issue-1996-05-13•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-13
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-13
issue-1996-05-13Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-13Proposed 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. 96-11965 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Increase in Page Limits for Comments and Reply Comments on Proposed Rule
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22008-22010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11965]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[CC Docket No. 96-98, DA 96-700]
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Increase in Page Limits for Comments
and Reply Comments on Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 19, 1996, the Commission adopted and released a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to implement provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 that address local competition. In
addition to seeking comment on substantive rules, the NPRM established
a limit of seventy-five (75) pages for the initial round of comments
and thirty-five (35) pages for reply comments. Exhibits, appendices,
and affidavits of expert
[[Page 22009]]
witnesses are counted towards these page limits. In response to motions
filed by GTE Service Corporation and the Consumer Federation of
America, the Commission hereby increases the limit for initial comments
from 75 to 120 pages and the limit for replies from 35 to 50 pages. In
addition, the Commission expands the exclusion from these page limits
to include any technical diagrams submitted by commenters in addition
to the previously excluded documents. These modifications are intended
to permit the development of the best possible record in light of the
statutory deadline.
DATES: Comments on all sections of the NPRM other than Dialing Parity,
Number Administration, Public Notice of Technical Changes, and Access
to Rights of Way, must be submitted on or before May 16, 1996. Reply
Comments must be filed on or before May 30, 1996. Comments on the
remaining sections must be submitted on or before May 20, 1996. Reply
comments for these sections must be submitted on or before June 3,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room
222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Janice Myles of the Common
Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C. 20554.
A copy of Comments and Reply Comments on Dialing Parity, Number
Administration, Public Notice of Technical Changes, and Access to
Rights of Way should be submitted to Gloria Shambley of the Network
Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, 2000 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any
documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite
140, Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C.
20554. Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on
diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a
substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties
submitting diskettes should submit them to Janice Myles of the Common
Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C. 20554.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the information collections contained herein should be
remitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room
234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 or via the Internet to
[email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,
725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kalpak Gude at (202) 418-1580, Common
Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Adopted: May 7, 1996
Released: May 7, 1996
By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:
1. On April 19, 1996, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Notice) in CC Docket No. 96-98 to implement the local
competition provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC
Docket No. 96-98, FCC 96-182, 61 FR 18311 (April 25, 1996). The NPRM
provided that comments were to be no longer than seventy-five (75)
pages and that reply comments were to be no longer than thirty-five
(35) pages, including exhibits, appendices, and affidavits of expert
witnesses. Empirical economic studies and copies of relevant state
orders were not to be counted against these page limits. The NPRM
required parties to file comments by May 16, 1996 and reply comments by
May 30, 1996. The NPRM established separate comment and reply dates for
issues regarding Dialing Parity, Number Administration, Notice of
Technical Changes, and Access to Rights of Way. Nothing in this order
alters or affects filing procedures regarding those issues.
2. On May 1, 1996, GTE Service Corporation (GTE) and the Consumer
Federation of America (CFA) filed motions for extension of time. GTE
Motion for Extension of Time and for Waiver of Page Limits (filed May
1, 1996); CFA Request for Extension of Time (filed May 1, 1996). GTE
argued that, in light of the number of issues to be addressed, the
inclusion of appendices in the page limits, the 35 page limit for
replies, and the 14 day time period for replies, will preclude
development of the most helpful and informative record. Among other
things, GTE emphasized the difficulty of reviewing the record and
filing reply comments within 14 days. GTE urged the Commission to
modify the comment filing procedures to provide that: (1) Exhibits,
appendices, and affidavits not be counted against the page limits; (2)
the page limit for replies be 50 pages; and (3) the date for filing
reply comments be increased from 14 to 21 days after the comment due
date, i.e., June 6, 1996.
3. CFA argued that this proceeding and the universal service
proceeding are inextricably linked, and that the limited comment
periods in this proceeding would have a disproportionate negative
effect on the ability of public interest groups to file comments.
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order Establishing Joint Board, CC Docket No. 96-45, FCC
96-93, 61 FR 10499 (March 14, 1996). CFA argued that large
telecommunications companies with substantial resources would have less
difficulty participating in both proceedings, while public interest
groups may be forced to either file comments which are less than
complete or not file comments at all. CFA asserted that this would
result in an incomplete record. CFA requested the Commission to extend
the time to file comments until June 13, 1996 and the time for reply
comments until July 3, 1996.
4. In light of concerns expressed by the parties, and in the
interest of building the best record possible under the existing
circumstances, the page limitations are modified as follows: (1)
Comments must be no longer than one hundred twenty (120) pages and
reply comments no longer than fifty (50) pages; (2) in addition to
empirical economic studies and copies of relevant state orders,
technical diagrams will not count against these page limitations; and
(3) an additional 4 copies of comments and reply comments must be sent
to Janice Myles of the Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW., Room
544, Washington, DC 20554. We decline to adopt GTE's request that
exhibits, appendices and affidavits be excluded from the page limit
since we believe that this could easily be tantamount to removing the
page limitations altogether. In lieu of this, we are increasing the
page limit for comments substantially, from 75 to 120 pages. We are
also increasing the page limit for replies to 50 pages as requested by
GTE.
5. We deny the GTE and CFA requests for extension of the dates for
filing comments and/or replies. Although the current pleading schedule
is relatively compressed given the scope of the issues involved, we do
not believe that we can extend the filing dates without compromising
the Commission's ability to meet the implementation schedule mandated
by Congress.
[[Page 22010]]
6. In order to facilitate development of the best possible record
within existing constraints, we stress the need for interested parties
to present their positions fully in their initial comments. We
emphasize that the purpose of reply comments is to permit parties to
respond to the original comments. 47 CFR Sec. 1.415(c).
7. Accordingly, it is ordered that the motion for extension of time
and for waiver of page limits filed by GTE Service Corporation is
granted to the extent indicated above and otherwise denied.
8. It is further ordered that the request for extension of time
filed by the Consumer Federation of America is denied.
Federal Communications Commission.
Regina M. Keeney,
Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-11965 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11932 Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Ames, IA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21984-21985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11932]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-5]
Proposed Amendment to Class E Airspace; Ames, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend the Class E airspace area at
Ames, Iowa. The development of a new Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) based on the Global Positioning System (GPS) has made
the proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to
provide additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing the SIAP
at the above listed airport.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
Operations Branch, ACE-530, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No.
96-ACE-5, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the office of the Manager, Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, ACE-530C,
Federal Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone number: (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments
[[Page 21985]]
are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
ACE-5.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the procedures.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to provide additional controlled
airspace for a new Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedure at the Ames
Municipal Airport, Ames, Iowa. The additional airspace would segregate
aircraft operating under VFR conditions from aircraft operating under
IFR procedures. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical
charts thereby enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise
comply with IFR procedures. Class E airspace designations for airspace
areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the
earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Ames, IA [Revised]
Ames Municipal Airport, IA
(lat. 41 deg.59'32'' N., long. 93 deg.37'18 W.)
Ames NDB
(lat. 41 deg.59'42'' N., long. 93 deg.37'37'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of the Ames Municipal Airport, and within
2.1 miles each side of the 197 deg. bearing from the Ames NDB
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 7.4 miles south of the
airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 136 deg. bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 10 miles southeast
of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on April 9, 1996.
Christopher R. Blum,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-11932 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11926 Notice and Recordkeeping for Subscription Digital Transmissions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22003-22004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11926]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 22004]]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Chapter II
[Docket No. RM 96-3]
Notice and Recordkeeping for Subscription Digital Transmissions
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is requesting
comments on the requirements by which copyright owners shall receive
reasonable notice of the use of their works from subscription digital
transmission services, and how records of such use shall be kept and
made available to copyright owners. The regulations are required to be
adopted by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of
1995, and are intended to ensure proper payment to copyright owners.
DATES: Comments are due July 12, 1996. Reply comments are due August
12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: An original and fifteen copies of the comments shall be
delivered to: Office of General Counsel, The Copyright Office, LM-407,
The Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, D.C., or
mailed to: Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General Counsel, Copyright GC/
I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C. 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General
Counsel, or William J. Roberts, Senior Attorney, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O.
Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C. 20024. Telephone: (202)
707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 1, 1995, Congress enacted the Digital Performance Right
in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. Pub. L. 104-39, 109 Stat. 337 (1995).
Among other things, it created a new compulsory copyright license that
is paid by nonexempt subscription digital transmission services to the
copyright owners of sound recordings. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). Congress
directed the Librarian of Congress to establish regulations by which
the entities availing themselves of this new license would keep records
of their use, make the records available to the copyright owners, and
give notice to the copyright owners of the use of their works.
The Sec. 114 License for Nonexempt Subscription Digital Transmissions
Services
The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act gave to
copyright owners of sound recordings an exclusive right to perform
their works by means of a digital audio transmission. Certain digital
transmissions were exempted from the scope of this right, 17 U.S.C.
114(d)(1), while certain subscription digital transmission services
were given the opportunity to qualify for a compulsory license. 17
U.S.C. 114(d)(2).
A nonexempt subscription digital transmission qualifies for a
compulsory license if the transmission is not part of an interactive
service, does not exceed the sound recording performance complement,
does not give an advance program schedule or prior announcements of the
titles to be performed, does not automatically cause the receiving
device to switch automatically from one program channel to another, and
includes, if the copyright owner wants it, encoded information that
identifies the title, the featured artist, and related information. 17
U.S.C. 114(d)(2).
If a service offering subscription digital transmissions qualifies
for the compulsory license, it has the choice of reaching a voluntary
agreement with the owners of the sound recordings it wishes to use, or,
failing that, it may petition the Librarian of Congress to convene a
copyright arbitration royalty panel (CARP) to set the rates and terms
of the compulsory license. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). The terms and rates set by
a CARP will be applicable to all subscription digital transmission
services not subject to a voluntary agreement. However, the above
mentioned requirements for notice and recordkeeping are to be set by
the Librarian, not the CARP. 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(2).
On December 1, 1995, the Copyright Office and the Library of
Congress initiated the six month period for negotiating the rates and
terms for a compulsory license for subscription digital transmission
services. 60 FR 61655 (Dec. 1, 1995). The period will run until June 1,
1996, after which the parties have 60 days to petition the Librarian to
convene a CARP to set the rates and terms for those entities who have
not reached voluntary agreements.
In the meantime, any person who wishes to perform a sound recording
publicly by means of a nonexempt subscription transmission may do so
without infringing the rights of the copyright owner of the sound
recording by complying with the notice requirements set by the
Librarian of Congress and agreeing to pay the royalty fees as they are
determined. 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(5).
This notice requirement, however, is an affirmative duty placed on
the digital transmission subscription services to provide reasonable
notice to the copyright owners of the use of their sound recordings. 17
U.S.C. 114(f)(2). Therefore, it is important for the Copyright Office
and the Library of Congress to begin this rulemaking to establish the
notice and recordkeeping requirements so that persons wishing to abide
by section 114(f)(5) may do so.
Although we do not propose any specific regulatory language,
commentators should consider both the adequacy of the notice to the
copyright owners of the sound recordings and the administrative burdens
placed on the digital transmission services in providing notice and
maintaining records of use.
Dated: May 3, 1996.
Recommended by:
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
Approved by:
James H. Billington,
The Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 96-11926 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11905 Drawbridge Operation Regulations New Rochelle Harbor, NY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22002-22003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11905]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD01-95-002]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations New Rochelle Harbor, NY
AGENCY: Coast Guard DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing a change to the regulations
governing the Glen Island Bridge, mile 0.8, across New Rochelle Harbor
in New Rochelle, New York. The proposal would require two hours advance
notice for openings between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. from
May 1st through October 31st, and twenty-four hours advance notice
between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from November 1st through April
30th.
This change was requested by the Westchester County Department of
Parks because of the few requests for bridge openings during these time
periods. This action should relieve the bridge owner of the burden of
having personnel constantly available to open the bridge and should
provide for the reasonable needs of navigation.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (obr), First Coast
Guard District, Building 135A, Governors Island, New York, 10004-5073,
or may be hand-delivered to the same address between 6:30 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone
number is (212) 668-7170. The comments will become part of this docket
and will be available for inspection and copying by appointment at the
above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary Kassof, Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District, (212)
668-7069.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written views, comments, data, or
arguments. Persons submitting comments should include their name and
address, identify this rulemaking (CGD1 95-002), the specific section
of this proposal to which each comment applies, and give reasons for
each comment. The Coast Guard requests that all comments and
attachments be submitted in an unbound format no larger than 8\1/2\''
by 11'', suitable for copying and electronic filing. If that is not
practical, a second copy of any bound material is requested. Persons
desiring acknowledgment that their comments have been received are to
enclose a stamped, self-addressed post card or envelope.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period, and may change this proposal in light of comments
received. The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request
a public hearing by writing to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard
District at the address listed under ADDRESSES. The request should
include reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard
determines that the opportunity for oral presentations will aid this
rulemaking, the Coast Guard will hold a public hearing at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
The Glen Island Bridge has vertical clearances when in the closed
position of 13 feet above mean high water (MHW) and 20 feet above mean
low water (MLW). The bridge is presently required to open on signal.
The proposed regulations would provide openings on signal with two
hours advance notice between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. from
May through October, and with twenty-four hours
[[Page 22003]]
advance notice between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from November
through April
On January 27, 1995, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; New Rochelle
Harbor, NY'' in the Federal Register (60 FR 5343), proposing a change
in the operating regulations by permitting the bridge to remain closed
from 1 May through 31 October between 12 midnight and 8 a.m. and from 1
November through 30 April between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. The Commander,
First Coast Guard District also circulated this proposal for comment
via Public Notice 1-846 dated April 18, 1995. The Coast Guard received
ninety-eight comments expressing opposition to the proposal. The major
objection was the fact that vessels requiring passage during the
nighttime closed periods would be forced to use the alternate, New
Rochelle Harbor South (back) Channel, which is considered dangerous for
nighttime passage due to the shallowness and narrowness of the channel
and the lack of lighted aids to navigation. No public hearing was
requested and none was held. Based on the concerns expressed by the
marine public, the Westchester County Department of Parks revised its
request to modify the drawbridge operating regulations.
These proposed regulations will provide the bridge owner relief
from having an operator in constant attendance at the bridge during
periods of limited opening demand, while accommodating the navigational
needs of the marine community.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 117 by adding section
117.802 to require two hours advance notice for bridge openings between
the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. from May through October and
twenty-four hours advance notice between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.
from November through April.
The Coast Guard also proposes that bridge owners install and
maintain clearance gauges with figures not less than twelve inches high
on the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed 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
final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary. The proposed regulations will not prevent mariners from
passing through the Glen Island Bridge but just require giving two
hours advance notice of arrival between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. from May
through October and twenty-four hours between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. from
November through April. This notice requirement will have minimal
economic impact considering the low frequency of openings for
navigation and the inactivity of the local marinas, yacht clubs and
boat yards located up and downstream of the bridge during the regulated
periods. There will be no impact on vehicular traffic that uses this
bridge.
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
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. Because of the reasons discussed in
the Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast Guard finds that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entitles. If, however, you think that your business or
organization qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a
significant economic impact on your business or organization, please
submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies
and in what way and to what degree this rule will economically affect
it.
Collection of Information
This proposed rule 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 has determined that
this proposed regulation does not have sufficient 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 paragraph 2.B.2.e(32)(e) of
commandant Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is categorically
excluded from further environmental documentation since it is a
proposed promulgation of a drawbridge operating regulation.
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 33 CFR 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 449; 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 117.802 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 117.802 New Rochelle Harbor.
(a) The draw of the Glen Island Bridge, mile 0.8, at new Rochelle,
New York, shall open on signal, except as follows:
(1) two hours advance notice shall be given for openings from 12
midnight to 6 a.m. from May 1st through October 31st.
(2) twenty-four hours advance notice shall be given for openings
from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. from November 1st through April 30th.
(b) The owner of the bridge shall provide and keep in good legible
condition clearance gauges with figures not less than 12 inches high
designed, installed, and maintained according to the provisions of
section 118.180.
Dated: April 30, 1996.
J.L. Linnon,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-11905 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11904 Special Local Regulation: Searsport Lobster Boat Races, Searsport, ME
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22001-22002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11904]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD01-96-022]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulation: Searsport Lobster Boat Races,
Searsport, ME
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposed to establish a permanent special
local regulation for the Searsport Lobster Boat Races. The event will
be held from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on August 24, 1996, and each year
thereafter on a date and times published in a Federal Register notice.
This regulation is needed to protect the boating public from the
hazards associated with high speed powerboat racing in confined waters.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (b), First Coast
Guard District, Captain John Foster Williams Federal Building, 408
Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110-3350, or may be hand delivered to Room
428 at the same address, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Benjamin M.
Algeo, Chief, Boating Affairs Branch, First Coast Guard District, (617)
223-8311.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Each
person submitting comments should include their name and address,
identify this notice (CGD01-96-022), the specific section of the
proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Comments and attachments should be submitted on 8\1/2\'' x
11'' unbound paper in a format suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If that is not practical, a second copy of any bound material
is requested. Persons requesting acknowledgment of receipt of comments
should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. All
comments received during the comment period will be considered by the
Coast Guard and may change this proposal.
The Coast Guard has no plans to hold a public hearing. Persons may
request a public hearing by writing to Commander (b), First Coast Guard
District at the address under ADDRESSES. The request should include
reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard
determines that oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, it will
hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The Searsport Lobster Boat Races is a local, traditional event that
has been held for many years in Searsport Harbor, ME. In the past, the
Coast Guard has promulgated individual regulations for each year's
race. Given the recurring nature of the event, the Coast Guard desires
to establish a permanent regulation. The proposed regulation would
establish a regulated area on Searsport harbor and would provide
specific guidance to control vessel movement during the race.
The event includes 50 or more participants with 4 to 8 boats per
class racing in heats around a \3/4\ mile marked course. The event
typically attracts approximately 100 spectator craft. The Coast Guard
will assign a patrol to the event, but due to the speed, large wakes,
and proximity of the participating vessels, it is necessary to
establish a special local regulation to control spectator and
commercial vessel movement within this confined area. Spectator craft
are authorized to watch the race from any area as long as they remain
outside the designated regulated area.
The proposed section will be effective from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. on
August 24, 1996, and each year thereafter as published in a Federal
Register notice. If the race is canceled due to weather, this section
will be effective on the day following the effective date. In emergency
situations, provisions may be made to establish safe escort by a Coast
Guard or Coast Guard designated vessel for vessels requiring transit
through the regulated area.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs 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 to be
so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of
the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT, is unnecessary. This
conclusion is based on the limited duration of the race, the extensive
advisories that will be made to the affected maritime community, and
the minimal restrictions which the regulation places on vessel traffic.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider the economic impact on small entities of a
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If, however, you think that your business or organization
qualifies as a small entity and that this rule will have a significant
economic impact on your business or organization, please submit a
comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and in
what way and to what degree this rule will economically affect it.
[[Page 22002]]
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 has determined that
this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impacts of this
proposal and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e.34(h) of DOMDTINST
16475.1B, (as revised by 61 FR 13563, March 27, 1996) this proposal is
a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or
marine parade and is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A permanent section, 100.118, is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.118 Searsport Lobster Boat Races, Searsport Harbor, ME.
(a) Regulated Area. The regulated area includes all waters of
Searsport Harbor, ME, within the following points (NAD 83):
Latitude Longitude
44 deg.26'51'' N 068 deg.54'20'' W
44 deg.27'03'' N 068 deg.54'20'' W
44 deg.27'03'' N 068 deg.55'17'' W
44 deg.26'51'' N 068 deg.55'17'' W
(b) Special Local Regulations.
(1) The Coast Guard patrol commander may delay, modify, or cancel
the race as conditions or circumstances require.
(2) No person or vessel may enter, transit, or remain in the
regulated area unless participating in the event or unless authorized
by the Coast Guard patrol commander.
(3) Vessels encountering emergencies which require transit through
the regulated area should contact the Coast Guard patrol commander on
VHF Channel 16. In the event of an emergency, the Coast Guard patrol
commander may authorize a vessel to transit through the regulated area
with a Coast Guard designated escort.
