issue-1995-12-26•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-26
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-26
issue-1995-12-26Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-12-26Proposed 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. 95-31245 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and DC-9- 80 Series Airplanes, and Model MD-88 Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66764-66770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31245]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-214-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and DC-9-
80 Series Airplanes, and Model MD-88 Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and DC-
9-80 series airplanes, and Model MD-88 airplanes. Among other things,
this proposal would require repetitive leak checks of the lavatory
drain system and repair, if necessary; would provide for the option of
revising the FAA-approved maintenance program to include a schedule of
leak checks; would require the installation of a cap on the flush/fill
line; and would require replacement or modification of the vent system
piping. This proposal is prompted by continuing reports of damage to
engines and airframes, separation of engines from airplanes, and damage
to property on the ground, caused by ``blue ice'' that forms from
leaking lavatory drain systems on transport category airplanes and
subsequently dislodges from the airplane fuselage. The actions
specified by this proposed AD are intended to prevent such damage
associated with the problems of ``blue ice.''
DATES: Comments must be received by March 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-214-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 McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Eierman, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5336; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-214-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-214-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
[[Page 66765]]
Discussion
Over the past ten years, the FAA has received numerous reports of
leakage of waste fluid from the lavatory service systems on in-service
transport category airplanes. This leakage has resulted in the
formation of ``blue ice'' on the fuselage. In some instances, the
``blue ice'' has subsequently dislodged from the fuselage and has been
ingested into an engine. In several of these incidents, the ingestion
of ``blue ice'' into an engine resulted in the loss of an engine fan
blade, severe engine damage, and the in-flight shutdown of the engine.
In two cases, the loads created by the ``blue ice'' being ingested into
the engine resulted in the engine being physically torn from the
airplane. Damage to an engine, or the separation of an engine from the
airplane, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.
The FAA also has received reports of at least three incidents of
damage to the airframe of transport category airplanes caused by
foreign objects and ``blue ice,'' resulting from leakage of the forward
toilet drain valve and flush/fill line, striking the airframe. One
report was of a dent on the leading edge of the right horizontal
stabilizer on a Boeing Model 737 series airplane that was caused by
``blue ice'' that had formed from leakage through a flush/fill line; in
this case, the flush/fill cap was missing from the line at the forward
service panel. Numerous operators have stated that leakage from the
flush/fill line is a significant source of problems associated with
``blue ice.'' Such damage caused by ``blue ice'' could adversely affect
the integrity of the fuselage skin or surface structures.
Additionally, there have been numerous reports of ``blue ice''
dislodging from airplanes and striking houses, cars, buildings, and
other occupied areas on the ground. Although there have been no reports
of any person being struck by ``blue ice,'' the FAA considers that the
large number of reported cases of ``blue ice'' falling from the
lavatory drain system is sufficient to support the conclusion that
``blue ice'' presents an unsafe condition to people on the ground.
Demographic studies have shown that population density has increased
around airports, and probably will continue to increase. These are
populations that are at greatest risk of injury and damage due to
``blue ice'' dislodging from an airplane during the airplane's descent
into the airport. Without actions to ensure that leaks from the
lavatory drain systems are detected and corrected in a timely manner,
``blue ice'' incidents could go unchecked and eventually someone may be
struck, perhaps fatally, by falling ``blue ice.''
Current Rules
In response to these incidents, the FAA has issued several AD's
applicable to various transport category airplanes:
1. AD 86-05-07, Amendment 39-5250 (51 FR 7767, March 6, 1986):
Issued on February 26, 1986, this AD required periodic leak checks of
all Boeing Model 727 aircraft forward lavatory drain systems (both dump
valve and drain valve) at intervals not to exceed 15 months, and
corrective action, if necessary.
2. AD 94-23-10, amendment 39-9073 (59 FR 59124, November 16, 1994):
Issued on November 9, 1994, this AD supersedes AD 86-05-07. It
continues to require various leak checks of Boeing Model 727 series
airplanes, but adds requirements for leak checks of other lavatory
drain systems; provides for the option of revising the FAA-approved
maintenance program to include a schedule of leak checks; requires the
installation of a cap on the flush/fill line; and requires either a
periodic leak check of the flush/fill line cap or replacement of the
seals on both that cap and the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve.
3. AD 89-11-03, amendment 39-6223 (54 FR 21933, May 22, 1989):
Issued on May 9, 1989, this AD is applicable to certain Boeing Model
737-300 and -400 airplanes. It requires repetitive leak checks of the
forward lavatory service system at intervals of 200 hours time-in-
service, and repair, if necessary. That AD also provided operators with
an optional action in lieu of performing these periodic checks, which
entails draining the system, locking the lavatory, and placarding the
lavatory inoperative.
4. The FAA is planning to amend AD 89-11-03 to make it applicable
to all Boeing Model 737 series airplanes, and to require additional
inspections and other actions similar to those of AD 94-23-10.
5. The FAA is currently considering additional rulemaking to
address the problems associated with ``blue ice'' on various other
transport category airplanes, including those manufactured by Airbus,
British Aerospace, Fokker, and Lockheed, as well as other models
manufactured by McDonnell Douglas.
Description of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service
Bulletin 38-47, dated April 17, 1992, which describes procedures for
installing a lever lock rinse cap on lavatory service panels. The
development of this installation was in response to reports that the
quarter-turn caps, which are normally installed on the fill/rinse line
at the lavatory service panel, are often removed by ground service
personnel or are not properly re-installed and reseated after
servicing. Installation of lever lock rinse caps in place of quarter-
turn caps will inhibit the closing of the service panel doors when the
cap is not properly closed; this will enable service personnel to
recognize situations when the cap needs to be closed correctly. This,
in turn, will minimize the possibility of leakage of lavatory waste
liquids from the cap and the subsequent formation of ``blue ice.''
The FAA also has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas DC-9
Service Bulletin 38-41, Revision 3, dated July 5, 1994, which describes
procedures for modifying and replacing the lavatory vent system piping.
The development of this modification was in response to reports of
``blue ice'' build-up at the lavatory overboard vent on four Model DC-9
series airplanes. The ice build-up was attributed to lavatory waste
tanks exceeding their capacity and overflowing through the overboard
vent piping. This build-up of ``blue ice'' can break loose and damage
either the nose cowl of engine No. 1 or the engine itself. The modified
vent system piping minimizes the possibility of waste water siphoning
overboard.
Description of the Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the FAA is
proposing an AD that would require the following actions:
Paragraph (a) of the proposed AD would require repetitive leak
checks of the lavatory dump valve, drain valve (either service panel or
in-line drain valve), and lavatory vent system. The intervals for
performing these leak checks would vary from 200 flight hours to 1,500
flight hours, depending upon what type of valve is installed at each
location. The leak check of panel valves would be required to be
performed with a minimum of 3 pounds per square inch differential
pressure (PSID) applied across the valve. If any leak is discovered
during the leak checks, operators would be required either to repair
the leak and retest it, or drain the lavatory system and placard it
inoperative until repairs can be made.
In cases where the panel valve has an inner seal, in lieu of
pressure testing, operators are provided with the option of performing
a visual inspection for damage or wear of the outer cap seal
[[Page 66766]]
and seal surface. Any damaged parts detected would be required to be
repaired or replaced prior to further flight, or the lavatory drained
and placarded inoperative until repairs can be made.
Additionally, the flush/fill line cap would be required to be leak
checked. In lieu of this particular check, operators may elect to
replace the seals on the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve and
flush/fill line cap.
Paragraph (b) of this proposed AD would provide an optional
procedure for complying with the rule, which would entail revising the
FAA-approved maintenance program to incorporate a schedule to conduct
leak checks of the lavatory drain systems. The maintenance program
change would also require that procedures be provided for accomplishing
the visual inspections to detect leakage, and for reporting leakage.
Additionally, a training program must be provided to maintenance and
servicing personnel, which would include information on ``blue ice''
awareness and the hazards of ``blue ice.''
Operators electing to comply with this option would be required to
obtain approval from the Manager of the FAA's Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) for any revision to the leak check
intervals. Requests for such revisions would be required to be
accompanied by certain data when submitted to the ACO [through the
appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI)] for approval. In
paragraph (c) of the proposed rule, the FAA proposes a ``data
collection format'' for these requests. Data submitted in accordance
with the proposed format, if favorable to an increase in the leak check
interval, will allow the FAA to justify increasing the leak check
interval with assurance that the valves involved have the required
reliability. The data provided also will be important in assisting the
FAA in making future determinations of appropriate leak check intervals
for new valves that have shown promising, but not conclusive, service
data. For example, the FAA has previously approved extension of the
leak check interval to 2,000 hours for one operator using PneuDraulics
part number series 9527 valves on Boeing Model 737 series airplanes.
Assuming that this operator successfully completes two cycles of 2,000-
hour leak checks without finding leakage, the FAA may consider
approving the extension of the 2,000-hour leak check interval to a
4,000-hour interval for this operator.
Paragraph (d) of the proposed AD also would require that all
operators install a lever/lock cap on the flush/fill lines for all
service panels. The cap must be either an FAA-approved cap or one
installed in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin 38-47.
Paragraph (e) of the AD would require that leak checks of the
lavatory vent system be conducted on certain airplanes at the same time
as the leak checks of the dump valve and flush/fill line are conducted.
If a leak is detected, the proposed rule would provide for several
optional corrective actions that operators could accomplish.
Paragraph (e) would also require that, within 3 years, operators of
certain airplanes either replace/modify the lavatory vent system piping
in accordance with McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 38-41,
Revision 3; or install an FAA-approved modification that deactivates
the vent system. Once either of these actions is accomplished, the
periodic leak checks of the lavatory vent system may be discontinued.
Paragraph (f) of the proposed AD would require that, before an
operator places an airplane subject to the AD into service, the
operator must establish a schedule for accomplishment of the subject
leak checks. This provision is intended to ensure that transferred
airplanes are inspected in accordance with the AD on the same basis as
if there were continuity in ownership, and that scheduling of the leak
checks for each airplane is not delayed or postponed due to a transfer
of ownership. Airplanes that have previously been subject to the AD
would have to be checked in accordance with either the previous
operator's or the new operator's schedule, whichever would result in
the earlier accomplishment date for that leak check. Other airplanes
would have to be inspected before an operator could begin operating
them or in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA PMI, but
within a period not exceeding 200 flight hours.
Economic Impact
There are approximately 2,097 Model DC-9 and DC-9-80 series
airplanes and Model MD-88 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,191 airplanes of U.S.
registry, and 47 U.S. operators, would be affected by this proposed AD.
1. Leak checks. It would take approximately 4 work hours per
airplane lavatory drain to accomplish each leak check, at an average
labor cost of $60 per work hour. There normally are 2 drains per
airplane. Depending upon the type of valves installed and the flight
utilization rate of the airplane, an airplane subject to this AD could
be required to be inspected as few as 2 times per year or as many as 15
times per year. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed
leak check requirement on U.S. operators would be between $960 and
$7,200 per airplane per year.
2. Inspections. Should an operator elect to perform the inspection
of the service panel drain valve cap/door seal and seal mating surface,
the inspection would take approximately 1 work hour to accomplish, at
an average labor cost of $60 per work hour. Depending upon the type of
valves installed and the flight utilization rate of the airplane, an
airplane subject to this AD could be required to be inspected as few as
2 times per year or as many as 15 times per year. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection requirement on U.S.
operators would be between $120 and $1,800 per airplane per year.
3. Installation of cap on flush/fill line. The proposed
installation would take approximately 2 work hours to accomplish, at an
average labor cost of $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts is
estimated to be $275 per flush/fill line. There are normally 3 flush/
fill lines per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the
proposed installation requirement on U.S. operators would be
$1,411,335, or $1,185 per airplane.
