under the Georgia order since May 1992 despite the fact that
it is located within the marketing area of the Carolina order and meets
the pooling standards of that order.
A spokesman for Mid-America Dairymen, Inc. (Mid-Am), which has a
full supply contract with the Superbrand plant, testified that the
Carolina order should be amended to
[[Page 65025]]
provide the same type of pooling standard that has been proposed for
the Tennessee Valley order and that was incorporated in the
Department's recommended [and final] decisions for the new Southeast
order.\1\ Inclusion of this provision in each of these orders will
provide regulatory compatibility throughout the Southeast, he said.
\1\Official notice is taken of the final decision for the
Southeast order issued on May 3, 1995 (60 FR 25014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The witness stated that the Mid-Am proposal would return the
Superbrand plant to its former status as a pool plant under Order 5. In
terms of its sales and procurement pattern, the plant is more closely
associated with the Carolina market, he added.
The Mid-Am spokesman testified that the proposed change in pooling
standards is a departure from the traditional method of determining
where a distributing plant should be regulated when it meets the
pooling standards of more than one order. The traditional method, he
explained, regulated a plant wherever it had the most sales. He said
that the principle behind that practice was to insure that all handlers
having sales in an order area were subject to the same regulatory
provisions as their competition. However, he added, with the advent of
large processing plants with sales distribution over wide geographic
areas, the traditional method of pooling distributing plants has become
obsolete.
There was no opposition to this proposal either at the hearing or
in post-hearing briefs.
For the most part, Federal milk orders have traditionally regulated
plants according to where they had the most sales. The reasoning behind
that policy has been to ensure that all handlers having sales in a
Federal order marketing area were subject to the same minimum prices
(adjusted for plant location) and other regulatory provisions as their
competition. When these provisions were first incorporated in orders,
markets were primarily local in nature. At any given location, it was
common for Class I prices to differ among orders, and it was common for
each order to have a unique set of provisions.
Most of the provisions in Federal milk orders today are
standardized. For example, all orders have uniform classification and
allocation provisions. Similarly, most Federal order Class I prices are
properly aligned. As noted above, for example, the Class I price at
Kingsport, Tennessee, is the same whether Land-O-Sun's plant is
regulated under Order 5 or Order 11; the Southern Belle plant at
Somerset, Kentucky, would be subject to a higher Class I price under
Order 11 than would apply at the plant under Order 46; and the
Superbrand plant at Greenville would be subject to the same Class I
price whether it was regulated under Order 5 or Order 7.
Consequently, it must be concluded that the competitive equity that
was, and continues to be, sought by having competing handlers subject
to the same rules and Class I prices can be achieved in these marketing
areas by pooling distributing plants under the orders applicable to the
marketing areas in which the plants are located. Specifically, the
pooling standards of the Tennessee Valley and Carolina orders should be
amended to fully regulate all distributing plants that meet the orders'
pooling standards and that are located within their respective
marketing areas.
Under the provisions adopted here for the Carolina and Tennessee
Valley orders, a plant that qualifies as a pool distributing plant and
which is located within the marketing area will be regulated under the
order applicable to that marketing area even if it meets the pooling
standards of another order and has greater sales in such other order's
marketing area. The nearby Southeast order, Louisville-Lexington-
Evansville order, and Upper Florida order contain provisions
(Secs. 1007.7(g)(4), 1046.7(e)(3), and 1006.7(d)(3), respectively) that
conform to the proposed provisions by yielding regulation of such
plants to the other order.
Orders 5 and 11 also should be modified to recognize another
order's primacy to regulate a plant that meets such other order's
pooling standards and that is within the other order's marketing area.
This is accomplished in Secs. 1005.7(e)(3) and 1011.7(e)(3).
A clarifying change should also be made to Secs. 1005.7(e)(5) and
1011.7(e)(5). At present, these paragraphs, which are designated as
Secs. 1005.7(d)(4) and 1011.7(d)(4), state that ``the term pool plant
shall not apply to a plant qualified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this
section which also meets the pooling requirements for the month under
another Federal order.'' A problem could arise with this language
because during certain months of the year a supply plant may qualify as
a pool plant by shipping less than 50 percent of its receipts to
distributing plants. For example, if a supply plant shipped 40 percent
of its receipts to pool distributing plants under Order 5 and 40
percent of its receipts to distributing plants under Order 11, both
orders, pursuant to the language quoted above, would yield regulation
of the plant to the other order, leaving the plant in a state of
regulatory limbo. To prevent this unlikely event from occurring, the
paragraph should be modified to read: ``The term pool plant shall not
apply to a plant qualified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section if
the plant has automatic pooling status under another Federal order or
if the plant meets the pooling requirements of another Federal order
during the month and makes greater qualifying shipments to plants
regulated under such other order than to plants regulated under this
order.''
3. Supply Plant Pooling Standards Under the Tennessee Valley Order
The supply plant pooling provisions for the Tennessee Valley order
should be amended to provide automatic pooling status for a supply
plant which met the order's shipping standards during the preceding
months of July through February.
Armour Food Ingredients Company (Armour) proposed the change in
supply plant pooling standards. A spokesman for Armour testified that
the company operates a supply plant at Springfield, Kentucky, that has
been a pool plant under Order 11 since August 1992. He said that the
facility is a ``dual Grade A/Grade B plant.'' The Grade A part of the
plant is used to assemble Grade A milk from producers' farms for
transshipment to pool distributing plants, while the Grade B facility
is used to process surplus milk into Class III products, he explained.
The witness testified that Order 11 now requires Armour to ship
milk to distributing plants every month of the year. However, much less
milk is needed from Armour during the spring than during the other
months of the year, he said. Consequently, he concluded, Armour and its
distributing plant customers are incurring receiving and hauling costs
for no other purpose than to satisfy the order's shipping requirements.
The witness introduced an exhibit which showed that from August
1992 through October 1994 Armour shipped a monthly average of 71
percent of its receipts to pool distributing plants. The exhibit also
showed that when shipments of surplus milk from these same pool
distributing plants to Armour were subtracted from the receipts from
Armour, the distributing plants, on average, kept 34 percent of the
milk that was sent to them.
There was no opposition to this proposal either at the hearing or
in post-hearing briefs.
The provision proposed by Armour is included in many Federal milk
orders
[[Page 65026]]
because of the seasonal variation in milk production. This variation is
also evident in the Tennessee Valley market. In 1993, the average daily
production per producer in this market was 2,220 pounds. However, this
daily average reached a low of 1,941 pounds during the month of July
and peaked at 2,481 pounds during May. As a group, the months of March
through June had a daily average of 2,375 pounds, compared to 2,149
pounds during the months of July through February.
There is no merit in requiring supply plants to receive, reload,
and ship milk to distributing plants if the milk is not needed or if
closer milk is available directly from producers' farms. In addition to
the statistics suggesting that supply plant shipments during the months
of March through June are unnecessary, the lack of any contradictory
testimony from Order 11 distributing plant operators must be
interpreted as concurrence with the view that supply plant shipments
are simply not needed during the months of March through June. In view
of this evidence, the proposal should be adopted.
Section 1011.7(b)(3) of the Tennessee Valley order, as proposed to
be amended here, also should be modified to clarify what would happen
if a shipping requirement were instituted during the months of March
through June pursuant to Sec. 1011.7(b)(4). First, it should be
understood that a new supply plant or one that did not meet the order's
shipping requirements during the months of July through February would
be subject to the 40 percent supply plant shipping requirement now in
the order.
If the market is short of milk during the ``free-ride'' months of
March through June and the market administrator determines that
additional milk is needed from pool supply plants pursuant to
Sec. 1011.7(b)(4), any increase in shipping percentage would be added
to the percentage that is then applicable to the plant. For instance,
if the market administrator determines that a 10-percentage point
increase in shipments is needed, a plant that would have had to ship 40
percent of its receipts would be required to ship 50 percent. However,
a plant in ``free-ride'' status, which normally would not have had to
make any shipments, would have to ship 10 percent. The market
administrator's ability to require additional milk from supply plants,
even during the free-ride period of March through June, will help to
ensure that the market has adequate supplies of milk for fluid use
during all months of the year.
At the present time, Secs. 1005.7(b) and 1011.7(b) of the Carolina
and Tennessee Valley orders, respectively, authorize the Director of
the Dairy Division to adjust supply plant shipping standards to obtain
needed shipments of milk or to prevent uneconomic shipments. This
provision was not an issue at the hearing. However, in conjunction with
the other changes in pooling provisions that were adopted, the
recommended decision stated that authority to adjust supply plant
shipping standards should be given to the market administrator of
Orders 5 and 11. Although interested parties were invited to comment on
this, as on other recommendations, no comments were received in
opposition to this suggestion.
With all of the marketing information immediately available to him
or her, the market administrator is in an ideal position to sense the
changing needs of the market and to obtain industry views concerning
the desirability of adjusting supply plant shipping requirements. As a
result, the market administrator will be able to attend to the need for
such temporary revisions in a timely fashion and will be able to better
serve the changing needs of handlers and producers under the Carolina
and Tennessee Valley orders.
A similar conforming change also should be made in
Sec. 1011.13(e)(3) of the Tennessee Valley order for the same reasons.
This change will allow the market administrator to increase or
decrease, by 10 percentage points, the diversion limitations applicable
to a proprietary bulk tank handler.
4. Distributing Plant Pooling Standards Under the Carolina Order
Proposals to amend the Order 5 in-area route disposition
requirement for pool distributing plants should not be adopted.
At the present time, a distributing plant must dispose of at least
60 percent of its fluid milk product receipts in Class I during the
months of August through November, January, and February and at least
40 percent in each of the other months to qualify as a pool plant under
Order 5. In addition, at least 15 percent of the plant's route
disposition must be in the marketing area.
Milkco, Inc., testified in support of its proposal to change the
in-area route disposition standard of Order 5 from 15 percent to 10
percent. At the hearing, Milkco modified its proposal to the lesser of
1500 pounds daily or 10 percent of a plant's fluid milk receipts sold
as Class I.
A witness representing Milkco, Carolina Dairies, Hunter Farms,
Inc., Dairy Fresh, Inc., and Pine State Creamery testified that the
original proposal had been modified to include language similar to that
contained in the recommended decision of the proposed Southeast Federal
order.
The witness testified that the reason for proposing a change in the
in-area route disposition requirement was that partially regulated
handlers were constantly increasing their Class I distribution into the
Order 5 marketing area. He estimated that the average distribution for
1994 was between 25 million and 35 million pounds. He claimed that this
distribution is attributed to sales from partially regulated plants
located in Virginia.
The witness explained that the Virginia State Milk Commission
prices Class I sales made outside the State of Virginia at the Federal
order Class II price. He said that this creates a problem of
accountability for those Class I sales moving from Virginia to another
state. He claimed that the possibility exists that, in some instances,
not all of those sales may be accounted for and paid for at the
appropriate price.
The witness stated that the proposed amendment would provide
uniformity between Order 5 and surrounding orders. He also claimed that
the proposed change would not be burdensome to handlers located in
Virginia if these handlers are already paying prices equivalent to, or
greater than, the Order 5 Class I price.
The general manager for Carolina Virginia Milk Producers
Association (CVMPA) also testified in support of the revised proposal.
He stated that the proposal would provide uniformity between Order 5
and neighboring orders and that it would eliminate potential inequities
between Order 5 handlers and handlers regulated by the Virginia Milk
Commission.
The CVMPA representative asserted that the proposal would regulate
some partially regulated plants that may be subject to a lower price
for milk used in fluid milk products than fully regulated plants under
Order 5. He explained that handlers regulated under Order 5 must pay at
least the minimum Federal order class prices for their milk. He claimed
that plants located in Virginia and regulated by the Virginia Milk
Commission have a competitive advantage on raw milk costs compared to
handlers fully regulated under Order 5. The witness indicated that the
Class I price established and regulated by the Virginia Milk Commission
has historically been higher than the Order 5 price but that the
Commission
[[Page 65027]]
requires that only the Class II price be paid for sales out of the
State.
The CVMPA witness testified that sales from partially regulated
handlers located in Virginia into the Carolina marketing area have a
significant impact on the market. Since January 1992, he pointed out,
sales from these plants have ranged from one to three million pounds of
Class I sales or between .84 and 2.26 percent of total route
disposition in Order 5. He said that while these Class I sales from
Virginia partially regulated plants are confined to a small portion of
the marketing area, they have had a disruptive effect on the market in
eastern North Carolina.
The CVMPA representative testified that Federal orders contiguous
to the Carolina marketing area have more restrictive pool plant
requirements than the Carolina order. He noted that the Tennessee
Valley order's in-area route disposition requirement was 10 percent and
that the recommended Southeast order would fully regulate handlers if a
plant distributed either 10 percent of its total fluid milk receipts or
at least 1500 pounds of Class I sales per day in the marketing area.
Such requirements are appropriate for orders with relatively high Class
I utilization, he said.
Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc.
(MVMPCA), proposed a change to the Order 5 in-area route disposition
requirement that would have exactly the opposite effect of Milkco's
proposal. The MVMPCA proposal would base the in-area requirement on 15
percent of ``dairy farmer receipts'' rather than 15 percent of ``total
route disposition.'' Because dairy farmer receipts would be larger than
total route disposition, the proposal would have the effect of making
it more difficult to qualify for full regulation under Order 5.
A spokesman for MVMPCA testified that the proposed change would
amend the Order 5 provision to conform more closely with the provisions
of the Middle Atlantic order (Order 4). He said that these definitions
should be more closely aligned to allow distributing plants in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, which are partially regulated under both
Orders 4 and 5, to be subject to the same in-area route distribution
standard under either Federal order.
Without alignment of these provisions, he said, there could be
results which are neither intended nor orderly. For instance, he
stated, a plant could have more route sales in Order 4 but become fully
regulated under Order 5.
The witness stated that there are currently three dairies partially
regulated in both Orders 4 and 5: Richfood at Richmond, Virginia; Land-
O-Sun Dairies, Inc., at Portsmouth, Virginia; and Marva Maid Dairy at
Newport News, Virginia. He said that these Virginia plants are the only
partially regulated distributing plants subject to Order 5 other than
the several plants which distribute long-shelf-life fluid milk products
in a broad geographic area over most of the United States.
Consequently, he concluded, the MVMPCA proposal would not have a
substantial impact upon any other plants.
A witness representing Richfood Dairy, Inc. (Richfood), Richmond,
Virginia, testified in opposition to Milkco's proposal to reduce the
Order 5 in-area route disposition requirement and in support of
Richfood's proposal to increase the requirement from 15 percent to 20
percent.