(4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard on-scene patrol commander. On-scene patrol personnel
may include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast
Guard. Upon hearing five or more short blasts from a U.S. Coast Guard
vessel, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. Members of
the Coast Guard Auxiliary may also be present to inform vessel
operators of this regulation and other application laws.
(c) Effective period. This section is in effect form 8 a.m. to 2
p.m. on August 24, 1996, and each year thereafter on a date and times
published in a Federal Register notice. If the event is canceled due to
weather, this section is effective the following day.
Dated: May 1, 1996.
J.L. Linnon,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-11904 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11902 Special Local Regulation: Newport-Bermuda Regatta, Narragansett Bay, Newport, RI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21999-22001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11902]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD01-96-025]
RIN 2115-AE 46
Special Local Regulation: Newport-Bermuda Regatta, Narragansett
Bay, Newport, RI
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a permanent special
local regulation for the Newport-Bermuda Regatta. The event will be
held on June 21, 1996, and biennially thereafter on even numbered years
on the third Friday in June. The regatta begins in the approach to
Newport Harbor, Newport, RI, in the East Passage of Narragansett Bay,
continuing offshore to Bermuda, U.K. This regulation is needed to
control vessel movement in the confined waters of the regatta start
area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (b), First Coast
Guard District, Captain John Foster Williams Federal Building, 408
Atlantic Ave., Boston, MA 02110-3350, or may be hand delivered to Room
428 at the same address, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays. Comments will become part of this
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Benjamin. M. Algeo, Chief, Boating Affairs
Branch, First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8311.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Each
person submitting comments should include their name and address,
identify this notice (CGD01-96-025), the specific section of the
proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Comments and attachments should be submitted on
[[Page 22000]]
8\1/2\'' x 11'' unbound paper in a format suitable for copying and
electronic filing. If that is not practical, a second copy of any bound
material is requested. Persons requesting acknowledgment of receipt of
comments should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
All comments received during the comment period will be considered by
the Coast Guard and may change this proposal.
The Coast Guard has no plans to hold a public hearing. Persons may
request a public hearing by writing to Commander (b), First Coast Guard
District at the address under ADDRESSES. The request should include
reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If the Coast Guard
determines that oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, it will
hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice
in the Federal Register.
Good cause exists to provide for a comment period less than 45
days. Due to the need to provide public notice and establish
regulations for this year's event, a longer comment period is
impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The 1996 Newport-Bermuda Regatta is the fortieth running of the
event. In the past, the Coast Guard has promulgated individual
regulations for each year's race. Given the recurring nature of the
event, the Coast Guard desires to establish a permanent regulation. The
proposed regulation would establish a regulated area on Narragansett
Bay, in the East Passage, and would provide specific guidance to
control vessel movement during the race.
This event includes up to 120 ocean going sailboats racing from the
approach to the entrance of Newport Harbor, Newport, RI, to Bermuda,
U.K. The event typically attracts approximately 150-200 spectator
craft. The Coast Guard will assign a patrol to the event, and the race
course starting area will be marked. However, due to the large number
of participants and anticipated spectator craft, it is necessary to
establish a special local regulation to control spectator and
commercial vessel movement within the confined starting area. Spectator
craft are authorized to watch the race from any area as long as they
remain outside the designated regulated area.
The proposed section will be effective biennially on even numbered
years on the third Friday in June. In emergency situations, provisions
may be made to establish safe escort by a Coast Guard or Coast Guard
designated vessel for vessels requiring transit through the regulated
area.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs 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 to be
so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of
the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT, in unnecessary. This
conclusion is based on the limited duration of the race, the extensive
advisories that will be made to the affected maritime community, and
the minimal restrictions which the regulation places on vessel traffic.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider the economic impact on small entities of a
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial 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 has determined that
this proposal does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impacts of this
proposal and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e.34(h) of COMDTINST
16475.1B, (as revised by 61 FR 13563, March 27, 1996) this proposal is
a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or
marine parade and is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A permanent section, 100.119, is added to read as follows:
Sec. 100.119 Newport Bermuda Regatta, Narragansett Bay, Newport, RI.
(a) Regulated Area. The regulated area includes all waters of
Narragansett Bay, Newport, RI, within the following points (NAD 83):
Latitude Longitude
41 deg.27'51'' N 071 deg.22'14'' W
41 deg.27'24'' N 071 deg.21'57'' W
41 deg.27'09'' N 071 deg.22'39'' W
41 deg.27'36'' N 072 deg.22'55'' W
In the event that weather conditions prohibit a safe race start within
the approach to Newport Harbor, the race will begin offshore and the
following regulated area applies (NAD 83)
Latitude Longitude
41 deg.26'04'' N 071 deg.22'16'' W
41 deg.25'36'' N 071 deg.21'58'' W
41 deg.25'45'' N 071 deg.22'40'' W
41 deg.25'49'' N 071 deg.22.56'' W
(b) Special Local Regulations.
(1) The Coast Guard patrol commander may delay, modify, or cancel
the race as considerations or circumstances require.
(2) No person or vessel may enter, transit, or remain in the
regulated area unless participation in the event or unless authorized
by the Coast Guard patrol commander.
(3) Vessels encountering emergencies which require transit through
the regulated area should contact the Coast Guard patrol commander on
VHF Channel 16. In the event of an emergency, the Coast Guard patrol
commander may authorize a vessel to transit through the regulated area
with a Coast Guard designated escort.
(4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard on-scene patrol
[[Page 22001]]
commander. On scene patrol personnel may included commissioned,
warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Upon hearing five
or more short blasts from a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, the operator of a
vessel shall proceed as directed. Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary
may also be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation and
other applicable laws.
(c) Effective period. This section is in effect on June 21, 1996,
from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and biennially thereafter on even
numbered years on the third Friday in June.
Dated: April 30, 1996.
J.L. Linnon,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-11902 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11881 Airworthiness Directives; Gates Learjet Model 35 and 36 Series Airplanes Modified by Raisbeck STC SA766NW
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21982-21984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11881]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-63-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Gates Learjet Model 35 and 36 Series
Airplanes Modified by Raisbeck STC SA766NW
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Gates Learjet Model 35 and
36 series airplanes that have been modified in accordance with Raisbeck
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA766NW. This proposal would
require a reduction of the maximum operating limit speed on the
affected airplanes to prevent encountering certain potentially
hazardous conditions. This proposal is prompted by reports of incidents
of aileron buffet or buzz experienced during high speed cruise. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent aileron
buffet or buzz conditions, which can result in the deterioration of the
aircraft lateral control system characteristics to an unacceptable
level.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-63-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.
Information concerning the subject of this rulemaking action may be
obtained from Jet Air Corporation, P.O. Box 245, Bellevue, Washington
98009. Information concerning this rulemaking action may be examined at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan Wood, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; telephone (206) 227-2772;
fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-63-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-NM-63-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On July 23, 1985, the FAA issued AD 85-16-04, amendment 39-5110 (50
FR 30803, July 30, 1985), which is applicable to certain Gates Learjet
Model 35 and 36 series airplanes that have been modified in accordance
with Raisbeck Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA766NW. That AD
requires the accomplishment of one of two optional actions, both of
which are intended to prevent the airplane from encountering the
potentially hazardous condition of aileron buffet or buzz:
1. One optional action requires operators to reduce permanently the
maximum operating Mach limit (MMO) of these airplanes from .83 to
.80. This action includes resetting the Mach
[[Page 21983]]
overspeed warning switch; recalibrating the airspeed indicator; and
changing the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Supplement to
reflect the new Mach limit.
2. The other optional action requires operators to remove the
Raisbeck STC modifications and to return the airplane either to its
original configuration or to the Gates Learjet ``Softflight''
configuration.
AD 85-16-04 was prompted by several reports of incidents in which
Learjet Model 35 and 36 series airplanes modified with the Raisbeck STC
experienced aileron buffet or buzz during cruise. These incidents of
aileron instability occurred on airplanes operating at high gross
weights when they were flying above 42,000 feet at Mach .80 to .83.
Aileron buffet or buzz, if it is of a certain severity, can result in
an unacceptable deterioration in the lateral control characteristics of
the airplane.
Actions Subsequent to the Issuance of AD 85-16-04
When AD 85-16-04 was issued, its applicability included only
certain modified airplanes, which were identified by specific serial
numbers. However, since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has received a
report that at least one additional airplane, that was not included in
the applicability of the AD, has been modified in accordance with the
subject Raisbeck STC. (The STC installed on this particular airplane
was performed at a non-U.S. repair station.) In light of this, that
airplane may be subject to the same unsafe condition addressed by AD
85-16-04.
Further, since the Raisbeck STC could be installed on Model 35 or
36 series airplanes anywhere in the world, the FAA may not be
immediately aware of it. Therefore, the FAA has determined that any of
these airplanes on which the Raisbeck STC is installed could be subject
to that same unsafe condition.
Description of the Proposed AD
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require the accomplishment of one of two optional
actions, both of which are intended to prevent the airplane from
encountering the potentially hazardous condition of aileron buffet or
buzz:
1. Permanently reducing the maximum operating MMO from .83 to
.80; resetting the Mach overspeed warning switch; recalibrating the
airspeed indicator; and changing the FAA-approved Airplane Flight
Manual (AFM) Supplement to reflect the new Mach limit; or
2. Removing the Raisbeck STC modifications and returning the
airplane either to its original configuration or to the Gates Learjet
``Softflight'' configuration.
These proposed requirements are the same actions currently required
by AD 85-16-06.
The applicability of the proposed AD would include all Learjet
Model 35 and 36 series airplanes modified in accordance with Raisbeck
STC SA766NW that are not currently subject to AD 85-16-04.
[Note: The FAA's normal policy is that when an AD requires a
substantive change, such as a change (expansion) in its
applicability, the ``old'' AD is superseded by removing it from the
system and a new AD is added. In the case of this proposed AD
action, the FAA normally would have proposed superseding AD 85-16-04
to expand its applicability to include the additional affected
airplanes. However, in reconsideration of the entire fleet size that
would be affected by a supersedure action, and the consequent
workload associated with revising maintenance record entries, the
FAA has determined that a less burdensome approach is to issue a
separate AD applicable only to these additional airplanes. This
proposed AD would not supersede AD 85-16-04; airplanes listed in the
applicability of AD 85-16-04 are required to continue to comply with
the requirements of that AD. This proposed AD is a separate AD
action, and is applicable only to airplanes that are not subject to
AD 85-16-04.]
Petitioning for an Exemption of the Requirements of the Final Rule
Affected operators should note that the aileron instability that is
the subject of this proposed AD is a condition affected by the contour
of the wing leading edge, which is a function of manufacturing
tolerances. In light of this, the FAA recognizes that not all airplanes
modified in accordance with Raisbeck STC SA766NW may exhibit the
problem of aileron buffet or buzz below .83 Mach. Should this proposal
become a final rule, operators of those airplanes may wish to petition
the FAA for an exemption from the requirements of the rule, under the
provisions of part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 11),
``General Rulemaking Procedures.''
Petitioners for such an exemption should provide data that would
justify a grant of exemption, including, but not limited to,
information concerning the number of flights the airplane has flown in
conditions involving high weight, high altitude, and high speed, and if
any incident of buffet or buzz was observed during flight in those
conditions. Based on the data submitted with the petition, the FAA will
determine on a case-by-case basis if a flight evaluation or other
additional data are necessary to determine if granting the petition (1)
would not adversely affect safety, and (2) would be in the public
interest.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 29 Gates Learjet Model 35 and 36 series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that at least 1 airplane of U.S. registry would be affected
by this proposed AD.
To accomplish the removal and recalibration of the airspeed
indicators and Mach overspeed warning switch, and to revise the AFM
Supplement, as would be required by ``Option I'' of the proposed rule,
it would take approximately 5 work hours per airplane, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. The FAA estimates that it would cost
approximately $1,000 per airplane to reset the airspeed indicators and
Mach overspeed warning switch. Based on these figures, the cost impact
of this action of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$1,300 per airplane.
To accomplish the removal of the STC modifications, as would be
required by ``Option II'' of the proposed rule, it would take
approximately 100 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of
$60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this
action of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $6,000
per airplane.
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.
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
[[Page 21984]]
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory
evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A
copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the
location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Gates Learjet: Docket 96-NM-63-AD.
Applicability: Model 35, 35A, 36 and 36A series airplanes,
modified in accordance with Raisbeck Group Supplemental type
Certificate (STC) SA766NW, that do not have one of the serial
numbers listed in Table 1 of this AD; certificated in any category.
Table 1
[Serial Numbers * NOT affected by this AD]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
35-023........... 35A-092 35A-192- 36-004
35-034-.......... 35A-093- 35A-203- 36-017
35-042-.......... 35A-095- 35A-206- 36-028
35-044-.......... 35A-118- 35A-207- 36A-029
35-047-.......... 35A-127- 35A-209- 36A-031
35A-068-......... 35A-132- 35A-228- 36A-038
35A-073-......... 35A-135- 35A-231- 36A-043
35A-075-......... 35A-145- 35A-244- 36A-044
35A-076-......... 35A-172- 35A-245-
35A-086 -........ 35A-185- 36-003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Airplanes having the serial numbers listed in Table 1 are subject to
similar requirements mandated by AD 85-16-04, amendment 39-5110.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane as indicated in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent deterioration of the airplane's lateral control
characteristics as a result of aileron buffet or buzz, accomplish
the following:
(a) Within 200 hours time-in-service after the effective date of
this AD, or within 6 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, accomplish either paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2)
of this AD:
(1) Option I. Permanently reduce the airplane's maximum
operating Mach limit (MMO) by accomplishing the actions
specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iii) of
this AD:
(i) Submit the FAA-approved STC SA766NW Airplane flight Manual
Supplement to the Manager, Flight Test Branch, ANM-160S, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; to change the
limit Mach number from .83 to .80. And
(ii) Remove the ``Mach Overspeed Warning Switch'' and have it
reset from Mach .83 to .80. Contact the manufacturer, PRECISION
SENSOR, P.O. Box 509, Milford, Connecticut 06460; telephone number
(203) 877-2795; to have the instrument recalibrated. Reidentify the
Mach overspeed warning switch by ink-stamping the words ``Mach limit
.80'' adjacent to the part number. Reinstall the ``Mach Overspeed
Warning Switch'' after it has been so recalibrated. And
(iii) Remove the pilot's and copilot's airspeed indicators and
have them modified by changing the ``barber pole'' from Mach number
.83 to .80. The instrument must be recalibrated by the instrument
manufacturer or a certified repair station. Reidentify the airspeed
indicators by ink stamping ``Mach limit .80'' adjacent to the part
number. Reinstall the pilot's and copilot's airspeed indicators
after they have been so modified.
(2) Option II. Remove the modifications installed in accordance
with Raisbeck Group STC SA766NW, and return the aircraft either to
the original type design configuration, or to the Gates Learjet
``Softflight'' configuration.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 7, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11881 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11880 Airworthiness Directives; H.B. Flugtechnik GmbH 23/2400 Sailplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21980-21982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11880]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-39-AD]
RIN 2120--AA64
Airworthiness Directives; H.B. Flugtechnik GmbH 23/2400
Sailplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain H.B. Flugtechnik GmbH (Flugtechnik)
23/2400 sailplanes. The proposed action would require inspecting the
rudder bearing support bracket for cracks, replacing the bracket if
cracked, and modifying the bracket with a third bolt if no cracks are
found. Cracks found in the rudder bearing support brackets during
routine inspections prompted the proposed action. The actions specified
by the proposed AD are intended to prevent cracks in the rudder bearing
support bracket, which could cause loss of control of the rudder and
possible loss of control of the sailplane.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief
Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-39-AD, Room 1558, 601 E.
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at
this location between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
holidays excepted.
Service information that applies to the proposed AD may be obtained
from H.B. Flugtechnik GmbH, attn: Dr. Adolf Scharf STR, 42 P.F. 74, A-
4053, Haid, Austria. This information also may be examined at the Rules
Docket at the address below. Send comments on the
[[Page 21981]]
proposal in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-CE-39-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. Comments may be inspected at this location between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, holidays excepted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Herman C. Belderok, Project
Officer, Sailplanes/Gliders, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 426-6932; facsimile (816) 426- 2169.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications should identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned
with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 95-CE-39-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-CE-39-AD, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Discussion
The Austro Control GmbH (ACG), which is the airworthiness authority
for Austria, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on
certain Flugtechnik HB 23/2400 sailplanes. The ACG reports that, upon
routine inspections of certain Flugtechnik HB 23/2400 sailplanes,
cracks are appearing in the rudder bearing support bracket. This
condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of
control of the rudder and possible loss of control of the sailplane.
Flugtechnik has issued service bulletin (SB) HB 23/19/91, dated
October 5, 1991, which specifies procedures for inspecting the rudder
bearing support bracket for cracks, replacing the bracket if cracks are
found and modifying the bracket with a third bolt if no cracks are
found.
The ACG classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued AD
No. 68, dated October 28, 1991, in order to assure the continued
airworthiness of these sailplanes in Austria.
This sailplane model is manufactured in Austria and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the ACG has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
ACG, reviewed all available information including the service
information referenced above, and determined that AD action is
necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop in other certain Flugtechnik 23/2400 sailplanes of the
same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would
require inspecting the rudder bearing support bracket for cracks, and
replacing the bracket with a new bracket with 3 bolt holes, or
modifying the bracket by making a third hole and installing a new bolt.
Accomplishment of the proposed installation would be in accordance with
Flugtechnik SB HB 23/19/91, dated October 5, 1991.
The FAA estimates that one sailplane in the U.S. registry would be
affected by the proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1
workhour per sailplane to accomplish the proposed action, and that the
average labor rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost
approximately $5 per sailplane. Based on these figures, the total cost
impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $65. The
FAA has no way of determining whether the one sailplane owner/operator
has replaced or modified the rudder bearing support bracket and this
figure takes into account that the affected sailplane operator has not
accomplished the proposed action.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated,
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation
prepared for this action has been placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of
it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location
provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [AMENDED]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
H.B. Flugtechnik: Docket No. 95-CE-39-AD.
Applicability: Model 23/2400 Sailplanes (serial numbers 23001
through 23048), certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane identified in the
preceding applicability
[[Page 21982]]
provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or
repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For
sailplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the
performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/
operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request
should include an assessment of the effect of the modification,
alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD;
and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request
should include specific proposed actions to address it.
Compliance: Required within the next 50 hours time-in- service
(TIS) after the effective date of this AD, unless already
accomplished.
To prevent the rudder bearing support bracket from cracking,
which could cause loss of rudder control and possible loss of the
sailplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect (one time) the rudder bearing support bracket with a
10x magnifying glass for any visible cracks in accordance with the
Actions section of Flugtechnik service bulletin (SB) HB-23/19/91,
dated October 5, 1991.
(1) If cracks are found, prior to further flight, replace the
rudder bearing support bracket with a new support bracket that has 3
bolt holes in accordance with the Actions section of Flugtechnik SB
HB-23/19/91, dated October 5, 1991.
(2) If no cracks are found, modify the rudder bearing support
bracket by installing a third bolt (part number M6x30) or replace
the bracket with a new bracket that has 3 bolt holes in accordance
with the Actions section of Flugtechnik SB HB-23/19/91, dated
October 5, 1991.
(b) 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 sailplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an equivalent level of safety may be
approved by the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate.
NOTE 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Small Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification
Office.
(d) All persons affected by this directive may obtain copies of
this document referred to herein upon request to H.B. Flugtechnik
GmbH, attn: Dr. Adolf Scharf STR, 42 P.F. 74, A-4053, Haid, Austria;
or may examine this document at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 6, 1996.