4. Installation of lavatory vent system replacement/modification.
The portion of this installation that entails modification of the
toilet assembly would require between 2 and 4 work hours per airplane
to accomplish, depending on the brand of toilet involved. The average
labor cost is estimated to be $60 per work hour. The cost of required
parts is estimated to be between $83 and $2,121 per airplane. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of this portion of the proposed
installation on U.S. operators would be between $203 and $2,361 per
airplane.
The portion of this installation that entails modification of
lavatory vent lines would require between 15 and 52 work hours per
airplane to accomplish, depending upon the configuration of the
airplane, if certain other modifications have already been
accomplished, and the modification option selected. The average labor
cost is estimated to be $60 per work hour. The cost of required parts
is estimated to be between $600 and $13,000 per airplane. Based on
these figures, the cost impact of this portion of the proposed
installation on U.S. operators would be between $1,500 and $16,120 per
airplane.
The number of required work hours, as indicated above, is presented
in this discussion as if the actions proposed in
[[Page 66767]]
this AD were to be conducted as ``stand alone'' actions. However, in
actual practice, these actions could be accomplished coincidentally or
in combination with normally scheduled airplane inspections and other
maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of necessary
``additional'' work hours would be minimal in many instances.
Additionally, any costs associated with special airplane scheduling
should be minimal.
In addition to the costs discussed above, for those operators who
elect to comply with proposed paragraph (b) of this AD action, the FAA
estimates that it would take approximately 40 work hours per operator
to incorporate the lavatory drain system leak check procedures into the
maintenance programs, at an average labor cost of $60 per work hour.
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed maintenance
revision requirement of this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$2,400 per operator.
The ``cost impact'' figures discussed above are based on
assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The FAA recognizes that the obligation to maintain aircraft in an
airworthy condition is vital, but sometimes expensive. Because AD's
require specific actions to address specific unsafe conditions, they
appear to impose costs that would not otherwise be borne by operators.
However, because of the general obligation of operators to maintain
aircraft in an airworthy condition, this appearance is deceptive.
Attributing those costs solely to the issuance of this AD is
unrealistic because, in the interest of maintaining safe aircraft,
prudent operators would accomplish the required actions even if they
were not required to do so by the AD.
A full cost-benefit analysis has not been accomplished for this
proposed AD. As a matter of law, in order to be airworthy, an aircraft
must conform to its type design and be in a condition for safe
operation. The type design is approved only after the FAA makes a
determination that it complies with all applicable airworthiness
requirements. In adopting and maintaining those requirements, the FAA
has already made the determination that they establish a level of
safety that is cost-beneficial. When the FAA, as in this AD, makes a
finding of an unsafe condition, this means that the original cost-
beneficial level of safety is no longer being achieved and that the
required actions are necessary to restore that level of safety. Because
this level of safety has already been determined to be cost-beneficial,
a full cost-benefit analysis for this AD would be redundant and
unnecessary.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40101, 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95-NM-214-AD.
Applicability: All Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series
airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83),
and DC-9-87 (MD-87) series airplanes; and Model MD-88 airplanes;
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must use the authority
provided in paragraph (g) of this AD to request approval from the
FAA. This approval may address either no action, if the current
configuration eliminates the unsafe condition; or different actions
necessary to address the unsafe condition described in this AD. Such
a request should include an assessment of the effect of the changed
configuration on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no
case does the presence of any modification, alteration, or repair
remove any airplane from the applicability of this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent engine damage, airframe damage, and/or hazard to
persons or property on the ground as a result of ``blue ice'' that
has formed from leakage of the lavatory drain system and dislodged
from the airplane, accomplish the following:
Note 2: The leak checks of the toilet dump valve and flush/fill
line that are required by this AD may be performed by filling the
toilet tank with water/rinsing fluid to a level at least 4 inches
above the flapper in the bowl, and checking for leakage after a
period of 5 minutes.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this AD, accomplish
the applicable procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (a)(6) of this AD. If the individual
waste drain system panel incorporates more than one type of valve,
the inspection interval that applies to that panel is determined by
the component with the longest inspection interval allowed. Each of
the components must be inspected or tested at that time at each
service panel location.
(1) For each lavatory drain system that has an in-line drain
valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 2651-
329: Within 1,500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight hours,
accomplish the procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and
(a)(1)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve (in-tank valve that
is spring loaded closed and operable by a T-handle at the service
panel), and the in-line drain valve. The in-line drain valve leak
check must be performed with a minimum of 3 pounds per square inch
differential pressure (PSID) applied across the valve.
(ii) Visually inspect the service panel drain valve outer cap
seal and the inner seal (if the valve has an inner door/closure
device with a second positive seal), and the seal mating surfaces,
for wear or damage that may allow leakage.
(2) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Shaw Aero Devices part number 10101000C-A (or
[[Page 66768]]
higher dash number); or Shaw Aero Devices part number 10101000B-A (or
higher dash number); or Shaw Aero Devices part number 10101B-577-1
or 10101B-577-2; or Pneudraulics part number series 9527: Within
1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours, accomplish
the procedures specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of
this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve. Both
the inner door/closure device and the outer cap/door must be leak
checked.
(ii) For service panel valves that have an inner seal: In lieu
of pressure testing, the outer cap seal and seal surface may be
visually inspected for damage or wear.
(3) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Shaw Aero Devices part number series
10101000C [except as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this AD], or
Shaw Aero Devices part number 10101000B [except as specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this AD]: Within 600 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
600 flight hours, accomplish the procedures specified in paragraphs
(a)(3)(i) and (a)(3)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve. Both
the inner door/closure device and the outer cap/door must be leak
checked.
(ii) For service panel valves that have an inner seal: In lieu
of pressure testing, the outer cap seal and seal surface may be
visually inspected for damage or wear.
(4) For other lavatory drain systems not addressed in paragraph
(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD: Within 200 flight hours after
the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 200 flight hours, accomplish the procedures specified in
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve. Both
the inner door/closure device and the outer cap/door must be leak
checked.
(ii) For service panel valves that have an inner seal: In lieu
of pressure testing, the outer cap seal and seal surface may be
visually inspected for damage or wear.
(5) For flush/fill lines: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
5,000 flight hours, accomplish the procedures specified in either
paragraph (a)(5)(i) or (a)(5)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the flush/fill line cap. This leak
check must be made with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the cap.
Or
(ii) Replace the seals on the toilet tank anti-siphon (check)
valve and in the flush/fill line cap. Additionally, perform a leak
check of the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve with a minimum of
3 PSID across the valve after changing the seals.
(6) As a result of the leak checks and inspections required by
this paragraph, or if evidence of leakage is found at any other
time, accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (a)(6)(i),
(a)(6)(ii) or (a)(6)(iii) as applicable:
(i) If a leak is discovered, prior to further flight, repair the
leak. Prior to further flight after repair, perform the leak test.
Additionally, prior to returning the airplane to service, clean the
surfaces adjacent to where the leakage occurred to clear them of any
horizontal fluid residue streaks; such cleaning must be to the
extent that any future appearance of a horizontal fluid residue
streak will be taken to mean that the system is leaking again.
Note 3: For purposes of this AD, ``leakage'' is defined as any
visible leakage observed during a leak test; the presence of ice in
the service panel; or horizontal fluid residue streaks or ice trails
originating at the service panel. The fluid residue is usually, but
not necessarily, blue in color.
(ii) If any worn or damaged seal is found, or if any damaged
seal mating surface is found, prior to further flight, repair or
replace it in accordance with the valve manufacturer's maintenance
manual.
(iii) In lieu of performing the requirements of paragraph
(a)(6)(i) or (a)(6)(ii): Prior to further flight, drain the affected
lavatory system and placard the lavatory inoperative until repairs
can be accomplished.
(b) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph (a) of
this AD: Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD, revise
the FAA-approved maintenance program to include the requirements
specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5),
(b)(6), and (b)(7) of this AD:
(1) Replace the valve seals in accordance with the applicable
schedule specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this
AD. Any revision to this replacement schedule must be approved by
the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate.
(i) For each lavatory drain system that has an in-line drain
valve installed, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 2651-
329: Replace the seals within 5,000 flight hours after revision of
the maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD,
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 52 months.
(ii) For each lavatory drain system that has any other type of
drain valve: Replace the seals within 5,000 flight hours after
revision of the maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b)
of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 18 months.
(2) Conduct periodic leak checks of the lavatory drain systems
in accordance with the applicable schedule specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), and (b)(2)(iv) of this AD. If
the individual waste drain system incorporates more than one type of
valve, the interval that applies to that system is determined by the
component with the longest inspection interval allowed. Each of the
components in that system must be inspected/tested at that time. Any
revision to this leak check schedule must be approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(i) For each lavatory drain system that has an in-line drain
valve, Kaiser Electroprecision part number series 2651-329: Within
5,000 flight hours after revision of the maintenance program in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD, and thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 24 months or 5,000 flight hours, whichever
occurs later, accomplish the procedures specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)(A) and (b)(2)(i)(B) of this AD:
(A) Conduct a leak check of the dump valve (in-tank valve that
is spring loaded closed and operable by a T-handle at the service
panel) and the in-line drain valve. The in-line drain valve leak
check must be performed with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the
valve.
(B) Visually inspect the service panel drain valve outer cap/
door seal and the inner seal (if the valve has an inner door/closure
device with a second positive seal) and seal mating surface for wear
or damage that may cause leakage. Any worn or damaged seal must be
replaced and any damaged seal mating surface must be repaired or
replaced, prior to further flight, in accordance with the valve
manufacturer's maintenance manual.
(ii) For each lavatory drain system that has a service panel
drain valve installed, Shaw Aero Devices part number series
10101000C; or Shaw Aero Devices part number series 10101000B; or
Pneudraulics part number series 9527: Within 1,000 flight hours
after revising the maintenance program in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000
flight hours, accomplish the procedures specified in paragraphs
(b)(2)(ii)(A) and (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD:
(A) Conduct leak checks of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the valve. Only
the inner door/closure device of the service panel drain valve must
be leak checked.
(B) Visually inspect the service panel drain valve outer cap/
door seal and seal mating surface for wear or damage that may cause
leakage.
(iii) For each lavatory drain system that has a lavatory drain
system valve that incorporates only an outer cap seal (i.e., uses no
inner flapper), or that incorporates an inner seal that is not an
attached part of the valve (i.e., a ``donut''): Within 200 flight
hours after revising the maintenance program in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
200 flight hours, conduct leak checks of the dump valve and the
service panel drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check
must be performed with a minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve.
Both the donut and the outer cap/door must be leak checked.
(iv) For each lavatory drain system that incorporates any other
type of approved valve(s): Within 400 flight hours after revising
the maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD,
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 flight hours,
accomplish the procedures
[[Page 66769]]
specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)(A) and (b)(2)(iv)(B) of this AD:
(A) Conduct leak checks of the dump valve and the service panel
drain valve. The service panel drain valve leak check must be
performed with a minimum 3 PSID applied across the valve. If the
service panel drain valve has an inner door/closure device with a
second positive seal, only the inner door must be leak checked.
(B) If the valve has an inner door/closure device with a second
positive seal: Visually inspect the service panel drain valve outer
door/cap seal and seal mating surface for wear or damage that may
cause leakage.
(3) For flush/fill lines: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
5,000 flight hours, accomplish the procedures specified in either
paragraph (b)(3)(i) or (b)(3)(ii) of this AD:
(i) Conduct a leak check of the flush/fill line cap. This leak
check must be made with a minimum of 3 PSID applied across the cap.
Or
(ii) Replace the seals on the toilet tank anti-siphon (check)
valve and the flush/fill line cap. Additionally, perform a leak
check of the toilet tank anti-siphon (check) valve with a minimum of
3 PSID across the valve.
(4) Provide procedures for accomplishing visual inspections to
detect leakage of the lavatory waste drain line and lavatory flush/
fill line, at each waste service panel, to be conducted by
maintenance personnel at intervals not to exceed 4 calendar days or
45 flight hours, whichever occurs later.