The witness stated that Richfood has about 83 percent of its fluid
milk product sales in that part of Virginia that is outside the Middle
Atlantic (Order 4) marketing area. The plant has approximately 12
percent of its sales in the Carolina marketing area, 4 percent in the
Order 4 marketing area, and the remaining 1 or 2 percent in the Ohio
Valley marketing area. Richfood's sales into the Carolina marketing
area account for about 1 percent of the market's total in-area sales,
according to the witness.
The Richfood witness stated that Richfood primarily has fluid milk
sales in the eastern Virginia market with some in the western Virginia
market. During October 1994, the witness noted, the eastern and western
markets' Class I prices were $16.29 and $16.02, respectively. He said
that these Virginia prices, based on the way in which Federal order
Class I prices are set, would represent October Class I differentials
of $4.56 for the eastern market and $4.29 for the western market.
Federal order Class I differentials of this magnitude, he emphasized,
are not even found in Miami, the highest priced location under the
Federal order system. These facts, he claimed, show that purchasers of
raw milk in Virginia do not have an unfair competitive advantage over
handlers regulated under a Federal order. He concluded that a plant
with 10 percent of its sales in the Carolina marketing area and 80
percent in Virginia should not be forced to be fully regulated under
Order 5.
The administrator of the Virginia State Milk Commission (the
Commission) testified in opposition to Milkco's original proposal. The
administrator stated that pooling Virginia plants that have less than
15 percent of their total sales in a Federal order marketing area would
be disruptive to the Commission's ability to price and pool milk in the
Virginia marketing areas. He argued that there are less intrusive ways
to accomplish class price integrity for pooling producer milk.
The witness stated that the Commission was willing to assist the
Department to ensure proper reporting and pricing within Federal milk
marketing areas to alleviate the concerns of those who have doubts that
Virginia's out-of-area prices are being enforced. The witness explained
that the Commission has the ability to report sales by Virginia plants
into Federal orders in a timely and accurate manner, and is willing to
provide such information to the appropriate Federal order market
administrator to help enforce proper pricing.
Neither Milkco's proposal, which would make it easier to fully
regulate an out-of-area plant, nor MVMPCA's or Richfood's proposal,
which would make it harder to fully regulate an out-of-area plant,
should be adopted.
Proponents of Milkco's proposal argued that the amount of sales
into the Carolina marketing area from partially regulated plants
located in Virginia is constantly increasing due to the presence of
these plants. Record evidence does not support this argument. For
instance, route disposition in Order 5 by partially regulated plants
during the months of July through October 1994 was lower than for the
same period of 1993. In addition, statistics show that in-area route
disposition into Order 5 from partially regulated plants located in
Virginia have been at a relatively constant level over the past two
years. For example, in 1993 and 1994, the average share of total Order
5 Class I route disposition from these plants was 2.05 and 1.95
percent, respectively.
No evidence presented at the hearing supported the arguments
advanced by Milkco and CVMPA concerning the alleged competitive
advantage that partially regulated plants in Virginia have in the
Carolina marketing area. The record is devoid of any data to support
this claim.
With respect to proponents' arguments that changes in Order 5 would
bring this order into conformance with the Middle Atlantic order or the
Southeast order, marketing conditions in the Carolina order do not
warrant any change to the in-area route disposition requirement for
this reason. Moreover, it is not clear why differences in the in-area
route disposition requirements of these orders would matter in most
circumstances. The only area where this
[[Page 65028]]
issue seems to be particularly acute is in Virginia. Even in Virginia,
however, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that any
competitive advantage exists that would warrant undermining of the
Virginia State Milk Commission regulation.
The in-area route disposition requirement is a locally tailored
standard that indicates when a plant is sufficiently associated with a
market to warrant full regulation under the order regulating that
marketing area. Whether the standard should be 10 percent or 15 percent
depends upon particular circumstances in that area and the demonstrated
need for one standard or the other. Based on the testimony and data in
this hearing record, the present 15 percent in-area route disposition
requirement under Order 5 should remain unchanged.
MVMPCA submitted comments in support of the findings and
conclusions of the recommended decision regarding the Order 5 in-area
route disposition requirement.
5. Location Adjustments Under the Carolina Order
The location adjustment under the Carolina order for a location
within the Middle Atlantic Federal order marketing area should be
determined by subtracting the Order 4 Class I price at that location
from the base zone Class I price specified in Order 5.
At the present time, the Order 5 location adjustment for a plant
located in the State of Maryland is based upon the shortest hard-
surfaced highway distance, as determined by the market administrator,
that such plant is from Greensboro, North Carolina. Once that distance
is determined, it is broken down into 10-mile increments (except for
the last increment, which may be smaller than 10 miles), which are then
multiplied by 2.5 cents to determine the location adjustment. Thus, for
example, the location adjustment for a plant that is located 295 miles
from Greensboro would be 75 cents (i.e., 30 x 2.5 = .75).
Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association
proposed a change in the location adjustment applicable to its butter/
powder plant at Laurel, Maryland. Initially, the cooperative proposed
treating the Laurel plant as if it were within the State of Virginia;
this would result in a zero location adjustment at Laurel. However, at
the hearing a spokesman for the cooperative stated that it would
support an alternative proposal that would subtract the Order 4 Class I
differential price at Laurel (i.e., $3.03) from the Order 5 Class I
price at Greensboro (i.e., $3.08), which results in a location
adjustment of minus 5 cents. The witness stated that ``our only caveat
to this pricing formula is that the Order 5 language should be amended
so that the price at Strasburg, Virginia, is established on the same
basis as the price at Laurel, Maryland.''
The cooperative's spokesman testified that MVMPCA supplies the
Kroger Westover Dairy Order 5 pool distributing plant at Lynchburg,
Virginia, on a year-round basis. In addition, he said that since 1992
the cooperative has supplied supplemental milk to nine other Order 5
distributing plants on a seasonal basis.
The witness said that MVMPCA has served as a seasonal balancing
agent in supplying Order 5 plants. He introduced an exhibit showing
that MVMPCA's monthly sales to Order 5 plants reach a peak during the
short production months of July through October.
The witness stated that when producers' milk is not needed by Order
5 plants, it is diverted to MVMPCA's butter-powder plant at Laurel,
which serves as a major balancing plant for the Middle Atlantic region.
The witness also noted that there is another balancing facility for
Order 5 surplus milk--the Valley Milk butter/powder plant located at
Strasburg, Virginia--which is approximately 80 miles west of Laurel and
outside of any Federal order marketing area. He said that Order 5 now
prices milk in an inequitable manner by providing a base zone uniform
price for milk that is diverted to Strasburg, but a minus 75-cent
location adjustment for milk that is diverted to Laurel.
There was no opposition to this proposal either at the hearing or
in the post-hearing briefs that were filed.
MVMPCA's argument and alternative proposal for pricing milk at
Laurel is persuasive and should be adopted. The location adjustment at
Laurel clearly should not be minus 75 cents. It should be minus 5
cents, the difference between the Order 5 base zone Class I price and
the Order 4 Class I price at Laurel.
The appropriate Federal order Class I price at Laurel, Maryland, is
the price established for that location under the Middle Atlantic
Federal order, which encompasses Laurel. Thus, if a distributing plant
located at Laurel were to become regulated under Order 5, its Class I
price would be the same as the price that would apply under Order 4.
This would ensure competitive pricing among competing handlers.
Determining location adjustments for plants in this manner helps to
assure the proper alignment of Class I prices throughout the Federal
order system and to minimize procurement problems for plants that are
located in one Federal order marketing area but regulated under a
different order.
The evidence introduced by MVMPCA shows that its producers
supplying the Order 5 market are located as far south as the Virginia/
North Carolina border and as far north as Cumberland County, Maryland.
The exhibit, for example, shows that MVMPCA has producers in Halifax
County, Virginia, just north of the Order 5 base zone. When producer
milk from Halifax is delivered to a distributing plant at Lynchburg or
to a North Carolina handler in the base zone, the milk is priced at the
base zone price. Yet, under present order provisions, if the milk is
not needed for fluid use by an Order 5 distributing plant and must be
diverted to MVMPCA's butter-powder plant at Laurel, 247 miles away, it
receives 75 cents less than the base zone price. Consequently, not only
does MVMPCA receive a much lower price for this milk, it also absorbs
the hauling cost to get the milk to Laurel.
A location adjustment of minus 5 cents at Laurel will narrow the
difference to 5 cents between the Laurel and Strasburg plants. This
adjustment should alleviate the inequity that now exists in pricing
between the two plants. To further reduce the difference in price by
imposing a minus 5-cent location adjustment at Strasburg, as suggested
by MVMPCA, would entail changing location adjustments throughout the
State of Virginia, which goes beyond the scope of the hearing
proposals.
MVMPCA filed comments supporting the Order 5 proposed location
adjustment change.
6. Base-Paying Months Under the Carolina Order
Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc.,
originally submitted a proposal to delete the month of June from the
base-paying period of the Order 5 base and excess payment plan. At the
hearing, however, the cooperative modified its proposal to add the
month of February as well as delete the month of June. As modified, the
base-paying months would be February through May.
The MVMPCA witness stated that the purpose of the base-excess plan
is to provide producers with an incentive to level their production on
a seasonal basis. He indicated that the plan encourages production
during the months when milk is needed for fluid use and discourages
production during flush production months. Under current marketing
conditions, he contended, June is not a surplus month but a month
[[Page 65029]]
when supplemental supplies are frequently needed by Order 5
distributing plants. Likewise, he asserted that February is a month of
substantial surplus production and should be added to the base-paying
period rather than remain a base neutral month.
During 1992 and 1993, the MVMPCA witness noted, daily average
production per Order 5 producer from May to June declined about 8
percent, from 4,259 pounds per day to 3,978, and from 4,424 to 4,076,
respectively. However, he indicated that daily average production in
Order 5 in February 1993 of 4,684 pounds was the highest production
month of the year, and production in February 1992 was the third
highest month.
The witness also testified that a collateral consequence of
including June as a base-paying month is that when supplemental
supplies are needed under Order 5, unnecessary and inefficient
movements of milk are required to avoid the penalty of absorbing the
excess price for supplies of milk that are required for the market's
Class I needs. The witness explained that when supplemental milk is
needed during the month of June, MVMPCA avoids the penalty of receiving
only the excess price for milk delivered directly from producers' farms
by instead delivering plant milk from its Laurel plant. To do this,
however, the cooperative must receive the milk at Laurel, reload it
onto a tank truck, and ship it to an Order 5 distributing plant. He
said that the modified proposal would eliminate unnecessary and
inefficient movements of milk for the sole purpose of avoiding the
order's excess price.
There was no opposition to this proposal either at the hearing or
in post-hearing briefs.
The modified proposal to change the base-paying period from March
through June to February through May should be adopted. The removal of
June and the addition of February to the base-paying period will bring
the base-paying months into closer conformity with the Class I needs of
the market.
For the past three years, the average Class I utilization in
January has been 77.8 percent while the June Class I utilization has
averaged 79.8 percent for this same time period. By comparison, the
average Class I utilization for the months of February through May has
been 75.6, 75.7, 73.9, and 75.1 percent, respectively. The record also
shows that June is a month in which supplemental supplies of milk are
needed to meet the Class I needs of the market.
On the basis of the statistical data and the testimony presented at
the hearing, the month of February should be included in the base-
paying period and June deleted to change the base-paying period to
February through May. These changes should result in a base and excess
plan that better serves the needs of the market and that will avoid the
unnecessary and inefficient movements of needed supplemental milk
described by MVMPCA.
Several conforming changes in order language have been made in
response to the addition of February and the removal of June as a base-
paying month. In Sec. 1005.32(a), dealing with ``other reports,'' the
words ``March through June'' should be changed to ``February through
May''. In the introductory text of Sec. 1005.61(a) and in
Sec. 1005.61(a)(5), the words ``July through February'' must be changed
to ``June through January'', and in Sec. 1005.61(b) the words ``March
through June'' must be changed to ``February through May''. In
Secs. 1005.90, 1005.91, and 1005.93(b) the words ``March through June''
must be changed to ``February through May'', and the words ``February
1'' in Sec. 1005.93(b) and Sec. 1005.94 should be changed to ``January
1'' to maintain the existing relationship between the start of the
base-paying period and the time when transfers must be completed
without the imposition of conditions concerning the receipt or transfer
of additional base. Finally, ``March 1'' should be changed to
``February 1'' in Sec. 1005.93(e).
MVMPCA submitted comments in support of the proposed modifications
to the Order 5 base-excess plan.
Motion for a New Hearing
Purity Dairy and Fleming Dairy, both of Nashville, Tennessee,
argued that the remedies proposed at this hearing were not sufficient
to address some major problems. They maintain that while the proposed
amendments would temporarily correct some problems, in the long run
these remedies would only make the problems worse. They urged the
Secretary to hold a new hearing to consider a merger of Orders 5, 11,
and 46 or the merger of Orders 5 and 11 with the proposed Southeast
marketing area.
A major study of Orders 5, 11, and 46 and other marketing areas is
currently underway at Cornell University. One of the purposes of this
study is to develop recommendations for a merged order in this area.
There have been several major changes in cooperative
representation, supply arrangements, and plant ownership in these
markets. Milk has been shifting among the markets. The alleged problem
in south central Kentucky of misaligned uniform prices causing Purity
and Fleming to be at a competitive disadvantage for milk supplies has
been corrected by the association of additional milk with Order 11,
which has lowered that order's Class I utilization. There is no point
in considering a merger of orders in this area until such time as
producers and handlers propose such a merger. For all of these reasons,
the motion to hold a new hearing is denied.
Rulings on Proposed Findings and Conclusions
Briefs and proposed findings and conclusions were filed on behalf
of certain interested parties. These briefs, proposed findings and
conclusions and the evidence in the record were considered in making
the findings and conclusions set forth above. To the extent that the
suggested findings and conclusions filed by interested parties are
inconsistent with the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the
requests to make such findings or reach such conclusions are denied for
the reasons previously stated in this decision.
General Findings
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement
those that were made when the aforesaid orders were first issued and
when they were amended. The previous findings and determinations are
hereby ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with
those set forth herein.