Henry A. Armstrong,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11880 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11862 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Implementation of Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Item Acquisition Provisions of the Federal Acquisition Reform Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11862]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Chapters 1 and 2
[FAR Case 96-308]
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Implementation of Commercially
Available Off-the-Shelf Item Acquisition Provisions of the Federal
Acquisition Reform Act
AGENCIES: Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council is soliciting
comments regarding the implementation of section 4203 of the Federal
Acquisition Reform Act (Pub. L. 104-106) (the Act) with respect to
Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf Item Acquisitions. The Act
requires the FAR to list provisions of law that are inapplicable to
contracts for the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf
items. Certain laws have already been determined to be inapplicable to
all commercial items as a result of the implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (see FAR 12.503). The additional
provisions of law that could be determined inapplicable to commercially
available off-the-shelf items are listed under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
DATES: Comments should be submitted to the address shown below by June
28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit comments to the FAR
Secretariat, General Services Administration, 18th and F Sts. NW,
Washington, DC 20405. Please cite FAR Case 96-308.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FAR Secretariat, (202) 501-4755.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 15 U.S.C. 637(d) (2) and (3), Utilization
of Small Business Concerns (see 52.219-8); 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4), Small
Business Subcontracting Plan (see 52.219-9); 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(14),
Limitation on Subcontracting (see 52.219-14); 19 U.S.C. 1202, Tariff
Act of 1930 (see 52.225-10); 19 U.S.C. 1309, Supplies for Certain
Vessels and Aircraft (see 52.225-10); 19 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.,
Authority to Grant Duty Free Treatment (see 52.225-10); 29 U.S.C. 793,
Affirmative Action for Handicapped Workers (see 52.222-36); 38 U.S.C.
4212, Affirmative Action for Special Disabled Vietnam Era Veterans (see
52.222-35); 38 U.S.C. 4212(d)(1), Employment Reports on Special
disabled Veterans and Veterans of the Vietnam Era (see 52.222-37); 41
U.S.C. 10, Buy American Act--Supplies (see 52.225-3); 41 U.S.C. 253d,
Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions (see 52.227-14); 41 U.S.C.
253g and 10 U.S.C. 2482, Prohibition on Limiting Subcontractor Direct
Sales to the United States (see 52.203-6); 41 U.S.C. 254(b) and 10
U.S.C. 2306a, Truth in Negotiations Act (see 15.804); 41 U.S.C. 254d(c)
and 10 U.S.C. 2513(c), Examination of Records of Contractor (see
52.215-2); 41 U.S.C. 418a, Rights in Technical Data (see 52.227-14); 41
U.S.C. 442, Cost Accounting Standards (see FAR Appendix B, 48 CFR
Chapter 99); 41 U.S.C. 423(e)(3), Administrative Actions (see 3.104);
46 U.S.C. 1241(b), Transportation in American Vessels of Government
Personnel and Certain Cargo (see 52.247-64); 49 U.S.C. 40118, Fly
American Provisions (see 52.247-63); For purposes of this notice, a
``commercially available off-the-shelf item'' means--
(1) a commercial item as defined in FAR 2.101;
(2) an item sold in substantial quantities in the commercial
marketplace; and
(3) an item is offered to the Government, without modification, in
the same form in which it is sold in the commercial marketplace. This
does not include bulk cargo, as defined in 46 U.S.C. App. 1702, such as
agricultural and petroleum products. The FAR Council is requesting any
interested parties to provide advance comments on:
(1) the definition of ``commercially available off-the-shelf item''
cited above.
(2) whether the above cited list of statutory provisions that could
be determined inapplicable to commercial off-the-shelf items is
complete.
(3) whether the specific provisions of law should be determined to
be inapplicable. Comments received will be considered in the
development of proposed or interim rules. In addition, a 60-day public
comment period will be provided once proposed and/or interim FAR rules
are drafted. Noted that agency specific statutory provisions will be
addressed in separates Federal Register notices.
Dated: May 7, 1996.
Edward C. Loeb,
Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 96-11862 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11853 Meeting of the Federal Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21997-21998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11853]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Chapter II
Meeting of the Federal Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Department)
established a Federal Gas Valuation Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
(Committee) to develop specific recommendations with respect to Federal
gas valuation under its responsibilities imposed by the Federal Oil and
Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (FOGRMA). The Department has
determined that the establishment of this Committee is in the public
interest and will assist the agency in performing its duties under
FOGRMA.
MMS published a proposed rule on November 6, 1995, in the Federal
[[Page 21998]]
Register (60 FR 56007) advancing the consensus decisions of the
Committee regarding the valuation of gas produced from Federal leases.
On December 13, 1995, in the Federal Register (60 FR 64000), MMS
extended the period for receiving comments on the proposed rule through
February 5, 1996. MMS is holding a meeting of the Committee to discuss
how to proceed with further rulemaking in light of the comments
received on the proposed rule.
DATES: The Committee will meet on: Wednesday, June 12, 1996, 10:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m.; Thursday, June 13, 1996, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Friday,
June 14, 1996, 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the Denver Federal Center,
building 85, West 6th Avenue and Kipling Street, Lakewood, Colorado,
80225.
Written statements may be submitted to Ms. Deborah Gibbs Tschudy,
Chief, Valuation and Standards Division, Minerals Management Service,
Royalty Management Program, P.O. Box 25165, MS 3150, Denver, Colorado
80225-0165, courier delivery to Building 85, Denver Federal Center,
Denver, CO 80225.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Gibbs Tschudy, Chief,
Valuation and Standards Division, Minerals Management Service, Royalty
Management Program, P.O. Box 25165, MS 3150, Denver, Colorado, 80225-
0165, telephone number (303) 275-7200, fax number (303) 275-7227.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings will be open to the public
without advanced registration. Public attendance may be limited to the
space available. Members of the public may make statements during the
meeting, to the extent time permits, and file written statements with
the Committee for its consideration.
Written statements should be submitted to the address listed above.
Minutes of Committee meetings will be available for public inspection
and copying 10 days following each meeting at the same address. In
addition, the materials received to date during the input sessions are
available for inspection and copying at the same address.
Dated: May 7, 1996.
Robert E. Brown,
Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 96-11853 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11825 Airworthiness Directives; Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-800A and -1000A, and Model Hawker 800 and 1000 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21979-21980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11825]
========================================================================
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. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 21979]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-165-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-800A and
-1000A, and Model Hawker 800 and 1000 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe
125-800A and -1000A, and Model Hawker 800 and 1000 series airplanes.
This proposal would require modification of the TKS metering pump in
the airframe ice protection system. This proposal is prompted by a
report that the pump was found fitted with silver plated wiring. The
actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to ensure that silver
plated wiring is removed from these pumps; silver plated wiring
carrying a direct current can ignite the ice protection fluid (glycol)
when exposed to it, which could result in a possible fire hazard.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 17, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-165-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 Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager, Service Engineering,
Hawker Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-
0085. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-165-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-165-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness
authority for the United Kingdom, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-
800A and -1000A, and Model Hawker 800 and 1000 series airplanes. The
CAA has received a report indicating that, during a design review, the
TKS metering pump in the airframe ice protection system was found
fitted with silver plated wiring. The TKS pump pumps the ice protection
fluid to the wing leading edge where it is excreted through microholes
to prevent ice build up. If silver plated wiring is bare, or if its
insulation is chafed, and it is carrying a direct current, it can
ignite the ice protection fluid (glycol) when exposed to it. Such an
ignition could result in a possible fire hazard.
The manufacturer has issued Hawker Service Bulletin SB.30-61-7676A,
dated February 15, 1995, which describes procedures for modification of
the TKS pump (Modification 257676A). The modification involves
accomplishing an inspection to determine if the flying leads of the TKS
pump have silver plated conductors; replacement of those leads with
ones that do not have silver plated conductors; and reidentification of
the pump. Accomplishment of this modification will ensure that silver
plated wiring is removed from the TKS pump. The CAA classified this
service bulletin as mandatory in order to assure the continued
airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom.
This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is
type certificated for operation in the United States under the
provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant
to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA
informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the
findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined
that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require modification of the TKS pump.
[[Page 21980]]
The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the
service bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates that 23 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work
hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$1,380, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Beech Aircraft Company (Formerly DeHavilland; Hawker Siddeley;
British Aerospace, PLC; Raytheon Corporate Jets, Inc.): Docket 95-
NM-165-AD.
Applicability: Model BAe 125-800A and -1000A, and Model Hawker
800 and 1000 series airplanes; on which Modification 257676A has not
been accomplished (reference Hawker Service Bulletin SB.30-61-7676A
or Aerospace Systems and Technology Service Bulletin S.B.30-25);
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Note 2: Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-800B and BAe 125-1000B
series airplanes are similar in design to the airplanes that are
subject to the requirements of this AD and, therefore, also may be
subject to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. However, as of
the effective date of this AD, those models are not type
certificated for operation in the United States. Airworthiness
authorities of countries in which the Model BAe 125-800B and BAe
125-1000B series airplanes are approved for operation should
consider adopting corrective action, applicable to those models,
that is similar to the corrective action required by this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure that silver plate wiring is removed from the TKS
metering pump and a possible fire hazard eliminated, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the TKS pump in accordance with Hawker Service Bulletin SB.30-61-
7676A, dated February 15, 1995.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
on any airplane a TKS metering pump, having part number XA9511E003-3
or XA9511E009, unless it has been modified in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) 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 May 3, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11825 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11780 Simplification of Entity Classification Rules
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21989-21997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11780]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Part 301
[PS-43-95]
RIN 1545-AT91
Simplification of Entity Classification Rules
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations that would replace
the existing regulations for classifying certain business organizations
with an elective regime. These proposed regulations simplify the
existing classification rules.
DATES: Written comments and requests to speak (with outlines of oral
comments) at a public hearing scheduled for August 21, 1996, at 10 a.m.
must be submitted by August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (PS-43-95), 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 (PS-43-95), Courier's
Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Armando
Gomez, (202) 622-3050; concerning foreign organizations, Ronald M.
Gootzeit or William H. Morris, (202) 622-3880; concerning submissions
and the hearing, Evangelista Lee (202) 622-7190 (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 the 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 July
12, 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 collections of information are required by Secs. 301.6109-
1(b)(2)(vi) and 301.7701-3(c). This information is required by the IRS
to ensure the proper classification of business organizations and to
ensure compliance with the proposed regulations. The likely respondents
are businesses and other for-profit organizations, including small
businesses.
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.
The burden of the collection of information required by
Sec. 301.6109-1 will be reflected in Forms SS-4 and W-7. The burden of
the collection of information required by Sec. 301.7701-3(c) will be
reflected in such form as is prescribed by the Commissioner for
purposes of making the election described in this regulation.
Introduction
This document proposes to revise Secs. 301.7701-1 through 301.7701-
3 of the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) to
clarify which organizations are classified as corporations
automatically under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and to provide a
simple elective regime for classifying other business organizations.
This document also proposes conforming changes to Secs. 1.581-1, 1.581-
2, and 1.761-1 of the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1), and to
Secs. 301.6109-1, 301.7701-4, 301.7701-6, and 301.7701-7 of the
Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301).
Background
On April 3, 1995, Notice 95-14, relating to classification of
business organizations under section 7701, was published in the
Internal Revenue Bulletin (1995-1 C.B. 297). A notice of public hearing
was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1995 (60 FR 24813).
Written comments were received and a public hearing was held on July
20, 1995. After consideration of the comments, the Treasury Department
and the IRS propose to replace the existing classification regulations
with a simplified regime that is elective for certain business
organizations.
Explanation of Provisions
I. Introduction
Section 7701(a)(2) of the Code defines a partnership to include a
syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated
organization, through or by means of which any business, financial
operation, or venture is carried on, and that is not a trust or estate
or a corporation. Section 7701(a)(3) defines a corporation to include
associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.
The existing regulations for classifying business organizations as
associations (which are taxable as corporations under section
7701(a)(3)) or as partnerships under section 7701(a)(2) are based on
the historical differences under local law between partnerships and
corporations. However, many states have revised their statutes to
provide that partnerships and other unincorporated organizations may
possess characteristics that traditionally have been associated with
corporations, thereby narrowing considerably the traditional
distinctions between
[[Page 21990]]
corporations and partnerships under local law. For example, some
partnership statutes now provide that no partner is unconditionally
liable for all of the debts of the partnership. Similarly, almost all
states have enacted statutes allowing the formation of limited
liability companies. These entities provide protection from liability
to all members but may qualify as partnerships for federal tax purposes
under the existing regulations. See, e.g., Rev. Rul. 88-76 (1988-2 C.B.
360).
One consequence of the increased flexibility under local law in
forming a partnership or other unincorporated business organization is
that taxpayers generally can achieve partnership tax classification for
a nonpublicly traded organization that, in all meaningful respects, is
virtually indistinguishable from a corporation. To accomplish this,
however, taxpayers and the IRS must expend considerable resources on
classification issues. For example, since the issuance of Rev. Rul. 88-
76, the IRS has issued seventeen revenue rulings analyzing individual
state limited liability company statutes, and has issued several
revenue procedures and numerous letter rulings relating to
classification of various business organizations. Meanwhile, small
business organizations may lack the resources and expertise to achieve
the tax classification they want under the current classification
regulations.
Reacting to the fact that publicly traded entities could easily
qualify as partnerships, in 1987 Congress enacted section 7704 to
require most publicly traded partnerships to be taxable as
corporations. Thus, even if an organization could be classified as a
partnership under the current regulations, it will nevertheless be
classified as a corporation in most cases if its ownership interests
are publicly traded.
In light of these developments, Treasury and the IRS believe that
it is appropriate to replace the increasingly formalistic rules under
the current regulations with a much simpler approach that generally is
elective. To further simplify this area, the proposed regulations
provide similar rules for organizations that have a single owner.
With respect to foreign organizations, Notice 95-14 (1995-1 C.B.
297) observed that, while the distinctions are similarly formalistic,
the classification process under the current regulations involves even
more complexities and requires greater resources than does the
classification process for domestic organizations. For example, the
classification of a foreign organization involves not only a review of
organizational documents, but also a thorough understanding of the
controlling foreign law. Accordingly, the simplified system provided
under the proposed regulations extends to foreign organizations as
well, with certain modifications explained below.
In light of the increased flexibility under an elective regime for
the creation of organizations classified as partnerships, the Treasury
Department and the IRS will continue to monitor carefully the uses of
partnerships in the international context and will issue appropriate
substantive guidance when partnerships are used to achieve results that
are inconsistent with the policies and rules of particular Code
provisions or of U.S. tax treaties.
To accomplish the changes described above, the proposed regulations
would replace Secs. 301.7701-1, 301.7701-2, and 301.7701-3 with new
regulations. In addition, conforming amendments would be made to
Secs. 1.581-1, 1.581-2, 1.761-1, 301.6109-1, 301.7701-4, 301.7701-6,
and 301.7701-7.
II. General Classification Rules
A. Business Entities
Proposed Sec. 301.7701-1 provides an overview of the rules
applicable in determining an organization's classification for federal
tax purposes. The first step in the classification process is to
determine whether there is a separate entity for federal tax purposes
(which is a matter of federal tax law). The proposed regulations
explain that certain joint undertakings that are not entities under
local law may nonetheless constitute separate entities for federal tax
purposes; on the other hand, not all entities formed under local law
are recognized as separate entities for federal tax purposes. For
example, individuals who own property as tenants in common may create a
separate entity for federal tax purposes if the individuals actively
carry on a trade, business, financial operation, or venture and divide
the profits therefrom. On the other hand, an organization wholly owned
by a State is not recognized as a separate entity for federal tax
purposes if it is an integral part of the State. Similarly, tribes
incorporated under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934,
as amended, 25 U.S.C. 477, or under section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian
Welfare Act, as amended, 25 U.S.C. 503, are not recognized as separate
entities for federal tax purposes. See Rev. Rul. 94-16 (1994-1 C.B.
19); Rev. Rul. 94-65 (1994-2 C.B. 14). Also, the proposed regulations
retain the rule under the current regulations that a qualified cost
sharing arrangement described in Sec. 1.482-7 is not a partnership for
federal tax purposes.
An organization that is recognized as a separate entity for federal
tax purposes is either a trust or a business entity (unless a provision
of the Code expressly provides for special treatment, such as the Real
Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC) rules, see section 860A(a)).
The proposed regulations provide that trusts generally do not have
associates or an objective to carry on business for profit. While these
proposed regulations restate the distinction between trusts and
business entities, the determination of whether an organization is
classified as a trust for federal tax purposes is intended to remain
the same as under current law.
Proposed Sec. 301.7701-2 specifies those business entities that
automatically are classified as corporations for federal tax purposes.
Any other business entity that is recognized for federal tax purposes
may choose its classification under the rules of proposed
Sec. 301.7701-3. Those rules provide that a business entity with at
least two members can be classified as either a partnership or an
association, and that a business entity with a single member can be
classified as an association or can be disregarded as an entity
separate from its owner.
B. Corporations
The proposed regulations clarify that business entities that are
classified as corporations for federal tax purposes include
corporations denominated as such under applicable law, as well as
associations, joint-stock companies, insurance companies, organizations
that conduct certain banking activities, organizations wholly owned by
a State, organizations that are taxable as corporations under a
provision of the Code other than section 7701(a)(3), and certain
organizations formed under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction or a U.S.
possession, territory, or commonwealth. Each of these categories is
described briefly below.
The proposed regulations define corporation to include any business
entity recognized for federal tax purposes that is organized under a
Federal or State statute, or under a statute of a federally recognized
Indian tribe, that describes or refers to the entity as incorporated or
as a corporation, body corporate, or body politic. Such entities
include governmentally chartered corporations, as well as business
corporations. See, e.g., 12 U.S.C. 21 et seq. (national banking
associations), 20 U.S.C. 1087-2 (Student Loan Marketing Association),
[[Page 21991]]
and 36 U.S.C. 1101 (private corporations established under federal
law).
The proposed regulations define an association by reference to
Sec. 301.7701-3. As discussed in detail below, that section permits
certain business entities to choose whether to be classified as an
association or as a partnership (or, if the entity has a single owner,
as a non-entity).
The proposed regulations define a joint-stock company as a business
entity organized under a State statute that describes or refers to the
entity as a joint-stock company or joint-stock association. These
entities typically have a fixed capital stock divided into shares
represented by certificates transferable only upon the books of the
company, manage their affairs by a board of directors and executive
officers, and conduct their business in the general form and mode of
procedure of a corporation. See Burk-Waggoner Oil Assoc. v. Hopkins,
269 U.S. 110, 113 (1925).
The proposed regulations define an insurance company as a business
entity that is taxable as an insurance company under subchapter L,
chapter 1 of the Code.
Under the proposed regulations, a state-chartered bank is
classified as a corporation if any of the bank's deposits are insured
under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1811 et
seq., or a similar federal statute. This rule reflects Congress
requirement that these organizations be incorporated to be eligible for
federal deposit insurance, see 12 U.S.C. 1813(a)(2), and provides
comparable tax treatment to state-chartered banks and national banks
chartered under the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. 21 et seq. (which
characterizes national banks as corporations, see 12 U.S.C. 24). It
also is consistent with Congress historical treatment of banks as
corporations, as reflected in section 581 of the Code, which requires a
bank to be incorporated for purposes of subchapter H of chapter 1.
Under this rule, however, an unincorporated organization that conducts
banking activities but that does not have federal deposit insurance,
may, under proposed Sec. 301.7701-3, choose not to be an association
for federal tax purposes; in that case, however, the organization is
not a bank within the meaning of section 581, and thus is not eligible
for treatment under subchapter H.
The proposed regulations also classify as corporations
organizations that are recognized for federal tax purposes if they are
wholly owned by a State, or any political subdivision thereof.
Organizations wholly owned by a State that are not an integral part of
the State must be recognized for federal tax purposes and scrutinized
under section 115 (which excludes from gross income any income derived
from the exercise of any essential governmental function and accruing
to a State or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
Columbia). Accordingly, the proposed regulations classify any such
organization as a corporation. Nevertheless, under section 115, the
organization's income may not be subject to federal income tax.
The proposed regulations define corporation to include any business
entity that is taxable as a corporation under another provision of the
Code. For example, a business entity that is publicly traded within the
meaning of section 7704 (and not within the exception in section
7704(c)), is taxable as a corporation. Similarly, a business entity
that is a taxable mortgage pool under section 7701(i) is taxable as a
corporation.