(5) Provide procedures for reporting leakage. These procedures
shall provide that any ``horizontal blue streak'' findings must be
reported to maintenance and that, prior to further flight, the
leaking system shall either be repaired, or be drained and placarded
inoperative.
(i) For systems incorporating an in-line drain valve, Kaiser
Electroprecision part number series 2651-329: The reporting
procedures must include provisions for reporting to maintenance any
instances of abnormal operation of the valve handle for the in-line
drain valve, as observed by service personnel during normal
servicing.
(A) Additionally, for these systems, these provisions must
include procedures for either: Prior to further flight, following
the in-line drain valve manufacturer's recommended troubleshooting
procedures and correction of the discrepancy; or prior to further
flight, draining the lavatory system and placarding it inoperative
until the correction of the discrepancy can be accomplished.
(B) If the drain system also includes an additional service
panel drain valve, Shaw Aero Devices part number 10101000C-A (or
higher dash number); or Shaw Aero Devices part number 10101000B-A
(or higher dash number); or Shaw Aero Devices part number 10101B-
577-1 or 10101B-577-2; or Pneudraulics part number series 9527:
Indications of abnormal operation of the valve handle for the
in-line drain valve need not be addressed immediately if a leak
check of the service panel drain valve indicates no leakage or other
discrepancy. In these cases, repair of the in-line drain valve must
be accomplished within 1,000 flight hours after the leak check of
the additional service panel drain valve.
(6) Provide training programs for maintenance and servicing
personnel that include information on ``Blue Ice Awareness'' and the
hazards of ``blue ice.''
(7) As a result of the leak checks and inspections required by
this paragraph, or if evidence of leakage is found at any other
time, accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (b)(7)(i),
(b)(7)(ii) or (b)(7)(iii), as applicable:
(i) If a leak is discovered, prior to further flight, repair the
leak. Prior to further flight after repair, perform the leak test.
Additionally, prior to returning the airplane to service, clean the
surfaces adjacent to where the leakage occurred to clear them or any
horizontal fluid residue streaks; such cleaning must be to the
extent that any future appearance of a horizontal fluid residue
streak will be taken to mean that the system is leaking again.
Note 4: For purposes of this AD, ``leakage'' is defined as any
visible leakage observed during a leak test; the presence of ice in
the service panel; or horizontal fluid residue streaks/ice trails
originating at the service panel. The fluid residue is usually, but
not necessarily, blue in color.
(ii) If any worn or damaged seal is found, or if any damaged
seal mating surface is found, prior to further flight, repair or
replace it in accordance with the valve manufacturer's maintenance
manual.
(iii) In lieu of performing the requirements of paragraph
(b)(7)(i) or (b)(7)(ii): Prior to further flight, drain the affected
lavatory system and placard the lavatory inoperative until repairs
can be accomplished.
(c) For operators who elect to comply with paragraph (b) of this
AD: Any revision to (i.e., extension of) the leak check intervals
required by paragraph (b) of this AD must be approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
Requests for such revisions must be submitted to the Manager of the
Los Angeles ACO through the FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector
(PMI), and must include the following information:
(1) The operator's name;
(2) A statement verifying that all known cases/indications of
leakage or failed leak tests are included in the submitted material;
(3) The type of valve (make, model, manufacturer, vendor part
number, and serial number);
(4) The period of time covered by the data;
(5) The current FAA leak check interval;
(6) Whether or not seals have been replaced between the seal
replacement intervals required by this AD;
(7) Whether or not leakage has been detected between leak check
intervals required by this AD, and the reason for leakage (i.e.,
worn seals, foreign materials on sealing surface, scratched or
damaged sealing surface or valve, etc.); and
(8) Whether or not any leak check was conducted without first
inspecting or cleaning the sealing surfaces, changing the seals, or
repairing the valve. [If such activities have been accomplished
prior to conducting the periodic leak check, that leak check shall
be recorded as a ``failure'' for purposes of the data required for
this request submission. The exception to this is the normally
scheduled seal change in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this
AD. Performing this scheduled seal change immediately prior to a
leak check will not cause that leak check to be recorded as a
failure.]
Note 5: Requests for approval of revised leak check intervals
may be submitted in any format, provided that the data give the same
level of detail specified in paragraph (c) of this AD.
Note 6: For the purposes of expediting resolution of requests
for revisions to the leak check intervals, the FAA suggests that the
requester summarize the raw data; group the data gathered from
different airplanes (of the same model) and drain systems with the
same kind of valve; and provide a recommendation from pertinent
industry group(s) and/or the manufacturer specifying an appropriate
revised leak check interval.
(d) For all airplanes: Within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, install a lever/lock cap on the flush/
fill lines at each lavatory service panel. The cap must be either an
FAA-approved lever/lock cap, or a cap installed in accordance with
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 38-47, dated April 17, 1992.
(e) For only those airplanes listed in McDonnell Douglas DC-9
Service Bulletin 38-41, Revision 3, dated July 5, 1994: Accomplish
the procedures specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this AD:
(1) Conduct leak checks of the lavatory vent system at the same
time as conducting the leak checks of the dump valve and flush/fill
line required by this AD. If a leak is discovered, prior to further
flight, accomplish the procedures specified in either paragraph
(e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(iii), or (e)(1)(iv) of this AD:
(i) Repair the leak and retest. Or
(ii) Drain the affected lavatory system and placard the lavatory
inoperative until repairs can be accomplished. Or
(iii) Install an FAA-approved modification that deactivates the
vent system. After accomplishment of this deactivation, the leak
checks of the lavatory vent system may be discontinued. Or
(iv) Replace/modify the vent system in accordance with McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Service Bulletin 38-41, Revision 3, dated July 5, 1994.
After accomplishment of this replacement/modification, the leak
checks of the lavatory vent system may be discontinued.
(2) Within 3 years after the effective date of this AD: Either
replace/modify the vent system in accordance with McDonnell Douglas
DC-9 Service Bulletin 38-41, Revision 3, dated July 5, 1994; or
install an FAA-approved modification that deactivates the vent
system. Accomplishment of either of these actions constitutes
terminating action for the leak checks of the lavatory vent system
that are required by this AD.
(f) For any affected airplane acquired after the effective date
of this AD: Before any operator places into service any airplane
subject to the requirements of this AD, a schedule for the
accomplishment of the leak
[[Page 66770]]
checks required by this AD shall be established in accordance with
either paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as applicable. After
each leak check has been performed once, each subsequent leak check
must be performed in accordance with the new operator's schedule, in
accordance with either paragraph (a) or (b) of this AD, as
applicable.
(1) For airplanes previously maintained in accordance with this
AD: The first leak check to be performed by the new operator must be
accomplished in accordance with either the previous operator's
schedule or the new operator's schedule, whichever would result in
the earlier accomplishment date for that leak check.
(2) For airplanes that have not been previously maintained in
accordance with this AD: The first leak check to be performed by the
new operator must be accomplished prior to further flight; or in
accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA PMI, but within a
period not to exceed 200 flight hours.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through
an appropriate FAA PMI, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 7: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
Note 8: For any valve that is not eligible for the extended leak
check intervals of this AD: To be eligible for the leak check
interval specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(2)(i), or
(b)(2)(ii), the service history data of the valve must be submitted
to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, with a request for approval of an alternative method of
compliance with this AD. The request should include an analysis of
known failure modes for the valve, if it is an existing design, and
known failure modes of similar valves. Additionally, the request
should include an explanation of how design features will preclude
these failure modes, results of qualification tests, and
approximately 25,000 flight hours or 25,000 flight cycles of service
history data, including a winter season, collected in accordance
with the requirements of paragraph (c) of this AD or a similar
program.
(h) 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 19, 1995.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-31245 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31234 Membership of State Banking Institutions in the Federal Reserve System; Recordkeeping and Confirmation of Certain Securities Transactions Effected by State Member Banks
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66759-66764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31234]
========================================================================
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. 247 / Tuesday, December 26, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 66759]]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 208
[Regulation H; Docket No. R-0909]
Membership of State Banking Institutions in the Federal Reserve
System; Recordkeeping and Confirmation of Certain Securities
Transactions Effected by State Member Banks
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is
proposing amendments to Regulation H pertaining to the recordkeeping
and confirmation of certain securities transactions. The amendments
would accommodate developments in the securities markets by adding
certain yield-related confirmation disclosure requirements for
transactions involving debt and asset-backed securities effected by
State member banks for customers, and providing for three day
settlement of those transactions. The proposed amendments also would
clarify that State member banks that effect de minimis government
securities brokerage transactions and are exempt from registration
under Department of the Treasury regulations, also are exempt from
Regulation H. Finally, the proposed amendments address the minimum
recordkeeping requirements for State member banks exempt from the
paragraph, and include several new definitions and various language
edits.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. R-0909, and may be
mailed to Mr. William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20551. Comments also may be delivered to Room B-2222 of
the Eccles Building between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. weekdays, and to
the guard station in the Eccles Building courtyard on 20th Street, NW
(between Constitution Avenue and C Street) at any time. Comments
received will be available for inspection in room MP-500 of the Martin
Building between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, except as provided
in 12 CFR 261.8(a) of the Board's rules regarding availability of
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Desmond, Senior Counsel, or
Susan Meyers, Senior Securities Analyst, (202) 452-2781. For users of
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TTD), please contact Dorothea
Thompson, (202/452-3544), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, Washington, D.C. 20551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 208.8(k) of Regulation H, 12 CFR
part 208, was adopted in 1979 to ensure that banks effecting securities
transactions for customers conform to securities industry practices
with respect to the maintenance of records, and the content and timing
of confirmations and account statements.1 Since that time, a
number of market and regulatory changes have occurred that have
relevance to these provisions. As a result, the Board has determined
that the recordkeeping and notification requirements of Regulation H
should be amended to ensure that procedures followed by State member
banks continue to conform with SEC and Department of the Treasury
regulations, and are consistent with principles of safe and sound
banking practices. For purposes of organization, the contents of
Sec. 208.8(k) would be moved into a new Sec. 208.24.
\1\ 44 FR 43258 (July 24, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments are requested on the proposed amendments as described in
more detail below. The proposed amendments are limited to new
Sec. 208.24 (current Sec. 208.8(k)) of Regulation H and are not meant
to obviate the need for the general review of the whole regulation
scheduled for the latter part of 1996.2 Accordingly, comments
pertaining to other provisions of Regulation H should be withheld until
notice of a general review is announced.
\2\ The OCC and the FDIC are considering similar amendments to
their versions of the regulation, 12 CFR Part 12, 44 FR 43252 (July
24, 1979) and 12 CFR Part 344, 44 FR 43261 (July 24, 1979)
respectively. Consideration of the amendments now will ensure
continued consistency among the three regulations and obtain parity
with securities industry practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Proposed Amendments
The provisions of Sec. 208.8(k) would be moved to a new section
(Sec. 208.24) at the end of subpart A of Regulation H and paragraph (k)
of Sec. 208.8 would be reserved.
Sec. 208.24(a) Definitions.
The draft amendments would add definitions of: asset-backed
security, completion of the transaction, crossing of buy and sell
orders, debt security, government security and municipal security. In
general, the new definitions are based on definitions contained in the
Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., or in the SEC's
confirmation rule 10b-10, 17 CFR 240.10b-10, and are necessary for
applying the proposed confirmation disclosure and the three day
settlement requirements. Finally, the term dealer bank in the
definition of customer would be replaced with the term municipal
securities broker or dealer to clarify that a bank acting as a
municipal securities broker is not a customer for purposes of
Sec. 208.24 of Regulation H.
Sec. 208.24(b) Recordkeeping.