(a) The tentative marketing agreements and the orders, as hereby
proposed to be amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof,
will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(b) The parity prices of milk as determined pursuant to section 2
of the Act are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available
supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market
supply and demand for milk in the marketing area, and the minimum
prices specified in the tentative marketing agreements and the orders,
as hereby proposed to be amended, are such prices as will reflect the
aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome
milk, and be in the public interest;
(c) The tentative marketing agreements and the orders, as hereby
proposed to be amended, will regulate the handling of milk in the same
manner as, and will be applicable only to persons in the respective
classes of industrial and commercial activity specified in, marketing
agreements upon which a hearing has been held; and
[[Page 65030]]
(d) All milk and milk products handled by handlers, as defined in
the tentative marketing agreements and the orders as hereby proposed to
be amended, are in the current of interstate commerce or directly
burden, obstruct, or affect interstate commerce in milk or its
products.
Rulings on Exceptions
No exceptions were received in opposition to the proposed
amendments set forth in the recommended decision.
Marketing Agreement and Order
Annexed hereto and made a part hereof are two documents, a
Marketing Agreement regulating the handling of milk, and an Order
amending the orders regulating the handling of milk in the Carolina,
Tennessee Valley, and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville marketing areas,
which have been decided upon as the detailed and appropriate means of
effectuating the foregoing conclusions.
It is hereby ordered that this entire decision and the two
documents annexed hereto be published in the Federal Register.
Determination of Producer Approval and Representative Period
August 1995 is hereby determined to be the representative period
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of the orders, as
amended and as hereby proposed to be amended, regulating the handling
of milk in the aforesaid marketing areas is approved or favored by
producers, as defined under the terms of the individual orders (as
amended and as hereby proposed to be amended), who during such
representative period were engaged in the production of milk for sale
within the aforesaid marketing areas.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1005, 1011, and 1046
Milk marketing orders.
Dated: December 4, 1995.
Shirley R. Watkins,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
Order Amending the Orders Regulating the Handling of Milk in the
Carolina, Tennessee Valley, and Louisville-Lexington-Evansville
Marketing Areas
This order shall not become effective unless and until the
requirements of Sec. 900.14 of the rules of practice and procedure
governing proceedings to formulate marketing agreements and marketing
orders have been met.
Findings and Determinations
The findings and determinations hereinafter set forth supplement
those that were made when the orders were first issued and when they
were amended. The previous findings and determinations are hereby
ratified and confirmed, except where they may conflict with those set
forth herein.
(a) Findings. A public hearing was held upon certain proposed
amendments to the tentative marketing agreements and to the orders
regulating the handling of milk in the aforesaid marketing areas. The
hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), and the
applicable rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR Part 900).
Upon the basis of the evidence introduced at such hearing and the
record thereof, it is found that:
(1) The said orders as hereby amended, and all of the terms and
conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the
Act;
(2) The parity prices of milk, as determined pursuant to section 2
of the Act, are not reasonable in view of the price of feeds, available
supplies of feeds, and other economic conditions which affect market
supply and demand for milk in the aforesaid marketing areas. The
minimum prices specified in the orders as hereby amended are such
prices as will reflect the aforesaid factors, insure a sufficient
quantity of pure and wholesome milk, and be in the public interest;
(3) The said orders as hereby amended regulate the handling of milk
in the same manner as, and is applicable only to persons in the
respective classes of industrial or commercial activity specified in,
marketing agreements upon which a hearing has been held; and
(4) All milk and milk products handled by handlers, as defined in
the order as hereby amended, are in the current of interstate commerce
or directly burden, obstruct, or affect interstate commerce in milk or
its products.
Order Relative to Handling
It is therefore ordered, that on and after the effective date
hereof, the handling of milk in each of the specified orders' marketing
areas shall be in conformity to and in compliance with the terms and
conditions of each of the orders, as amended, and as hereby amended, as
follows:
The provisions of the proposed marketing agreements and orders
amending each of the specified orders contained in the recommended
decision issued by the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service,
on August 17, 1995, and published in the Federal Register on August 24,
1995 (60 FR 43986), shall be and are the terms and provisions of this
order, amending the orders, and are set forth in full herein.
PART 1005--MILK IN THE CAROLINA MARKETING AREA
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 1005, 1011, and 1046
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. In Sec. 1005.7, the reference ``(d)'' in the introductory text
is revised to read ``(e)'', in paragraph (b) the words ``Director of
the Dairy Division'' and ``Director'' are revised to read ``market
administrator'' wherever they appear, paragraph (d) is redesignated as
paragraph (e) and revised, and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 1005.7 Pool plant.
* * * * *
(d) A plant located within the marketing area (other than a
producer-handler plant or a governmental agency plant) that meets the
qualifications described in paragraph (a) of this section regardless of
its quantity of route disposition in any other Federal order marketing
area.
(e) The term ``pool plant'' shall not apply to the following
plants:
(1) A producer-handler plant;
(2) A governmental agency plant;
(3) A plant with route disposition in this marketing area that is
located within the marketing area of another Federal order and that is
fully regulated under such order;
(4) A plant qualified pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section
which is not located within any Federal order marketing area but which
also meets the pooling requirements of another Federal order and from
which there is a greater quantity of route disposition, except filled
milk, during the month in such other Federal order marketing area than
in this marketing area; and
(5) A plant qualified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section if
the plant has automatic pooling status under another Federal order or
if the plant meets the pooling requirements of another Federal order
during the month and makes greater qualifying shipments to plants
regulated under such other order than to plants regulated under this
order.
[[Page 65031]]
Sec. 1005.32 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 1005.32(a), the words ``March through June'' are revised
to read ``February through May'' wherever they appear.
4. In Sec. 1005.53, paragraph (a)(6) is redesignated as paragraph
(a)(7) and revised, and a new paragraph (a)(6) is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 1005.53 Plant location adjustments for handlers.
(a) * * *
(6) For a plant located within the Middle Atlantic Federal Order
Marketing Area (part 1004), the adjustment shall be computed by
subtracting the base zone Class I price specified in Sec. 1005.50(a)
from the Class I price applicable at such plant under the Middle
Atlantic Federal Order; and
(7) For a plant located outside the areas specified in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section, the adjustment shall be a minus
2.5 cents for each 10 miles or fraction thereof (by the shortest hard-
surfaced highway distance as determined by the market administrator)
that such plant is from the nearer of the city halls in Greenville,
South Carolina, or Charlotte or Greensboro, North Carolina.
Sec. 1005.61 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 1005.61 paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(5), the
words ``July through February'' are revised to read ``June through
January'' and in paragraph (b) introductory text the words ``March
through June'' are revised to read ``February through May''.
Secs. 1005.90 and 1005.91 [Amended]
6. In Secs. 1005.90 and 1005.91, the words ``March through June''
are revised to read ``February through May'' wherever they appear.
Sec. 1005.93 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 1005.93 paragraph (b), the words ``March through June''
are revised to read ``February through May'' wherever they appear, the
words ``February 1'' are revised to read ``January 1'', and in
paragraph (e) the words ``March 1'' are revised to read ``February 1''.
Sec. 1005.94 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 1005.94, the words ``February 1'' are revised to read
``January 1''.
PART 1011--MILK IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY MARKETING AREA
9. Section 1011.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1011.2 Tennessee Valley marketing area
* * * * *
(b) In Kentucky, the counties of Bell, Breathitt, Clay, Harlan,
Jackson, Knott, Knox, Laurel, Leslie, Letcher, McCreary, Owsley, Perry,
Pulaski, Rockcastle, and Whitley.
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 1011.7, the reference ``(d)'' in the introductory text
is revised to read ``(e)'', paragraph (b) is revised, paragraph (d) is
redesignated as paragraph (e) and revised, and a new paragraph (d) is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 1011.7 Pool plant.
* * * * *
(b) A plant, other than a plant described in paragraph (a) of this
section, from which fluid milk products, except filled milk, are
shipped to plants described in paragraph (a) of this section subject to
the following additional conditions:
(1) During the months of August through November, January and
February, such shipments must equal not less than 60 percent (40
percent during the months of December and March through July) of the
total quantity of milk approved by a duly constituted regulatory agency
for fluid consumption that is received during the month at such plant
from handlers described in Sec. 1011.9 (c) and (d) and from dairy
farmers, including milk that is diverted from the plant pursuant to
Sec. 1011.13 but excluding milk diverted to the plant;
(2) The operator of a plant described in this paragraph may include
milk diverted from the plant to plants described in paragraph (a) of
this section for up to one-half of the shipments required pursuant to
this paragraph;
(3) A plant which meets the shipping requirements specified in this
paragraph during the months of July through February shall be a pool
plant during the following months of March through June unless the milk
received at the plant does not continue to meet the requirements of a
duly constituted regulatory agency, the plant fails to meet a shipping
requirement instituted pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section, or
a written application is filed by the plant operator with the market
administrator on or before the first day of any such month requesting
that the plant be designated a nonpool plant for such month and for
each subsequent month through June during which it would not otherwise
qualify as a pool plant; and
(4) The shipping requirements described in paragraph (b)(1) and
(b)(3) of this section may be increased or decreased up to 10
percentage points by the market administrator if he or she finds that
revision is necessary to obtain needed shipments or to prevent
uneconomic shipments. Before making such a finding, the market
administrator shall investigate the need for revision either at his or
her own initiative or at the request of interested persons. If the
investigation shows that a revision may be appropriate, the market
administrator shall issue a notice stating that the revision is being
considered and invite data, views, and arguments.
* * * * *
(d) A plant located within the marketing area (other than a
producer-handler plant or a governmental agency plant) that meets the
qualifications described in paragraph (a) of this section regardless of
its quantity of route disposition in any other Federal order marketing
area.
(e) The term ``pool plant'' shall not apply to the following
plants:
(1) A producer-handler plant;
(2) A governmental agency plant;
(3) A plant with route disposition in this marketing area that is
located within the marketing area of another Federal order and that is
fully regulated under such order;
(4) A plant qualified pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section
which is not located within any Federal order marketing area but which
also meets the pooling requirements of another Federal order and from
which there is a greater quantity of route disposition, except filled
milk, during the month in such other Federal order marketing area than
in this marketing area; and
(5) A plant qualified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section if
the plant has automatic pooling status under another Federal order or
if the plant meets the pooling requirements of another Federal order
during the month and makes greater qualifying shipments to plants
regulated under such other order than to plants regulated under this
order.
Sec. 1011.13 [Amended]
11. In Sec. 1011.13 paragraph (e)(3), the words ``Director of the
Dairy Division'' and ``Director'' are revised to read ``market
administrator'' wherever they appear.
12. Section 1011.52(a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1011.52 Plant location adjustments for handlers.
(a) * * *
(3) For such milk which is physically received at a plant located
within the Kentucky counties of Bell, Breathitt, Clay, Harlan, Jackson,
Knott, Knox, Laurel, Leslie, Letcher, McCreary, Owsley, Perry, Pulaski,
Rockcastle, and
[[Page 65032]]
Whitley, the Class I price shall be decreased by 32 cents; and
* * * * *
PART 1046--MILK IN THE LOUISVILLE-LEXINGTON-EVANSVILLE MARKETING
AREA
Sec. 1046.2 [Amended]
13. In Sec. 1046.2, in the list of Kentucky counties, the word
``Pulaski'' is removed.
[Note: The following appendix will not be published in the Code
of Federal Regulations.]
Appendix--Marketing Agreement Regulating the Handling of Milk in
Certain Specified Marketing Areas
The parties hereto, in order to effectuate the declared policy
of the Act, and in accordance with the rules of practice and
procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR Part 900), desire to enter
into this marketing agreement and do hereby agree that the
provisions referred to in paragraph I hereof as augmented by the
provisions specified in paragraph II hereof, shall be and are the
provisions of this marketing agreement as if set out in full herein.
I. The findings and determinations, order relative to handling,
and the provisions of Secs. ____________\1\ to ____________, all
inclusive, of the order regulating the handling of milk in the said
marketing areas (7 CFR part ________\2\) which is annexed hereto;
and
\1\First and last sections of order.
\2\Appropriate Part number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The following provisions: Sec. ____________\3\ Record of
milk handled and authorization to correct typographical errors.
\3\Next consecutive section number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Record of milk handled. The undersigned certifies that he/
she handled during the month of ____________\4\, ____________
hundredweight of milk covered by this marketing agreement.
\4\Appropriate representative period for the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Authorization to correct typographical errors. The
undersigned hereby authorizes the Director, or Acting Director,
Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, to correct any
typographical errors which may have been made in this marketing
agreement.
Sec. ____________\3\ Effective date. This marketing agreement
shall become effective upon the execution of a counterpart hereof by
the Secretary in accordance with Section 900.14(a) of the aforesaid
rules of practice and procedure.
In Witness Whereof, The contracting handlers, acting under the
provisions of the Act, for the purposes and subject to the
limitations herein contained and not otherwise, have hereunto set
their respective hands and seals.
Signature
By (Name)--------------------------------------------------------------
(Title)----------------------------------------------------------------
(Address)--------------------------------------------------------------
(Seal)
Attest
[FR Doc. 95-30670 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30669 Direct Final Rule Procedure; Petitions for Rulemaking
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65210-65212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30669]
[[Page 65209]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Research and Special Programs Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
49 CFR Part 106
Direct Final Rule Procedure; Petitions for Rulemaking; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65210]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 106
[Docket No. RSP-1, Notice No. 95-15]
RIN 2137-AC75
Direct Final Rule Procedure; Petitions for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To further the goals of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory
Planning and Review, and in response to the recommendations of the
National Performance Review and the Administrative Conference of the
United States, RSPA is proposing to implement a new and more efficient
procedure for adopting noncontroversial rules. This ``direct final
rule'' procedure involves issuing a final rule that provides notice and
an opportunity to comment, with a statement that if RSPA does not
receive a significant adverse comment or notice of an intent to file a
significant adverse comment, the rule will become effective on a
specified date without further publication of the text of the rule.
RSPA would publish a subsequent document in the Federal Register to
confirm that no significant adverse comment was received, and reiterate
the effective date. If a significant adverse comment or notice of an
intent to file a significant adverse comment were received, RSPA would
publish a document in the Federal Register before the effective date of
the direct final rule withdrawing the rule or a part of the rule.
RSPA also proposes to amend its rulemaking procedures to: Specify
in more detail the required contents of a petition for rulemaking; and
provide that petitions for rulemaking and petitions for reconsideration
will be reviewed and acted upon by the Associate Administrator and that
decisions of the Associate Administrator may be appealed to the
Administrator.
DATES: Comments must be submitted no later than February 16, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Address comments to the Dockets Unit (DHM-30), RSPA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Comments
should identify the docket and notice number and be submitted, when
possible, in five copies. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of
receipt of their comments should include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard. The Dockets Unit is located in Room 8421 of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, except on public
holidays when the office is closed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy E. Machado, Office of the Chief
Counsel, RSPA, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone (202) 366-4400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the President set
forth the Administration's regulatory philosophy and principles. The
Executive Order contemplates an efficient and effective rulemaking
process, including the conservation of limited government resources for
carrying out its regulatory functions. Furthermore, ``Improving
Regulatory Systems,'' an Accompanying Report of the National
Performance Review, recognized the need to streamline the regulatory
process and recommended the use of ``direct final'' rulemaking
procedures to reduce needless double review of noncontroversial rules.
