issue-1996-06-18•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-18
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-18
issue-1996-06-18Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-18Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-15454 Section 1059 Extraordinary Dividends
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30844-30846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15454]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 30845]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[CO-9-96]
RIN 1545-AU16
Section 1059 Extraordinary Dividends
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations relating to
certain distributions made by corporations to certain corporate
shareholders. The proposed regulations are necessary to clarify that
certain distributions in redemption of stock are treated as
extraordinary dividends notwithstanding provisions that otherwise might
exempt the distributions from extraordinary dividend treatment.
Corporations that receive a distribution in redemption of stock may be
affected if the redemption is either part of a partial liquidation of
the redeeming corporation or is not pro rata as to all shareholders.
This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these
proposed regulations.
DATES: Written comments and outlines of topics to be discussed at the
public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, October 2, 1996, must be
received by September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:DOM:CORP:R (CO-9-96), 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 (CO-9-96), Courier's
Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC. The public hearing will be held in room 3313, Internal
Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the hearing, Mike
Slaughter, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), at
(202) 622-7190 (not a toll-free number). Concerning the proposed
regulations, Richard K. Passales at (202) 622-7530 (not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains proposed amendments to the Income Tax
Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to the extraordinary dividend
provisions under section 1059 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section
1059 was added by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Public Law 98-369.
One of the purposes of section 1059 is to prevent a corporate
shareholder from creating an artificial loss on stock. See General
Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of
1984.
Section 1059(a) generally requires a corporation that receives an
extraordinary dividend on stock it has not held for at least two years
before the dividend announcement date to reduce its basis (but not
below zero) immediately before any sale or disposition of the stock by
the nontaxed portion of the dividend (generally, the amount of the
dividends received deduction). If the nontaxed portion of the dividend
exceeds basis, the excess generally is treated as additional gain
recognized when the stock is sold. Section 1059(c) generally defines an
extraordinary dividend as a dividend that equals or exceeds the
threshold percentage of the taxpayer's adjusted basis in such stock.
Sections 1059(d)(6), (e)(1), and (e)(2) were enacted as part of the
Tax Reform Act of 1986. Each of those sections affects the definition
of extraordinary dividends contained in section 1059(c). Section
1059(d)(6) generally excludes an extraordinary dividend from section
1059(a) treatment if the distributee is an original shareholder of the
distributing corporation and the earnings and profits from which the
dividend is paid are attributable solely to the original shareholder.
Section 1059(e)(2) generally excludes a dividend from extraordinary
dividend treatment if it is a ``qualifying dividend.'' A dividend
generally is a qualifying dividend if the distributee and distributing
corporations are affiliated at the time of the distribution and the
distribution is out of affiliated year earnings and profits. Both
sections 1059(d)(6) and (e)(2) contemplate that the distribution that
otherwise would be an extraordinary dividend subject to section 1059(a)
is derived from earnings and profits accumulated while the distributee
corporation is a shareholder of the distributing corporation.
Generally, a corporate shareholder's ability to create an artificial
loss is reduced if all of the distributing corporation's earnings and
profits are accumulated while the distributee corporation is a
shareholder of the distributing corporation.
Section 1059(e)(1) expands the scope of the extraordinary dividend
definition in section 1059(c) by disregarding the holding period and
threshold rules for certain distributions. Generally, section
1059(e)(1) provides that a non pro rata redemption or a partial
liquidation that is treated as a dividend under section 301 is an
extraordinary dividend to which section 1059(a) applies without regard
to the threshold percentage or the period the taxpayer held such stock.
See General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Joint Committee
on Taxation, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (May 4, 1987).
These regulations address the question of whether section
1059(d)(6) or (e)(2) applies to a distribution otherwise treated as an
extraordinary dividend under section 1059(e)(1). The IRS and Treasury
Department believe that applying those provisions to section 1059(e)(1)
is inconsistent with the purpose of section 1059 and may create
inappropriate consequences, such as basis shifting that eliminates gain
or creates an artificial loss.
Accordingly, these regulations clarify that neither section
1059(d)(6) nor section 1059(e)(2) applies to a distribution treated as
an extraordinary dividend under section 1059(e)(1). In finalizing these
regulations, the IRS and Treasury Department will consider comments
that illustrate distributions described in section 1059(e)(1) to which
the application of section 1059(d)(6) or (e)(2) is appropriate or to
which section 1059(e)(1) otherwise should not apply.
These regulations also address the question of whether an exchange
treated as a dividend under section 356(a)(2) is subject to section
1059(e)(1). These regulations clarify that for purposes of section
1059(e)(1), an exchange under section 356(a)(1) is treated as a
redemption and, to the extent any amount is treated as a dividend under
section 356(a)(2), it is treated as a dividend under section 301.