Finally, the proposed regulations classify as corporations certain
foreign business entities (including entities organized in U.S.
possessions, territories, and commonwealths) that are listed in the
regulations. Notice 95-14 observed that current law does not
automatically classify any foreign entity as a corporation by reference
to the juridical status or designation of that entity under local law.
That is, current law does not identify the foreign analogue to the
incorporated state law entity that is always classified as a
corporation for federal tax purposes, even though section 7701(a)(3)
makes no distinction between domestic and foreign entities. Rather,
since the issuance of Rev. Rul. 88-8 (1988-1 C.B. 403), all foreign
entities have been classified based on the characteristics set forth in
Secs. 301.7701-2 and 301.7701-3 of the current regulations.
Nevertheless, under this approach, those foreign entities that are
equivalent to state law corporations are virtually always classified as
corporations.
To ensure the corporate classification of these foreign entities,
the proposed regulations include a list of foreign business entities
that always will be classified as corporations. Several commentators
supported inclusion of a list of foreign business entities that either
would be treated as corporations per se or that would continue to be
classified under the current regulations. The Treasury Department and
the IRS believe that classifying the business entities on the list as
corporations in all cases is consistent with the goal of simplifying
the entity classification area. The organizations listed are limited
liability entities, such as the British Public Limited Company, the
French Societe Anonyme, and the German Aktiengesellschaft. The Treasury
Department and the IRS invite comments on the composition of the list.
Under a special grandfather rule, however, an entity described in
this list will nevertheless be classified as a partnership under the
proposed regulations if: (1) The entity was in existence and claimed to
be a partnership on May 8, 1996 and for all prior periods, (2) that
classification was relevant to any person for federal tax purposes at
any time during the period that includes May 8, 1996, (3) the entity
had a reasonable basis (within the meaning of section 6662) for
claiming partnership classification, and (4) neither the entity nor any
member has been notified in writing on or before May 8, 1996 that the
classification of the entity is under examination (in which case the
entity's classification will be determined in the examination).
When these regulations become final, and current Sec. 301.7701-2
(on which Rev. Rul. 88-8 is based) is superseded, Rev. Rul. 88-8 will
be obsolete.
C. Other Business Entities
The proposed regulations define the term partnership to include any
business entity that has at least two members and that is not
classified as a corporation.
Some commentators requested clarification of the effect of these
elective classification rules on an organization's ability to elect to
be excluded from subchapter K under section 761. The proposed
regulations do not change the existing requirements for the election
provided in Sec. 1.761-2. Accordingly, an organization that is
classified as a partnership under the proposed regulations may elect to
be excluded from subchapter K, if it qualifies under Sec. 1.761-2.
Many commentators requested guidance concerning the classification
of an unincorporated business entity with a single owner. Some
commentators suggested that these entities be treated as sole
proprietorships, while others suggested partnership classification.
Because a fundamental characteristic of a partnership is the presence
of associates, an entity with a single owner cannot conduct business as
a partnership. However, the proposed regulations permit a business
entity with a single owner that is not required to be classified as a
corporation to elect to be classified as an association or to have the
organization disregarded as an
[[Page 21992]]
entity separate from its owner (in which case the business activity is
treated for federal tax purposes in the same manner as if it were
conducted as a sole proprietorship, branch, or division of the
organization's owner).
III. Elective Classification of Certain Entities
A. In General
Proposed Sec. 301.7701-3 sets forth rules permitting a business
entity that is not required to be classified as a corporation (referred
to in the regulation as an eligible entity) to elect its classification
for federal tax purposes. An eligible entity that has at least two
members may elect to be classified as an association or a partnership,
and an eligible entity with a single owner may elect to be classified
as an association or to be disregarded as an entity separate from its
owner.
B. Default Classification
The proposed regulations are designed to provide most eligible
entities with the classification they would choose without requiring
them to file an election. Thus, the proposed regulations provide
default classification rules that aim to match expectations. An
eligible entity that wants the default classification need not file an
election.
1. Domestic eligible entities. Notice 95-14 suggested partnership
default for domestic eligible entities. The comments supported this
rule, and the proposed regulations adopt it. Thus, a newly formed
domestic eligible entity will be classified as a partnership if it has
two or more members unless an election is filed to classify the entity
as an association; no affirmative action need be taken by the entity to
ensure partnership classification. Similarly, if that entity has a
single member, it will not be treated as an entity separate from its
owner for federal tax purposes unless an election is filed to classify
the organization as an association.
2. Foreign eligible entities. Notice 95-14 suggested association
default for foreign eligible entities. The Notice indicated that while
domestic eligible entities typically are formed with an intent to
obtain partnership classification, the preferred classification of
foreign eligible entities is less predictable. For example, the Notice
expressed concern that because partnership default could subject some
foreign entities to compliance requirements and excise tax liability
under section 1491, an entity should not be classified as a partnership
inadvertently. On the other hand, as some commentators indicated,
association default might not match the expectations of a foreign
eligible entity.
In response to these comments, the proposed regulations provide a
default rule that should match expectations more closely. The Treasury
Department and IRS believe that if any of an organization's members has
personal liability for the debts of the organization, the expectation
is that the organization will be classified as a partnership.
Accordingly, the proposed regulations provide that if one or more of an
eligible entity's members have unlimited liability, the entity will be
classified as a partnership if it has two or more members, or it will
be disregarded as a separate entity if it has a single owner. Only if
all of the entity's members have limited liability will the entity's
default classification be association.
For purposes of this rule, a member of a foreign entity has limited
liability only if, based solely on the controlling statute or law
pursuant to which the entity is organized, the member's personal
liability for the debts of or claims against the entity is specifically
limited (for example, to the amount of the member's unpaid capital
contribution or to the amount of a statutorily limited guarantee). If
protection from personal liability is optional under the applicable
law, the entity's organizational documents will determine which option
applies. The determination whether there is limited liability for
purposes of the default rule is intended to be simpler and more
straightforward than under current law, to ensure that the default
classification is readily apparent. Thus, the limited liability inquiry
generally will focus solely on controlling statutes as interpreted by
judicial or administrative review. As a result, a member's ability to
satisfy creditors' claims would not be relevant. If taxpayers remain
uncertain whether there is limited liability in a particular case, they
may file an election to secure the desired classification.
3. Existing eligible entities. Commentators suggested that special
rules should be provided for eligible entities formed prior to the
effective date of the regulations. These commentators were concerned
that some existing eligible entities would be required to file
classification elections immediately to prevent their classification
from being changed under a default rule. Under the proposed
regulations, eligible entities existing prior to the effective date of
the regulations that choose to retain their current classification
would not be required to file an election. Rather, those entities would
retain the classification claimed under the existing regulations
(except that, if an eligible entity with a single owner claimed to be a
partnership under the current regulations, the entity would be
disregarded as an entity separate from its owner under this default
rule). A foreign entity is considered such an existing entity only if
its classification immediately prior to the effective date of these
regulations is relevant to any person for federal tax purposes; other
foreign entities formed prior to the effective date of these
regulations would be considered new entities at the time that their
federal tax classification became relevant and, therefore, would be
required to file a classification election or be classified under the
general default rule described above.
Furthermore, under a transition rule discussed below, the IRS
generally will not challenge an existing entity's claimed
classification for periods to which the existing regulations apply if
the entity had a reasonable basis for the claimed classification.
C. Elections
1. In general. An eligible entity that does not want the
classification provided by the applicable default provision, or that
wants to change its classification, may file an election to obtain the
chosen classification. Some commentators suggested that the election be
made with Form SS-4 (Application for Employer Identification Number);
others suggested that the election be made with the filing of the
entity's first tax return.
An eligible entity may elect its classification by filing an
election with the appropriate service center. The proposed regulations
would require that the election specify the name, address, and taxpayer
identifying number of the entity, the chosen classification, whether
the election results in a change in classification, and whether the
entity is a domestic or foreign entity. It is anticipated that the
Commissioner will prescribe a form for this purpose, in which case
elections must be made on such form. The election will be effective on
a date specified on the election if that date is not more than 75 days
prior to the date on which the election is filed, or on the date filed
if no such date is specified on the election. In addition to the
original election, a business entity that makes an election shall file
a copy of its election with its federal tax return for the year in
which the election is effective. If the entity is not required to file
a return, the Commissioner will require direct or indirect owners of
the
[[Page 21993]]
entity to include copies of the election with their federal tax
returns.
Notice 95-14 suggested that all the members of an electing eligible
entity would be required to consent unanimously to a classification
election. Most commentators stated that, although an indication of
unanimity may be appropriate, a requirement that each member sign the
election could cause significant administrative difficulties. In
response to these comments, the proposed regulations require that an
election be signed by: (1) Each member of the entity, or (2) any
officer, manager, or owner who is authorized to make the election and
who represents to having such authorization under penalties of perjury.
An electing eligible entity also would be required to provide its
Employer Identification Number (EIN) on the election form. To reduce
taxpayers' paperwork burdens when an existing entity elects to change
its classification, the proposed regulations provide that if the entity
already has an EIN, it will retain it even though it elects to change
its tax classification. Any organization without an EIN at the time it
files its election, including an organization that had not previously
been treated as a separate entity for federal tax purposes, must apply
for an EIN on Form SS-4 when it files its election. If a new single-
member entity elects to be disregarded as an entity separate from its
owner, then the taxpayer identifying number of its owner must be
displayed on the election. The proposed regulations amend
Sec. 301.6109-1 to reflect these requirements.
2. Special rule for exempt organizations. A special rule is
provided for eligible entities that have been determined to be, or
claim to be, exempt from taxation under section 501(a). A substantial
majority of exempt organizations (including those employee plans that
qualify under section 401(a)) will not be eligible entities, either
because they are properly classified as trusts for federal tax purposes
or because they are not-for-profit corporations. However, for those
exempt organizations that are eligible entities, the business entity
classification that is consistent with the claim for exemption is
association (taxable as a corporation). Accordingly, the proposed
regulations provide that a claim or determination of exempt status by
an eligible entity is treated as an election to be classified as an
association. Such elections will take effect on the first day for which
exemption is claimed or determined to apply, regardless of when the
claim or determination is made, and will remain in effect unless an
election is made to change that classification after the date that
either the claim is withdrawn or rejected or the determination is
revoked.
3. Limits on changes in classification by election. Notice 95-14
requested comments on whether the regulations should restrict elections
to change an entity's classification. To varying degrees, commentators
supported such a restriction. Under the proposed regulations, an
eligible entity that makes an election to change its classification
cannot change its classification by election again during the sixty
months succeeding the effective date of the election. However, an
existing entity that elects to change its classification as of the
effective date of the proposed regulations may elect to change again
within the first sixty months following the effective date.
The sixty month limitation only applies to a change in
classification by election. Thus, if a new eligible entity elects out
of its default classification effective from its inception, that
election is not a change in the entity's classification. Furthermore,
the limitation does not apply if the organization's business actually
is transferred to another entity. For example, an organization could
liquidate into its parent, terminate and reform as another entity
(e.g., by merger), or contribute its business to another organization
without restriction.
Taxpayers are reminded that a change in classification, no matter
how achieved, will have certain tax consequences that must be reported.
For example, if an organization classified as an association elects to
be classified as a partnership, the organization and its owners must
recognize gain, if any, under the rules applicable to liquidations of
corporations.
D. Certain Partnership Terminations
Under section 708(b)(1)(B), a partnership is considered terminated
if within a twelve month period there is a sale or exchange of fifty
percent or more of the total interests in partnership capital and
profits. Under this rule, a termination is treated as a liquidation of
the existing partnership and the formation of a new partnership.
Accordingly, if an existing partnership terminates under section
708(b)(1)(B), the newly created entity will be classified as a
partnership (but could elect to change its classification thereafter).
IV. Effective Date and Transition Rules
The regulations are proposed to apply generally for periods
beginning on or after the date the final regulations are published in
the Federal Register. Sections 301.7701-1 through 301.7701-3 will
continue to apply until these regulations are effective.
In addition, the IRS will not challenge the classification of an
existing eligible entity, or an existing entity described in the list
of foreign entities that are classified as corporations under the
proposed regulations, for periods to which the current regulations
apply if: (1) The entity had a reasonable basis (within the meaning of
section 6662) for its claimed classification, (2) the entity claimed
that same classification in all prior years, and (3) neither the entity
nor any member has been notified in writing on or before May 8, 1996
that the classification of the entity is under examination (in which
case the entity's classification will be determined in the
examination).
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is
not a significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore,
a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined
that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 5) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do
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 its impact on small business.
Comments and 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 IRS. All
comments will be available for public inspection and copying.
A public hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, 1996,
at 10 a.m. in the Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Because of access
restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the Internal Revenue
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 August 12, 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 August 12, 1996.
[[Page 21994]]
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 authors of these regulations are Armando Gomez of the
Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries)
and Ronald M. Gootzeit and William H. Morris of the Office of Associate
Chief Counsel (International). However, other personnel from the IRS
and Treasury Department participated in their development.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 301
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income
taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 301 are 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. Section 1.581-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.581-1 Tax on banks.
(a) For an institution to be a bank for purposes of section 581, it
must be a corporation for federal tax purposes. See Sec. 301.7701-2(b)
of this chapter for the definition of corporation.
(b) This section applies to taxable years beginning on or after the
date that final regulations are published in the Federal Register.
Sec. 1.581-2 [Amended]
Par. 3. In Sec. 1.581-2, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the
first sentence.
Par. 4. In Sec. 1.761-1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.761-1 Terms defined.
(a) Partnership. The term partnership means a partnership as
determined under Secs. 301.7701-1, 301.7701-2, and 301.7701-3.
* * * * *
PART 301--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
Par. 5. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.* * *
Par. 6. Section 301.6109-1, as proposed to be amended in project
number INTL-0024-94, published on June 8, 1995, at 60 FR 30214, and
INTL-062-90, INTL-0032-93, INTL-52-86, and INTL-52-94, published on
April 22, 1996, at 61 FR 17666, is amended as follows:
1. Paragraph (b)(2)(v) is amended by removing the language ``.'' at
the end of the paragraph, and replacing it with the language ``; and''.
2. Paragraph (b)(2)(vi) is added.
3. The text of paragraph (d)(2) is redesignated as paragraph
(d)(2)(i).
4. A paragraph heading is added for newly designated paragraph
(d)(2)(i).
5. Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) is added.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 301.6109-1 Identifying numbers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) A foreign person that makes an election under Sec. 301.7701-
3(c).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Employer identification number--(i) In general. * * *
(ii) Special rule for entities electing to change their federal tax
classification under Sec. 301.7701-3(c). Any entity that has an
employer identification number and then elects under Sec. 301.7701-3(c)
to change its federal tax classification will retain that employer
identification number.
* * * * *
Par. 7. Sections 301.7701-1, 301.7701-2, and 301.7701-3 are revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 301.7701-1 Classification of organizations for federal tax
purposes.
(a) Organizations for federal tax purposes--(1) In general. The
Internal Revenue Code prescribes the classification of various
organizations for federal tax purposes. Whether an organization is an
entity separate from its owners for federal tax purposes is a matter of
federal tax law and does not depend on whether the organization is
recognized as an entity under local law.
(2) Certain joint undertakings give rise to entities for federal
tax purposes. A joint venture or other contractual arrangement may
create a separate entity for federal tax purposes if the participants
carry on a trade, business, financial operation, or venture and divide
the profits therefrom. For example, a separate entity exists for
federal tax purposes if co-owners of an apartment building lease space
and in addition provide services to the occupants either directly or
through an agent. Nevertheless, a joint undertaking merely to share
expenses does not create a separate entity for federal tax purposes.
For example, if two or more persons jointly construct a ditch merely to
drain surface water from their properties, they have not created a
separate entity for federal tax purposes. Similarly, mere co-ownership
of property that is maintained, kept in repair, and rented or leased
does not constitute a separate entity for federal tax purposes. For
example, if an individual owner, or tenants in common, of farm property
lease it to a farmer for a cash rental or a share of the crops, they do
not necessarily create a separate entity for federal tax purposes.
(3) Certain local law entities not recognized. An entity formed
under local law is not always recognized as a separate entity for
federal tax purposes. For example, an organization wholly owned by a
State is not recognized as a separate entity for federal tax purposes
if it is an integral part of the State. Similarly, tribes incorporated
under section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, as amended,
25 U.S.C. 477, or under section 3 of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act,
as amended, 25 U.S.C. 503, are not recognized as separate entities for
federal tax purposes.
(4) Single owner organizations. Under Secs. 301.7701-2 and
301.7701-3, certain organizations that have a single owner can choose
to be recognized or disregarded as entities separate from their owners.
(b) Classification of organizations. The classification of
organizations that are recognized as separate entities is determined
under Secs. 301.7701-2, 301.7701-3, and 301.7701-4 (unless a provision
of the Internal Revenue Code provides for special treatment of that
organization). For the classification of organizations as trusts, see
Sec. 301.7701-4. That section provides that trusts generally do not
have associates or an objective to carry on business for profit.
Sections 301.7701-2 and 301.7701-3 provide rules for classifying
organizations that are not classified as trusts.
(c) Qualified cost sharing arrangements. See Sec. 301.7701-3(e) as
contained in 26 CFR Part 301 as revised as of April 1, 1996.
(d) Domestic and foreign entities. For purposes of this section and
[[Page 21995]]
Sec. Sec. 301.7701-2 and 301.7701-3, an entity is a domestic entity if
it is created or organized in the United States or under the law of the
United States or of any State; an entity is foreign if it is not
domestic. See sections 7701(a)(4) and (a)(5).
(e) State. For purposes of this section and Sec. 301.7701-2, the
term State includes the District of Columbia.
(f) Effective date. The rules of this section apply to periods
beginning on or after the date that final regulations are published in
the Federal Register.
Sec. 301.7701-2 Business entities; definitions.
(a) Business entities. For purposes of this section and
Sec. 301.7701-3, a business entity is any entity recognized for federal
tax purposes (including an entity with a single owner that may be
disregarded as an entity separate from its owner under Sec. 301.7701-3)
that is not properly classified as a trust under Sec. 301.7701-4 (or
otherwise subject to special treatment under the Internal Revenue
Code). A business entity with two or more members is classified for
federal tax purposes as either a corporation or a partnership. A
business entity with only one owner is classified as a corporation or
is disregarded; if the entity is disregarded, its activities are
treated in the same manner as a sole proprietorship, branch, or
division of the owner.