The former Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS)
adopted Recommendation 95-4, ``Procedures for Noncontroversial and
Expedited Rulemaking,'' which endorses direct final rulemaking as a
procedure that can expedite rules in appropriate cases. (See 60 FR
43108; August 18, 1995.) ACUS studied the efficiency, adequacy and
fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies in
carrying out administrative programs, and made recommendations for
improvements to the agencies, collectively or individually, and to the
President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States.
ACUS found direct final rulemaking appropriate where a rule is expected
to generate no significant adverse comment. ACUS defined a significant
adverse comment as one where the commenter explains why the rule would
be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise
or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change.
Under the direct final rulemaking procedure, an agency would issue
a final rule with a statement that, if the agency received no
significant adverse comments, the rule becomes effective automatically
at a specified time after publication of the direct final rule without
going through another round of intra- and inter-agency review. If a
significant adverse comment were received, the agency would withdraw
the rule before the effective date and issue a notice of proposed
rulemaking. As noted in the report, ``this approach avoids the second
round of clearances and review, which otherwise delays rules, wastes
time, and should be superfluous * * * Theoretically, the second review
ought to be very quick, but clearing any document through numerous
government offices takes time. The paper shuffling also wastes
reviewers' time by requiring them to look at something twice when once
would have sufficed.'' (``Improving Regulatory Systems,'' p. 42.)
In responding to both the letter and the spirit of the Executive
Order and the NPR Recommendations, the Secretary of Transportation has
directed administrations within the Department of Transportation to
focus on improvements that can be made in the way in which they propose
and adopt regulations.
RSPA is proposing to adopt a new Sec. 106.39 that provides for the
use of direct final rule procedures for noncontroversial rules, such as
minor, substantive changes to regulations; incorporation by reference
of the latest edition of technical or industry standards; extensions of
compliance dates; and other noncontroversial rules. RSPA intends to
continue issuing certain final rules with no opportunity for comment;
these include editorial changes and designation of hazardous substances
as hazardous materials, as required by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. RSPA solicits comment on the
advisability of using direct final rules for these categories of rules,
as well as suggestions for other types of rules that could be issued as
direct final rules.
When RSPA believes that a rulemaking in these categories is
unlikely to result in significant adverse comment, it would use the
direct final rule procedure. The direct final rule would advise the
public that no significant adverse comments are anticipated and unless
significant adverse comment or intent to submit a significant adverse
comment is received, in writing, within a certain period of time
(generally 60 days), the rule will become effective on a specified date
(generally 90 days after publication). If no significant adverse
comments are received, RSPA would issue a subsequent document advising
the public that no significant adverse comments were received, and that
the
[[Page 65211]]
rule will become, or did become, effective on the date previously
specified in the direct final rule. Direct final rules would not be
subject to petitions for reconsideration under 49 CFR 106.35.
If RSPA received a significant adverse comment or notice of intent
to file a significant adverse comment, RSPA would publish a document in
the Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule, in whole or in
part. If RSPA believed it could incorporate the adverse comment in a
subsequent direct final rulemaking, without generating further
significant adverse comment, it could do so. If RSPA believed that the
significant adverse comment raised an issue serious enough to warrant a
substantive response in a notice-and-comment process, it could publish
a notice of proposed rulemaking, following the procedures provided in
49 CFR 106.11-106.29. Publishing the rule as a proposal gives an
opportunity to comment to persons who may not have commented earlier
because they wanted the rule to go into effect immediately. If a
significant adverse comment applies to part of a rule and that part can
be severed from the remainder of the rule (for example where a rule
deletes several unrelated regulations), RSPA would adopt as final those
parts of the rule that were not the subject of a significant adverse
comment.
RSPA is proposing to adopt ACUS's definition of ``significant
adverse comment.'' (The U.S. Coast Guard adopted this definition in its
recently issued final rule on direct final rulemaking, 60 FR 49222;
Sept. 22, 1995.) Specifically, a significant adverse comment would be
one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including a
challenge to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be
ineffective or unacceptable without a change. Comments that are
frivolous or insubstantial would not be considered adverse under this
procedure. A comment recommending a rule change in addition to the rule
would not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless the
commenter states why the rule would be ineffective without the
additional change.
RSPA would amend Sec. 106.3 to clarify that RSPA's Chief Counsel
has the delegated authority to conduct rulemaking proceedings. This
authority has been delegated to the Chief Counsel in RSPA Order 1100.2A
(May 19, 1992.) Specifically, the Chief Counsel has been delegated
authority to ``develop and issue rulemaking documents, other than final
rules, for procedural rules, such as enforcement, preemption, general
definitions, etc.''
RSPA also proposes to amend Sec. 106.17 to clarify the procedures
for participation by interested parties in the rulemaking process.
RSPA also is proposing to amend Sec. 106.31 to specify in more
detail the required contents of a petition for rulemaking. In this way,
RSPA hopes to provide clear guidance to those who would like to
participate in the rulemaking process by availing themselves of this
mechanism. Establishing clear procedures will reduce the number of
incomplete petitions filed with RSPA; furthermore, well-prepared,
detailed petitions will ease RSPA's job and enable it to process
petitions in a timely and efficient manner. In particular, proposed
Sec. 106.31(c) would state that, if the proposed action has a potential
impact on the regulated industry or other entities, the Associate
Administrator may request the petitioner to submit information and data
concerning that impact to assist in rulemaking analyses required under
Executive Orders 12866 and 12612, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Paperwork Reduction Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. This
proposal is consistent with ACUS Recommendation 86-6, Petitions for
Rulemaking, which suggests how agencies may improve the handling of
petitions for the issuance of rules. See 51 FR 46985; Dec. 30, 1986.
RSPA also proposes to amend 49 CFR 106.31, 106.33, 106.35 and
106.37 to provide that petitions for rulemaking and petitions for
reconsideration be filed with the appropriate Associate Administrator,
who will review and issue determinations granting or denying the
petitions in whole or part. RSPA also proposes to add a new Sec. 106.38
to provide that any interested party may appeal a decision of the
Associate Administrator, issued under Sec. 106.33 or Sec. 106.37, to
the Administrator.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule is not considered a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and was not reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not considered a
significant rule under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the
Department of Transportation [44 FR 11034]. Because of the minimal
economic impact of this proposed rule, preparation of a regulatory
impact analysis or a regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
Executive Order 12612
This action has been analyzed in accordance with Executive Order
12612 (``Federalism''), and RSPA has determined that preparation of a
federalism assessment is not warranted.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this proposal will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This certification is subject to modification as a result of a review
of comments received in response to this proposal.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no information collection requirements in this proposed
rule.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading
of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 106
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Oil, Pipeline safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 106 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 106--RULEMAKING PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 106 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, 40113, 60101-
60125; 49 CFR 1.53.
Secs. 106.31, 106.33, 106.35, 106.37 [Amended]
2. Sections 106.31(a), 106.33, 106.35(b), (c), and (d) and 106.37
would be amended by adding the word ``Associate'' immediately before
the word ``Administrator'' wherever it appears.
3. In Sec. 106.3, a new paragraph (d) would be added to read as
follows:
Sec. 106.3 Delegations.
* * * * *
(d) Chief Counsel.
4. In Sec. 106.17, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as
follows:
[[Page 65212]]
Sec. 106.17 Participation by interested persons.
(a) Any interested person may participate in rulemaking proceedings
by submitting comments in writing containing information, views or
arguments in accordance with instructions for participation in the
rulemaking document.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 106.31, paragraph (b) would be revised and new
paragraphs (c) and (d) would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 106.31 Petitions for rulemaking.
* * * * *
(b) Each petition filed under this section must--
(1) Summarize the proposed action and explain its purpose;
(2) State the text of the proposed rule or amendment, or specify
the rule proposed to be repealed;
(3) Explain the petitioner's interest in the proposed action and
the interest of any party the petitioner represents; and
(4) Provide information and arguments that support the proposed
action, including relevant technical, scientific or other data as
available to the petitioner, and any specific known cases that
illustrate the need for the proposed action.
(c) If the potential impact of the proposed action is substantial,
and information and data related to that impact are available to the
petitioner, the Associate Administrator may request the petitioner to
provide--
(1) The costs and benefits to society and identifiable groups
within society, quantifiable and otherwise;
(2) The direct effects (including preemption effects) of the
proposed action on States, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, and on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government;
(3) The regulatory burden on small businesses, small organizations
and small governmental jurisdictions;
(4) The recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to whom they
would apply; and
(5) Impacts on the quality of the natural and social environments.
(d) The Associate Administrator may return a petition that does not
comply with the requirements of this section, accompanied by a written
statement indicating the deficiencies in the petition.
6. Section 106.35 would be amended by revising the first sentence
of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 106.35 Petitions for reconsideration.
(a) Except as provided in Sec. 106.39(d), any interested person may
petition the Associate Administrator for reconsideration of any
regulation issued under this part. * * *
* * * * *
7. Part 106 would be amended by adding a new Sec. 106.38 to read as
follows:
Sec. 106.38 Appeals.
(a) Any interested person may appeal a decision of the Associate
Administrator, issued under Sec. 106.33 or Sec. 106.37, to the
Administrator.
(b) An appeal must be received within 20 days of service of written
notice to petitioner of the Associate Administrator's decision, or
within 20 days from the date of publication of the Associate
Administrator's decision in the Federal Register.
(c) It is requested, but not required, that three copies of the
appeal be submitted to the Administrator.
(d) Unless the Administrator otherwise provides, the filing of an
appeal under this section does not stay the effectiveness of any rule.
8. Part 106 would be amended by adding a new Sec. 106.39 to read as
follows:
Sec. 106.39 Direct final rulemaking.
(a) Where practicable, RSPA will use direct final rulemaking to
issue the following types of rules:
(1) Minor, substantive changes to regulations;
(2) Incorporation by reference of the latest edition of technical
or industry standards;
(3) Extensions of compliance dates; and
(4) Other noncontroversial rules where RSPA determines that use of
direct final rulemaking is in the public interest and that a regulation
is unlikely to result in adverse comment.
(b) The direct final rule document that is published in the Federal
Register will state that unless RSPA receives a significant adverse
comment, or notice of intent to file a significant adverse comment,
within a specified time, generally 60 days after publication, the rule
will become effective on a specified date, generally 90 days after
publication.
(c) For purposes of this section, a significant adverse comment is
one which explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including a
challenge to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be
ineffective or unacceptable without a change. Comments that are
frivolous or insubstantial will not be considered adverse under this
procedure. A comment recommending a rule change in addition to the rule
will not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless the
commenter states why the rule would be ineffective without the
additional change.
(d) If no significant adverse comment or notice of intent to file a
significant adverse comment is received, RSPA will issue a subsequent
document advising the public of that fact and that the rule will
become, or did become, effective on the date previously specified.
Direct final rules issued under this section are not subject to
petitions for reconsideration under Sec. 106.35.
(e) If RSPA receives a significant adverse comment or notice of
intent to file a significant adverse document, RSPA will publish a
document in the Federal Register withdrawing the direct final rule in
whole or in part, and may incorporate the adverse comment into a
subsequent direct final rule or may publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. A notice of proposed rulemaking will provide an opportunity
for public comment, generally a minimum of 60 days, and will be
processed in accordance with Secs. 106.11-106.29.
Issued in Washington, D.C. under the authority delegated in 49
CFR part 1.53 and RSPA Order 1100.2A (May 19, 1992).
Dated: December 12, 1995.
Judith S. Kaleta,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-30669 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30666 RuleNet Communication Program; Fire Protection Regulations Correction
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30666]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 50
RuleNet Communication Program; Fire Protection Regulations--
Correction
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: RuleNet announcement; Correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice of availability appearing in
the Federal Register on November 15, 1995 (60 FR 57370), that listed
the electronic address for accessing the RuleNet program. This action
is necessary to correct a printing error in the RuleNet address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis Cameron, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-
1642.
On page 57370, under the ADDRESSES heading, in the fifth line, the
electronic address that reads ``http:/nssc.llnl.gov/RuleNet'' should
read ``http://nssc.llnl.gov/RuleNet.''
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December, 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael T. Lesar,
Chief, Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch.
[FR Doc. 95-30666 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30659 List of Rules To Be Reviewed Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65046-65048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30659]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
17 CFR Chapter II
Release Nos. 33-7246, 34-36572, 35-26428, 39-2337, IC-21591, IA-1540;
File No. S7-33-95
List of Rules To Be Reviewed Pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.
ACTION: Publication of list of rules scheduled for review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is today publishing a
list of rules to be reviewed pursuant to Section
[[Page 65047]]
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The list is published to provide
the public with notice that these rules are scheduled for review by the
agency and to invite public comment on them.
DATES: Public comments are due by January 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to submit written comments should file three
copies with Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Room 6184, Stop 6-9, Washington,
D.C. 20549. All submissions should refer to File No. S7-33-95, and will
be available for public inspection and copying at the Commission's
Public Reference Room, Room 1026, at the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne H. Sullivan, Office of the
General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission 202-942-0954.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'')
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1165 (September 19, 1980) requires that each
agency review every ten years each of its rules that has a significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. The
purpose of the review is ``to determine whether such rules should be
continued without change, or should be amended or rescinded . . . to
minimize any significant economic impact of the rules upon a
substantial number of such small entities'' (5 USC 610(a)).
The RFA stipulates the following specific considerations that must
be addressed in the review of each rule: (1) the continued need for the
rule; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the
rule from the public; (3) the complexity of the rule; (4) the extent to
which the rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts with other Federal
rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental
rules; and (5) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or
the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors
have changed in the area affected by the rule (5 USC 610(c)).
Pursuant to the RFA, the rules and forms listed below are scheduled
for review by staff of the Commission during the next twelve months.
The rules are grouped according to which Division or Office of the
Commission has responsibility for, and will review, each rule:
Rules and Forms To Be Reviewed by the Division of Corporation Finance
Title: Form S-4 (for registration of securities issued in business
combination transactions).
Citation: 17 CFR 239.25.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.
Title: Form F-4 (for registration of securities of foreign private
issuers issued in certain business combinations).
Citation: 17 CFR 239.34.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.
Title: General rules and regulations pursuant to Section 9(a) of
the African Development Bank Act.