New language would be added to clarify that Sec. 208.24 applies to
government securities transactions effected for customers by State
member banks and to municipal securities transactions effected by State
member banks that are not registered as municipal securities dealers.
The amendments also would relocate all confirmation recordkeeping
requirements into this section. Explanatory language at the end of the
section would be moved to the first paragraph to simplify the section.
Sec. 208.24(c) Content and Time of Notification.
The amendments would rename the section to clarify its subject
matter. Substantively, the amendments would delete the old five
business day requirement for confirmation delivery in former Sec. 208.8
(k)(3) and (k)(4) and provide that confirmations be given or sent to
customers ``at or by completion of the transaction,'' defined as the
payment and delivery of the securities in Sec. 208.24(a).
In addition, the proposed amendments would require
[[Page 66760]]
confirmations to: (i) contain a legend when the security is callable
prior to maturity indicating that an early redemption could affect the
yield stated on the confirmation and offering additional information on
request (proposed Sec. 208.24(c)(2)(viii); (ii) disclose the yield and/
or resulting dollar price of transactions involving debt securities and
asset-backed securities (proposed Sec. 208.24(c)(2) (ix) and (x)); and,
(iii) indicate when a debt security, other than a government security,
is unrated by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization
(proposed Sec. 208.24(c)(2)(xi)). The proposed disclosures would
conform bank confirmations with disclosures now required of broker
dealers under SEC rule 10b-10. They also conform to longstanding
practice in the municipal securities industry.
In proposing amendments to this section, the Board is mindful of
the securities regulators' determinations that these confirmation
disclosures constitute material information necessary to describe the
securities or to identify the transaction. Comment is requested
concerning the extent to which banks already are making the proposed
confirmation disclosures to customers. Comment also is requested
whether it would be preferable to incorporate SEC rules 10b-10, 17a-3
and 17a-4 by reference for State member banks to refer to, rather than
specify discrete items of confirmation disclosure in the regulation.
Finally, Sec. 208.24 (c)(v)-(c)(vii) require State member banks to
disclose in agency transactions the name of any broker dealer utilized,
the amount of such broker dealer's commission, and the amount of
commission or other remuneration being received by the bank. Some have
argued that these requirements have an anticompetitive effect. Comment
is requested whether this provision is inappropriately anticompetitive,
and, if so, how a bank should disclose its remuneration and the
remuneration going to other parties on agency transactions.
Sec. 208.24(d) Notification by agreement; alternative forms and times.
Section 208.24(d)(current section 208.8(k)(4)) would be renamed to
indicate that it deals with alternative arrangements under which
customers receive notifications of securities transactions effected by
State member banks. Other than conforming language edits, a substantive
change would be made to Sec. 208.24(d)(v), pertaining to notifications
of transactions in periodic plans, to require that notification be
provided to customers ``not less than every three months'' rather than
the current requirement of ``as soon as possible after each
transaction.'' This would conform the section with SEC rule 10b-10
(notifications required at least quarterly) while creating flexibility
in scheduling notifications in periodic plans.
Sec. 208.24(e) Securities Trading Policies and Procedures.
A new Sec. 208.24(e)(1)(iii) would be added to require State member
banks to establish supervisory procedures and reporting lines for back
office personnel that are separate from those established to oversee
personnel accepting orders and effecting transactions under Sec. 208.24
(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii).
Sec. 208.24(f) Settlement of Securities Transactions.
Proposed Sec. 208.24(f), on settlement of securities transactions,
would require State member banks to provide for three day (T+3)
settlement for securities transactions effected for customers unless
the parties agree to a different settlement date at the time of the
transaction. The requirement would apply to transactions in securities
that fall under SEC rule 15c6-1, 17 CFR 240.15c6-1, for broker
dealers.3
\3\ Exceptions or other relief, and changes in the standard
settlement cycle adopted by the SEC under rule 15c6-1 also would
apply to State member banks. MSRB rules require bank dealers to
settle municipal securities transactions by T+3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board requests comment whether the proposed section is needed
for banks to meet T+3 settlement, where appropriate, of transactions
effected for customers. Finally, if the Board determines to adopt the
new section, comment is requested whether banks prefer that Regulation
H incorporate SEC rule 15c6-1 by reference rather than the proposed
language.
Sec. 208.24(g) Exceptions.
The exceptions previously found in current Sec. 208.8(k)(6) would
be contained in Sec. 208.24(g). A new Sec. 208.24(g)(2) would clarify
that State member banks that effect up to 500 government securities
brokerage transactions and are exempt from registration under
Department of the Treasury regulation 401.3(a)(2)(i), 17 CFR
401.3(a)(2), also are exempt from Sec. 208.24. This exemption would not
be available if a bank has filed notice or is required to file notice
indicating that it acts as a government securities broker or dealer.
Staff at the Bureau of Public Debt, which is the organization within
the Department of the Treasury that is responsible for administering 17
CFR 404.4(a), on recordkeeping by government securities brokers and
dealers that are financial institutions, has advised that they are
considering amending this regulation to clarify any ambiguity with
respect to the recordkeeping requirements for financial institutions
that conduct government securities transactions resulting from the
interplay of the regulation with the recordkeeping requirements of
Regulation H.
Sec. 208.24(h) Safe and Sound Operations.
Finally, a new Sec. 208.24(h), on safe and sound operations, would
be added stating that principles of safety and soundness require a bank
to maintain effective systems of records and controls regarding
customer securities transactions that reflect accurate information and
are sufficient to provide an adequate basis for an audit of the
information. This provision is consistent with the longstanding
interpretation and would clarify what is expected of banks that qualify
for an exception from Sec. 208.24(h).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Board believes there will be no significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities if this proposal is adopted.
Comments are invited on this statement.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with Sec. 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. Ch. 35; 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1), the Board reviewed the
proposed rule under the authority delegated to the Board by the Office
of Management and Budget. Comments on the collections of information
should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project (7100-0196), Washington, DC 20503, with copies of
such comments to be sent to Mary M. McLaughlin, Federal Reserve Board
Clearance Officer, Division of Research and Statistics, Mail Stop 97,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The collection of information requirements in this proposed
regulation are found in 12 CFR 208.8(k). This information is required
to evidence compliance with the requirements of section 208.8(k) of
Regulation H. The respondents are for-profit financial institutions.
Records must be retained for three years.
The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and an organization
is not required to respond to, this information collection unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number
is 7100-0196.
[[Page 66761]]
The proposed amendments would provide for only a minor addition in
disclosure practices of state member banks, would not increase the
banks' reporting requirements to the Federal Reserve, and would have a
negligible effect on respondent burden. The estimated burden is 3
minutes per response. There are 1,214 respondents and the number of
their recordkeeping and notification occurrences varies with the amount
and type of securities transactions. The total annual recordkeeping and
disclosure burden for these respondents is estimated to be 165,520
hours. Based on an hourly cost of $20, the annual cost to the public is
estimated to be $3,310,400.
Because the records would be maintained at state member banks and
the notices are not provided to the Federal Reserve, no issue of
confidentiality under the Freedom of Information Act arises.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal
Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the
burden of the proposed information collection, including the cost of
compliance; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
information collection on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 208
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, State member banks,
Confidential business information, Crime, Currency, Federal Reserve
System, Flood insurance, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Securities.
For reasons set out in the preamble, the Board proposes to amend 12
CFR Part 208 as set forth below:
PART 208--MEMBERSHIP OF STATE BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE FEDERAL
RESERVE SYSTEM (REGULATION H)
1. The authority citation for Part 208 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 36, 248(a), 248(c), 321-338a, 371d, 461,
481-486, 601, 611, 1814, 1823(j), 1828(o), 1831o, 1831p-1, 3105,
3310, 3331-3351 and 3906-3909; 15 U.S.C. 78b, 78l(b), 78l(g),
781(i), 78o-4(c)(5), 78q, 78q-1 and 78w; 31 U.S.C. 5318; 42 U.S.C.
4012a, 4101a, 4104b, 4106 and 4128.
Sec. 208.8 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 208.8 paragraph (k) is removed and reserved.
3. A new Sec. 208.24 is added at the end of subpart A to read as
follows:
Sec. 208.24 Recordkeeping and confirmation of certain securities
transactions effected by State member banks.
(a) Definitions. For purposes of this Sec. 208.24:
Asset-backed security shall mean a security that is serviced
primarily by the cash flows of a discrete pool of receivables or other
financial assets, either fixed or revolving, that by their terms
convert into cash within a finite time period plus any rights or other
assets designed to assure the servicing or timely distribution of
proceeds to the security holders.
Collective investment fund shall means funds held by a State member
bank as fiduciary and, consistent with local law, invested collectively
as follows:
(1) In a common trust fund maintained by such bank exclusively for
the collective investment and reinvestment of monies contributed
thereto by the bank in its capacity as trustee, executor,
administrator, guardian, or custodian under the Uniform Gifts to Minors
Act; or
(2) In a fund consisting solely of assets of retirement, pension,
profit sharing, stock bonus or similar trusts which are exempt from
Federal income taxation under the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26).
Completion of the transaction effected by or through a state member
bank shall mean:
(1) For purchase transactions, the time when the customer pays the
bank any part of the purchase price (or the time when the bank makes
the book-entry for any part of the purchase price if applicable),
however, if the customer pays for the security prior to the time
payment is requested or becomes due, then the transaction shall be
completed when the bank transfers the security into the account of the
customer; and
(2) For sale transactions, the time when the bank transfers the
security out of the account of the customer or, if the security is not
in the bank's custody, then the time when the security is delivered to
the bank, however, if the customer delivers the security to the bank
prior to the time delivery is requested or becomes due then the
transaction shall be completed when the banks makes payment into the
account of the customer.
Crossing of buy and sell orders shall mean a security transaction
in which the same bank acts as agent for both the buyer and the seller.
Customer shall mean any person or account, including any agency,
trust, estate, guardianship, committee or other fiduciary account, for
which a State member bank effects or participates in effecting the
purchase or sale of securities, but shall not include a broker, dealer,
bank acting as a broker or dealer bank or issuer of the securities
which are the subject of the transactions.
Debt security as used in paragraph (c) of this section shall mean
any security, such as a bond, debenture, note or any other similar
instrument which evidences a liability of the issuer (including any
security of this type that is convertible into stock or similar
security) and fractional or participation interests in one or more of
any of the foregoing; provided, however, that securities issued by an
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940,
15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq., shall not be included in this definition.
Exercise investment discretion with respect to an account shall
mean if the State member bank, directly or indirectly, is authorized to
determine what securities or other property shall be purchased or sold
by or for the account, or makes decisions as to what securities or
other property shall be purchased or sold by or for the account even
though some other person may have responsibility for such investment
decisions.
Government security shall mean:
(1) A security that is a direct obligation of, or obligation
guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States;
(2) A security that is issued or guaranteed by a corporation in
which the United States has a direct or indirect interest and which is
designated by the Secretary of the Treasury for exemption as necessary
or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors;
(3) A security issued or guaranteed as to principal and interest by
any corporation whose securities are designated, by statute
specifically naming the corporation, to constitute exempt securities
within the meaning of the laws administered by the Securities Exchange
Commission; or
(4) Any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on a security as
described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this definition other than a
put, call, straddle, option, or privilege that is traded on one or more
national securities exchanges, or for which quotations are disseminated
though an
[[Page 66762]]
automated quotation system operated by a registered securities
association.
Municipal security shall mean a security which is a direct
obligation of, or obligation guaranteed as to principal or interest by,
a State or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or
instrumentality of a State or any political subdivision thereof, or any
municipal corporate instrumentality of one or more States, or any
security which is an industrial development bond (as defined in
Sec. 103(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954) the interest on
which is excludable from gross income under Sec. 103(a)(1) of such Code
if, by reason of the application of paragraph (4) or (6) of Sec. 103(c)
of such Code (determined as if paragraphs (4)(A), (5) and (7) were not
included in such Sec. 103(c), paragraph (1) of such Sec. 103(c) does
not apply to such security.