(b) Corporations. For federal tax purposes, the term corporation
means--
(1) A business entity organized under a Federal or State statute,
or under a statute of a federally recognized Indian tribe, if the
statute describes or refers to the entity as incorporated or as a
corporation, body corporate, or body politic;
(2) An association (as determined under Sec. 301.7701-3);
(3) A business entity organized under a State statute, if the
statute describes or refers to the entity as a joint-stock company or
joint-stock association;
(4) A business entity that is taxable as an insurance company under
subchapter L, chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code;
(5) A State-chartered business entity conducting banking
activities, if any of its deposits are insured under the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq., or a similar
federal statute;
(6) A business entity wholly owned by a State or any political
subdivision thereof;
(7) A business entity that is taxable as a corporation under a
provision of the Internal Revenue Code other than section 7701(a)(3);
and
(8) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the
following business entities formed in the following jurisdictions:
American Samoa, Corporation
Argentina, Sociedad Anonima
Aruba, Naamloze Vennootschap
Australia, Public Limited Company
Austria, Aktiengesellschaft
Barbados, Limited Company
Belize, Public Limited Company
Belgium, Societe Anonyme or Naamloze Vennootschap
Bolivia, Sociedad Anonima
Brazil, Sociedade Anonima
Canada, Corporation
Chile, Sociedad Anonima
People's Republic of China, Company Limited by Shares
Republic of China (Taiwan), Company Limited by Shares
Colombia, Sociedad Anonima
Costa Rica, Sociedad Anonima
Cyprus, Public Limited Company
Czech Republic, Akciova Spolecnost
Denmark, Aktieselskab
Ecuador, Sociedad Anonima or Compania Anonima
El Salvador, Sociedad Anonima
Egypt, Sharikat Al-Mossahamah
Finland, Osakeyhtio/Aktiebolag
France, Societe Anonyme
Germany, Aktiengesellschaft
Greece, Anonymos Etairia
Guam, Corporation
Guatemala, Sociedad Anonima
Guyana, Public Limited Company
Honduras, Sociedad Anonima
Hong Kong, Public Limited Company
Hungary, Reszvenytarsasag
Iceland, Hlutafelag
India, Public Limited Company
Indonesia, Perseroan Terbatas
Ireland, Public Limited Company
Israel, Public Limited Company
Italy, Societa per Azioni
Jamaica, Public Limited Company
Japan, Kabushiki Kaisha
Kazakstan, Ashyk Aktsionerlik Kogham
Republic of Korea, Chusik Hoesa
Liberia, Corporation
Luxembourg, Societe Anonyme
Malaysia, Berhad
Malta, Partnership Anonyme
Mexico, Sociedad Anonima
Morocco, Societe Anonyme
Netherlands, Naamloze Vennootschap
Netherlands Antilles, Naamloze Vennootschap
New Zealand, Limited Company
Nicaragua, Compania Anonima
Nigeria, Public Limited Company
Northern Mariana Islands, Corporation
Norway, Aksjeselskap
Pakistan, Public Limited Company
Panama, Sociedad Anonima
Paraguay, Sociedad Anonima
Peru, Sociedad Anonima
Philippines, Stock Corporation
Poland, Spolka Akcyjna
Portugal, Sociedade Anonima
Puerto Rico, Corporation
Romania, Societe pe Actiuni
Russia, Otkrytoye Aktsionernoy Obshchestvo
Saudi Arabia, Sharikat Al-Mossahamah
Singapore, Public Limited Company
Slovak Republic, Akciova Spolocnost
South Africa, Public Limited Company
Spain, Sociedad Anonima
Surinam, Naamloze Vennootschap
Sweden, Aktiebolag
Switzerland, Aktiengesellschaft or Societe Anonyme
Thailand, Borisat Chamkad (Machachon)
Trinidad & Tobago, Public Limited Company
Turkey, Anonim Sirket
Tunisia, Societe Anonyme
Ukraine, Aktsionerne Tovaristvo Vidkritogo Tipu
United Kingdom, Public Limited Company
United States Virgin Islands, Corporation
Uruguay, Sociedad Anonima
Venezuela, Sociedad Anonima or Compania Anonima
(c) Other business entities. For federal tax purposes--
(1) The term partnership means a business entity that is not a
corporation under paragraph (b) of this section and that has at least
two members; and
(2) A business entity that has a single owner and is not a
corporation under paragraph (b) of this section is disregarded as an
entity separate from its owner.
(d) Special rule for certain foreign business entities. A foreign
business entity described in paragraph (b)(8) of this section is
classified as a partnership if--
(1) The entity was in existence and claimed to be a partnership on
May 8, 1996 and for all prior periods;
(2) That classification was relevant to any person for federal tax
purposes at any time during the period that includes May 8, 1996;
(3) The entity had a reasonable basis (within the meaning of
section 6662) for claiming partnership classification; and
(4) Neither the entity nor any member has been notified in writing
on or before May 8, 1996 that the classification of the entity is under
examination (in which case the entity's classification will be
determined in the examination).
(e) Effective date. The rules of this section apply to periods
beginning on or after the date that final regulations are published in
the Federal Register.
[[Page 21996]]
Sec. 301.7701-3 Classification of certain business entities.
(a) In general. A business entity that is not classified as a
corporation under Sec. 301.7701-2(b) (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or
(8) (an eligible entity) can elect its classification for federal tax
purposes as provided in this section. An eligible entity with at least
two members can elect to be classified as either an association (and
thus a corporation under Sec. 301.7701-2(b)(2)) or a partnership, and
an eligible entity with a single member can elect to be classified as
an association or to be disregarded as an entity separate from its
owner. Paragraph (b) of this section provides a default classification
for an eligible entity that does not make an election. Thus, elections
are necessary only when an eligible entity chooses to be classified
initially as other than the default classification or when an eligible
entity chooses to change its classification. Paragraph (c) of this
section provides rules for making express elections. Paragraph (d) of
this section provides a special rule for classifying an entity created
pursuant to a termination of a partnership under section 708(b)(1)(B).
Paragraph (e) of this section sets forth the effective date of this
section and a special rule relating to prior periods.
(b) Classification of eligible entities that do not file an
election--(1) Domestic eligible entities. Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, unless the entity elects otherwise, a
domestic eligible entity is--
(i) A partnership if it has two or more members; or
(ii) Disregarded as an entity separate from its owner if it has a
single owner.
(2) Foreign eligible entities--(i) In general. Except as provided
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, unless the entity elects
otherwise, a foreign eligible entity is--
(A) A partnership if it has two or more members and any member has
unlimited liability;
(B) An association if no member has unlimited liability; or
(C) Disregarded as an entity separate from its owner if it has a
single owner that has unlimited liability.
(ii) Definition of unlimited liability. For purposes of paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section, a member of a foreign eligible entity has
unlimited liability if the member has personal liability for the debts
of or claims against the entity, by reason of being a member, based
solely on the statute or law pursuant to which the entity is organized.
A member has personal liability if creditors of the entity may seek
satisfaction of debts of or claims against the entity from the member
as such. A member has personal liability for purposes of this paragraph
even if the member makes an agreement under which another person
(whether or not a member of the entity) assumes such liability or
agrees to indemnify such member for any such liability.
(3) Existing eligible entities. Unless the entity elects otherwise,
an eligible entity in existence prior to the effective date of this
section will have the same classification that the entity claimed under
Secs. 301.7701-1 through 301.7701-3 as in effect on the date prior to
the effective date of this section; except that if an eligible entity
with a single owner claimed to be a partnership under those
regulations, the entity will be disregarded as an entity separate from
its owner under this paragraph. For special rules regarding the
classification of such entities for periods prior to the effective date
of this section, see paragraph (e)(2) of this section. For purposes of
this paragraph, a foreign eligible entity is treated as being in
existence prior to the effective date of this section only if the
entity's classification is relevant to any person for federal tax
purposes at any time during the period that includes the date
immediately prior to the effective date of this section.
(c) Elections--(1) Time and place for filing--(i) In general.
Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section,
an eligible entity may elect to be classified other than as provided
under paragraph (b) of this section, or to change its classification,
by filing an election with the appropriate service center. Such an
election shall specify the name, address, and taxpayer identifying
number of the entity, the chosen classification, whether the election
results in a change in classification, and whether the entity is a
domestic or foreign entity. The election will be effective on the date
specified on the election if that date is not more than 75 days prior
to the date on which the election is filed, or on the date filed if no
such date is specified on the election. If the Commissioner prescribes
a form for this purpose, the election shall be made on such form. See
Sec. 301.6109-1 for rules on applying for and displaying Employer
Identification Numbers.
(ii) Limitation. If an eligible entity makes an election under this
paragraph (c) to change its classification (other than an election made
by an existing entity to change its classification as of the effective
date of this section), it cannot change its classification by election
again during the sixty months succeeding the effective date of the
election.
(iii) Special rule for exempt organizations. An eligible entity
that has been determined to be, or claims to be, exempt from taxation
under section 501(a) is treated as having made an election under this
section to be classified as an association. Such election will be
effective as of the first date for which exemption is claimed or
determined to apply, regardless of when the claim or determination is
made, and will remain in effect unless an election is made under
paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section after the date the claim for exempt
status is withdrawn or rejected or the date the determination of exempt
status is revoked.
(iv) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this
paragraph (c)(1):
Example 1. On July 1, 1998, X, a domestic corporation, purchases
a 10% interest in Y, an eligible entity formed under Country A law
in 1990. The entity's classification was not relevant to any person
for federal tax purposes prior to X's acquisition of an interest in
Y. Thus, Y is not considered to be in existence on the effective
date of this section for purposes of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section. Under the applicable Country A statute, no member of Y has
unlimited liability as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this
section. Accordingly, Y is classified as an association under
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section unless it elects under
paragraph (c) of this section to be classified as a partnership. To
be classified as a partnership as of July 1, 1998, Y must file the
election by September 13, 1998. See paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section. Because an election cannot be effective more than 75 days
prior to the date on which it is filed, if Y files its election
after September 13, 1998, it will be classified as an association
from July 1, 1998, until the effective date of the election. In that
case, it could not change its classification by election under
paragraph (c) of this section during the sixty months succeeding the
effective date of the election.
Example 2. (i) Z is an eligible entity formed under Country B
law and is in existence on the effective date of this section within
the meaning of paragraph (b)(3) of this section. Prior to the
effective date of this section, Z claimed to be classified as an
association. Unless Z files an election under paragraph (c) of this
section, it will continue to be classified as an association under
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(ii) Z files an election under paragraph (c) of this section to
be classified as a partnership, effective as of the effective date
of this section. Z can file an election to be classified as an
association at any time thereafter, but then would not be permitted
to change its classification by election during the sixty months
succeeding the effective date of that subsequent election.
(2) Authorized signatures. An election made under paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section must be signed by--
[[Page 21997]]
(i) Each member of the electing entity; or
(ii) Any officer, manager, or member of the electing entity who is
authorized to make the election and who represents to having such
authorization under penalties of perjury.
(3) Further notification of elections. An eligible entity required
to file a federal tax return for the taxable year for which an election
is made under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section shall attach a copy
of the form filed in accordance with paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this
section to its federal tax return for that year. If the entity is not
required to file a return for that year, the Commissioner will require
that a copy of such form be attached to the federal income tax return
of any direct or indirect owner of the entity for the taxable year of
the owner that includes the date on which the election was effective.
(d) Special rule for certain partnership terminations. When a
partnership terminates by operation of section 708(b)(1)(B) (on the
sale or exchange of fifty percent or more of the total interests in
partnership capital or profits within a twelve month period), the
resulting entity created by such termination is a partnership.
(e) Effective date--(1) In general. The rules of this section apply
to periods beginning on or after the date that final regulations are
published in the Federal Register.
(2) Prior treatment of existing entities. In the case of a business
entity that is not described in Sec. 301.7701-2(b) (1), (3), (4), (5),
(6), or (7), and that is in existence prior to the effective date of
this section, the entity's claimed classification will be respected for
all periods prior to the effective date of this section if--
(i) The entity had a reasonable basis (within the meaning of
section 6662) for its claimed classification;
(ii) The entity claimed that same classification for all prior
periods; and
(iii) Neither the entity nor any member has been notified in
writing on or before May 8, 1996 that the classification of the entity
is under examination (in which case the entity's classification will be
determined in the examination).
Par. 8. Section 301.7701-4 is amended as follows:
1. The last sentence of paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (c)(2) Example 1,
and (c)(2) Example 3 are revised.
2. Paragraph (f) is added.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 301.7701-4 Trusts.
* * * * *
(b) Business trusts. * * * The fact that any organization is
technically cast in the trust form, by conveying title to property to
trustees for the benefit of persons designated as beneficiaries, will
not change the real character of the organization if the organization
is more properly classified as a business entity under Sec. 301.7701-2.
(c) * * * (1) * * * An investment trust with multiple classes of
ownership interests ordinarily will be classified as a business entity
under Sec. 301.7701-2; however, an investment trust with multiple
classes of ownership interests, in which there is no power under the
trust agreement to vary the investment of the certificate holders, will
be classified as a trust if the trust is formed to facilitate direct
investment in the assets of the trust and the existence of multiple
classes of ownership interests is incidental to that purpose.
(2) * * *
Example 1. * * * As a consequence, the existence of multiple
classes of trust ownership is not incidental to any purpose of the
trust to facilitate direct investment, and, accordingly, the trust
is classified as a business entity under Sec. 301.7701-2.
* * * * *
Example 3. * * * Accordingly, the trust is classified as a
business entity under Sec. 301.7701-2.
* * * * *
(f) Effective date. The rules of this section generally apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1960. Paragraph (e)(5) of
this section contains rules of applicability for paragraph (e) of this
section. In addition, the last sentences of paragraphs (b), (c)(1), and
(c)(2) Example 1 and Example 3 of this section apply to taxable years
beginning on or after the date that final regulations are published in
the Federal Register.
Par. 9. Section 301.7701-6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.7701-6 Definitions; person, fiduciary.
(a) Person. The term person includes an individual, a corporation,
a partnership, a trust or estate, a joint-stock company, an
association, or a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other
unincorporated organization or group. The term also includes a
guardian, committee, trustee, executor, administrator, trustee in
bankruptcy, receiver, assignee for the benefit of creditors,
conservator, or any person acting in a fiduciary capacity.
(b) Fiduciary--(1) In general. Fiduciary is a term that applies to
persons who occupy positions of peculiar confidence toward others, such
as trustees, executors, and administrators. A fiduciary is a person who
holds in trust an estate to which another has a beneficial interest, or
receives and controls income of another, as in the case of receivers. A
committee or guardian of the property of an incompetent person is a
fiduciary.
(2) Fiduciary distinguished from agent. There may be a fiduciary
relationship between an agent and a principal, but the word agent does
not denote a fiduciary. An agent having entire charge of property, with
authority to effect and execute leases with tenants entirely on his own
responsibility and without consulting his principal, merely turning
over the net profits from the property periodically to his principal by
virtue of authority conferred upon him by a power of attorney, is not a
fiduciary within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. In cases
when no legal trust has been created in the estate controlled by the
agent and attorney, the liability to make a return rests with the
principal.
(c) Effective date. The rules of this section are effective on the
date that final regulations are published in the Federal Register.
Sec. 301.7701-7 [Removed]
Par. 10. Section 301.7701-7 is removed.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 96-11780 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11779 Termination of a Partnership under Section 708(b)(1)(B)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21985-21988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11779]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[PS-5-96]
RIN 1545-AU14
Termination of a Partnership under Section 708(b)(1)(B)
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations relating to the
termination of a partnership upon the sale or exchange of 50 percent or
more of the total interest in partnership capital and profits. The
proposed regulations affect all partners and partnerships that
terminate under section 708(b)(1)(B).
DATES: Written comments and requests to speak (with outlines of oral
comments) at a public hearing scheduled for September 5, 1996, must be
received by August 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (PS-5-96), 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 (PS-5-96), Courier's
Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium,
Seventh Floor, 7400 Corridor, Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations,
Steven R. Schneider, (202) 622-3060; concerning submissions and the
hearing, Christina Vasquez, (202) 622-7190; (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
This document proposes to revise section 1.708-1(b)(1)(iv) of the
Income
[[Page 21986]]
Tax Regulations (26 CFR Part 1) under section 708(b)(1)(B) of the
Internal Revenue Code (Code). This document also proposes revisions to
other sections of the Income Tax Regulations to reflect the proposed
revision to Sec. 1.708- 1(b)(1)(iv).
Background
Section 708(b)(1)(B) provides that, for purposes of section 708(a),
a partnership shall be considered terminated if within a 12-month
period there is a sale or exchange of 50 percent or more of the total
interest in partnership capital and profits. The Code and the
legislative history to section 708(b)(1)(B) do not specify the tax
consequences of that termination or the steps by which such a
termination occurs.
However, Sec. 1.708-1(b)(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Regulations
provides that, if a partnership is terminated by a sale or exchange of
an interest, the following is deemed to occur: the partnership
distributes its properties to the purchaser and the other remaining
partners in proportion to their respective interests in the partnership
properties; and, immediately thereafter, the purchaser and the other
remaining partners contribute the properties to a new partnership,
either for the continuation of the business or for its dissolution and
winding up.
The distribution of property that is deemed to occur upon a
termination under section 708(b)(1)(B) is treated like an actual
distribution for federal tax purposes. As a result, a continuing
partner may recognize gain under section 731(a) if the amount of money
deemed distributed to the partner (including any money deemed
distributed upon a shift in liabilities under section 752) exceeds the
partner's basis in the partnership interest. In addition, the
distribution may affect the basis of the partnership's assets because
the basis of the distributed property in the hands of the partners (and
thus in the hands of the reconstituted partnership) is determined under
section 732(b) by reference to the partners' bases in their partnership
interests. Another possible consequence of the deemed distribution is a
change in the holding periods of the partners' interests in the
partnership.
The deemed distribution of partnership property that occurs on a
termination raises particular concerns with respect to the interaction
of sections 708(b)(1)(B), 704(c), and 737. Section 704(c)(1)(A)
requires that gain or loss with respect to property contributed to a
partnership by a partner be shared among the partners so as to take
into account any built-in gain or loss in the property at the time of
the contribution. Section 704(c)(1)(B) provides that, if property
contributed by a partner is distributed to another partner within five
years, the contributing partner must recognize gain or loss in an
amount equal to the gain or loss the partner would have been allocated
under section 704(c)(1)(A) on a sale of the property by the
partnership. Section 737 provides that, if property is distributed to a
partner that had contributed other property to the partnership within
five years, the distributee partner must recognize gain equal to the
lesser of (i) the net precontribution gain on property contributed by
the partner, or (ii) the excess of the value of the distributed
property over the adjusted basis of the partner's interest in the
partnership. Net precontribution gain is the net gain, if any, that
would have been recognized by the distributee partner under section
704(c)(1)(B) if all partnership property contributed by the distributee
partner within five years of the distribution had been distributed to
another partner.
The legislative history of sections 704(c)(1)(B) and 737 indicates
that Congress intended these sections to be coordinated with the rules
governing partnership terminations under section 708(b)(1)(B). The
legislative history states that such coordination will provide that (1)
no gain is recognized under sections 704(c)(1)(B) and 737 as a result
of a deemed distribution on termination; (2) the deemed distribution
will not change the application of the sharing requirements of section
704(c) to precontribution gain or loss with respect to property
contributed to the partnership before the termination; and (3) the
constructive contribution of partnership property to a new partnership
is treated as beginning a new five-year period for all contributed
property to the extent that the pretermination appreciation in the
value of property was not already required to be allocated to the
original contributor (if any) of the property. H.R. Rep. No. 247, 101st
Cong., 1st Sess. 1355 (1989); H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1018, 102d Cong., 2d
Sess. 428 (1992). These results are difficult to integrate with the
current regulations under section 708(b)(1)(B). The difficulty arises
primarily because the section 708(b)(1)(B) regulations provide for a
pro rata distribution of property to the partners, while the
legislative history seems to contemplate that partnership property
previously contributed to the partnership by a partner will be
distributed to that partner, at least to the extent of the remaining
built-in gain or loss in the property.
The IRS and Treasury Department recently issued final regulations
under sections 704(c)(1)(B) and 737. Commentators, however, noted that
the approach taken in the legislative history and the final regulations
would not be required if the section 708(b)(1)(B) regulations did not
create a deemed distribution of partnership property to the partners as
part of a section 708(b)(1)(B) termination. The preamble to the final
regulations indicated that the IRS and Treasury would consider issuing
separate guidance on the interaction of sections 704(c) and
708(b)(1)(B) and invited additional comments and suggestions regarding
the project.
Explanation of Provisions
The proposed regulations under section 708(b)(1)(B) provide that,
if a partnership is terminated by a sale or exchange of an interest,
the following is deemed to occur: the partnership transfers all of its
assets and liabilities to a new partnership in exchange for an interest
in the new partnership; immediately thereafter, the terminated
partnership distributes interests in the new partnership to the
purchasing partner and the other remaining partners in liquidation of
the terminated partnership, either for the continuation of the business
or for its dissolution and winding up.
Under the proposed regulations, a termination under section
708(b)(1)(B) will no longer result in a deemed distribution of the
terminated partnership's assets to the purchasing and remaining
partners. As a result, the federal tax consequences of a termination
that result from the deemed distribution of assets will no longer occur
on a section 708(b)(1)(B) termination. Such consequences include the
possibility of gain under section 731(a), a change in the partnership's
basis in partnership property, and the commencement of a new five-year
period for purposes of sections 704(c)(1)(B) and 737. In addition, the
interaction between section 704(c) and section 708(b)(1)(B) is greatly
simplified under the proposed regulation. The section 704(c) property
held by the terminated partnership (and deemed contributed to a new
partnership) will continue to be treated as section 704(c) property in
the hands of the new partnership under Sec. 1.704-3(a)(9). A
distribution of property by the new partnership will have the same
effect for purposes of section 704(c)(1)(B) and section 737 as a
distribution from the terminated partnership. See Secs. 1.704-
[[Page 21987]]
4(c)(4) and 1.737-2(b)(1) as proposed to be amended by this document.