Citation: 17 CFR Part 288.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 290i-9a.
Title: Regulation 14A; Regulation 14C.
Citation: 17 CFR 240.14a-1 through 240.14a-104 (Regulation 14A); 17
CFR 240.14c-1 through 240.14c-101 (Regulation 14C).
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
Rules and Forms To Be Reviewed by the Division of Investment Management
Title: Rule 2a19-1 (investment company limited partners not deemed
affiliated persons).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.2a19-1.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c) and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 10b-1 (definition of regular broker or dealer)
Citation: 17 CFR 270.10b-1.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 22e-2 (pricing of redemption requests in accordance
with Rule 22c-1).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.22e-2.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c), 80a-22(e), and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 20a-1 (solicitations of proxies, consents and
authorizations).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.20a-1.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-20(a).
Title: Rule 30a-1 (annual reports).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.30a-1.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-29.
Title: Rule 30b1-1 (semi-annual report).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.30b1-1.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-29.
Title: Rule 30b1-2 (semi-annual report for totally-owned registered
management investment company subsidiary of registered management
investment company).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.30b1-2.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-29.
Title: Rule 30f-1 (applicability of Section 16 of the Exchange Act
to Section 30(f)).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.30f-1,
Authority: 15 USC 78p.
Title: Rule 34b-1 (sales literature deemed to be misleading).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.34b-1.
Authority: 15 USC 77j, 77l, 78j(b), and 80a-33(b).
Title: Form N-2 (registration statement of closed-end management
investment companies).
Citation: 17 CFR 274.11a-1.
Authority: 15 USC 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-29,
and 80a-37.
Title: Form N-14 (for the registration of securities issued in
business combination transactions).
Citation: 17 CFR 239.23.
Authority: 15 USC 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 80a-8, 80a-24, 80a-29,
and 80a-37.
Title: Rule 203(b)(3)-1 (definition of ``client'' of an investment
adviser for certain purposes relating to limited partnership).
Citation: 17 CFR 275.203(b)(3)-1.
Authority: 15 USC 80b-6A.
Title: Rule 205-3 (exemption from the compensation prohibition of
Section 205(1) for registered investment advisers).
Citation: 17 CFR 275.203(b)(3)-1.
Authority: 15 USC 80b-6A.
Title: Rule 6c-3 (exemptions for certain registered variable life
insurance separate accounts).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.6c-3.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c) and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 6c-6 (exemption for certain registered separate
accounts and other persons).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.6c-6.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c), 80a-11(a), and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 6c-7 (exemptions from certain provisions of Sections
22(e) and 27 for registered separate accounts offering variable annuity
contracts to participants in the Texas Optional Retirement Program).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.6c-7.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c); 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 6c-8 (exemptions for registered separate accounts to
impose a deferred sales load and to deduct certain administration
charges)
Citation: 17 CFR 270.6c-8.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c) and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 6e-3(T) (temporary exemptions for flexible premium
variable life insurance separate accounts).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.6e-3(T).
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(e) and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 11a-2 (offers of exchange by certain registered
separate accounts or others the terms of which do not require prior
Commission approval).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.11a-2.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c) and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 22d-2 (exemption from section 22(d) for certain
registered separate accounts).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.22d-2.
[[Page 65048]]
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c) and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 26a-1 (payment of administrative fees to the depositor
or principal underwriter of a unit investment trust; exemptive relief
for separate accounts).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.26a-1.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c), 80a-26(a), and 80a-37(a).
Title: Rule 26a-2 (exemptions from certain provisions of sections
26 and 27 for registered separate accounts and others regarding
custodianship of and deduction of certain fees and charges from the
assets of such accounts).
Citation: 17 CFR 270.26a-2.
Authority: 15 USC 80a-6(c) and 80a-37(a).
Title: Form N-3 (registration statement of separate accounts
organized as management investment companies).
Citation: 17 CFR 274.11b.
Authority: 15 USC 77g, 77j, 77s, 80a-8, 80a-29, and 80a-37.
Title: Form N-4 (registration statement of separate accounts
organized as unit investment trusts).
Citation: 17 CFR 274.11c.
Authority: 15 USC 77g, 77j, 77s, 80a-8, 80a-29, and 80a-37.
Title: Rule 7 (companies deemed not to be electric gas utility
companies).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.7.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79b.
Title: Rule 14 (exemption of acquisitions of securities of power
supply companies from section 9(a)(2) of the Act).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.14.
Authority: l5 U.S.C. 79i(a)(2).
Title: Rule 15 (exemption of holding company and subsidiary
companies under section 3(a)(2) of the Act).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.15.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79c(a)(2).
Title: Rule 16 (exemption of non-utility subsidiaries and
affiliates).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.16.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79b(a)(8) and 79b(a)(11).
Title: Rule 20 (prescribed forms and amendments).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.20.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79f.
Title: Rule 21 (filing of documents).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.21.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77a et. seq., 78a et. seq., and 77aaa et.seq.
Title: Rule 22 (applications and declarations).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.22.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77s, 78m, 78o, 78w, 79o, 77eee, 77ggg, 77nnn,
77sss, 80a-37, 80a-38, 79c and 79t, 80b-3, 80b-4, and 80b-11.
Title: Rule 41 (exemption of public utility subsidiaries with
respect to limited subsidiaries with respect to limited acquisition of
utility assets).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.41.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78m.
Title: Rule 52 (exemption of issue and sale of certain securities).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.52.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79f and 79h.
Title: Rule 53 (certain registered holding company financings in
connection with the acquisition of one or more exempt wholesale
generators).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.53.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79z-5a.
Title: Rule 54 (effect of exempt wholesale generators on other
transactions).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.54.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79c, 79f(b), and 79-i(c)(3).
Title: Notices and reports to be filed under Section 33.
Citation: 17 CFR 250.57.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79z-5b.
Title: Rule 63 (Approval of reorganization fees.
Citation: 17 CFR 250.63.
Authority: 11 U.S.C. 608.
Title: Rule 64 (scope of applications for approval of
reorganization plans).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.64.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79k.
Title: Rule 72--Filing of statements pursuant to Section 17(a).
Citation: 17 CFR 250.72.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79q.
Rules To Be Reviewed by the Division of Market Regulation
Title: Exemption of certain direct participation program securities
from Sections 7(c) and 11(d)(1).
Citation: 17 CFR 240.3a12-9.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12), 78g, 78k and 78w.
Title: Options disclosure document.
Citation: 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77b, 77g, 77j, 77s(a), 78i, 78(o) and 78w(a).
Title: Exemptions from Section 12(g).
Citation: 17 CFR 240.12g-1.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78l, 78m, 78o and 78w.
Title: Tender offers by issuers.
Citation: 17 CFR 240.13e-4; 17 CFR 240.14e-1.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78c(b), 78i(a)(6), 78j(b), 78m(e), 78n(e),
78w(a) and 80a-23(c).
Title: Annual reporting requirements for registered transfer
agents.
Citation: 17 CFR 240.17Ac2-2.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78q, 78q-1 and 78w(a).
Title: Depository shipment control list transfer instructions;
Definition of item.
Citation: 17 CFR 240.17Ad-1.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78b, 781, 78q-1 and 78w.
Title: Written inquiries and requests.
Citation: 17 CFR 240.17Ad-5.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78q-1 and 78w.
Rule To Be Reviewed by the Office of the Chief Accountant
Title: Article 4 of Regulation S-X (Rules of General Application).
Citation: 17 CFR 210.4.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77s(a), 77aa(25) to (26), 78l, 78m,
78o(d), 78w(a), 79e(b), 79n, 79t(a), 80a-8, and 80a-29.
The Commission invites public comment on both the list and the
rules to be reviewed.
Dated: December 12, 1995.
By the Commission.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30659 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30651 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Withdrawal of Proposed Rules
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65054-65055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30651]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATOIN
48 CFR Parts 8, 10, 15, 31, 32, 42, 45, 52 and 53
[FAR Case 90-017, 90-054, 91-039, 91-057, 91-093, 91-111, 91-114, 91-
117, 92-033, & 92-044]
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Withdrawal of Proposed Rules
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule withdrawals.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Defense, General Services Administration,
and National Aeronautics and Space Administration have decided to
withdraw ten proposed rules without further action. The actual text of
the Federal Acquisition Regulation is unaffected by this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Beverly Fayson, FAR Secretariat,
Room 4037, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405 (202) 501-4755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 21, 1995, the Councils agreed to withdraw the following
five proposed rules because the Director of Defense Procurement is
conducting an initiative to rewrite FAR Part 45, Government Property,
to make the Government property regulations easier to understand and
less burdensome for both Government and industry. The issues addressed
by these rules will be considered under the Part 45 Rewrite initiative.
FAR Case 91-057, Disposal of Hazardous Government Property
Published at 59 FR 14464, March 28, 1994, to provide guidance
relating to the identification and appropriate disposition of hazardous
Government property. [RIN 9000-AF62]
FAR Case 91-093, Special Tooling Under Fixed-Price Contracts
Published at 59 FR 14462, March 28, 1994, to amend the Government's
policy on managing and controlling special tooling for which the
Government has the right to title. [RIN 9000-AF66]
FAR Case 91-111, Commercially Available Government-Furnished Material
Published at 59 FR 46557, September 2, 1994, to require contractors
to provide all material for performing Government contracts, except
when Government-furnished material is necessary to achieve significant
economy, standardization, or expedited production, or when it is
otherwise in the Government's interest. [RIN 9000-AF95]
FAR Case 91-114, Use of Government Facilities on a No-Charge Basis
Published at 59 FR 45657, September 2, 1994, to include two clauses
to provide controls on the use of Government property by identifying
the items of property furnished under a contract or used on a no-charge
basis, and by describing the obligation of both parties with regard to
the property. [RIN 9000-AF96]
FAR Case 91-117, Use and Charges Clause
Published at 60 FR 22442, May 5, 1995, to clarify current language
pertaining to rental payments for Government-owned real property and
equipment. [RIN 9000-AG23]
The councils agreed to withdraw the following two proposed rules
because the Department of Defense decided to retain the guidance in the
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation supplement.
FAR Case 91-39, Voluntary Refunds
Published at 56 FR 40716, August 15, 1991, to establish guidance on
solicitation and acceptable of voluntary refunds from contractors. [RIN
9000-AE11]
FAR Case 90-54, Defective Pricing
Published at 55 FR 50534, December 6, 1990, to revise policies
affecting defective pricing reductions. [RIN 9000-AE23]
The councils also agreed to withdraw the following three proposed
rules because the issues addressed in these rules have been superseded
by other regulations including regulations implementing the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
FAR Case 90-017, Exemptions from Cost or Pricing Data
Published at 55 FR 36774, September 6, 1990, to minimize
administrative impediments in the procedures for claiming and granting
exemptions from the requirements for submission of certified cost or
pricing data, and the
[[Page 65055]]
policies regarding price negotiations. [RIN 9000-AD89]
FAR Case 92-033, Price Competition Exemption
Published at 59 FR 114458, March 28, 1994, to address unnecessarily
requiring the submission of cost or pricing data and to clarify when
adequate price competition exists. [RIN 9000-AF81]
FAR Case 92-044, Reconditioned Material
Published at 59 FR 46019, September 6, 1994, to combine two clause
as an acquisition streamlining measure. [RIN 9000-AG08]
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 8, 10, 15, 31, 32, 42, 45, 52, and
53
Government procurement.
Dated: September 12, 1995.
Edward C. Loeb,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-30651 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30649 Wyoming Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65048-65051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30649]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 950
[SPATS No. WY-022]
Wyoming 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
Wyoming regulatory program (hereinafter, the ``Wyoming program'') under
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The
proposed amendment consists of the addition and revision of statutes
and rules pertaining to shrub density stocking requirements and
wildlife habitat. The amendment is intended to revise the Wyoming
program to be consistent with SMCRA and the corresponding Federal
regulations.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.s.t., January
17, 1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will
be held on January 12, 1996. Requests to present oral testimony at the
hearing must be
[[Page 65049]]
received by 4:00 p.m., m.s.t., January 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to Guy
V. Padgett at the address listed below.
Copies of the Wyoming 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 Casper Field Office.
Guy V. Padgett, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Federal Building, Room 2128, 100 East
``B'' Street, Casper, Wyoming 82601-1918
Dennis Hemmer, Director, Department of Environmental Quality, Herschler
Building--4th Floor West, 125 West 25th Street, Cheyenne, Wyoming
82002, Telephone: (307) 777-7938
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy V. Padgett, Telephone: (307) 261-
5824.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Wyoming Program
On November 26, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Wyoming program. General background information on the
Wyoming program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval of the Wyoming program can be
found in the November 26, 1980, Federal Register (45 FR 78637).
Subsequent actions concerning Wyoming's program and program amendments
can be found at 30 CFR 950.12, 950.15, 950.16, and 950.20.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated November 29, 1995, Wyoming submitted a proposed
amendment to is program (administrative record No. WY-031-1) pursuant
to SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). Wyoming submitted the proposed
amendment in response to the required program amendments at 30 CFR
950.16(q) and (bb) through (gg). The provisions of the Wyoming
Environmental Quality Act that Wyoming proposes to revise are: Wyoming
Statue (W.S.) 35-11-103, definitions, and W.S. 35-11-402, establishment
of reclamation standards. The provisions of the coal rules and
regulations of the Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality
Division, that Wyoming proposes to revise are: chapter I, section 2,
definitions; chapter II, section 2, permit application requirements for
surface coal mining operations; chapter IV, section 2, general
environmental protection performance standards for surface coal mining
operations; chapter X, section 4, coal exploration and reclamation
performance standards; chapter XI, section 5, self-bonding; chapter
XIII, section 3, notice and opportunity for public hearing on surface
coal mining permit revisions; chapter XVII, section 1, definitions for
designation of areas unsuitable for surface coal mining; and appendix
A, vegetation sampling methods and reclamation success standards for
surface coal mining operations.
Specifically, Wyoming proposes to delete the definitions for
``Agricultural lands,'' ``Critical habitat,'' and ``Important habitat''
or ``crucial habitat'' at W.S. 35-11-103(e) (xxviii), (xxix), and
(xxx).