Periodic plan (including dividend reinvestment plans, automatic
investment plans and employee stock purchase plans) means any written
authorization for a State member bank acting as agent to purchase or
sell for a customer a specific security or securities, in specific
amounts (calculated in security units or dollars) or to the extent of
dividends and funds available, at specific time intervals and setting
forth the commission or charges to be paid by the customer in
connection therewith or the manner of calculating them.
Security means any interest or instrument commonly known as a
security, whether in the nature of debt or equity, including any stock,
bond, note, debenture, evidence of indebtedness or any participation in
or right to subscribe to or purchase any of the foregoing. The term
security does not include:
(1) A deposit or share account in a federally or state insured
depository institution;
(2) A loan participation;
(3) A letter of credit or other form of bank indebtedness incurred
in the ordinary course of business;
(4) Currency;
(5) Any note, draft, bill of exchange, or bankers acceptance which
has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months,
exclusive of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of
which is likewise limited;
(6) Units of a collective investment fund;
(7) Interests in a variable amount (master) note of a borrower of
prime credit; or
(8) U.S. Savings Bonds.
(b) Recordkeeping. Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this
section, every State member bank effecting securities transactions for
customers, including transactions in government securities, and
municipal securities transactions by banks not subject to registration
as a municipal securities dealers shall maintain the following records
with respect to such transactions for at least three years. Nothing
contained in this section shall require a bank to maintain the records
required by this paragraph rule in any given manner, provided that the
information required to be shown is clearly and accurately reflected
and provides an adequate basis for the audit of such information.
(1) Chronological records of original entry containing an itemized
daily record of all purchases and sales of securities. The records of
original entry shall show the account or customer for which each such
transaction was effected, the description of the securities, the unit
and aggregate purchase or sale price (if any), the trade date and the
name or other designation of the broker/dealer or other person from
whom purchased or to whom sold;
(2) Account records for each customer which shall reflect all
purchases and sales of securities, all receipts and deliveries of
securities, and all receipts and disbursements of cash with respect to
transactions in securities for such account and all other debits and
credits pertaining to transactions in securities;
(3) A separate memorandum (order ticket) of each order to purchase
or sell securities (whether executed or cancelled), which shall
include:
(i) The account(s) for which the transaction was effected;
(ii) Whether the transaction was a market order, limit order, or
subject to special instructions;
(iii) The time the order was received by the trader or other bank
employee responsible for effecting the transaction;
(iv) The time the order was placed with the broker/dealer, or if
there was no broker/dealer, the time the order was executed or
canceled;
(v) The price at which the order was executed; and
(vi) The broker/dealer utilized;
(4) A record of all broker/dealers selected by the bank to effect
securities transactions and the amount of commissions paid or allocated
to each such broker during the calendar year; and
(5) A copy of the written notification required by paragraphs (c)
and (d) of this section.
(c) Content and time of notification. Every State member bank
effecting a securities transaction for a customer at or before
completion of the transaction shall give or send to such customer
either of the following types of notifications:
(1) A copy of the confirmation of a broker/dealer relating to the
securities transaction; and if the bank is to receive remuneration from
the customer or any other source in connection with the transaction,
and the remuneration is not determined pursuant to a prior written
agreement between the bank and the customer, a statement of the source
and the amount of any remuneration to be received; or
(2) A written notification disclosing:
(i) The name of the bank;
(ii) The name of the customer;
(iii) Whether the bank is acting as agent for such customer, as
agent for both such customer and some other person, as principal for
its own account, or in any other capacity;
(iv) The date of execution and a statement that the time of
execution will be furnished within a reasonable time upon written
request of such customer, and the identity, price and number of shares
or units (or principal amount in the case of debt securities) of such
security purchased or sold by such a customer;
(v) The amount of any remuneration received or to be received,
directly or indirectly, by any broker/dealer from such customer in
connection with the transaction;
(vi) The amount of any remuneration received or to be received by
the bank from the customer and the source and amount of any other
remuneration to be received by the bank in connection with the
transaction, unless remuneration is determined pursuant to a written
agreement between the bank and the customer, provided, however, in the
case of Government securities and municipal securities, this paragraph
(c)(2)(vi) shall apply only with respect to remuneration received by
the bank in an agency transaction;
(vii) The name of the broker/dealer utilized; or, where there is no
broker/dealer, the name of the person from whom the security was
purchased or to whom it was sold, or the fact that such information
will be furnished within a reasonable time upon written request;
(viii) In the case of a transaction in a debt security subject to
redemption before maturity, a statement to the effect that the debt
security may be redeemed in whole or in part before maturity, that the
redemption could affect the yield represented and that additional
information is available on request;
(ix) In the case of a transaction in a debt security effected
exclusively on the basis of a dollar price:
(A) The dollar price at which the transaction was effected; and
[[Page 66763]]
(B) The yield to maturity calculated from the dollar price;
provided, however, that this paragraph (c)(2)(ix)(B) shall not apply to
a transaction in a debt security that either has a maturity date that
may be extended by the issuer with a variable interest payable thereon,
or is an asset-backed security that represents an interest in or is
secured by a pool of receivables or other financial assets that are
subject to continuous prepayment;
(x) In the case of a transaction in a debt security effected on the
basis of yield:
(A) The yield at which the transaction was effected, including the
percentage amount and its characterization (e.g., current yield, yield
to maturity, or yield to call) and if effected at yield to call, the
type of call, the call date, and the call price; and
(B) The dollar price calculated from the yield at which the
transaction was effected; and
(C) If effected on a basis other than yield to maturity and the
yield to maturity is lower than the represented yield, the yield to
maturity as well as the represented yield; provided, however, that this
paragraph (c)(2)(x)(C) shall not apply to a transaction in a debt
security that either has a maturity date that may be extended by the
issuer with a variable interest rate payable thereon, or is an asset-
backed security that represents an interest in or is secured by a pool
of receivables or other financial assets that are subject to continuous
prepayment;
(xi) In the case of a transaction in a debt security that is an
asset-backed security which represents an interest in or is secured by
a pool of receivables or other financial assets that are subject
continuously to prepayment, a statement indicating that the actual
yield of the asset-backed security may vary according to the rate at
which the underlying receivables or other financial assets are prepaid
and a statement of the fact that information concerning the factors
that affect yield (including at a minimum, the estimated yield,
weighted average life, and the prepayment assumptions underlying yield)
will be furnished upon written request of the customer; and
(xii) In the case of a transaction in a debt security, other than a
government security, that the security is unrated by a nationally
recognized statistical rating organization, if that is the case.
(d) Notification by agreement; alternative forms and times of
notification. A State member bank may elect to use the following
alternative procedures if a transaction is effected for:
(1) Accounts (except periodic plans) where the bank does not
exercise investment discretion and the bank and the customer agree in
writing to a different arrangement as to the time and content of the
notification; provided, however, that such agreement makes clear the
customer's right to receive the written notification pursuant to
paragraph (c) of this section at no additional cost to the customer;
(2) Accounts (except collective investment funds) where the bank
exercises investment discretion in other than an agency capacity, in
which instance the bank shall, upon request of the person having the
power to terminate the account or, if there is no such person, upon the
request of any person holding a vested beneficial interest in such
account, give or send to such person the written notification within a
reasonable time. The bank may charge such person a reasonable fee for
providing this information;
(3) Accounts, where the bank exercises investment discretion in an
agency capacity, in which instance:
(i) The bank shall give or send to each customer not less
frequently than once every three months an itemized statement which
shall specify the funds and securities in the custody or possession of
the bank at the end of such period and all debits, credits and
transactions in the customer's accounts during such period; and
(ii) If requested by the customer, the bank shall give or send to
each customer within a reasonable time the written notification
described in paragraph (c) of this section. The bank may charge a
reasonable fee for providing the information described in paragraph (c)
of this section;
(4) A collective investment fund, in which instance the bank shall
at least annually furnish a copy of a financial report of the fund, or
provide notice that a copy of such report is available and will be
furnished upon request, to each person to whom a regular periodic
accounting would ordinarily be rendered with respect to each
participating account. This report shall be based upon an audit made by
independent public accountants or internal auditors responsible only to
the board of directors of the bank;
(5) A periodic plan, in which instance the bank shall give or send
to the customer not less than every three months a written statement
showing the funds and securities in the custody or possession of the
bank, all service charges and commissions paid by the customer in
connection with the transaction, and all other debits and credits of
the customer's account involved in the transaction; provided that upon
the written request of the customer the bank shall furnish the
information described in paragraph (c) of this section, except that any
such information relating to remuneration paid in connection with the
transaction need not be provided to the customer when paid by a source
other than the customer. The bank may charge a reasonable fee for
providing the information described in paragraph (c) of this section.
(e) Securities trading policies and procedures. Every State member
bank effecting securities transactions for customers shall establish
written policies and procedures providing:
(1) Assignment of responsibility for supervision of all officers or
employees who:
(i) Transmit orders to or place orders with broker/dealers;
(ii) Execute transactions in securities for customers; or
(iii) Process orders for notification and/or settlement purposes,
or perform other back office functions with respect to securities
transactions effected for customers; provided that procedures
established under this paragraph (e)(1)(iii) should provide for
supervision and reporting lines that are separate from supervision of
personnel under paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) of this section;
(2) For the fair and equitable allocation of securities and prices
to accounts when orders for the same security are received at
approximately the same time and are placed for execution either
individually or in combination;
(3) Where applicable and where permissible under local law, for the
crossing of buy and sell orders on a fair and equitable basis to the
parties to the transaction; and
(4) That bank officers and employees who make investment
recommendations or decisions for the accounts of customers, who
participate in the determination of such recommendations or decisions,
or who, in connection with their duties, obtain information concerning
which securities are being purchased or sold or recommended for such
action, must report to the bank, within ten days after the end of the
calendar quarter, all transactions in securities made by them or on
their behalf, either at the bank or elsewhere in which they have a
beneficial interest. The report shall identify the securities purchased
or sold and indicate the dates of the transactions and whether the
transactions were purchases or sales. Excluded from this requirement
are transactions for the benefit of the officer
[[Page 66764]]
or employee over which the officer or employee has no direct or
indirect influence or control, transactions in mutual fund shares, and
all transactions involving in the aggregate $10,000 or less during the
calendar quarter. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(4), the term
securities does not include government securities.
(f) Settlement of securities transactions. All contracts for the
purchase or sale of a security shall provide for completion of the
transaction within the number of business days in the standard
settlement cycle for the security followed by registered broker dealers
in the United States unless otherwise agreed to by the parties at the
time of the transaction.
(g) Exceptions. (1) De minimis Transactions. The requirements of
paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) through (b)(2)(iv) and paragraphs (e)(1) through
(e)(3) of this section shall not apply to banks having an average of
less than 200 securities transactions per year for customers over the
prior three calendar year period, exclusive of transactions in
government securities;
(2) Government Securities. The recordkeeping requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section shall not apply to banks effecting fewer
than 500 government securities brokerage transactions per year;
provided that this exception shall not apply to government securities
transactions by a state member bank that has filed a written notice, or
is required to file notice, with the Federal Reserve that it acts as a
government securities broker or a government securities dealer;
(3) Municipal Securities. The municipal securities activities of a
state member bank that are subject to regulations promulgated by the
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board shall not be subject to the
requirements of this section; and
(4) Foreign Branches. The requirements of this section shall not
apply to the activities of foreign branches of a state member bank.