The proposed regulations do not change the federal tax consequences
of a termination under section 708(b)(1)(B) to the extent that the
consequences were not dependent on the deemed distribution. Such
consequences will continue under the proposed regulations. For example,
the tax year of the terminated partnership will still close as a result
of the termination, the elections of the terminated partnership will be
invalidated, and a termination will continue to be treated as a
liquidation under the section 704(b) regulations.
In addition, the proposed regulations will not change the effect of
a termination on the depreciation of partnership property by the new
partnership. Property deemed contributed to the new partnership will
continue to be subject to the anti- churning provisions of section
168(f)(5), which generally require the new partnership to depreciate
the property as if it were newly acquired property under the same
depreciation system used by the terminated partnership. This result is
required by statute and is not affected by the specific mechanics of a
termination under section 708(b)(1)(B). See Code sections 168(f)(5);
168(i)(7); 168(e)(4) and (f)(10) (repealed 1986).
This document also contains proposed regulations under sections
704(b), 704(c)(1)(B), 743(b), 737, and 761(e). These proposed
regulations relate to the elimination of a deemed distribution of
partnership assets as part of a section 708(b)(1)(B) termination. The
proposed regulations under section 704(b) will eliminate the reference
to a deemed contribution of partnership property by the partners of the
continuing partnership. The proposed regulations under sections
704(c)(1)(B) and 737 provide that a termination under section
708(b)(1)(B) does not commence a new five-year period for partnership
property and that a distribution of property by the new partnership
will be treated in the same manner as a distribution by the terminated
partnership would have been treated. Although the legislative history
suggests the beginning of a new five year period for built in gain or
loss in the property deemed contributed to the new partnership, that
legislative history was commenting on a deemed contribution of property
by the partners to the new partnership, as then required by the section
708 regulations. Under the approach proposed in this regulation, a new
five year period is no longer appropriate.
The proposed regulations under section 743(b) provide that any
special basis adjustment a partner has in assets of the terminated
partnership as a result of a section 754 election will carry over to
the new partnership. The proposed regulations under section 761(e)
provide that the distribution of interests in the new partnership by
the terminated partnership is not treated as a sale or exchange of the
interests in the new partnership. This provision is necessary to
prevent the distribution of interests in the new partnership from
causing a termination of the new partnership.
Proposed Effective Date
This section is proposed to apply to terminations of partnerships
under section 708(b)(1)(B) occurring on or after the date on which
these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is
not a significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore,
a regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined
that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 5) and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do
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 its impact on small business.
Comments and 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 timely submitted to the IRS. All
comments will be available for public inspection and copying.
A public hearing has been scheduled for September 5, 1996, at 10
a.m. in the Auditorium of the Internal Revenue Building, 1111
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Because of access
restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the Internal Revenue
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 August 15, 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 August 15, 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 regulations is Steven R. Schneider of
the Office of Assistant Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special
Industries), IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury
Department participated in their development.
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, 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. * * *
Section 1.704-4 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 704(c). * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.704-1 is amended as follows:
1. Paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(l) is amended by removing the fourth
sentence.
2. Paragraph (b)(5) Example 13(v) is amended by removing sentences
five to the end and adding five new sentences in their place.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 1.704-1 Partner's distributive share.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * *
Example 13. * * *
(v) * * * In accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(e) of this
section, the partnership agreement provides that the partners'
capital accounts are adjusted to reflect how unrealized taxable gain
would have been allocated if the property distributed to the
partners in liquidation of the partnership (i.e., the interest in
the new partnership constructively received by the terminated
partnership under Sec. 1.708-1(b)(1)(iv)) had been sold for its fair
market value of $40,000. Accordingly, the $18,000 of unrealized gain
($40,000 less $22,000 adjusted tax basis) is credited to the
partners' capital accounts as follows:
[[Page 21988]]
Z LK
Capital account following sale.................... $11,000 $11,000
Deemed sale adjustment............................ 9,000 9,000
---------------------
Capital account before constructive liquidation... 20,000 20,000
Constructive liquidating distributions of the interests in the new
partnership are made with reference to its $40,000 fair market
value. Under section 732(b), the adjusted tax basis of the 50
percent interest in the new partnership constructively distributed
to Z is equal to the $11,000 adjusted tax basis of Z's partnership
interest before the constructive liquidation, and the adjusted tax
basis of the 50 percent interest in the new partnership
constructively distributed to LK is equal to the $20,000 adjusted
tax basis of LK's partnership interest before the constructive
liquidation. Under paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(d) of this section, the
capital account of the terminated partnership with respect to the
new partnership would be $40,000 (i.e., the fair market value of the
property constructively contributed to the new partnership by the
terminated partnership). The capital accounts of Z and LK with
respect to the constructively distributed interests in the new
partnership are stated at $20,000 (i.e., one-half of the $40,000
capital account of the terminated partnership). This Example 13(v)
applies to terminations of partnerships under section 708(b)(1)(B)
occurring on or after the date on which these regulations are
published as final regulations in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
Par. 3. Section 1.704-4 is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)(4)(ii) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.704-4 Distribution of contributed property.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Section 708(b)(1)(B) terminations. A termination of the
partnership under section 708(b)(1)(B) does not begin a new five-year
period for each partner with respect to the built-in gain and built-in
loss property that the terminated partnership is deemed to contribute
to a new partnership following the termination. See Sec. 1.704-
3(a)(3)(ii) for the definitions of built-in gain and built-in loss on
section 704(c) property. This paragraph (a)(4)(ii) applies to
terminations of partnerships under section 708(b)(1)(B) occurring on or
after the date on which these regulations are published as final
regulations in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Section 708(b)(1)(B) terminations. Section 704(c)(1)(B) and
this section do not apply to a deemed distribution of interests in a
new partnership caused by a termination of a partnership under section
708(b)(1)(B). A subsequent distribution of section 704(c) property by
the new partnership to a partner of the new partnership is subject to
section 704(c)(1)(B) to the same extent that a distribution by the
terminated partnership would have been subject to section 704(c)(1)(B).
See also Sec. 1.737-2(a) for a similar rule in the context of section
737. This paragraph (c)(3) applies to terminations of partnerships
under section 708(b)(1)(B) occurring on or after the date on which
these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
* * * * *
Par. 4. In Sec. 1.708-1, paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is amended by
removing the first sentence and adding two new sentences in its place
to read as follows:
Sec. 1.708-1 Continuation of Partnership.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) If a partnership is terminated by a sale or exchange of an
interest, the following is deemed to occur: The partnership transfers
all of its assets and liabilities to a new partnership in exchange for
an interest in the new partnership; and, immediately thereafter, the
terminated partnership distributes an interest in the new partnership
to the purchasing partner and the other remaining partners in
liquidation of the terminated partnership, either for the continuation
of the business of the new partnership or for its dissolution and
winding up. The first sentence of this paragraph (b)(1)(iv) applies to
terminations of partnerships under section 708(b)(1)(B) occurring on or
after the date on which these regulations are published as final
regulations in the Federal Register. * * *
* * * * *
Par. 5. Section 1.743-1 is amended by adding paragraph (d) as
follows:
Sec. 1.743-1 Optional adjustment to basis of partnership property.
* * * * *
(d) Section 708(b)(1)(B) terminations. A partner with a special
basis adjustment in property held by a partnership that terminates
under section 708(b)(1)(B) will continue to have the same special basis
adjustment with respect to property contributed by the terminated
partnership to the new partnership under Sec. 1.708-1(b)(1)(iv). This
paragraph (d) applies to terminations of partnerships under section
708(b)(1)(B) occurring on or after the date on which these regulations
are published as final regulations in the Federal Register.
Par. 6. In Sec. 1.737-2, paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.737-2 Exceptions and special rules.
(a) Section 708(b)(1)(B) terminations. Section 737 and this section
do not apply to a deemed distribution of interests in a new partnership
caused by a termination of a partnership under section 708(b)(1)(B). A
subsequent distribution of section 704(c) property by the new
partnership to a partner of the new partnership is subject to section
737 to the same extent that a distribution by the terminated
partnership would have been subject to section 737. See also
Sec. 1.704-4(c)(3) for a similar rule in the context of section
704(c)(1)(B). This paragraph (a) applies to terminations of
partnerships under section 708(b)(1)(B) occurring on or after the date
on which these regulations are published as final regulations in the
Federal Register.
* * * * *
Par 7. In Sec. 1.761-1, paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.761-1 Terms defined.
* * * * *
(e) Distribution of partnership interest. For purposes of section
708(b)(1)(B) and Sec. 1.708-1(b)(1)(iv), the distribution of an
interest in a new partnership by a partnership that terminates under
section 708(b)(1)(B) is not a sale or exchange of an interest in the
new partnership. This paragraph (e) applies to terminations of
partnerships under section 708(b)(1)(B) occurring on or after the date
on which these regulations are published as final regulations in the
Federal Register.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 96-11779 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11778 Reissuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates; Hearing Cancellation
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21988-21989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11778]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Part 1
[FI-47-92]
RIN 1545-AR76
Reissuance of Mortgage Credit Certificates; Hearing Cancellation
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
[[Page 21989]]
ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed
rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public
hearing on proposed regulations relating to implementing a provision of
the Tax reform Act of 1984 permitting the reissuance of mortgage credit
certificates.
DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for May 22, 1996,
beginning at 10:00 a.m. is cancelled.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evangelista C. Lee of the Regulations
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190 (not a toll
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is
proposed amendments to the Income Tax Regulations under section 25 of
the Internal Revenue Code. A notice of public hearing appearing in the
Federal Register on Friday, April 5, 1996 (61 FR 15204), announced that
a public hearing would be held on Wednesday, May 22, 1996, beginning at
10:00 a.m., in the Commissioners Conference Room, Internal Revenue
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20224.
The public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, May 22, 1996, is
cancelled.
Michael L. Slaughter,
Acting Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-11778 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11774 Special Local Regulation: Connecticut River Raft Race, Middletown, CT
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21998-21999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11774]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD01-95-058]
RIN 2115-AE 46
Special Local Regulation: Connecticut River Raft Race,
Middletown, CT
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations governing
the Connecticut River Raft Race. The event name would change to the
``Great Connecticut River Raft Race'' due to a change in sponsor. The
regulated area would move upriver to coincide with a change in the race
course. The effective period would also change to July 27, 1996, and
each year thereafter on a date and times specified in a Federal
Register document. This regulation is necessary to control vessel
traffic within the regulated area due to the confined nature of the
waterway and anticipated congestion at the time of the event, thus
providing for the safety of life and property on the affected navigable
waterway.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Commander (b), First Coast
Guard District, Captain John Foster Williams Federal Building, 408
Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts 02110-3350. Comments also may be
hand-delivered to room 428 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant (Junior Grade) Benjamin M. Algeo, Chief, Boating Affairs
Branch, First Coast Guard District, (617) 223-8311.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments. Each
person submitting comments should include their name and address,
identify this notice (CGD01-95-058), the specific section of the
proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Comments and attachments should be submitted on 8\1/2\'' x
11'' unbound paper in a format suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If that is not practical, a second copy of any bound material
is requested. Persons requesting acknowledgement of receipt of comments
should enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
All comments received during the comment period will be considered
by the Coast Guard and may change this proposal. The Coast Guard has no
plans to hold a public hearing. Persons may request a public hearing by
writing to Commander (b), First Coast Guard District at the address
under ADDRESSES. The request should include reasons why a hearing would
be beneficial. If the Coast Guard determines that oral presentations
will aid this rulemaking, it will hold a public hearing at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Discussion of Proposed Amendments
The Connecticut River Raft Race is in its twenty-second year, and
is a popular local event. A permanent special local regulation, 33 CFR
Part 100.102, governs the running of the event. Due to a change in
sponsor, the name of the event will change to the ``Great Connecticut
River Raft Race'' and the location of the race will be moved a short
distance upriver. The event will continue to be annually recurring,
therefore, the Coast Guard proposes to permanently amend the special
local regulation found in 33 CFR Part 100.102. The race course and
regulated area will change to consist of that portion of the
Connecticut River between Marker nos. 92 and 73, Middletown, CT. The
event date will also change from the first Saturday in August to the
last Saturday in July or first Saturday in August.
This event will include up to 60 homemade rafts and is expected to
draw up to 100 spectator craft. The Coast Guard, Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, and local fire and police departments will
each assign a patrol to the event. However, due to the restricted
maneuverability of the participating rafts, it is necessary to
establish a special local regulation to control spectator and
commercial vessel movement within this confined area. Spectator craft
are authorized to watch the race from any area as long as they remain
outside the designated regulated area.
The proposed section will be effective annually on the last
Saturday in July or first Saturday in August, between 10 a.m. and 2
p.m., or as published in a Coast Guard Notice to Mariners. A rain date
may be established and announced in a Coast Guard Notice to Mariners.
In emergency situations, the Coast Guard patrol commander may establish
escort
[[Page 21999]]
procedures for vessels requiring transit through the regulated area.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposal is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and does not require an assessment of
potential costs 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
proposal to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under
paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT, is
unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the limited duration of the
race, the extensive advisories that will be made to the affected
maritime community, and the minimal restrictions the regulation places
on vessel traffic.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider the economic impact on small entities of a
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. For the reasons discussed in the
Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
that this proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial 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 in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this proposal does not raise sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impacts of this
proposal and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e.34(h) of COMDTINST
16475.1B (as revised by 59 FR 38654, July 29, 1944), this proposal is a
regulation issued in conjunction with an annually issued regatta or
marine parade permit and is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Proposed Regulation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. Section 100.102 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 100.102 Great Connecticut River Raft Race, Middletown, CT.
(a) Regulated Area. That section of the Connecticut River between
Dart Island (Marker no. 73) and Portland Shoals (Marker no. 92),
Middletown, CT.
(b) Special Local Regulations.
(1) The Coast Guard patrol commander many delay, modify, or cancel
the race as conditions or circumstances require.
(2) No person or vessel may enter, transit, or remain in the
regulated area unless participating in the event or unless authorized
by the Coast Guard patrol commander.
(3) Vessels encountering emergencies which require transit through
the regulated area should contact the Coast Guard patrol commander on
VHF Channel 16. In the event of an emergency, the Coast Guard patrol
commander may authorize a vessel to transit through the regulated area
with a Coast Guard designated escort.
(4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the on-scene Coast Guard patrol commander. On-scene patrol personnel
may include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast
Guard. Upon hearing five or more short blasts from a U.S. Coast Guard
vessel, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. Members of
the Coast Guard Auxiliary will also be present to inform vessel
operators of this regulation and other applicable laws.
(c) Effective period. This section is in effect from 10 a.m. to 2
p.m. on July 27, 1996, and each year thereafter on a date and times
specified in a Federal Register Document.
Dated March 19, 1996.
J.L. Linnon,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 96-11774 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11757 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22004-22006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11757]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5504-2]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency.
Action: Notice of intent to delete the Alaskan Battery Enterprises Site
from the National Priorities List Update: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces
its intent to delete the Alaskan Battery Enterprises Site (Site) from
the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability
[[Page 22005]]
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) have determined that
this Site poses no significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, further remedial measures pursuant to
CERCLA are not appropriate.
DATES: Comments concerning this Site may be submitted on or before June
12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Keith Rose, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: ECL-111, Seattle,
Washington 98101.
Comprehensive information on this Site is available through the
Region 10 public docket which is available for viewing at the Alaskan
Battery Enterprises Site information repositories at the following
locations:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Attn: Jeffrey
Peterson, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Environmental Cleanup
Office--Records Center, Attn: Lynn Williams, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose, U.S. EPA, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Mail Stop: ECL-111, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-7721.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its
intent to delete a site from the National Priorities List (NPL),
Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, and requests comments on this deletion.
Sites listed on the NPL are those which present a significant risk to
human health or the environment. As described in Section 300.425(e)(3)
of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-
financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the
site warrant such actions.
EPA plans to delete the Alaskan Battery Enterprises Site at 157 Old
Richardson Highway, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709, from the NPL. EPA will
accept comments on the plan to delete this Site for thirty days after
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for
this action. Section IV discusses the Alaskan Battery Enterprises Site
and explains how this site meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that sites, where a release
of hazardous substances has occurred, may be deleted from, or
recategorized on the NPL, where no further response is appropriate. In
making a determination to delete a site from the NPL, EPA shall
consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have
been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate, or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release
poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a
subsequent review of the site will be conducted at least every five
years after the initiation of the remedial action at the site to ensure
that the site remains protective of public health and the environment.
In the case of this Site, where hazardous substances are not above
health based levels and future access does not require restriction,
operation and maintenance activities and five-year reviews will not be
conducted. However, if new information becomes available which
indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the site may be restored to the NPL without the application of the
Hazard Ranking System.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
this Site: (1) EPA Region 10 issued a Record of Decision (ROD) which
documented that no further action was necessary because cleanup goals
had been achieved through removal actions prior to the ROD; (2) ADEC
concurred with the proposed deletion decision; (3) A notice has been
published in the local newspaper and has been distributed to
appropriate federal, state, and local officials and other interested
parties announcing the commencement of a 30-day public comment period
on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete; and, (4) All relevant documents
have been made available for public review in the local Site
information repositories.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes to assist Agency management. As
mentioned in Section II of this Notice, 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) states
that deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for
future Fund-financed response actions.
For deletion of this Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and
evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before
making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will
prepare a Responsiveness Summary if any significant public comments are
addressed.
A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local
residents by the Regional office.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following Site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the
intention to delete this Site from the NPL.
A. Site Background
The Alaskan Battery Enterprises (ABE) facility was a 0.5 acre
battery recycling facility located at 157 Old Richardson Highway at the
southern edge of Fairbanks, Alaska. The area surrounding the site is
primarily mixed residential and light commercial property.
B. Site History
The facility conducted battery recycling and manufacturing
operations of automobile batteries from 1961 until about 1992. During
its operation, crushed battery casings were used as fill material in
low-lying areas of the ABE property and in the construction of the
septic cribs along the southern property boundary. Used battery acid
was also discharged directly to the ground on the ABE property.
Investigations conducted by the Alaska Department of Transportation
(ADOT) in 1986, and by the EPA technical Assistance Team in 1988,
identified high levels of lead contamination in soil on the ABE
property and on the adjacent right-of-way owned by ADOT. In August
1988, EPA initiated an emergency removal action at the Site. Soils with
lead
[[Page 22006]]
concentrations in excess of 1,000 mg/kg were excavated and disposed of
at an off-site hazardous waste disposal facility. Excavation was
completed in the summer of 1989 with a total of 3,760 cubic yards of
contaminated soil removed and disposed off-site. Excavated areas were
backfilled with clean soil.
In the summer of 1991 EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation (RI)
for the Site. The results of the RI indicated that there were two
locations in the surface soil and one location in the subsurface soil
where lead concentrations still posed a potential human health risk.
Groundwater sampling conducted during the RI found elevated lead
concentrations in unfiltered samples, but lead was not detected in
filtered samples, indicating that lead was bound to soil particles and
not mobile in the groundwater.
In the spring of 1992 the ABE site was selected for the
demonstration of an innovative soil washing technology by EPA's
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. All soil
containing lead concentrations exceeding 1,000 mg/kg, which was a total
of about 130 cubic yards, was excavated and treated by the soil washing
system. Treated soil which met the cleanup goal was backfilled into the
excavated areas, and soil which did not meet the cleanup goal was sent
to an off-site disposal facility.