Explanation of Provisions
Proposed Sec. 1.1059(e)-1(a) provides that neither section
1059(d)(6) nor section 1059(e)(2) will prevent any distribution treated
as an extraordinary dividend under section 1059(e)(1) from being
treated as an extraordinary dividend. For example, if a redemption of
stock is not pro rata as to all shareholders, any amount treated as a
dividend under section 301 is treated as an extraordinary dividend
regardless of whether the dividend is a qualifying dividend.
Proposed Sec. 1.1059(e)-1(b) provides that for purposes of section
1059(e)(1), an exchange under section 356(a)(1) is treated as a
redemption and, to the extent any amount is treated as a dividend under
section 356(a)(2), it is treated as a dividend under section 301.
[[Page 30846]]
Proposed Effective Date
These regulations are proposed to apply to distributions announced
on or after June 17, 1996.
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 at 10 a.m. on Wednesday,
October 2, 1996, room 3313, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Because of access restrictions, visitors
will not be admitted beyond the Internal Revenue Building lobby more
that 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 September 16, 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 September 16, 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 Richard K. Passales, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel
(Corporate), 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 is amended by adding
an entry in numerical order to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * Section 1.1059(e)-1 also issued
under 26 U.S.C. 1059(e)(1) and (e)(2). * * *
Par. 2. Section 1.1059(e)-1 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1059(e)-1 Non pro rata redemptions.
(a) In general. Section 1059(d)(6) (exception where stock held
during entire existence of corporation) and section 1059(e)(2)
(qualifying dividends) do not apply to a distribution treated as an
extraordinary dividend under section 1059(e)(1). For example, if a
redemption of stock is not pro rata as to all shareholders, any amount
treated as a dividend under section 301 is treated as an extraordinary
dividend regardless of whether the dividend is a qualifying dividend.
(b) Reorganizations. For purposes of section 1059(e)(1), an
exchange under section 356(a)(1) is treated as a redemption and, to the
extent any amount is treated as a dividend under section 356(a)(2), it
is treated as a dividend under section 301.
(c) Effective date. This section applies to distributions announced
(within the meaning of section 1059(d)(5)) on or after June 17, 1996.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 96-15454 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15440 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30846-30847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15440]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-5521-6]
RIN 2060-AD98
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise the compliance date for the
``National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants For
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating) Operations'' to December
16, 1997. This action also proposes to extend the June 13, 1996
deadline for submittal of implementation plans to December 16, 1996,
and to remove the requirement for approval of implementation plans by
the EPA. Because the revisions primarily change the date for submittal
of an implementation plan and extend the compliance date to allow
better coordination with the control techniques guidelines (CTG) that
EPA plans to publish in the near future, the EPA does not anticipate
receiving adverse comments. Consequently, the revisions are also being
issued as a direct final rule in the final rules section of this
Federal Register. If no significant and timely adverse comments are
received, no further action will be taken with respect to this proposal
and the direct final rule will become final on the date provided in
that action.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before July 18, 1996,
unless a hearing is requested by June 28, 1996. If a hearing is
requested, written comments must be received by August 2, 1996.
Public Hearing. Anyone requesting a public hearing must contact the
EPA no later than June 28, 1996. If a hearing is held, it will take
place on July 3, 1996, beginning at 10:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted to: Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-92-11
(see docket section below), Room M-1500, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the
EPA's Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Persons interested in attending the hearing or wishing
to present oral testimony should notify Mrs. Janet Eck, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711,
telephone (919) 541-7946.
Docket. Docket No. A-92-11, containing the supporting information
for the original NESHAP and this action, is available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Waterside Mall, Room M-1500, first floor, 401 M Street SW, Washington,
DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548 or 260-7549. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
[[Page 30847]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mohamed Serageldin, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2379.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. The regulated category and entities affected by
this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Facilities that build, repair,
repaint, convert, or alter ships.
The term ship means any marine or
fresh-water vessel, including self-
propelled vessels, those propelled
by other craft (barges), and
navigational aids (buoys).
Note: An offshore oil and gas
drilling platform is not considered
a ship for purposes of this
regulation.
Federal Govt...................... Federal Agencies which undertake
shipbuilding or repair operations
(see above) such as the Navy and
Coast guards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.782 of the regulation. If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
If no significant and timely adverse comments are received, no
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule, and
the direct final rule in the final rules section of this Federal
Register will automatically go into effect on the date specified in
that rule. If significant and timely adverse comments are received, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be considered prior to promulgation of the final rule. Because the
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this proposed rule,
any parties interested in commenting should do so during this comment
period.
For further supplemental information, the detailed rationale, and
the rule provisions, see the information provided in the direct final
rule in the final rules section of this Federal Register.
Administrative Requirements
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements of the previously
promulgated NESHAP were submitted to and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). A copy of this Information Collection
Request (ICR) document (OMB control number 1414.02) may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy Branch (PM-223Y); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460
or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Today's changes to the NESHAP should have no impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The changes to
the implementation plan submittal date and the compliance date do not
impose new requirements. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.