Wyoming proposes to revise W.S. 35-11-402(b) to indicate that this
statutory provision addresses, to the extent required by Federal law or
regulations, State wildlife agencies' approval, rather than
consultation and approval, of reclamation standards for fish and
wildlife habitat. It proposes to further revise W.S. 35-11-402(b) to
require that the Wyoming Game and Fish Department shall consider ``fish
and wildlife habitat'' to be that defined at W.S. 35-11-103(e)(xxvi)
and not to include grazing land as defined in W.S. 35-11-103(e) (xxvii)
``unless the grazingland has been designated as critical habitat by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service'' or ``crucial habitat by the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department prior to submittal of the initial
permit application or any subsequent amendments to the permit
application.'' Wyoming proposes to revise W.S. 35-11-402(c) to require
that native shrubs shall be reestablished on grazing land and that no
shrub species shall be required to be more than one-half of the shrubs
in the postmining standard.
Wyoming also proposes several revisions to its rules and
regulations. In chapter I, Wyoming proposes to revise the definition
for ``Critical habitat'' at section 2(v) to be ``those areas essential
to the survival and recovery of species listed by the Secretary of the
Interior or Commerce as threatened or endangered; (50 CFR Parts 17 and
226).'' It proposes to add a definition for ``Crucial habitat'' at
section 2(w) to be ``those areas, designated as such by the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department, which determine a population's ability to
maintain and reproduce itself at a certain level over a long term.'' It
proposes to add a definition for ``Eligible land'' at section 2(ac) to
be
All land to be affected by a mining operation after the shrub
standard set forth at Chapter IV, Section 2.(d)(x)(E) is approved by
the Office of Surface Mining. Cropland, pastureland, or treated
grazingland approved by the Administrator which is to be affected by
a mining operation after the shrub standard set forth at chapter IV,
section 2.(d)(x)(E) is approved by the Office of Surface Mining is
not `eligible land'.
Wyoming proposes to revise the definition for ``Important habitat'' at
recodified section 2(ax) to be
That habitat which, in limited availability, supports or encourages
a maximum diversity of wildlife species or fulfills one or more
living requirements of a wildlife species. Examples of important
habitat include, but are not limited to, wetlands, riparian areas,
rimrocks, areas offering special shelter or protection, reproduction
and nursery areas, and wintering areas.
It proposes to revise section 2(bc)(iii) to indicate that ``Grazingland
includes rangelands and forest lands where the indigenous native
vegetation is actively managed for grazing, browsing, and occasionally
hay production, and occasional use by wildlife.'' Wyoming proposes to
revise section 2(bc)(viii) to indicate that ``Fish and wildlife habitat
means land dedicated wholly or partially to the production, protection
or management of species of fish or wildlife.'' It proposes to add at
section 2(bc)(xi) a provision to indicate that
``Treated grazingland'' means grazingland which has been altered to
reduce or eliminate shrubs provided such treatment was applied at
least five years prior to submission of the state program permit
application. However, grazingland altered more than five years prior
to submission of the state program permit application on which full
shrubs have reestablished to a density of at least one per nine
square meters does not qualify as treated grazingland.
Wyoming proposes to recodify the definitions in chapter 1, section 2,
to reflect the additions of new terms as discussed above.
In chapter II, Wyoming proposes to revise section 2(a)(vi)(G)(II)
to require that, if crucial habitat, in addition to critical or
important habitat, disruption is likely, the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department shall be contacted to determine the types and numbers of
wildlife likely to be disturbed or displaced. It also proposes to
revise section 2(b)(iv)(C), regarding revegetation plans, to require
that (1) the Wyoming Game and Fish Department shall be consulted, and
its approval received, for minimum stocking and planting arrangements
of trees and shrubs, including species composition
[[Page 65050]]
and ground cover for crucial and critical habitat, (2) the Wyoming Game
and Fish Department shall be consulted for minimum stocking and
planting arrangements of trees and shrubs, including species
composition and vegetative ground cover for important habitat, and (3)
the Wyoming Department of Agriculture shall be consulted on cropland
and erosion control techniques.
In chapter IV, Wyoming proposes to revise section 2(d)(x)(E) to
include a requirement that the postmining density, composition, and
distribution of shrubs shall be based upon site-specific evaluation of
premining vegetation and wildlife use. It proposes to revise section
2(d)(x)(E)(I) to require that (1) except where a lesser density is
justified from premining condition in accordance with appendix A, at
least 20 percent of the eligible land shall be restored to shrub
patches supporting an average density of one shrub per square meter,
(2) patches shall be no less than .05 acres each and shall be arranged
in a mosaic that will optimize habitat interspersion and edge effect,
(3) criteria and procedures for establishing the standard are specified
in appendix A, and (4) this standard shall apply upon approval by OSM
to all lands affected thereafter. It also proposes to revise section
2(d)(x)(E)(II) to require that approved shrub species and seeding
techniques shall be applied to all remaining grazingland. Finally, it
proposes to revise section 2(d)(x)(E)(III) to require that (1) for
areas containing designated critical or crucial habitat, the Wyoming
Game and Fish Department shall be consulted about, and its approval
received for, minimum stocking and planting arrangements of shrubs,
including species composition, and (2) for areas determined to be
important habitat, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department shall be
consulted for recommended minimum stocking and planting arrangements of
shrubs, including species composition, that may exceed the programmatic
standard discussed above.
In chapter X, Wyoming proposes to revise section 4(e) to require
that coal exploration operations that will substantially disturb the
natural land surface shall not disturb critical or crucial habitats and
that they shall consult the Wyoming Game and Fish Department prior to
disturbing important habitat.
In chapter XI, Wyoming proposes to revise section 5(a) to require
that the Administrator of the Division of Land Quality shall require
the substitution of a corporate surety for a self-bond if the financial
information submitted or requested under section 4(a)(ii), rather than
section 3(a)(ii), indicates that the operator no longer qualifies under
the self-bonding program.
In Chapter XIII, Wyoming proposes to revise section 3(a) to require
that (1) the operator's newspaper notice of application for permit
revision shall include the information required by W.S. 35-11-406(j)
and the permit number and date approved, and (2) the operator shall
mail a copy of the application mine plan map to the Wyoming Oil and Gas
Commission in accordance with W.S. 35-11-406(j).
In chapter XVII, Wyoming proposes to revise its rules concerning
designation of areas unsuitable for surface coal mining at section 1(a)
to define ``Fragile lands'' to include crucial habitats for fish or
wildlife.
In appendix A, Wyoming proposes to revise section II.C.3, suggested
sampling procedures for ``shrub habitat characteristics,'' to indicate
that (1) the postmining density composition and distribution of shrubs
shall be based upon site-specific evaluation of the premining
vegetation and wildlife use, (2) except where a lesser density is
justified from premining conditions, at least 20 percent of the
eligible land shall be restored to shrub patches supporting an average
density of one shrub per square meter, (3) the baseline vegetation
``shall,'' instead of ``should,'' include premining shrub distribution
data, (4) shrub density and cover data ``shall,'' instead of
``should,'' be components of the shrub distribution information, (5)
when shrub density data are estimated, they ``shall,'' instead of
``should,'' be gathered from each community, but not from control
areas, reference areas, or extended reference areas, (6) ``shrubs''
``shall,'' instead of ``should,'' be divided into woody species (full
shrubs) and suffrutescent species (subshrubs) for sampling purposes,
(7) shrub density counts shall be performed within a 50 square meter
area using a plot shape appropriate to the community, (8) data
``shall,'' instead of ``should,'' be recorded by species, (9) data
``shall,'' instead of ``should,'' be reported as number per square
meter and per acre, (10) all shrub density data collected after the
effective date specified in chapter IV, section 2(d)(x)(E) of the rules
and regulations shall be subject to the sample adequacy tests specified
in appendix A, section IV, although all shrub density data collected on
land affected prior to the effective date shall not be subject to
sample adequacy tests unless that shrub density data is being used to
fulfill the 20 percent shrub density standard, and (11) when sampling,
which is not subject to sample adequacy, is conducted, the number of
shrub density sample points should correspond to the number of cover
samples in each community type.
In appendix A, Wyoming proposes to revise table 1 to include
parameter values to be used for 50 square meter shrub density plots in
assessing sample adequacy, (2) to revise table 2, minimum and maximum
sample sizes for various sampling methods, to delete the belt transect
sampling method, and (3) to revise table 2 to require, for 50 square
meter shrub density plots, a minimum of 15 samples and to indicate
that, if sample adequacy cannot be achieved after sampling 50 shrub
density plots, the operator shall contact the Land Quality Division for
guidance.
In appendix A, Wyoming proposes to revise section IV.D to require
that, with respect to maximum and minimum sampling sizes, shrub density
be estimated using a 50 square meter plot.
In appendix A, Wyoming proposes to revise section VII.F,
restoration of shrubs, subshrubs, and trees, to require that (1) the
postmining density, composition, and distribution of shrubs shall be
based upon site-specific evaluation of the premining vegetation and
wildlife use and (2) except where a lesser density is justified from
premining conditions, at least 20 percent of the eligible land shall be
restored to shrub patches supporting an average density of one shrub
per square meter. In this section, Wyoming also proposes to delete
various shrub density criteria.
In Appendix A, Wyoming proposes to add in section VIII.E various
and numerous standards and criteria for the evaluation of shrub
density.
Lastly, in appendix A, Wyoming proposes to revise the glossary at
appendix VII to define ``dominant'' as the species with the greatest
density relative to all other species sampled and ``primary shrub
species'' as
All full shrub species which comprise at least 10 percent of the
relative density of full shrubs. However, if an operator selects
option IV, the community-specific full shrub and approved subshrub
density standard, then `primary shrub species' means all full shrub
and approved subshrub species which comprise at least 10 percent of
the relative density of full shrubs. It is further provided under
option IV that in order to be considered as a ``primary shrub
species,'' fringed sagewort must comprise at least 20 percent of the
relative shrub and approved subshrub species composition.
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
[[Page 65051]]
program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment is deemed
adequate, it will become a part of the Wyoming 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 Casper 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., January 2, 1996. 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 meeting 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 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 950
Intergrovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining
Dated: December 7, 1995.
Russell F. Price,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 95-30649 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30646 Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011-385 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65032-65035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30646]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-88-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Model L-1011-385 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Lockheed Model L-1011-
385 series airplanes, that currently requires inspections to detect
cracking of certain areas of the rear spar caps, web, skin, and certain
fastener holes; and repair or modification, if necessary. That AD was
prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the caps of the wing rear spar
inboard of inner wing station 346. The actions specified by that AD are
intended to prevent rupture of the rear spar, which could result in
extensive damage to the wing and fuel spillage. This action would add
various improved inspections and follow-on actions, and would require
that the initial inspections be accomplished at reduced thresholds.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-88-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Support Company, Field
Support Department, Dept. 693, Zone 0755, 2251 Lake Park Drive, Smyrna,
Georgia 30080. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at
the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft Certification
Office, Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-160, College
Park, Georgia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer,
Flight Test Branch, ACE-116A, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, Atlanta
Aircraft Certification Office, Campus Building, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
Suite 2-160, College Park, Georgia 30337-2748; telephone (404) 305-
7367; fax (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 shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
[[Page 65033]]
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-88-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-88-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On August 26, 1993, the FAA issued AD 93-17-10, amendment 39-8681
(58 FR 54947, October 25, 1993), which is applicable to all Lockheed
Model L-1011-385 series airplanes. That AD requires inspections to
detect cracking of certain areas of the rear spar caps, web, skin, and
certain fastener holes; and repair or modification, if necessary. That
action was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the caps of the
wing rear spar inboard of inner wing station (IWS) 346. The
requirements of that AD are intended to prevent rupture of the rear
spar, which could result in extensive damage to the wing and fuel
spillage.
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has received additional
reports of fatigue cracking in the subject areas on these airplanes.
The airplanes on which the cracking occurred had accumulated fewer
landings than the number of landings specified as the inspection
thresholds in AD 93-17-10.
Discussion of Relevant Service Information
Subsequent to the finding of this new cracking, the manufacturer
issued, and the FAA reviewed and approved, Lockheed L-1011 Service
Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 4, dated March 27, 1995. The revised
service bulletin describes procedures for inspections to detect
cracking in certain areas of the rear spar caps, web, skin, and certain
fastener holes at earlier inspection thresholds than those specified
previously. The service bulletin revision describes the following
various improved inspection procedures and follow-on actions:
1. Repetitive X-ray (radiographic) inspections to detect cracking
of the upper and lower caps of the rear spar and of the associated web
and skin areas between IWS 231 and IWS 343. The inspection procedure
specified in the revised service bulletin has been changed from that
described in Revision 3 to clarify the location for the X-ray tube head
for certain exposures.
2. Repetitive eddy current surface scan inspections to detect
cracking of the upper spar cap-to-skin and the upper spar cap-to-web
attachment areas around the fasteners from IWS 310 to the main landing
gear (MLG) trunnion fitting at approximately IWS 343.
3. A bolt hole eddy current inspection to detect cracking in the
1\1/8\-inch diameter fastener hole located inboard of IWS 343. The
service bulletin specifies that this inspection is accomplished at an
initial inspection threshold only. (However, the service bulletin also
specifies that this inspection must be accomplished on any fastener
hole where the fastener is removed for repair or replacement.)
4. For airplanes on which cracking is found during the bolt hole
eddy current inspection of the 1\1/8\-inch diameter fastener hole
located inboard of IWS 343, the service bulletin describes procedures
for a bolt hole eddy current inspection to detect cracking at the four
\5/8\-inch fastener locations directly below the 1\1/8\-inch fastener.
5. For airplanes on which Option iv or v of Lockheed Repair
Procedure LCC-7622-368 has not been accomplished, the service bulletin
describes procedures for subsequent repetitive ultrasonic inspections
to detect cracking in the fastener hole. These inspections are
performed in conjunction with eddy current surface scan inspections to
detect cracking of the upper horizontal edge of the rear spar web, \1/
2\-inch each side of the inboard edge of the MLG trunnion fitting.
6. Repetitive low frequency eddy current ring probe inspections to
detect cracking of the upper cap/skin of the rear spar between IWS 310
to IWS 326 and the cap/web fasteners.
Since the issuance of AD 93-17-10, the FAA has also reviewed and
approved later revisions of certain service information specified in
paragraph (d) of that AD as an alternative method of repairing
confirmed findings of cracking, as follows:
1. Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revision 6, dated
December 6, 1994, and Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin Change
Notification 093-57-196, R6-CN1, dated August 22, 1995.
2. Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision 7, dated
December 6, 1994, and Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin Change
Notification 093-57-196, R7-CN1, dated August 22, 1995.
These service bulletins describe procedures for modification of the
rear spar upper and lower caps between IWS 228 and 346. Among other
things, these service bulletin revisions were issued to standardize the
rework of fastener holes, add new instructions to refer to drawings to
accomplish the modification, clarify miscellaneous information, and to
reference certain service information for web damage extending beyond
IWS 327.