EPA completed the RI, a Human Health Risk Assessment, and
Feasibility Study (FS) for the Site in August, 1992. A Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Site, which declared that no further action was
necessary, was signed on March 2, 1993. However, the ROD specified that
two years of groundwater monitoring would be required to verify that
groundwater at the Site was not contaminated with lead at levels which
would pose a human health risk. This groundwater monitoring program,
which was completed in September 1995, determined that lead
concentrations in the groundwater were below EPA's drinking water
standard of 15 g/kg, and therefore the groundwater did not
pose a human health risk.
During the removal activities at this Site, EPA kept the community
informed of its cleanup actions primarily through fact sheets,
newspaper articles, and personal communications with EPA's On-Scene
Coordinator. Following the removal action, EPA representatives met with
local officials, congressional representatives, the facility owner, and
members of the community on numerous occasions to identify community
concerns to support development of a Community Relations Plan, and to
explain EPA's process for conducting a further investigation of the
Site. EPA representatives also met several times with the Potentially
Responsible Parties to discuss their potential liability for cleanup
costs at the Site. A Proposed Plan for the Site, which called for no
further cleanup action, was issued on October 29, 1992, and subject to
public comment for 30 days. This Proposed Plan was mailed to
individuals on EPA's mailing list and was also announced in a local
newspaper notice. EPA also held a public meeting on the Proposed Plan
in Fairbanks. In general, those who commented on the Proposed Plan
supported EPA's no further action decision. EPA responded to all
comments received in the Responsivesness Summary, which is attached to
the ROD.
C. Characterization of Site Risk
Based on data collected during the RI, a risk assessment was
conducted to identify exposure pathways and potential human health
risks resulting from exposure to lead contamination remaining on-site
after the removal actions conducted in 1988-89. The potential pathways
for human health exposure to lead contamination at the Site were
accidental ingestion of soil and ingestion of groundwater. A model was
used to determine that a lead cleanup goal of 490 mg/kg for surface
soil would be protective of potentially exposed children. For
subsurface soils, EPA determined that a cleanup goal of 1,000 mg/kg,
which was based on an industrial exposure, would be protective of
workers who might be exposed to contaminated soil for a short duration.
A risk assessment was not conducted for ingestion of lead in
groundwater because a federal drinking water standard (15 ug/kg)
already existed which was protective of human health.
Confirmational monitoring of soil and groundwater demonstrate that
no significant risk to public health or the environment is posed by
residual lead contamination remaining at the Site. Long-term operation
and maintenance activities are not required at the Site. Based on the
actions taken at the Site prior to the ROD, EPA and ADEC believe that
hazardous substances have been removed from the Site so as to allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure within the Site, that
conditions at the Site are protective of public health and the
environment, and that no further remedial action or institutional
controls are needed at the Site. Accordingly, EPA will not conduct
``five-year reviews'' at this Site.
One of the three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may
delete a site from the NPL if ``all appropriate Fund-financed response
under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further action by responsible
parties is appropriate.'' EPA, with concurrence of ADEC, believes that
this criterion for deletion has been met. The groundwater and soil data
confirm that the ROD goals have been met. It is concluded that there is
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, no further remedial action is necessary. Subsequently, EPA
is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL. Documents supporting
this action are available from the docket.
Dated: April 30, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 96-11757 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11756 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22006-22008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11756]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5504-1]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency.
Action: Notice of Intent to Delete Martin Marietta Aluminum Company
from the National Priorities List Update: Request for Comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10,
announces its intent to delete the Martin Marietta Site from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have determined that the Site
poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are not
appropriate.
DATES: Comments concerning this Site may be submitted on or before June
12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Howard Orlean, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
[[Page 22007]]
Mail Stop: ECL-113, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Comprehensive information on this Site is available through the
Region 10 public docket which is available for viewing at the Martin
Marietta Site information repositories at the following locations:
Dalles/Wasco County Library, 722 Court Street, The Dalles, Oregon
97058.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 Office of
Environmental Cleanup - Records Center, Attn: Lynn Williams, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Mail Stop, ECL-113, Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Orlean, U.S. EPA Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: ECL-113, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206)
553-6903.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its
intent to delete a site from the National Priorities List (NPL),
Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, and requests comments to this deletion.
EPA identifies sites on the NPL that appear to present a significant
risk to human health or the environment. As described in Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that
conditions at the site warrant such actions.
EPA plans to delete the Martin Marietta Aluminum Company Site
(``Site'') at 3313 West 2nd Street, The Dalles, Oregon 97058, from the
NPL.
EPA will accept comments on the plan to delete this Site for thirty
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for
this action. Section IV discusses the Martin Marietta Aluminum Company
Site and explains how the Site meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that ``releases'' (sites)
may be deleted from, or recategorized on the NPL where no further
response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a site
from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the state,
whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have
been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate, or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release
poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a
subsequent review of the site will be conducted at least every five
years after the initiation of the remedial action at the site to ensure
that the site remains protective of public health and the environment.
In the case of the Martin Marietta Aluminum Company Site, hazardous
substances remain on the Site which are above health-based levels,
therefore, access restrictions, monitoring, operation and maintenance
activities, and periodic five-year reviews will continue. In addition,
whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the site may be restored to the NPL without the application of the
Hazard Ranking System.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
this Site: (1) EPA Region 10 issued preliminary and final close out
reports which documented the achievement of cleanup goals; (2) The
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) concurred with the
proposed deletion decision; (3) A notice has been published in the
local newspaper and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state,
and local officials and other interested parties announcing the
commencement of a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of
Intent to Delete; and, (4) All relevant documents have been made
available for public review in the local Site information repositories.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself, create, alter or
revoke any individual rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes to assist Agency management. As
mentioned in Section II of this Notice, 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) states
that deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for
future Fund-financed response actions.
EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public comments on
EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a final decision. The
Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary if any significant public
comments are received.
A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local
residents by the Regional office.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the
intention to delete this Site from the NPL.
A. Site Background
Martin Marietta Aluminum was an aluminum reduction facility located
in The Dalles, Wasco County, Oregon, just west of the Columbia River
and east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks at 3313 West 2nd Street.
The area surrounding the site is primarily mixed heavy and light
industrial and manufacturing property.
B. History
Aluminum production operations were begun at the Site by Harvey
Aluminum, Inc. in 1958. Harvey Aluminum, Inc. became a wholly owned
subsidiary of Martin Marietta Corporation (MMC) in 1970. The Martin
Marietta facility continued operations until 1984, when the plant was
shut down. In September of 1986, MMC leased a portion of the facility
to Northwest Aluminum Company (NWA), which resumed primary aluminum
operations in late 1986. In October 1991, MMC sold the portion of the
facility not affected by deed restrictions to NWA. In 1995, MMC merged
with Lockheed Corporation to form Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin, as
successor to MMC, maintains the portion of the NWA plant affected by
CERCLA remedial actions. The NWA plant still produces aluminum by
electrolytic reduction of alumina.
During facility operation, waste constituents were stored, treated,
and disposed of at the Site. Hazardous substances generated by the
Martin Marietta facility included fluoride, sodium, sulfate, cyanide
and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
A landfill located in the northern portion of the Site was used to
dispose of primarily construction debris from the plant. Other
materials disposed of in this landfill included asbestos
[[Page 22008]]
insulation, coke, pitch and cathode waste.
In the Spring of 1983, the presence of cyanide compounds was
detected in the ground water at the Martin Marietta facility. The site
was proposed for inclusion on the NPL in October 1984. On June 10, 1986
the Site was placed on the NPL.
In September 1985, MMC and EPA entered into a Consent Order to
conduct a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for the
Site. On September 29, 1988, EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) that
addressed the potential sources of contamination as identified in the
RI/FS. The selected remedial action in the ROD included the following
components:
Consolidate on-Site residual cathode waste and fill
material into the existing Landfill;
Cap the existing Landfill in place with a multi-media cap
meeting Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) performance
criteria;
Place a soil cover over two Sludge Ponds;
Plug and abandon nearby production wells and connect users
to the City of The Dalles water supply system;
Collect and treat leachate generated from the Landfill;
Recover and treat contaminated ground water from a perched
zone near the Unloading Area portion of the Site;
Prepare ground-water quality monitoring and contingency
plans to perform additional recovery of ground water in the event that
further contamination is detected above health based standards; and
Implement institutional controls including deed
restrictions and fencing, to assure that the remedial action will
protect human health and the environment during and after
implementation.
An Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was signed by EPA
Region 10 on September 23, 1994. The ESD documented modifications to
remedial actions which were anticipated in the ROD, and an addition to
the remedial action which was not anticipated in the ROD.
Changes to the ROD which are documented in the ESD include the
following:
The ROD anticipated that the volume of leachate generated
from the Landfill would be reduced to a negligible flow within five
years. However, since the signing of the ROD, the leachate flow rate
has not decreased significantly. As a result, the leachate will have to
be treated for a longer term than expected.
The ROD also required treatment of contaminated ground
water in an area known as the Unloading Area. Additional ground-water
information which was collected since the ROD, has made it unnecessary
to treat the ground water in the Unloading Area.
C. Characterization of Risk
Prior to remediation, the preliminary environmental pathways of
concern related to the wastes from the aluminum reduction facility were
ground water and on-Site soils.
The remedial action commenced on August 29, 1989 and consisted of
the following activities:
Consolidation and capping of wastes and debris from three
former operating units.
Excavation and consolidation of cathodic wastes into the
Landfill, and placement of a multi-layered RCRA performance cap over
the Landfill.
Construction of a Leachate Collection System and Cyanide
Destruction Treatment System to collect and transfer any generated
leachate from the Landfill for treatment.
Abandonment of four potable water wells in the vicinity of
the Site, and connecting their users to the municipal supply.
Implementation of institutional controls.
Implementation of a ground-water monitoring program.
On-Site containment of contaminated soils and debris has reduced
exposure and inhibited the source of ground-water contamination.
Analytical data based on five years of ground-water monitoring
following the remedial action indicate concentrations of contaminants
of concern do not exceed ROD cleanup levels.
All pathways by which environmental receptors could potentially be
exposed to Site-related contaminants have been eliminated.
Since hazardous substances will remain on Site, operation and
maintenance activities will continue, and institutional controls will
remain in effect. A long-term ground-water monitoring program has been
implemented at the Site. In addition, the Site will continue to be
subject to periodic five-year reviews to ensure that the remedy remains
protective of human health and the environment.
D. Public Participation
Community input has been sought by EPA Region 10 throughout the
cleanup process for the Site. Community relations activities have
included public meetings prior to signing of the ROD, several public
notices in local newspapers, and routine publication of progress fact
sheets. A copy of the Deletion Docket can be reviewed by the public at
the Dalles/Wasco County Library or the EPA Region 10 Superfund Records
Center. The Deletion Docket includes this Notice, the ROD, ESD,
Remedial Action Construction Report, Preliminary Site Close-Out Report,
and Final Site Close-Out Report. EPA Region 10 will also announce the
availability of the Deletion Docket for public review in a local
newspaper and informational fact sheet.
One of the three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may
delete a site from the NPL if ``responsible parties or other persons
have implemented all appropriate response actions required''. EPA, with
the concurrence of DEQ, believes that this criterion for deletion has
been met. Ground water and soil data from the Site confirm that the ROD
cleanup goals have been achieved. It is concluded that there is no
significant threat to human health or the environment and, therefore,
no further remedial action is necessary. Subsequently, EPA is proposing
deletion of this Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action
are available from the docket.
Dated: May 2, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 96-11756 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11720 Automotive Fuel Economy; Semi-Annual Reports
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22010-22014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11720]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 537
[Docket No. 96-38, Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AG00
Automotive Fuel Economy; Semi-Annual Reports
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes various revisions to the required form
and contents of the semi-annual reports which automobile manufacturers
are statutorily required to submit under the Federal automotive fuel
economy program. It is intended that these revisions will reduce the
paperwork burdens imposed on manufacturers without inhibiting the
agency's ability to comply with its statutory requirements. NHTSA
undertakes this action as part of its effort to implement the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to make regulations
easier to understand and apply.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number set
forth above and be submitted to: Docket
[[Page 22011]]
Section, Room 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by July 12, 1996. The
final rule would apply to reports submitted for model years beginning
after publication of the final rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Berkowitz, Office of Planning and
Consumer Programs, Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 7th St.,
SW., Washington DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4795.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
Pursuant to the March 4, 1995, directive ``Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative'' from the President to the heads of departments and
agencies, NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations and directives.
During the course of this review, the agency identified rules that it
could propose to eliminate as unnecessary or to amend to improve their
comprehensibility, usefulness, and appropriateness. NHTSA has
identified the Semi-Annual Reports for Automotive Fuel Economy as a
candidate for review.
Background
Section 32907 of Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (49
U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) requires each automobile manufacturer (other than
those small manufacturers which have been granted an alternative fuel
economy standard under section 32902(d)) to submit semi-annual reports
to the agency relating to that manufacturers' efforts to comply with
average fuel economy standards. One report is due during the 30-day
period preceding the beginning of each model year (the ``pre-model year
report'') and the other is due during the 30-day period beginning on
the 180th day of the model year (the ``mid-model year report'').
Since the various manufacturers have different annual production
periods, the agency determined in 42 FR 62374 (December 12, 1977) that
there was no single model year designation applicable to all companies.
Therefore, in accordance with section 32901(a)(15) of Chapter 329, the
agency determined that the calendar year should serve as the ``model
year'' for purposes of section 32907, making the pre-model year report
for any year due in December of the prior year and the mid-model year
report for any year due in July of that year. For the major domestic
manufacturers, this means that the pre-model year report is submitted
well into their actual production period and the mid-model year report
is due near the end of that period.
Section 32907(a)(1) of Chapter 329 provides that each report must
contain a statement as to whether the manufacturer will comply with
average fuel economy standards for that year, a plan describing the
steps the manufacturer has taken or will take to comply with the
standards, and any other information the agency may require. Whenever a
manufacturer determines that a plan it has submitted in one of its
reports is no longer adequate to assure compliance, it must submit a
revised plan. Section 32907(a)(1)(C) of Chapter 329 also permits the
agency to issue rules prescribing the form and content of reports.
Proposed Revisions
The revised text for 49 CFR Part 537 presented in this notice
proposes to reduce the amount of detailed specification data required
of manufacturers in their reports to the agency. Specifically, the
agency is asking for data to be consolidated at the model level instead
of the configuration level. This would reduce the volume of information
that must be submitted. The proposed revision provides the data in a
form that more closely matches the format of information that the
agency uses in analyzing the manufacturers' fleets for purposes of its
annual report to the Congress and special reports and studies of fuel
economy standards. The format of the report is revised to delete some
items that the agency has not used in recent years, i.e., engine code,
emission control system, existence of overdrive, axle ratio, existence
of temporary living quarters, expansion of cargo carrying capacity by
removal of seats, and frontal area.
The proposed text also changes the time of submission of the
detailed specification information from the pre-model year report to
the mid-model year report. This will result in the manufacturers
providing more complete and correct data as the data will be assembled
near the end of the typical production period for each model. The data
will still be provided to the agency in time for incorporation in the
annual report to the Congress.
Finally, the text description for supplementary reports
(Sec. 537.8) is deleted. Manufacturers have not been furnishing this
report to the agency, nor has the agency been requesting it. Its
purpose, to explain how a fleet that is below the average fuel economy
standard will be brought into compliance, can be fulfilled by the
addition of an appropriate statement in either the pre- model year or
mid-model year report. Some manufacturers currently use this procedure.
That statement is specified in the revised text in Sec. 537.7(b)(4).
Impact Analyses
1. Economic Impacts
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was not reviewed under
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). NHTSA has
analyzed the impact of this request for comment and determined that it
is not ``significant'' within the meaning of the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency
anticipates, if a final rule should result from this NPRM, new
requirements would not be imposed on manufacturers.
2. Impacts on Small Entities
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency has
considered the impact this rulemaking would have on small entities.
Few, if any, automobile manufacturers subject to the proposed rule
would be classified as a ``small business'' under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. I certify that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
3. Impact of Federalism
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements contained in this NPRM
represent an amendment to those approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L.
96-511) and assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0019. The agency believes
that the changes proposed in this notice will result in a small
reduction in the paperwork burden of this reporting requirement. The
agency solicits comment on the expected change in paperwork burden that
this proposal would entail.
5. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
[[Page 22012]]
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
6. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect and it
does not preempt any State law. 49 U.S.C. 32909 sets forth a procedure
for judicial review of automobile fuel economy regulations. That
section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration
or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in
court.
Comments
NHTSA is providing a comment period, ending on July 12, 1996 for
interested parties to present data and views on the issues raised in
this notice, as well as any other issues commenters believe are
relevant to this proceeding. It is requested but not required that 10
copies be submitted.
Comments must not exceed 15 pages in length (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under claim of
confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. NHTSA will continue to
file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket after
the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard with their comments. Upon receiving the comments, the docket
supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 537
Fuel economy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 537 would be revised
to read as follows:
PART 537--AUTOMOTIVE FUEL ECONOMY REPORTS
Sec.
537.1 Scope.
537.2 Purpose.
537.3 Applicability.
537.4 Definitions.
537.5 General requirements for reports.
537.6 General content of reports.
537.7 Pre-model year and mid-model year reports.
537.8 [Reserved].
537.9 Determination of fuel economy values and average fuel
economy.
537.10 Incorporation by reference.
537.11 Public Inspection of Information.
537.12 Confidential Information.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32907; 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 537.1 Scope.
This part establishes requirements for automobile manufacturers to
submit reports to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
regarding their efforts to improve automotive fuel economy.
Sec. 537.2 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to obtain information to aid the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in valuating automobile
manufacturers' plans for complying with average fuel economy standards
and in preparing an annual review of the average fuel economy
standards.
Sec. 537.3 Applicability.
This part applies to automobile manufacturers, except for
manufacturers subject to an alternate fuel economy standard under 49
U.S.C. 32902(d).
Sec. 537.4 Definitions.
(a) Statutory terms. (1) The terms average fuel economy standard,
fuel, manufacture, and model year are used as defined in 49 U.S.C.
32901.
(2) The term manufacturer is used as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901 and
in accordance with Part 529 of this chapter.
(3) The terms average fuel economy, fuel economy, and model type
are used as defined in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 600.
(4) The terms automobile, automobile capable of off-highway
operation, and passenger automobile are used as defined in 49 U.S.C.
32901 and in accordance with the determinations in Part 523 of this
chapter.
(b) Other terms. (1) The term loaded vehicle weight is used as
defined in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 86.
(2) The terms base level, body style, car line, combined fuel
economy, equivalent test weight, inertia weight, transmission class,
and vehicle configuration are used as defined in Subpart A of 40 CFR
Part 600.
(3) The term light truck is used as defined in Part 523 of this
chapter and in accordance with determinations in that part.
(4) The terms approach angle, axle clearance, breakover angle,
cargo-carrying volume, departure angle, passenger-carrying volume, and
running clearance are used as defined in Part 523 of this chapter.
(5) The term incomplete automobile manufacturer is used as defined
in Part 529 of this chapter.
(6) As used in this part, unless otherwise required by the context:
(i) Administrator means the Administrator of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration or the Administrator's delegate.
(ii) Current model year means:
(A) In the case of a pre-model year report, the full model year
immediately following the period during which that report is required
by 537.5(b) to be submitted.
(B) In the case of a mid-model year report, the model year during
which that report is required by 537.5(b) to be submitted.
(iii) Average means a production weighted harmonic average.
(iv) Total drive ratio means the ratio of an automobile's engine
rotational speed (in revolutions per minute) to the automobile's
forward speed (in miles per hour).
Sec. 537.5 General requirements for reports.
(a) For each current model year, each manufacturer shall submit a
pre-model year report and a mid-model year report.
(b)(1) The pre-model year report required by this part for each
current model year must be submitted during the month of December
(e.g., the pre-model year report for the 1997 model year must be
submitted during December, 1996).
(2) The mid-model year report required by this part for each
current model year must be submitted during the month of July (e.g.,
the mid-model year report for the 1997 model year must be submitted
during July 1997).