(h) Safe and sound operations. Every State member bank qualifying
for an exemption under paragraph (g) of this section that conducts
securities transactions for customers shall, to ensure safe and sound
operations, maintain effective systems of records and controls
regarding their customer securities transactions that clearly and
accurately reflect appropriate information and provide an adequate
basis for an audit of the information.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, December, 19, 1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-31234 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31217 Regattas and Marine Parades; Permit Application Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66773-66776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31217]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD 95-054]
RIN 2115-AF17
Regattas and Marine Parades; Permit Application Procedures
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In keeping with the National Performance Review, the Coast
Guard is examining its procedures for permitting regattas and marine
parades in order to improve its service to event sponsors and affected
navigation in the event area. In order to identify and consider the
permitting procedures and application requirements which should be
modified or removed, the Coast Guard is requesting comments from
interested and affected individuals and entities early in the process.
This regulatory review seeks to identify better ways to reduce permit
application processing time and eliminate unnecessary paperwork without
adversely affecting vessel safety in the event area.
DATES: Comments are requested by February 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 95-054), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477. The Executive Secretary maintains the public
docket for this notice. Comments will become part of this docket and
will be available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters.
The minutes of National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC)
meetings at which regatta and marine parade permit application issues
were discussed are available for examination in the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carlton Perry, Project Manager, Auxiliary, Boating, and Consumer
Affairs Division, (202) 267-0979. A copy of this notice may be obtained
by calling the Coast Guard's toll-free Coast Guard Customer Infoline,
1-800-368-5647. In Washington, DC, call 267-0780.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this request for comments by submitting written data, views or
arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their names and
addresses and identify this notice (CGD 95-054). Please submit two
copies of all comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger
than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.
Persons wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comments should enclose
stamped, self-addressed postcards or envelopes.
Background and Purpose
Under 33 U.S.C. 1233, the Coast Guard has discretionary authority
to issue regulations to promote the safety of life on navigable waters
during regattas or marine parades. Section 100.15 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations prescribes the requirements for regatta and marine
parade (marine event) permit applications, including: (1) which events
require a Coast Guard marine event permit; (2) limiting the validity of
a marine event permit to not exceed one year; (3) the timeframe for
submitting permit applications; and (4) information the sponsor must
provide in an application package.
The Coast Guard reviews all regatta permit applications to
determine whether or not a permit is required to hold the event. The
Coast Guard checks the permit application package for completeness and
contacts the applicant for missing or additional information. Permit
applications are reviewed for extra or unusual hazards to the safety of
life, such as an inherently hazardous competition; customary presence
of commercial or pleasure craft in the area; any obstruction of a
navigable channel; and accumulation of spectator craft. The Coast Guard
addresses this extra or unusual hazard in a cooperative effort between
the event sponsor and the issuing authority, e.g., a Coast Guard Group
Commander, throughout the permit application review process. The Coast
Guard issuing authority discusses the location and conduct of the
event, consults with other affected commands, e.g., Captain of the Port
or Vessel Traffic Service Center, assigns and directs safety patrol
craft, in addition to sponsor provided safety patrol craft, as deemed
necessary, establishes a safety patrol communication plan for use
before, during and immediately after the event, and notifies local
navigation of the event through the Local Notice to Mariners and often
through local media sources, as well.
The Coast Guard may also need to contact Federal, State or local
agency offices to determine if there are conflicting activities
scheduled in the area. Not all events for which a permit application is
submitted require Coast Guard approval. Those applications are returned
to the sponsors with notification that the event does not require a
permit. If a permit for a marine event is required, the Coast Guard
must decide whether the permit should be issued or denied.
When necessary, the Coast Guard promulgates special local
regulations in the Federal Register to ensure safety of life on
navigable waters before, during, and after an approved marine event.
These regulations may include restricted or other controlled movement
of navigation through the event area. Before promulgating special local
regulations, the Coast Guard must give the public notice and an
opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations.
Applications for marine events which require a permit must also be
reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Coast Guard procedures for
complying with laws to protect the environment. Environmental review
may require coordination with Federal, State, or local government
environmental agencies to use their special expertise in determining
whether the marine event
[[Page 66774]]
has the potential for adverse environmental effects. Specific
environmental documentation may be required in those cases where a
potential for adverse effects exists.
Early Participation
The Coast Guard has consulted previously with the National Boating
Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) on regatta and marine parade permit
procedures and their opinions and advice have been considered in the
formulation of this notice. NBSAC conducted a regular periodic review
of all then current recreational boating safety regulations at its May,
1986, meeting. At its November, 1986, meeting, NBSAC recommended only
that the Coast Guard increase the permit application submission time
from 30 days to 60 days. NBSAC conducted another regular periodic
review of all then current recreational boating safety regulations at
its May, 1992, meeting. At that meeting, NBSAC recommended increasing
the permit application submission time, possibly with a two tier
system. The minutes of NBSAC meetings at which regatta permit
application submission times were discussed are available for
examination in the docket, at the address under ADDRESSES.
The Coast Guard will continue to consult with NBSAC on regatta and
marine parade permitting issues as the regulatory project develops.
In 1988, under Coast Guard docket 87-087; RIN: 2115-AC84, the Coast
Guard proposed increasing the submission time for all marine events to
90 days prior to an event (53 FR 3221; February 4, 1988). The Coast
Guard received 45 letters commenting on the proposal.
Most of the 45 comments on the proposal were submitted by event
sponsors, which ranged from small sailing clubs and regional and
national sailing or boating associations to a municipality and two
commercial fireworks display sponsors. Most of the comments
acknowledged or supported a need for some increase in the submission
time for permit applications for some events, but objected to the
proposed 90-day submission time for all events. A few comments
supported the proposed submission time of 90 days for larger events.
Another comment suggested requiring a submission time of 105 days to
allow for a full environmental impact analysis.
Many comments emphasized planning problems faced by sponsors due to
short seasons, volunteer organization officials, long periods of
inactivity prior to the boating season start-up events, and difficulty
in getting firm, detailed information sooner than 30 days before an
event.
Some other suggestions included: delaying the final decision on a
permit application until adequate information is submitted or starting
a 60-day review once all needed information is submitted; requiring the
applicant to accept more coordination responsibility to help the Coast
Guard complete required procedures in less than 90 days; accepting
applications up to 30 days late, if accompanied by a $250 late fee; and
streamlining the process by using computer systems for data collection.
Since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published for
this rulemaking, the Coast Guard has participated in the National
Performance Review and initiated a broader regulatory examination of
the entire Regatta and Marine Parade Permit process, including
appropriate permit application submission times. Therefore, the Coast
Guard is withdrawing the single issue rulemaking project under docket
number 87-087, published elsewhere in this issue, and merging that
docket with this docket number 95-054. The permit application
submission time issue will be included in the broader overall review
and revision of the regatta and marine parade permit process
regulations and evolve into a proposed rulemaking after consideration
of the comments received.
Solicitation of Views
The Coast Guard strives to reach consensus among all stakeholders
in waterways activities, across all modes of transportation. These
stakeholders generally include, commercial and recreational navigation,
marine event sponsors, participants and spectators, environmental
interests, and local communities. These customers' needs define Coast
Guard marine event permit program workloads and priorities, and
customer satisfaction measures the program's success.
The Coast Guard solicits comments from all segments of the marine
community, State and local authorities, National Boating Safety
Advisory Council (NBSAC), and other interested persons on permit
application requirements, including submitted information requirements,
and economic, navigational safety, environmental protection, and other
impacts of approving permits for marine events. The Coast Guard also
requests suggested alternatives related to when a permit should be
required, how frequently to submit permit applications for repetitive
events, what time period before the start of an event should an
application be submitted to enable the Coast Guard to conduct its
analyses, coordination, consultation with other expert agencies and
meet its responsibilities to ensure the safety of navigation and
protection of the environment, prior to the start of the event. Persons
submitting comments should do so as directed under Request for Comments
above, and specify the area(s) of concern on which comments are being
submitted, state what impacts may result from one or more alternatives
identified, suggest other alternatives, and provide reasons to support
the information provided on potential impact or suggested alternatives.
The Coast Guard is particularly interested in receiving information,
views, and data on the following questions and areas of concern:
1. Should the Coast Guard Permit Marine Events Located in Navigable
Waters of the United States?
In 33 CFR 100.15(a), an application must be submitted to the Coast
Guard when a regatta or marine parade which, by its nature,
circumstances or location, will introduce extra or unusual hazards to
the safety of life of the navigable waters of the United States.
Examples of conditions which are deemed to introduce extra or unusual
hazards to the safety of life include but are not limited to: An
inherently hazardous competition, the customary presence of commercial
or pleasure craft in the area, any obstruction of navigable channel
which may reasonably be expected to result, and the expected
accumulation of spectator craft.
Should a Coast Guard permit be required for any marine events?
What kind of marine events should require a Coast Guard permit?
What circumstances related to a marine event should trigger the
requirement to submit an application for Coast Guard approval of the
event?
What kind of marine events should not require a Coast Guard permit?
What kind of marine events should the Coast Guard only act on as a
coordinator or clearing house of information and advise local
navigation of the event by Local Notice to Mariners?
2. Should the Coast Guard Continue to Limit the Effect of a Marine
Event Permit to One Calendar Year?
Under 33 CFR 100.15(b), the Coast Guard is authorized to grant a
permit for a series of events for a fixed period of time, not to exceed
one year. Some events have been held several times
[[Page 66775]]
during a year at the same location or locations; other events may be
held annually at the same location.
Should the Coast Guard issue multi-year permits for marine events
held regularly by a sponsor over several years during the same time
period at the same location?
Should the Coast Guard implement fast-track renewals of annual
permits for marine events held regularly by a sponsor over several
years during the same time period at the same location?
3. How Early Should a Permit Application be Submitted to the Coast
Guard Before the Start of a Marine Event?
Under 33 CFR 100.15(c), an application must be submitted no less
than 30 days prior to the start of the proposed event. The Coast Guard
is currently analyzing its business processes to determine whether and
how much additional time before an event date is needed in order to
complete processing applications for regattas and marine parades.
The Coast Guard is also considering whether to maintain one minimum
time period for submitting all permit applications before the start of
an event or establish two minimum time periods, a short time for most
permit applications and a longer time for the small number of permit
applications that require more time to process. Establishing two
minimum time periods could strike a balance between the difficulty many
sponsors face to submit detailed permit applications far in advance of
a proposed event and the Coast Guard's need for some additional time to
conduct necessary navigation safety reviews, to contact appropriate
Federal, State and local agencies, to prepare appropriate environmental
documents, and to promulgate required special local regulations. Permit
applications for most marine events could be submitted a short time
(e.g., 30, 45 or 60 days) before a proposed event and allow sufficient
time for the Coast Guard to complete processing the permit application.
However, permit applications for other marine events that require
additional consultation, notification, or documentation should be
submitted much earlier before the event (e.g., 60, 90, 105, 120 or more
days) or the sponsor may have to cancel the event or postpone it until
the Coast Guard completes its required procedures. Submitting permit
applications earlier for events for which the Coast Guard must prepare
an environmental assessment or promulgate special local regulations
should allow sufficient time for the Coast Guard to complete consulting
with environmental agencies and to provide notice and public comment on
proposed safety regulations, without unreasonably burdening sponsoring
organizations.
Should the Coast Guard retain a single minimum permit application
submission time for all marine events?
Should the Coast Guard establish minimum permit application
submission times for two or more categories of marine events?
What minimum permit application submission time(s) should the Coast
Guard establish for what category(ies) of marine events?
4. What Information Should a Sponsor Provide in a Marine Event Permit
Application?
Under 33 CFR 100.15(d), a permit application shall include the
following details:
(1) Name and address of sponsoring organization.
(2) Name, address, and telephone of person or persons in charge of
the event.
(3) Nature and purpose of the event.
(4) Information as to general public interest.
(5) Estimated number and types of watercraft participating in the
event.
(6) Estimated number and types of spectator watercraft.
(7) Number of boats being furnished by sponsoring organizations to
patrol event.
(8) A time schedule and description of events.