Discussion of the Proposed Action
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 supersede AD 93-17-10 to continue to require
inspections to detect cracking of certain areas of the rear spar caps,
web, skin, and certain fastener holes; and repair or modification, if
necessary. The proposed AD would add various improved inspections and
follow-on actions, and would require that the initial inspections be
accomplished at reduced thresholds. The inspections, follow-on actions,
and modification would be required to be accomplished in accordance
with the service bulletin described previously. The repair would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the
FAA or in accordance with the Lockheed Model L-1011 Structural Repair
Manual.
Operators should note that only the inspection procedures (and
follow-on actions) described in Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-
57-203 would be required by this proposal. In a separate AD action [AD
94-05-01, amendment 39-8839 (59 FR 10275, March 4, 1994)], the FAA
previously addressed the portion of that service bulletin that deals
with the modification
Cost Impact
There are approximately 236 Model L-1011-385 series airplanes of
the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 118
airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 93-17-10 take
[[Page 65034]]
approximately 21 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact on U.S. operators of the actions currently required is estimated
to be $148,680, or $1,260 per airplane.
The new actions that are proposed in this AD action would take
approximately 64 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. [This work hour estimate assumes that
X-ray inspections are done of both upper and lower caps, and that the
ultrasonic inspection indicates cracking in each of five bolt holes
(per wing), thus requiring subsequent bolt hole eddy current
inspections to confirm crack findings. The estimate includes
inspections of both wings.] Based on these figures, the cost impact on
U.S. operators of the proposed requirements of this AD is estimated to
be $453,120, or $3,840 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-8681 (58 FR
54947, October 25, 1993), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
Lockhead Aeronautical Systems Company: Docket 95-NM-88-AD.
Supersedes AD 93-17-10, Amendment 39-8681.
Applicability: All Model L-1011-385-1, L-1011-385-1-14, L-1011-
385-1-15, and L-1011-385-3 series airplanes, certificated in any
category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (d) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
Note 2: Paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) of this AD restate the
requirement for repetitive inspections and follow-on actions
contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 93-17-10. Therefore, for
operators who have previously accomplished at least the initial
inspection in accordance with AD 93-17-10, paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)
of this AD require that the next scheduled inspection be performed
within 2,000 flight cycles after the last inspection performed in
accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD 93-17-10.
To prevent rupture of the rear spar, which could result in
extensive damage to the wing and fuel spillage, accomplish the
following:
(a) Perform inspections and various follow-on actions to detect
cracking in the areas specified in and in accordance with Part II of
the Accomplishment Instructions of the Lockheed service documents
listed below. After the effective date of this AD, the inspections
and follow-on actions shall be performed only at the times specified
in and in accordance with Revision 4 of Lockheed L-1011 Service
Bulletin 093-57-203. [The inspections and follow-on actions include:
repetitive X-ray (radiographic) inspections; repetitive eddy current
surface scan inspections; bolt hole eddy current inspections at
various locations; repetitive ultrasonic inspections in conjunction
with eddy current surface scan inspections (for certain airplanes);
and repetitive low frequency eddy current ring probe inspections.]
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin Service Bulletin 093-
57-203, Revision 3, dated October 28, 1991, as amended by Lockheed
L-1011 Service Bulletin Change Notification 093-57-203, R3-CN1,
dated June 22, 1992; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
4, dated March 27, 1995.
(1) For airplanes on which the inspections required by AD 93-17-
10, amendment 39-8681, have been initiated prior to the effective
date of this AD: Perform the inspections and follow-on actions at
the times specified in Table I of Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin
Change Notification 093-57-203, R3-CN1, dated June 22, 1992, or
within 6 months after November 24, 1993 (the effective date of AD
93-17-10, amendment 39-8681), whichever occurs later.
Note 3: As allowed by the phrase, ``unless accomplished
previously,'' if the inspections and follow-on actions required by
this paragraph were conducted prior to November 24, 1993, in
accordance with Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203,
Revision 2, dated January 25, 1991, those inspections need not be
repeated.
(2) For airplanes on which the inspections required by AD 93-17-
10, amendment 39-8681, have not been initiated prior to the
effective date of this AD: Perform the inspections and follow-on
actions at the times specified in Table I of Lockheed L-1011 Service
Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 4, dated March 27, 1995, or within 6
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(b) If no cracking is found, perform the repetitive inspections
and follow-on actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of the Lockheed service documents listed below thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles. After the effective
date of this AD, the inspections and follow-on actions shall be
performed only in accordance with Revision 4 of Lockheed L-1011
Service Bulletin 093-57-203.
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991, as amended by Lockheed L-1011 Service
Bulletin Change Notification 093-57-203, R3-CN1, dated June 22,
1992; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
4, dated March 27, 1995;
[[Page 65035]]
(c) If any finding of cracking is confirmed, prior to further
flight, accomplish paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) Repair the cracked area in accordance with a method approved
by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate. Thereafter, perform the repetitive
inspections and follow-on actions required by paragraph (b) of this
AD. Or
(2) Repair the rear spar upper and lower caps between IWS 228
and 346 in accordance with the Lockheed Model L-1011 Structural
Repair Manual. Thereafter, perform the repetitive inspections and
follow-on actions required by paragraph (b) of this AD. Or
(3) Modify the rear spar upper and lower caps between IWS 228
and 346 in accordance with the Lockheed service bulletins listed
below, as applicable. Accomplishment of the modification constitutes
terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision
7, dated December 6, 1994, as amended by Change Notification 093-57-
184, R7-CN1, dated August 22, 1995; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revision
6, dated December 6, 1994, as amended by Change Notification 093-57-
196, R6-CN1, dated August 22, 1995; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
4, dated March 27, 1995.
Note 4: Accomplishment of the modification specified in
paragraph (c)(3) of this AD prior to the effective date of this AD
in accordance with the following Lockheed service bulletins, as
applicable, is considered to be in compliance with this paragraph:
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision
6, dated October 28, 1991;
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revision
7, dated December 6, 1994;
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revision
5, dated October 28, 1991;
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revision
6, dated December 6, 1994;
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991; or
Lockheed L-1011 Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision
3, dated October 28, 1991, as amended by Change Notification 093-57-
203, R3-CN1, dated June 22, 1992.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO. Operators shall submit
their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance
Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Atlanta ACO.
Note 5: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 11, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30646 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30645 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34 Series Turbofan Engines
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65035-65036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30645]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-ANE-41]
Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34 Series
Turbofan Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to General Electric Company (GE) CF34
series turbofan engines. This proposal would reduce the allowable
operating cyclic life limit for affected high pressure compressor (HPC)
stage 1 rotor disks. This proposal is prompted by an updated stress and
life analysis. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
prevent HPC stage 1 rotor disk rupture, engine failure, and damage to
the aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 16, 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-41, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Triozzi, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617)
238-7148, fax (617) 238-7199.
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-41.'' 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-41, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
Discussion
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has reviewed and approved
an updated stress and life analysis for high pressure compressor (HPC)
stage 1 rotor disks installed in General Electric Company (GE) CF34
series turbofan engines. Although the FAA has not received any reports
of cracked or failed HPC stage 1 rotor disks, the stress and life
analysis was performed using new, improved methodology. This analysis
revealed that the published cyclic life limits were higher than updated
calculated lives, which could result in the operation of an HPC stage 1
rotor disk beyond its cyclic life. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in HPC stage 1 rotor disk rupture, engine failure, and
damage to the aircraft.
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 reduce the allowable operating cyclic life limit for
affected HPC stage 1 rotor disks.
There are approximately 440 engines of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 150 engines installed on
aircraft of U.S. registry would be affected by this
[[Page 65036]]
proposed AD, that it would take zero additional work hours per engine
to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is
$60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $7,667 per
engine, based on the estimated current part cost, prorated downward by
a factor equal to the quotient of the difference between the original
cyclic life limit (9000 cycles) and the revised cyclic life limit (6000
cycles) divided by the original cyclic life limit. Based on these
figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $1,150,000.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
General Electric Company: Docket No. 95-ANE-41.
Applicability: General Electric Company (GE) Models CF34-1A, -
3A, and -3A2 turbofan engines, with high pressure compressor (HPC)
stage 1 rotor disks, part number 6040T79G01, installed. These
engines are installed on but not limited to Canadair Limited Model
CL-600-2A12 and CL-600-2B16 aircraft.
Note: This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine
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 engines that have been
modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the
requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the
authority provided in paragraph (b) to request approval from the
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 engine from the
applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent HPC stage 1 rotor disk rupture, engine failure, and
damage to the aircraft, accomplish the following:
(a) Remove from service HPC stage 1 rotor disks prior to
accumulating 6,000 cycles in service since new, and replace with a
serviceable part.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office. The
request should be forwarded through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Engine Certification Office.
Note: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive,
if any, may be obtained from the Engine Certification Office.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 8, 1995.
Jay J. Pardee,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30645 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30644 Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Model 4101 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65036-65038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30644]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-128-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Jetstream Model 4101 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Jetstream Model 4101
airplanes. This proposal would require an inspection to verify the
proper position of ``door open'' placards on the inside of the main
entrance door, and replacement with new placards appropriately
positioned, if necessary. This proposal is prompted by a report that
the ``door open'' placards on the inside of the main entrance door, as
currently installed, may not be visible to passengers or flightcrew
when the door handle is in the open position. The actions specified by
the proposed AD are intended to ensure that certain placards on the
inside of the main entrance door are clearly visible and perform their
intended function in the event of an emergency evacuation.
DATES: Comments must be received by January 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-128-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Jetstream Aircraft, Inc., P.O. Box 16029, Dulles
International Airport, Washington, DC 20041-6029. This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Schroeder, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2148; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such
[[Page 65037]]
written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications
shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate
to the address specified above. All communications received on or
before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals
contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments
received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-128-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-128-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness
authority for the United Kingdom, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Jetstream Model 4101 airplanes.
The CAA advises that the ``door open'' placards on the inside of the
main entrance door may not be properly installed (that is, aligned with
the door handle when it is in the ``open'' position), as required by
section 25.811 (e) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.811),
``Emergency exit marking.'' The placards are currently installed at
imprecise locations, since the type design data was not explicit in
defining the installation locations. Therefore, these placards may not
be visible to the passengers or flightcrew during an emergency
evacuation, and consequently, do not fulfill the intent of the
regulations, which is to ensure that these placards are visible and
properly aligned with the door handle when it is in the ``open''
position. This condition, if not corrected, could delay or impede the
evacuation of passengers during an emergency.
Jetstream has issued Service Bulletin J41-11-007, dated May 10,
1995, which describes procedures for a one-time visual inspection to
verify the proper position of certain placards on the inside of the
main entrance door, and removal of the placard and installation of a
new placard, if necessary. The CAA classified this service bulletin as
mandatory in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes in the United Kingdom.
This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is
type certificated for operation in the United States under the
provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant
to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA
informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the
findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined
that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States. -
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist on other airplanes of the same type design, the proposed AD would
require a one-time visual inspection to verify the proper position of
certain placards on the inside of the main entrance door, and removal
of the placard and installation of a new placard, if necessary. The
actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletin described previously. -
The FAA estimates that 25 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work
hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would be
supplied by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $1,500, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Jetstream Aircraft Limited: Docket 95-NM-128-AD.
Applicability: Model 4101 airplanes, constructors numbers 41004
through 41046 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (b) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition
[[Page 65038]]
addressed by this AD. In no case does the presence of any modification,
alteration, or repair remove any airplane from the applicability of
this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure that certain placards on the inside of the main
entrance door are clearly visible and properly aligned, accomplish
the following:
(a) Within 4 months after the effective date of this AD, perform
a one-time visual inspection to verify the proper position of the
door open placards on the inside of the main entrance door, in
accordance with Jetstream Service Bulletin J41-11-007, dated May 10,
1995. If any placard is found to be improperly positioned, prior to
further flight, remove the placard and install a new placard in the
specified position, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 11, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-30644 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30640 Rules of Practice and Procedure
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65051-65052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30640]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
[Docket No. RM95-4; Order No. 1094]
39 CFR Part 3001
Rules of Practice and Procedure
AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking; extension of time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is extending the time for the filing of
comments on draft rules of practice and procedure published at 60 FR
54981-89.
DATES: Comments on the draft rules of practice and procedure must be
submitted on or before January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and correspondence should be sent to Margaret P.
Crenshaw, Secretary of the Commission, 1333 H Street, N.W., Suite 300,
Washington, D.C. 20268-0001 (telephone 202/789-6840).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, Legal Advisor,
Postal Rate Commission, 1333 H Street, N.W., Suite 300, Washington,
D.C. 20268-0001 (telephone 202/789-6820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 27, 1995, Order No. 1084, a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, was published at 60 FR 54981-89. This
Notice presented draft rules that were founded on rules initially
proposed by the United States Postal Service in a Petition filed April
13, 1995. However, the Commission's draft rules incorporated views
expressed and suggestions made in comments filed by twenty-one
participants. The deadline established for comments on the Commission's
draft rules was December 26, 1995. Notice is hereby given that the
deadline for filing comments on the draft rules is extended to January
8, 1996.
[[Page 65052]]
The Commission is concerned that the initial deadline for filing
comments, December 26, 1995, falls at an inconvenient time, in the
midst of the holiday season. As a courtesy to those planning to file
comments on the draft rules and in the interest of obtaining comments
based on a thorough review of the draft rules, the Commission has
conferred this extension. It is Ordered:
1. Comments addressing the draft rules published at 60 FR 54981-89
are now due on January 8, 1996.
2. The Secretary shall publish this Notice and Order in the Federal
Register.
Issued by the Commission on December 12, 1995.
Margaret P. Crenshaw,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30640 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30615 Radio Broadcasting Services; Frederiksted, VI and Culebra and Carolina, PR
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30615]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-141; RM-8642]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Frederiksted, VI and Culebra and
Carolina, PR
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission dismisses the petition for rule making filed by
Jose J. Arzuaga, proposing the allotment of Channel 298B1 at
Frederiksted, Virgin Islands, as its third local FM transmission
service (RM-8642). See 60 FR 46563, September 7, 1995. We also dismiss
petitioner's counterproposal to allotment Channel 293B in lieu of
Channel 298B1 at Frederiksted, Virgin Islands, and to allot Channel
298B1 at Culebra, Puerto Rico. The petitioner has abandoned his
interest in a Class B1 allotment at Frederiksted, Virgin Islands, and
there are no other timely expressions of interest for the channel. In
addition, petitioner's counterproposal is not consistent with the
Commission's technical requirements. With this action, this proceeding
is terminated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-141, adopted November 30, 1995, and
released December 11, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC
20037.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-30615 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30555 A Public Meeting on Method Flexibility and Streamlining Approval of Analytical Methods
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65207-65208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30555]
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 242 / Monday, December 18, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65207]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 136 and 141
[FRL-5346-3]
A Public Meeting on Method Flexibility and Streamlining Approval
of Analytical Methods
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Science and Technology within EPA's Office of
Water is conducting two public meetings on approaches to method
flexibility and streamlining the proposal and promulgation of
analytical methods at 40 CFR Part 136 under Section 304(h) of the Clean
Water Act and 40 CFR Part 141 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. These
304(h) streamlining public meetings will be held in conjunction with
the Trace Metals Workshops announced concurrently in the Federal
Register.