(c) Each report required by this part must:
[[Page 22013]]
(1) Identify the report as a pre-model year report or mid-model
year report;
(2) Identify the manufacturer submitting the report;
(3) State the full name, title, and address of the official
responsible for preparing the report;
(4) Be submitted in 10 copies to: Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC
20590;
(5) Identify the current model year;
(6) Be written in the English language; and
(7)(i) Specify any part of the information or data in the report
that the manufacturer believes should be with held from public
disclosure as trade secret or other confidential business information.
(ii) With respect to each item of information or data requested by
the manufacturer to be withheld under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C.
2005(d)(1), the manufacturer shall:
(A) Show that the item is within the scope of sections 552(b)(4)
and 2005(d)(1);
(B) Show that disclosure of the item would result in significant
competitive damage;
(C) Specify the period during which the item must be withheld to
avoid that damage; and
(D) Show that earlier disclosure would result in that damage.
(d) Each report required by this part must be based upon all
information and data available to the manufacturer 30 days before the
report is submitted to the Administrator.
Sec. 537.6 General content of reports.
(a) Pre-model year and mid-model year reports. Except as provided
in paragraph (b) of this section, each pre-model year report and the
mid-model year report for each model year must contain the information
required by 537.7(a).
(b) Exceptions. The pre-model year report and the mid-model year
report submitted by an incomplete automobile manufacturer for any model
year are not required to contain the information specified in 537.7
(c)(4)(xix) (A) and (B)(1), (3), and (4) and (c)(5). The information
provided by the incomplete automobile manufacturer under 537.7(c) shall
be according to base level instead of model type or car line.
Sec. 537.7 Pre-model year and mid-model year reports.
Each manufacturer submitting a report shall:
(a)(1) Provide the information required by paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section for the manufacturer's passenger automobiles for the
current model year.
(2) After providing the information required by paragraph (a)(1) of
this section provide the information required by paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section for the manufacturer's light trucks for the current
model year.
(b) Projected average Fuel economy. (1) State the projected average
fuel economy for the manufacturer's automobiles determined in
accordance with 537.9 and based upon the fuel economy values and
projected sales figures provided under paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(2) State the projected final average fuel economy that the
manufacturer anticipates having if changes implemented during the model
year will cause that average to be different from the average fuel
economy projected under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) State whether the manufacturer believes that the projection it
provides under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, or if it does not
provide an average under that paragraph, the projection it provides
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section sufficiently represents the
manufacturer's average fuel economy for the current model year for the
purposes of the statute. In the case of a manufacturer that believes
that the projection is not sufficiently representative for those
purposes, state the reason for the insufficiency and the specific
additional testing or derivation of fuel economy values by analytical
methods believed by the manufacturer necessary to eliminate the
insufficiency and any plans of the manufacturer to undertake that
testing or derivation voluntarily and submit the resulting data to the
Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR 600.509.
(4) If the projected average fuel economy provided under section
(b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section does not comply with the applicable
average fuel economy standard, state what actions the manufacturer has
taken or intends to take to comply with the standard and whether those
actions are sufficient to ensure compliance.
(c) Model type fuel economy and technical information. (1) For each
model type of the manufacturer's automobiles, provide the information
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section in tabular form. List the
model types in order of increasing equivalent test weight from top to
bottom down the left side of the table and list the information
categories in the order specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section
from left to right across the top of the table.
(2)(i) Combined fuel economy for each model type and CAFE for the
fleet; and (ii) Projected production for the current model year and
total production of all model types.
(3) (Mid-model report only.) For each model type provide the
information specified in paragraph (c)(4) at this section either in
tabular form or preferably as a database formatted computer disk. If a
tabular form is used then list the vehicle model types in the order
listed under paragraph (c)(2) of this section from top to bottom down
the left of the table and list the information categories across the
top of the table from left to right in the order specified in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section. Other formats (such as copies of EPA reports),
which contain all the required information in a readily identifiable
form, are also acceptable. If a computer disk is used, any NHTSA
approved database structure may be used, but each model type record
should identify the manufacturer, model type, and for light trucks the
drive wheel code, e.g. 2- or 4- wheel drive. At least the information
categories specified here and in paragraph (c)(4) must be provided, but
if preferred, the disk may contain any additional categories. Each
computer disk record must contain all the required categories of
information to enable direct reading and interpretation in the database
format that was approved. Parameters that vary within the model type
(e.g., loaded vehicle weight) should be weighted by the production
share of each distinct value.
(4)(i) Loaded vehicle weight;
(ii) Equivalent test weight;
(iii) Engine displacement, liters;
(iv) Number of engine cylinders;
(v) SAE net rated power, kilowatts;
(vi) Type of fuel injection;
(vii) Transmission class;
(viii) Number of forward speeds;
(ix) Total drive ratio (N/V);
(x) Combined fuel economy, mpg;
(xi) Projected production for the current model year;
(xii) Road load power at 50 miles per hour;
(xiii) (A) In the case of passenger automobiles:
(1) Interior volume index, determined in accordance with Subpart D
of 40 CFR Part 600, and
(2) Body style;
(B) In the case of light trucks:
(1) Passenger-carrying volume; and
(2) Cargo-carrying volume.
(5) For each model type of automobile which is classified as an
automobile capable of off-highway operation under Part 523 of this
chapter, provide the following data:
[[Page 22014]]
(i) Approach angle;
(ii) Departure angle;
(iii) Breakover angle;
(iv) Axle clearance;
(v) Minimum running clearance; and
(vi) Existence of 4-wheel drive (indicate yes or no).
(6) The fuel economy values provided under paragraphs (c) (2) and
(4) of this section shall be determined in accordance with Sec. 537.9.
Sec. 537.8 [Reserved]
Sec. 537.9 Determination of fuel economy values and average fuel
economy.
(a) Base level and model type fuel economy values. For each base
level and model type, the manufacturer shall submit a fuel economy
value based on the vehicle configuration values that have been
determined and approved under 40 CFR part 600, or, if such a value does
not exist, a value based on a comparable test or analysis, and
calculated in the same manner as base level and model type fuel economy
values are calculated for use under Subpart F of 40 CFR part 600.
(b) Average fuel economy. Average fuel economy must be based upon
fuel economy values calculated under paragraph (a) of this section for
each model type and must be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR
600.506, using the configurations specified in 40 CFR 600.506(a)(2),
except that fuel economy values for running changes and for new base
levels are required only for those changes made or base levels added
before the average fuel economy is required to be submitted under this
part.
Sec. 537.10 Incorporation by reference.
(a) A manufacturer may incorporate by reference in a report
required by this part any document other than a report, petition, or
application, or portion thereof submitted to any Federal department or
agency more than two model years before the current model year.
(b) A manufacturer that incorporates by references a document not
previously submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration shall append that document to the report.
(c) A manufacturer that incorporates by reference a document shall
clearly identify the document and, in the case of a document previously
submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
indicate the date on which and the person by whom the document was
submitted to this agency.
Sec. 537.11 Public inspection of information.
Except as provided in Sec. 537.12, any person may inspect the
information and data submitted by a manufacturer under this part in the
docket section of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Any person may obtain copies of the information available for
inspection under this section in accordance with the regulations of the
Secretary of Transportation in Part 7 of this title.
Sec. 537.12 Confidential information.
(a) Information made available under Sec. 537.11 for public
inspection does not include information for which confidentiality is
requested under Sec. 537.5(c)(7), is granted in accordance with section
32910(c) of Chapter 329 and section 552(b) of Title 5 of the United
States Code, and is not subsequently released under paragraph (c) of
this section in accordance with section 32910 of Chapter 329.
(b) Denial of confidential treatment. When the Administrator denies
a manufacturer's request under Sec. 537.5(c)(7) for confidential
treatment of information, the Administrator gives the manufacturer
written notice of the denial and reasons for it. Public disclosures of
the information is not made until after the ten-day period immediately
following the giving of the notice.
(c) Release of confidential information. After giving written
notice to a manufacturer and allowing ten days, when feasible, for the
manufacturer to respond, the Administrator may make available for
public inspection any information submitted under this part that is
relevant to a proceeding under the Act, including information that was
granted confidential treatment by the Administrator pursuant to a
request by the manufacturer under Sec. 537.5(c)(7).
Issued on: May 7, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-11720 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11716 Revision of Regulations for Interlocking Rail Officers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 93 (Monday, May 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22014-22016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11716]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
49 CFR Part 1185
[STB Ex Parte No. 543]
Revision of Regulations for Interlocking Rail Officers
AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (the Board) is seeking
comments on proposed revisions to the regulations for authorization of
interlocking rail officers and directors.
DATES: Comments on the proposed revisions are due June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments (an original and 10 copies) referring to STB
Ex Parte No. 543 to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the
Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20423.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 927-7513. [TDD for
the hearing impaired: (202) 927-5721.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective January 1, 1996, the ICC
Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803 (the ICCTA)
abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and established
within the Department of Transportation the Board. Section 204 of the
ICCTA provides that ``[t]he Board shall promptly rescind all
regulations established by the [ICC] that are based on provisions of
law repealed and not substantively reenacted by this Act.''
Under the prior statute at 49 U.S.C. 11322, a person wishing to
hold a position of officer or director of more than one rail carrier of
any size was required to seek prior ICC authorization. The ICC,
however, exercising its general exemption authority under former 49
U.S.C. 10505, adopted rules at 49 CFR 1185 exempting from regulation as
a class requests to assume the position of director or officer of a
rail carrier while holding the position of director or officer of
another rail carrier, except where both carriers are Class I railroads.
Exemption--Certain Interlocking Directorates, 5 I.C.C.2d 7 (1988)
(Interlocking Directorates). The class exemption does not apply to an
individual who is an officer or director of a Class I carrier and who
wishes to become an officer or director of another Class I railroad;
that individual is required to file either an application (or petition
for an individual exemption).
The ICCTA revised the statute so that, under new 49 U.S.C. 11328,
individuals seeking to hold the position of officer or director only of
Class III railroads are no longer required to seek Board authorization,
either through exemption or through affirmative approval. We propose to
revise 49 CFR part 1185 to reflect this statutory change and to
eliminate other unnecessary and redundant provisions. The changes would
clarify that the class exemption applies exclusively to interlocking
directorates that (a) Do not involve an officer or director of a Class
I rail carrier who seeks to become an officer or director of another
Class I rail carrier, and (b) do not involve only Class III rail
[[Page 22015]]
carriers.1 The proposed rules would also make clear that, where
the class exemption applies, it is not necessary to make a filing with
the Board to invoke the exemption. See Southern Electric--Petition for
Exemption--Construction of a Rail Line in Shelby Co., AL, Finance
Docket No. 31498 et al. (ICC served Sept. 19, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All other ``interlocking directorates'' are exempted as a
class by virtue of the decision of the ICC in Interlocking
Directorates, supra. The Board proposes to expressly affirm and
adopt that exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed revision would also update and clarify the term
``carrier'' for purposes of administering the interlocking officer and
director provisions of the statute. Former 49 U.S.C. 11322, and the
current regulations at 49 CFR 1185.2, use the term ``carrier'' as
defined at former 49 U.S.C. 11301(a)(1).2 New 49 U.S.C. 11328 does
not separately define ``carrier.'' We note that the general definition
of ``rail carrier'' in new 49 U.S.C. 10102(5) refers to a person
providing common carrier railroad transportation ``for compensation,''
but not to a ``sleeping car carrier'' or ``a corporation organized to
provide transportation.'' 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The definition in former section 11301(a)(1) read:
``carrier'' means a rail or sleeping car carrier providing
transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate
Commerce Commission under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title
(except a street, suburban, or interurban electric railway not
operated as part of a general railroad system of transportation),
and a corporation organized to provide transportation by rail
carrier subject to that subchapter. (Emphasis supplied.)
\3\ Under new 49 U.S.C. 10102(5), rail carrier is defined as:
a person providing common carrier railroad transportation for
compensation, but does not include street, suburban,or interurban
electric railways not operated as part of the general system of rail
transportation[.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In defining ``carrier'' for interlocking directorate purposes, we
propose to exclude ``sleeping car carrier'' and to add ``for
compensation.'' We also believe that, in the context of interlocking
directorates, the term ``rail carrier'' should be interpreted to
embrace corporations organized to provide transportation. Because an
individual would need Board approval after a corporation becomes a
carrier, we believe it is appropriate to allow an individual to obtain
early Board consideration, thereby providing more commercial certainty.
This would also benefit the Board, by giving us an earlier opportunity
to analyze a potential interlocking officer position or directorate. We
thus propose the following definition of rail carrier in our proposed
rule 1185.1(d):
A rail carrier means a person providing common carrier
transportation for compensation (except a street, suburban, or
interurban electric railway not operating as part of the general
system of rail transportation), and a corporation organized to
provide transportation by rail carrier.
We also propose to change the requirements for the form of the
application to comply with our rules of practice (proposed section
1185.3). Finally, we seek specific comment on whether to include
proposed section 1185.4, which would revise current 49 CFR 1185.9,
General authority, pertaining to receipt of general authority to hold a
directorship with subsidiary or affiliated companies. We question
whether this provision is needed, because there are two other similar
sections, proposed section 1185.5, Common control (currently section
1185.10) and proposed section 1185.6, Jointly used terminal properties
(currently section 1185.11).4 All three of these provisions
concern interlocking directorships among carriers in an established
system. See Governing Officers, 363 I.C.C. at 681 and 683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In Revised Regulations Governing Officers, 336 I.C.C. 679
(1970) (Governing Officers), the ICC issued rules, codified at 49
CFR 1185.10 and 11, that would allow individuals to hold
interlocking directorate positions with carriers lawfully operated
under common control and to hold interlocking directorate positions
with a carrier and a terminal railroad whose facilities are operated
or used by the carrier jointly with other carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board certifies that this rule, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
In response to the statutory change, this proposed rule will reduce
regulation and it imposes no new reporting requirements on small
entities. Requirements for the form of the application have been
slightly modified to conform to the Board's rules of practice. The
Board, however, seeks comments on whether there would be effects on
small entities that should be considered.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the
human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1185
Administrative practice and procedure, Railroad.
Decided: April 23, 1996.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Simmons, and
Commissioner Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble and under the authority
of 49 U.S.C. 721(a), title 49, chapter X, part 1185 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
PART 1185--INTERLOCKING OFFICERS
Sec.
1185.1 Definitions and scope of regulations.
1185.2 Contents of application.
1185.3 Procedures.
1185.4 General authority.
1185.5 Common control.
1185.6 Jointly used terminal properties.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 49 U.S.C. 721, 10502, and
11328.
Sec. 1185.1 Definitions and scope of regulations.
(a) Under 49 U.S.C. 11328, authorization of the Board is required
before a person may hold the position of officer or director of more
than one rail carrier, except where only Class III carriers are
involved. Board authorization is not needed for individuals seeking to
hold the positions of officers or directors only of Class III
railroads. 49 U.S.C. 11328(b).
(b) When a person is an officer of a Class I railroad and seeks to
become an officer of another Class I railroad, an application under 49
U.S.C. 11328(a) (or petition for individual exemption under 49 U.S.C.
10502) must be filed. All other ``interlocking directorates'' are
exempt as a class from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.
11328(a). For such interlocking directorates exempted as a class, no
filing with the Board is necessary to invoke the exemption.
(c) An ``interlocking directorate'' exists whenever an individual
holds the position of officer or director of one rail carrier and
assumes the position of officer or director of another rail carrier.
This provision applies to any person who performs duties ordinarily
performed by a director, president, vice president, secretary,
treasurer, general counsel, general solicitor, general attorney,
comptroller, general auditor, general manager, freight traffic manager,
passenger traffic manager, chief engineer, general superintendent,
general land and tax agent or chief purchasing agent.
(d) For purposes of this part, a rail carrier means a person
providing common carrier railroad transportation for compensation
(except a street, suburban, or interurban electric railway not
operating as part of the general system of rail transportation), and a
corporation organized to provide such transportation.
Sec. 1185.2 Contents of application.
(a) Each application shall state the following:
[[Page 22016]]
(1) The full name, occupation, business address, place of
residence, and post office address of the applicant.
(2) A specification of every carrier of which the applicant holds
stock, bonds, or notes, individually, as trustee, or otherwise; and the
amount of, and accurate description of, the securities, owned or held
by him, of each carrier for which he seeks authority to act. (Whenever
it is contemplated that the applicant will represent on the board of
directors of any carrier securities other than those owned by him, the
application shall describe such securities, state the character of
representation, the name of the beneficial owner or owners, and the
general nature of the business conducted by such owner or owners.)
(3) Each and every position with any carrier which is held by the
applicant at the time of the application; and which he seeks authority
to hold, together with the date and manner of his election or
appointment thereto and, if he has entered upon the performance of his
duties in any such position, the nature of the duties so performed and
the date when he first entered upon their performance. (A decision
authorizing a person to hold the position of director of a carrier will
be construed as sufficient to authorize him to serve also as chairman
of its board of directors or as a member or chairman of any committee
or committees of such board; and, therefore, when authority is sought
to hold the position of director, the applicant need not request
authority to serve in any of such other capacities.)
(4) As to each carrier covered by the requested authorization,
whether it is an operating carrier, a lessor company, or any other
corporation organized for the purpose of engaging in rail
transportation. (If any such carrier neither operates nor owns any
railroad, transportation by which is subject to the Act, there shall be
filed with the application, as a part thereof, a copy of such carrier's
charter or certificate or articles of incorporation, with amendments to
date. When such copy has once been filed with the former Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) or with the Board, reference thereto, with
amendments, if any, will suffice.)
(5) Thereafter a full statement of pertinent facts relative to any
carrier which does not make annual reports to the Board, authorization
for a position with which is sought.
(6) Full information as to the relationship, operating, financial,
competitive, or otherwise, existing between the carriers covered by the
requested authorization.
(7) Every corporation--industrial, financial, or miscellaneous--of
which the applicant is an officer or director, and the general
character of the business conducted by such corporation.
(8) The reasons, fully, why the granting of the authority sought
will not affect adversely either public or private interests.
(9) Whether or not any other application for authority has been
made in behalf of the applicant and, if so, the date and docket number
thereof, by who made, and the action thereon, if any.
(b) When application has been made in behalf of any person, a
subsequent application by him need not repeat any statement contained
in the previous application but may incorporate the same by appropriate
reference.
Sec. 1185.3 Procedures.
The original application or petition shall be signed by the
individual applicant or petitioner and shall be verified under oath.
Petitions and applications should comply with the Board's general rules
of practice set forth at 49 CFR part 1104. Applications or petitions
may be made by persons on their own behalf.
Sec. 1185.4 General authority.
Any person who holds or may seek specific authority to hold
positions with a carrier may also request general authority to act as
an interlocking officer for all affiliated or subsidiary companies or
properties used or operated by the carrier, either separately or
jointly, with other carriers. A carrier may apply for general authority
on behalf of an individual who has already received authority to act as
an interlocking officer. However, a carrier may not apply for general
authority for an individual who holds a position with another railroad
which is not an affiliate or subsidiary of the carrier or whose
properties are not used or operated by the carrier, either separately
or jointly with other carriers.
Sec. 1185.5 Common control.
It shall not be necessary for any person to secure authorization
under the foregoing provisions to hold the position of officer or
director of two or more carriers, if such carriers are operated under
common control or management, either:
(a) Pursuant to approval and authority of the ICC granted under
former 49 U.S.C. 11343-44 (repealed effective January 1, 1996) or by
the Board granted under 49 U.S.C. 11323-24, or
(b) Pursuant to an exemption authorized by the ICC under former 49
U.S.C. 10505 (repealed effective January 1, 1996) or by the Board under
49 U.S.C. 10502, or
(c) Pursuant to a controlling, controlled, or common control
relationship which has existed between such carriers since before June
16, 1933.
Sec. 1185.6 Jointly used terminal properties.
Any person holding the position of officer or director of a carrier
is hereby relieved from the foregoing provisions to the extent that he
may also hold a directorship and any other position to which he may be
elected or appointed with a terminal railroad the properties of which
are operated or used by the carrier jointly with other carriers.
[FR Doc. 96-11716 Filed 5-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.