(9) A section of a chart or scale drawing showing the boundaries of
the event, various water courses or areas to be utilized by
participants, officials, and spectator craft.
Section 100.15(d), last revised in 1963, does not address
collection of any information related to potential adverse impacts that
the event may have on the environment in the event area, or mitigation
measures for those impacts. In an effort to avoid delaying scheduled
marine events due to permit application processing, while still
complying with its responsibilities under laws for protection of the
environment, the Coast Guard has been accepting information voluntarily
provided by event sponsors that address potential impacts the event may
have on the environment, any Federal, State or local environmental
agencies to sponsor may have contacted and any comments they may have
had regarding the event, and other related environmental information.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the
Coast Guard has previously submitted the existing requirements to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3504(h)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and OMB
approved them. The part number is part 100 and the corresponding OMB
approval number is OMB Control Number 2115-0017. Any new information
requirements proposed in a rulemaking project developed as a result of
comments to this notice will also be submitted to OMB for review and
approval.
What information currently required should not be required?
What information related to potential environmental impacts or
mitigation of adverse impacts should be required?
What information should be initially submitted to allow the Coast
Guard to begin processing the application?
What information should the sponsor be allowed to submit later in
the process, but before a permit is issued?
5. What Economic Impacts May Result From Requiring Earlier Permit
Application Submission Times or Additional Permit Application
Information?
Currently, Coast Guard permit issuing officials rely on statements
of coordination made by the sponsor, and when time permits provide
notice to affected navigation interests by announcements in a Local
Notice to Mariners and direct mailing or telephone contracts, and by
publishing needed special local regulations in the Federal Register.
What economic impacts may occur due to longer processing time for
the Coast Guard to hold public hearings on safety of life in the event
area, provide notice to and receive input from affected navigation, and
to consult with appropriate Federal, State and local government
environmental agencies on potential adverse impacts the event may have
on the environment?
What economic impacts are currently incurred in applying for a
Coast Guard marine event permit?
6. Other Factor or Information
Is there any other information you feel may be helpful to assist
the Coast Guard in processing permit applications for event sponsors in
a timely manner while allowing adequate public notice to navigation and
environmental interests, including holding public hearings for certain
events; consulting with other Federal, State and local agencies;
promulgating special local regulations to ensure vessel safety
immediately before, during and after an event; and preparing needed
environmental documentation, prior to the date of the event?
[[Page 66776]]
What other alternatives regarding the permitting of regatta and
marine parades to ensure the safety of life and protection of the
environment should the Coast Guard consider?
What other factors or information should be considered in revising
Coast Guard procedures for processing permit applications?
All comments received by the Coast Guard as a result of this notice
will be summarized and provided to NBSAC members for their
consideration and consultation. The Coast Guard will consider all
relevant comments in the development of any regulatory project to
revise its procedures for processing applications for approval of
regattas and marine parades.
Dated: December 18, 1995.
Rudy K. Peschel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 95-31217 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31216 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chehalis River, WA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66776-66777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31216]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD13-95-051]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Chehalis River, WA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the Washington Department of Transportation,
the Coast Guard is considering an amendment to the regulations
governing the operation of the Union Pacific railroad drawbridge and
the U.S. Route 101 bridge over the Chehalis River at Aberdeen,
Washington. The proposed rule would remove the portion of the existing
regulations pertaining to the Union Pacific railroad drawbridge because
that bridge is no longer in operation and will be removed. The proposed
rule would also require one hour notice at all times for opening the
drawspan of the U.S. Route 101 bridge for the passage of vessels.
Finally, the proposed rule would change the special sound signal for
requesting openings of the U.S. Route 101 bridge to the standard signal
of one prolonged blast followed by one short blast.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (oan), Thirteenth
Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98174-
1067. The comments and other materials referenced in this notice will
be available for inspection and copying at 915 Second Avenue, Room
3410, Seattle, Washington. Normal office hours are between 7:45 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Comments
may also be hand-delivered to this address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John E. Mikesell, Chief, Plans and Programs Section, Aids to Navigation
and Waterways Management Branch, (Telephone: (206) 220-7270).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses,
identify this rulemaking (CGD13-95-051) and the specific section of
this proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for
each comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments
in unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgement of
receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or
envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposal in view of the comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a
public hearing by writing to the Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District at the address under ADDRESSES. The request should include the
reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If it determines that the
opportunity for oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast
Guard will hold a hearing at a time and place announced by a later
notice in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The drafters of this notice are Austin Pratt, Project Officer,
Thirteenth Coast Guard District Aids to Navigation and Waterfront
Management Branch and Lieutenant Commander John C. Odell, Project
Attorney, Thirteenth Coast Guard District Legal Office.
Background and Purpose
At the request of the Washington Department of Transportation, the
Coast Guard is considering an amendment to the regulations governing
the operation of the Union Pacific railroad drawbridge and the U.S.
Route 101 bridge over the Chehalis River at Aberdeen, Washington.
The proposed rule would remove the portion of the existing
regulations pertaining to the Union Pacific railroad drawbridge because
that bridge is no longer in operation and will be removed.
The proposed rule would also amend the current regulations
pertaining to the U.S. Route 101 bridge to require one hour notice at
all times when requesting an opening drawspan for the passage of a
vessel.
Current regulations require the drawspan of the U.S. Route 101
bridge to be opened on signal from one hour before sunrise to one hour
after sunset. The Washington State Department of Transportation
operates four other drawbridges across the nearby Hoquiam and Wishkah
Rivers. These other bridges are presently operated on a one-hour notice
basis. In recent years, requests for openings at these bridges have
decreased. If the proposed one hour notice for the U.S. Route 101
bridge over the Chehalis River at Aberdeen, Washington, were adopted in
conformity with the regulations governing the other bridges in the
area, the Washington Department of Transportation would be able to
serve all five drawbridges with a single operator.
The U.S. Route 101 bridge over the Chehalis River at Aberdeen,
Washington, opened 359 times for vessel transits in the year measured
from October 1993 to October 1994. This average somewhat less than one
opening per day. The number of openings for the nearby drawbridges on
the Wishkah and Hoquiam Rivers averaged 0.23 per day for the same year.
These figures indicate that a single operator, provided with one hour
notice, could operate all five of these bridges without unreasonable
delay.
Under the proposed rule, the weekday closed periods for
accommodating commuter traffic on the roadway would remain unchanged,
as would the exception for vessels of 5000 gross tons or more. Under
the proposed rule, however, vessels of 5000 gross tons or more would be
required to provided the proposed one hour notice when requesting an
opening during the weekday closed periods.
Finally, under the proposed rule the special sound signal
prescribed for requesting an opening at the U.S. Route 101 bridge would
also be deleted in order to conform to the standard signal of one
prolonged blast followed by one short blast as generally required by 33
CFR 117.15. A unique sound signal is no longer needed because the
adjacent Union Pacific railroad drawbridge immediately downstream of
the U.S.
[[Page 66777]]
Route 101 bridge is no longer in operation and will be removed.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would amend 33 CFR 117.1031 by removing paragraph
(a) which pertains to the Union Pacific railroad drawbridge. The
proposed rule would also remove the designation ``(b)'' from paragraph
(b) pertaining to the U.S. Route 101 bridge and amend that paragraph to
state that the draw shall be opened on signal if at least one hour
notice is provided. No special sound signal other than the standard
signal prescribed by Sec. 117.15 would be required for requesting an
opening of the U.S. Route 101 bridge. Retained would be the provision
that the draw of the U.S. Route 101 bridge need not open for vessels of
less than 5,000 gross tons from 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. and from 4:15
p.m. to 5:15 p.m. on weekdays, except for Federal holidays.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential cost and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has
been exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under
that order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
proposed rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. This expectation is based on the fact that vessel
operators would not be unreasonably impeded or incur additional expense
by a requirement to provide one hour notice for draw openings.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposal will have a significant
effect on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small entities''
include independently owned and operated small businesses that are not
dominant in their field and that otherwise qualify as ``small business
concerns'' under seciton 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal, if
adopted, will not have a significant impact on a significant number of
small entities.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rulemaking does not have sufificent federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
proposal and concluded that, under section 2.B.2. of Commandant
Instruction M16475.B, this proposal is categorically excluded from
further environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion
Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Proposed Regulations
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend part 117 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section
117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. Section 117.1031 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.1031 Chehalis River.
The draw of the U.S. Route 101 highway bridge, mile 0.1, at
Aberdeen, Washington, shall open on signal if at least one hour notice
is given to the Washington Department of Transportation by marine
radio, telephone, or other suitable means, except that the draw need
not open for vessels of less than 5,000 gross tons from 7:15 a.m. to
8:15 a.m. and from 4:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Dated: December 15, 1995.
J.W. Lockwood,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, 13th Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 95-31216 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31215 Regattas and Marine Parades
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66772-66773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31215]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD 87-087]
RIN 2115-AC84
Regattas and Marine Parades
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its rulemaking to increase the
time requirement for submitting permit applications to the Coast Guard
for approval prior to the start of a regatta or marine parade event.
Since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published for this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard has participated in the National
Performance Review and has determined that a broader regulatory
examination of the entire Regatta and marine Parade Permit process,
including the issue of appropriate permit application submission times,
was needed. Therefore, this single issue rulemaking project is being
withdrawn and the permit application submission time issue will be
included in the broader overall review and revision of the regatta and
marine parade permit process regulations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carlton Perry, Auxiliary, Boating, and Consumer Affairs Division, (202)
267-0979.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 4, 1988, the Coast Guard
published an NPRM entitled Regattas and Marine Parades in the Federal
Register (53 FR 3221). Interested persons were given until April 4,
1988, to submit comments. The Coast Guard received 45 letters
commenting on the proposal.
Most of the 45 comments on the NPRM were submitted by event
sponsors, which ranged from small sailing clubs and regional and
national sailing or boating associations to a municipality and two
commercial fireworks display sponsors. Most of the comments
acknowledged or supported a need for some increase in the submission
time for permit applications for some events, but objected to the
proposed submission time of 90 days for
[[Page 66773]]
all marine events and suggested various submission times of 60 days or
less. A few comments supported the proposed submission time of 90 days
for larger events. Another comment suggested requiring a submission
time of 105 days to allow for a full environmental impact analysis.
Many comments emphasized planning problems faced by sponsors due to
short seasons, volunteer organization officials, long periods of
inactivity prior to the boating season start-up events, and difficulty
in getting firm, detailed information sooner than 30 days before an
event.
The Coast Guard has determined that the best course of action at
this point is to withdraw this single issue rulemaking and examine the
issue of permit application submission times as part of a broader
project to conduct a regulatory review of the entire regatta and marine
parade permit process, [CGD 95-054] published elsewhere in this issue.
Therefore, the Coast Guard is withdrawing the rulemaking [CGD 87-087]
and merging its docket with [CGD 95-054].
Dated: December 18, 1995.
Rudy K. Peschel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 95-31215 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31064 Finality of Records of Compensation
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66770-66771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31064]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
20 CFR Part 211
RIN 3220-AB10
Finality of Records of Compensation
AGENCY: Railroad Retirement Board.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Railroad Retirement Board (Board) hereby proposes to adopt
regulations pertaining to the finality of reports of compensation. The
proposed regulations relate to corrections to records of compensation
more than four years after the date on which the compensation was
required to be reported to the Board.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North
Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael C. Litt, General Attorney, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North
Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611, telephone (312) 751-4929, TTD
(312) 751-4701.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board's rules and procedures regarding
the finality and reports of compensation are presently contained in
Board Orders, which are not readily available to the public.
The proposed rule would amend part 211 of the Board's regulations
(Creditable Railroad Compensation) by adding a new Sec. 211.16 to this
part. Under section 9 of the Railroad Retirement Act, the Board will
not change an employee's record of reported compensation if the change
is requested more than four years after the report of compensation is
required to be filed under Sec. 209.6 of the Board's regulations.