These two public meetings follow the first public meeting on this
topic held on September 28, 1995, in Seattle, Washington. The Seattle
meeting was announced in an FR notice titled, ``A Public Meeting and
Availability of Documents on Streamlining Approval of Analytical
Methods at 40 CFR Part 136 and flexibility in Existing Test Methods''
[FRL-5294-6]. This FR notice provided extensive supplementary
information regarding the 304(h) streamlining effort and made available
several supporting documents. The supporting documents and a summary of
the Seattle meeting can be obtained through the address given in this
notice.
DATES: EPA will conduct the public meetings on 304(h) streamlining on
Thursday, January 25, 1996, in Boston, Massachusetts and on Wednesday,
February 14, 1996, in Chicago, Illinois. Registration for each meeting
will begin at 8:00 AM. Each meeting will be held from 9:00 AM to 5:00
PM.
ADDRESSES: The meeting on January 25, 1996, will be held in the O'Neill
Auditorium, Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. Federal Building, 10 Causeway Street,
Boston, Massachusetts. The meeting on February 14, 1996, will be held
in the Morrison Room, Metcalfe Building, 77 West Jackson, Chicago,
Illinois.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this notice can
be directed to Marion Thompson by phone at (202) 260-7117 or by
facsimile at (202) 260-7185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Meeting arrangements are being coordinated
by DynCorp, Inc. For information on registration, contact Cindy
Simbanin, 300 N. Lee Street, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314. Phone:
(703) 519-1386. Facsimile number: (703) 684-0610. Space is limited and
reservations are being taken on a first come, first served basis. No
fees will be charged to attend.
Hotel reservations for Massachusetts may be made by contacting the
Holiday Inn-Government Center in Boston at (617) 742-7630. Guest rates
are $101 single and $121 double occupancy, including tax. Reservations
must be made by January 5, 1996. When making reservations, you must
specify that you are affiliated with USEPA/TM to qualify for the quoted
rate.
For the Chicago meeting, hotel reservations may be made by
contacting Marriott Reservations at (800) 228-9290. Guest rates are $91
single and double occupancy. These rates are subject to applicable
state and local taxes. Reservations must be made by January 20, 1996,
and you must reference the event as the EPA TM Meeting and request the
Chicago Marriott-Downtown in order to qualify for the group rate.
Accommodations are limited at each location, so please make your
reservations early. The hotels are located within walking distance of
the meeting facilities.
Background
Under Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act, EPA is responsible for
promulgating analytical methods at 40 CFR Part 136 for use in
monitoring pollutant discharges. EPA uses these methods to support
development of effluent guidelines promulgated at 40 CFR Parts 400-499,
and both EPA and the regulated community use the methods for
establishing compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits and other monitoring purposes. The methods
approved for use at 40 CFR Part 136 have been developed by EPA, by
industrial associations such as the American Society for Testing
Materials, and by other governmental agencies such as the U.S.
Geological Survey. In the past, the methods proposal and promulgation
process has been cumbersome, and has not provided the flexibility to
take advantage of new analytical technologies in a timely manner. In
response to the Administration's Environmental Technology Initiative,
EPA is proposing a comprehensive Section 304(h) streamlining initiative
to increase method flexibility to allow use of emerging technologies
and to expedite the method approval process, to encourage development
of new methods and technologies by organizations outside of EPA.
Agenda Topics
The purpose of the public meetings on 304(h) streamlining is to
outline plans for method flexibility and for streamlining proposal and
promulgation of new methods at 40 CFR Part 136 under Section 304(h) of
the Clean Water Act, and to elicit stakeholder views regarding these
plans. The following topics will be addressed at the public meetings:
Increasing method flexibility to allow use of new
technologies and to identify modifications that are acceptable within
the scope of existing methods and do not require proposal of an
alternate method--
--Interpretation of flexibility in existing 40 CFR part 136 methods
--Advantages and disadvantages of method flexibility (no flexibility,
limited flexibility, and unlimited flexibility)
--Proposal to allow nearly unlimited ``front-end'' method modifications
as long as the determinative technique is not changed and method
performance is demonstrated to be equivalent
Establishing standardized quality control (QC) and QC
acceptance criteria to support determination of method equivalency
Streamlining the method proposal process to take advantage
of emerging analytical technologies in a timely manner--
--Standardized format for preparing new methods
--Three-tiered method validation process based on method use
--OST coordination of method submission and approval
Harmonization of 40 CFR Part 136 methods with other EPA
methods to allow standardization of methods across EPA programs
Other streamlining issues--
--Standardized data elements for reporting, to allow access to Agency
databases in a standardized data format
--Withdrawal of 40 CFR Part 136 methods that contain outdated
technologies
--Incorporating new methods into the Federal Register by reference and
making them available through other suitable venues, to reduce
publication expense
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, which is within
EPA's Office of Water, is also developing approaches to increasing
method flexibility and streamlining the approval of analytical methods
at 40 CFR Part 141
[[Page 65208]]
under sections 1401 and 1445 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). To
better coordinate these efforts within the Office of Water, EPA will
discuss flexibility and streamlining approaches for 304(h) and drinking
water methods at these two public meetings. EPA believes the public
will benefit from a joint meeting, because the flexibility and method
approval issues, the regulated contaminants and the methods currently
approved at Parts 136 and 141 are very similar. EPA notes, however,
that the supporting documents that are available with this notice were
developed only for 304(h) methods and within the requirements of the
CWA. The approaches and specifically allowing unlimited ``front-end''
modifications might not be appropriate for methods approved under the
SDWA. In contrast to the 304(h) documentation, less front end
flexibility in sample collection and work-up procedures and more
flexibility in the determinative measurement steps may be appropriate
for SDWA compliance methods. Despite these potential differences in
method flexibility approaches between 304(h) and SDWA methods, EPA
believes there is a significant benefit in conducting public meetings
on the perspectives of both programs.
Tudor T. Davies,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 95-30555 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30549 In the Matter of Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65052-65054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30549]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 73 and 76
[MM Docket No. 95-176; FCC 95-484]
In the Matter of Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video
Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice of Inquiry solicits comment on the current
availability, cost, and uses of closed captioning and video description
of television video programming. This information will provide the
Commission a record on these important services, which benefit
individuals with disabilities. It will also enable the Commission to
assess what further actions may be appropriate to promote these
services.
dates: Interested parties may file comments on or before January 29,
1996, and reply comments on or before February 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Logan, (202) 776-1653.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 95-176, FCC 95-484, adopted December
1, 1995 and released on December 4, 1995. The complete text of this
Notice is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 2100 M Street,
N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Synopsis of Notice of Inquiry
1. The Notice seeks information on the current availability, cost,
and uses of closed captioning and video description, and also asks
comment on what further Commission actions may be appropriate to
promote these services. It also seeks comment on the appropriate means
of promoting their wider use in programming delivered by television
broadcasters, cable operators, and other video programming providers.
I. Background
2. Captioning is similar to subtitles in that it displays the audio
portion of a television signal as printed words on the television
screen. To assist viewers who are hearing disabled, captions also
identify speakers, sound effects, music, and laughter. Video
description provides audio descriptions of a program's key visual
elements that are inserted during the natural pauses in the program's
dialogue.
3. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have passed
bills (H.R. 1555 and S. 652), which, if enacted, would require the
Commission to adopt regulations to ensure that video programming is
accessible to persons with hearing disabilities through the provision
of closed captioning, including requiring ``video programming providers
or owners'' to maximize the accessibility of previously published or
exhibited programs by adding closed captioning. Both bills would allow
the Commission to exempt programs from these requirements in certain
circumstances, including circumstances where the closed captioning
would impose an unreasonable financial burden. The House bill would
require the Commission to conduct an inquiry into the current extent of
closed captioning as well as other issues. In addition, both bills
would require the Commission to study the use of video description. The
House bill further provides that the Commission may adopt regulation it
deems necessary to promote the accessibility of video programming to
persons with visual impairments.
II. The Public Interest Benefits of Closed Captioning and Video
Description
4. The Notice asks parties to elaborate on the importance and
nature of the public interest benefits of closed captioning and video
description. It asks parties to submit information regarding the number
of individuals with hearing and vision disabilities in this country who
can benefit from these innovations, including the basis for such
estimates.
[[Page 65053]]
Are the number of persons with hearing and vision disabilities expected
to grow in the coming years, particularly due to the aging of the
population? What proportion of the persons with such disabilities
require closed captioning or video description to enjoy television
programming, and what proportion currently utilize these technologies?
In addition, the Commission requests comment on the number of children
with hearing and vision disabilities that can benefit from either
closed captioning or video description, and the nature of these
benefits. The Notice also seeks comments on other public interest
benefits of closed captioning and video description, such as teaching
literacy skills to children and illiterate adults.
III. Availability of Closed Captioning and Video Description
5. The Notice asks commenters to provide data regarding the current
availability of closed captioning of television video programming. Has
the amount of closed captioning been increasing in recent years, or has
it reached a plateau? The Commission is particularly interested in data
on availability and any discernible trends regarding the following
categories: (1) Program Source. What is the current availability of
closed captioning according to the source of the programming--broadcast
network, basic cable and premium cable networks, syndicated
programming, locally-produced programming, local and nationally
produced public television programming? (2) Other Delivery Systems. To
what extent is programming carried on wireless cable, satellite master
antenna systems, direct-to-home satellite services (including direct
broadcast satellite), and local exchange carriers/video dialtone
services closed captioned? (3) Program Type. To what extent are each of
the following types of programs closed captioned (on the media within
the scope of FCC jurisdiction): entertainment programs, local and
national news, documentaries, public affairs programming, children's
educational programming, other types of children's programming, sports,
movies, cable public access programming, and live vs. pre-recorded
programming? (4) Previously Published Programming. The Commission
solicits comment on the extent of closed captioning of previously
published or exhibited programs, such as reruns and movies, that will
be shown to television audiences again. (5) Market Size and Other
Factors. The Commission also requests comment on the degree to which
closed captioning varies by the size of the video programming provider
or producer, by market size, and by whether an entity is affiliated
with a broadcast network or multiple cable system operator.
6. The Commission also seeks comment on the current availability of
video description, including its availability within each of the
categories described in its discussion of the availability of closed
captioning. It also requests comment on the estimated number of U.S.
households that have stereo television receivers, a VCR, or television
adaptor capable of receiving video descriptions via the Second Audio
Program channel.
7. The Commission asks parties to comment on the impact that
implementation of Advanced Television (``ATV''), and the use of digital
technology, may have on the provision of closed captioning and video
description on video programming carried by broadcasters and other
program providers.
IV. The Cost of Closed Captioning and Video Description
8. The Notice requests information on the current costs of
providing closed captioning and video description of new as well as
previously published or exhibited television programming. What is the
cost of the computer hardware and software, as well encoding and other
equipment, necessary for these services? What are the current rates for
closed captioning and video description services for both prerecorded
and live, ``real-time'' programming? Are these rates uniform throughout
the country? Do the rates vary by program type, the type of delivery
system, or other factors? What is the overall cost of providing closed
captioning or video description of different types of programs?
9. The Commission also requests comment on the adequacy of the
supply of closed captioning and video description services. In
addition, it seeks comment on the governmental and nongovernmental
funding sources for these services.
V. Market Incentives for Closed Captioning and Video Description
10. The Notice solicits comment on the role free-market forces have
played and can play in promoting the provision of closed captioning of
video programming. For example, are advertisers actively seeking to
market to individuals with hearing impairments, which could in turn
encourage closed captioning of television programming? How does the
audience size of a particular program influence the likelihood that the
program will be closed captioned? Are there presently a sufficient
number of decoder-equipped television receivers in the market to
provide the hoped-for incentive for the television industry to provide
closed captioning? The Commission also requests comment on the role
market-based incentives can play in fostering video description.
VI. Inquiry Regarding Mandatory Captioning and Video Description
Requirements
11. As noted, there is legislation pending in Congress that
generally would require closed captioning of video programming and
which would require the Commission to examine the means of promoting
video description. Before these mandatory requirements become law, the
legislation must pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the
President. Alternatively, the Commission could assess the possibility
of adopting regulatory requirements in this area under it existing
statutory authority. The Commission is not presently proposing such
action, but it requests comment on the general form any mandatory
closed captioning or video description requirements should take if they
are deemed necessary. It particularly seeks comment on the following
matters: (1) The application of mandatory requirements (i.e., which
entities (e.g., program producers, video programming distributors)
should be subject to any mandatory requirements); (2) Exemptions to any
mandatory requirements due to financial burden or other factors; (3)
Technical and quality standards; (4) The appropriate timetables for
implementing any closed captioning or video description requirements
that may be imposed; (5) Strategies to improve competition and
innovation in the provision of these services.
12. The pending Senate and House bills, if enacted, would provide
express statutory authority for imposing mandatory closed captioning
requirements. The House bill would also permit the Commission to adopt
regulations to promote the accessibility of video programming to
persons with visual disabilities after conducting an inquiry into video
description. However, the Commission seeks comment on the scope of its
authority under current law to adopt regulations imposing either closed
captioning or video description requirements on broadcast television
licensees, cable operators, wireless cable systems, SMATV operators,
direct-to-home satellite services, and local exchange carrier/video
dialtone systems, as well as on producers/owners and other distributors
of such programming.
[[Page 65054]]
Commenters should address with specificity the basis for their views
concerning the Commission's authority, and also address any other legal
constraints that they believe may apply in this area.
Administrative Matters
13. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Secs. 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before January 29, 1996, and
reply comments on or before February 14, 1996. All relevant and timely
comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is
taken in this proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding, parties
must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments
and supporting comments. If parties want each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine copies must be
filed. Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available
for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission,
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
14. There are no ex parte or disclosure requirements applicable to
this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR Sec. 1.1204(a)(4).
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30549 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.