Proposed Sec. 211.16 explains when the Board will change a record of
compensation beyond the four year period; for example, where the record
is incorrect because of clerical error or fraud, where the compensation
was posted to the wrong period or person, or where the compensation was
originally reported to the Social Security Administration but the Board
or a court has determined that it should have been reported to the
Board. Changes to credit compensation and service after the four year
period could be made only where taxes due under the Railroad Retirement
Tax Act have been paid.
The Labor Member of the Board dissented from the action of the
majority of the Board approving the proposed rule. The Labor Member's
reasons for dissenting from this action are set out below.
Views of the Labor Member of the Board
The Labor Member feels that this proposed revision to part 211
presents a major change in the crediting of compensation and service,
in that if the four year time limit for corrections to records of
compensation has passed, no employee may be credited with service
months or compensation unless the employee establishes that all
employment taxes have been paid with respect to this service. The Labor
Member acknowledges that in the current environment where the Internal
Revenue Service has responsibility for assessing and collecting taxes
under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act and the Board has the
responsibility for crediting compensation and service, a lack of
coordination is inevitable. He contends that this should in no way
compel the Board to limit the granting of legitimate railroad
retirement credits, but that the change proposed by the majority of the
Board would do this.
The Labor Member feels that this change could also put an employee
in a ``catch 22'' situation since there could be questions as to the
employee's status under the Social Security Act for the period where
the employer is found to be covered under the Railroad Retirement Act,
but because no railroad retirement taxes had been paid, the employee
would receive no railroad retirement credit. Conceivably, the employee
would receive no credit under either Act. The Labor Member points out
that currently there are many situations where the Board may correct a
compensation record retroactively. There are cases where earnings were
erroneously reported to the Social Security Administration by the
employer and, subsequently, the Board rules that the employer is
covered under the Railroad Retirement Act. The Board may correct a
record of compensation where such correction is determined or approved
by a court having jurisdiction to make such a decision, or as a result
of a settlement entered into by the employer and the Internal Revenue
Service.
The Labor Member does not endorse the change recommended by the
majority of the Board. Instead, he feels that the Board should make a
concerted effort to identify when an employer or employee is, in fact,
covered under the Railroad Retirement Act and attempt to mitigate the
consequences of decisions that retroact over several years. He submits
that we are, in fact, doing this now with the assistance of our
agency's Audit and Compliance Division which
[[Page 66771]]
is successfully dedicating significant resources to this effort.
The Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and
Budget, has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866; therefore, no regulatory impact analysis
is required. There are no information collections associated with this
rule.
List of Subjects in 20 CFR Parts 211
Pensions, Railroad employees, Railroad retirement.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter II of title 20 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 211--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 211 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 45 U.S.C. 231(f).
2. Part 211 is amended by adding a new Sec. 211.16 to read as
follows:
Sec. 211.16 Finaility of records of compensation.
(a) Time limit for corrections to records of compensation. The
Board's record of the compensation reported as paid to an employee for
a given period shall be conclusive as to amount, or if no compensation
was reported for such period, then as to the employee's having received
no compensation for such period, unless the error in the amount of
compensation or the failure to make return of the compensation is
called to the attention of the Board within four years after the date
on which the compensation was required to be reported to the Board as
provided for in Sec. 209.6 of this chapter.
(b) Correction after 4 years. Subject to paragraph (c) of this
section, the Board may correct a report of compensation after the time
limit set forth in paragraph (a) of this section for one of the
following reasons:
(1) Where the compensation was posted as the result of fraud;
(2) Where the compensation was posted for the wrong person or the
wrong period;
(3) Where the earnings were erroneously reported to the Social
Security Administration in the good faith belief by the employer or
employee that such earnings were not covered under the Railroad
Retirement Act and there is a final decision of the Board under part
259 of this chapter that such employer or employee was covered under
the Railroad Retirement Act during the period in which the earnings
were paid;
(4) Where a determination pertaining to the coverage under the
Railroad Retirement Act of an individual, partnership, or company as an
employer, is retroactive; and
(5) Where a record of compensation could not otherwise be corrected
under this part and where in the judgment of the three-member Board
that heads the Railroad Retirement Board failure to make a correction
would be inequitable.
(c) Limitation on crediting service. No employee may be credited
with service months or tier II compensation beyond the four year period
referred to in paragraph (a) of this section unless the employee
establishes to the satisfaction of the Board that all employment taxes
imposed by sections 3201, 3211, and 3221 of title 26 of the Internal
Revenue Code have been paid with respect to the compensation and
service.
Dated: December 15, 1995.
By Authority of the Board.
Beatrice Ezerski,
Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-31064 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31037 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee: Revisions to Knox County Regulations for Appeals, Violations, Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66777-66778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31037]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TN-134-1-6769b; FRL-5317-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee:
Revisions to Knox County Regulations for Appeals, Violations,
Monitoring, Recording, and Reporting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee for the purpose of
incorporating changes to regulations for appeals, judicial review,
violations, and monitoring, recording and reporting in the Knox County
portion of the Tennessee SIP. In the final rules section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to
this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any
parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this
time.
DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by January 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Karen
Borel, at the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents
relative to this action are available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the following locations. The interested
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
[[Page 66778]]
Knox County Department of Air Pollution Control, City-County
Building, Suite 339, 400 West Main Street, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen C. Borel, Regulatory Planning
and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is
404/347-3555 x4197. Reference file TN134-01-6769.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal
Register.
Dated: October 2, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-31037 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31035 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Maine; NOINFX Exemption Request for Northern Maine and NOINFX Control Approval
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31035]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[ME26-1-7263b; FRL-5345-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Maine;
NOX Exemption Request for Northern Maine and NOX Control
Approval
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving, through direct final rulemaking
procedures, a limited exemption request from the requirements contained
in Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (Act) for the Northern Maine
area (specifically, Oxford, Franklin, Somerset, Piscataquis, Penobscot,
Washington, Aroostook, Hancock and Waldo Counties). These 9 counties,
as with the rest of the State of Maine, are part of the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) as provided for in section 184(a) of the Clean Air Act.
Section 182(f) in combination with section 184 (relating to ozone
transport regions) of the Act requires States in the OTR, such as
Maine, to adopt reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules
for major stationary sources of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and to
provide for nonattainment area new source review (NSR) for new sources
and modifications that are major for NOX. This exemption request,
submitted by the State of Maine on September 7, 1995, is based on a
demonstration that NOX emissions in this 9 county area are not
impacting Maine's moderate nonattainment areas or other nonattainment
areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) during times when elevated
ozone levels are monitored in those areas. As such, additional
reductions in NOX emissions from these 9 counties beyond what the
State regulations would provide for are not necessary for attainment in
these areas, and, because they do not contribute to the ozone problem
anywhere in the OTR, are also not necessary for purposes of showing
future attainment for any other area in the OTR. Thus, as provided for
in section 182(f)(2), additional NOX reductions in these areas
would constitute excess reductions that can be waived under the Clean
Air Act. Maine has requested that EPA combine its approval of this
NOX exemption with its approval of NOX controls for existing
sources in Northern Maine that were submitted to EPA on August 5, 1994
for purposes of meeting the Act's NOX RACT requirements.
Consequently, this action approves a full exemption from nonattainment
NSR requirements for NOX, but only a limited exemption from
NOX control measures for existing sources that would go beyond
what the State regulations provide for.
In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving this exemption request and limited NOX controls for this
area as a direct final rule without prior proposal. A detailed
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. This
direct final rule also includes EPA's response to several comments
submitted by groups on past NOX exemption requests. If no
additional adverse comments are received in response to the direct
final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this
proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this action must be received by January 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the State
submittal and EPA's technical support document are available for public
inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office
of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
I, One Congress Street, 10th floor, Boston, MA and the Bureau of Air
Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, 71 Hospital
Street, Augusta, ME 04333.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, Environmental
Engineer, Air Quality Planning (ATS), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, JFK Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203.
(617) 565-4874.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4201-7601q
Dated: December 1, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-31035 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-30828 Certain Transfers of Domestic Stock or Securities by U.S. Persons to Foreign Corporations
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66771-66772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30828]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[INTL-0009-95]
RIN 1545-AT42
Certain Transfers of Domestic Stock or Securities by U.S. Persons
to Foreign Corporations
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary
regulations and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations revising the
rules under section 367(a) with respect to certain transfers of stock
or securities of domestic corporations by United States persons
pursuant to the corporate organization, reorganization or liquidation
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The text of those temporary
regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. This
document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed
regulations.
DATES: Written comments must be received by March 25, 1996. Outlines of
topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for April 11,
1996, at 10 a.m. must be received by March 21, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (INTL 0009-95), Room
5228, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044. In the alternative, submissions may be hand
delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:DOM:CORP:R
(INTL-0009-95), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The public hearing will be held
in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Philip L.
Tretiak at (202) 622-3860; concerning submissions and the hearing,
Christina Vasquez at (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed
rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507).
Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the
Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department
of Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington,
DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS
Reports Clearance Officer, T:FP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the
collection of information should be received by February 26, 1996.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid control number.
The collection of information is in Sec. 1.367(a)-3T(c)(4). This
information is required by the IRS as a condition for a taxpayer to
qualify for an exception to the general rule of taxation under section
367(a)(1). This information will be used to determine whether a
taxpayer properly qualifies for a claimed exception. The respondents
generally will be U.S. corporations, probably U.S. multinationals, that
are acquired by foreign companies pursuant to nonrecognition exchanges
or that engage in joint ventures with foreign companies. Responses to
this collection of information by the relevant U.S. corporations are
required in order for the shareholders of such corporations to
[[Page 66772]]
qualify for an exception to the general rule under section 367(a)(1).
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be
retained as long as their contents may become material in the
administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Estimated total annual reporting burden: 1,000 hours. The estimated
annual burden per respondent varies from 1 hour to 20 hours, depending
on individual circumstances, with an estimated average of 10 hours.
Estimated number of respondents: 100.
Estimated annual frequency of responses: Once.
Background
The temporary regulations published in the Rules and Regulations
section of this issue of the Federal Register amend the Income Tax
Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 367(a). The temporary
regulations contain rules relating to the transfer of stock or
securities by a United States person to a foreign corporation in an
exchange described in section 367(a).
The text of those temporary regulations also serves as the text of
these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations
explains the temporary regulations. Final regulations under section
367(a) regarding transfers of stock or securities will integrate the
proposed regulations herein with the notice of proposed rulemaking
published on August 26, 1991, in the Federal Register (56 FR 41993).
Thus, the proposed regulations herein supplement and, where
inconsistent with, supersede, the 1991 proposed regulations.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is
not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order
12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also
been determined that this regulation does not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply to these
regulations, and therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code,
this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment
on their impact on small business.
Comments and Notice of Public Hearing
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any written comments (a signed original
and eight (8) copies) that are submitted timely to the Internal Revenue
Service. All comments will be available for public inspection and
copying.
A public hearing has been scheduled for April 11, 1996, at 10 a.m.
in the IRS Auditorium. Because of access restrictions, visitors will
not be admitted beyond the building lobby more than 15 minutes before
the hearing starts.
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing.
Persons that wish to present oral comments at the hearing must
submit written comments by March 25, 1996 and submit an outline of the
topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed
original and eight (8) copies) by March 21, 1996.
A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making
comments.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared
after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the
agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Philip L.
Tretiak of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International),
Internal Revenue Service. However, other personnel from the IRS and
Treasury Department participated in their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income tax, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Par. 2. New Sec. 1.367-9 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.367(a)-9 Transfers by U.S. persons of stock or securities of
domestic corporations to foreign corporations.
[The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of
paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g)(1), and (h)(1) of Sec. 1.367-3T
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 95-30828 Filed 12-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.