B. Executive Order 12866 Review
Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must determine whether the
proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore, subject to
OMB review and the requirements of the executive order. The Order
defines ``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to lead
to a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
The Shipbuilding NESHAP promulgated on December 15, 1995 was not
considered ``significant'' under Executive Order 12866 and a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) was not prepared. Today's proposed revisions do
not add any additional control or recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, this action is not considered to affect the decision whether
this rule is significant.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires the identification
of potentially adverse impacts of Federal regulations upon small
business entities. The Act specifically requires the completion of a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those instances where small business
impacts are possible. Because this rulemaking imposes no adverse
economic impacts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been
prepared.
D. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, the
EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed
or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under
Section 205, the EPA must select the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any
small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the
rule.
The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not apply to this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 7, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-15440 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15419 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Carlisle, AR
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30842-30843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15419]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-08]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Carlisle, AR
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to revise the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL)
[[Page 30843]]
at Carlisle, AR. A new Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 09 at Carlisle
Municipal Airport has made this proposal necessary. The intended effect
of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for
aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to RWY 09 at Carlisle, AR.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-08, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530. The official docket may be examined in the Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX, 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 at the
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone: (817) 222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed under the caption
addresses. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit, with those comments, a self-
addressed, stamped, postcard containing the following statement:
``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-08.'' The postcard will be
date and time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications
received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed in the light of comments
received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in
the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A
that describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise the Class E airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL, at Carlisle
Municipal Airport, Carlisle, AR. A new GPS SIAP to RWY 09 has made this
proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate Class E airspace for aircraft executing the GPS SIAP to Rwy 09
at Carlisle, AR.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Designated Class E airspace areas extending upward
from 700 feet or more above ground level 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 that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(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 rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW AR E5 Carlisle, AR [Revised]
Carlisle Municipal Airport, AR
(Lat. 34 deg.48'29'' N., long. 91 deg.42'43'' N.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7 mile radius of Carlisle Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15419 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15418 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Manila, AR
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30843-30844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15418]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-11]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Manila, AR
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above ground level (AGL) at Manila Municipal
Airport, Manila, AR. The development of a Nondirectional Radio Beacon
(NDB)
[[Page 30844]]
standard instrument approach procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 18 has
made this proposal necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is
to provide adequate controlled airspace for aircraft executing the NDB
SIAP to RWY 18 at Manila Municipal Airport, Manila, AR.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to Manager,
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, Docket No. 96-ASW-11, Fort Worth, TX
76193-0530. The official docket may be examined in the Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX, between 9:00 AM and
3:00 PM, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal
docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the
Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530;
telephone: (817) 222-5593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed under the caption
ADDRESSES. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit, with those comments, a self-
addressed stamped postcard containing the following statement:
``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASW-11.'' The postcard will be
date and time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications
received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed in the light of comments
received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in
the Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth,
TX, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Operations Branch, Air Traffic
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Fort
Worth, TX 76193-0530. Communications must identify the notice number of
this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for
future NPRM's should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A that
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E Airspace,
controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL at Manila
Municipal Airport, Manila, AR. The development of a NDB SIAP to RWY 18
has made this proposal necessary. Designated airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the ground is now Class E airspace. The intended
effect of this proposal is to provide adequate Class E airspace for
aircraft executing the NDB SIAP to RWY 18 at Manila Municipal Airport,
Manila, AR. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83.
Designated Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or
more above ground level 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 that need frequent and
routine amendments to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--
(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 rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ASW AR E5 Manila, AR [New]
Manila, Manila Municipal Airport
(Lat. 35 deg.53'35'' N., long. 90 deg.09'17'' W.)
Manila NDB
(Lat. 35 deg.53'28'' N., long. 90 deg.09'25'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Manila Municipal Airport, and within 2.5
miles each side of the 007 deg. bearing from the Manila NDB
extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 6.9 miles north of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on June 11, 1996.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 96-15418 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15402 Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction Within an Agreement State
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30839-30842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15402]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 150 and 170
RIN 3150-AF49
Recognition of Agreement State Licenses in Areas Under Exclusive
Federal Jurisdiction Within an Agreement State
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend
its regulations to clarify that Agreement State licensees can seek
reciprocal recognition of their license from the NRC when they are
working within areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction in Agreement
States. The proposed amendments would also clarify NRC regulatory
requirements for reciprocity and the appropriate fees and filing
procedures applicable to Agreement State licensees operating under
reciprocity.
DATES: The comment period expires September 3, 1996. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received
on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: Docketing and Service
Branch.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
For information on submitting comments electronically, see the
discussion under Electronic Access in the Supplementary Information
Section.
Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments
received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L
Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. These same documents may also
be viewed and downloaded electronically via the Electronic Bulletin
Board established by NRC for this rulemaking as discussed under
Electronic Access in the Supplementary Information Section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
telephone (301) 415-1623, e-mail [email protected] or Mark Haisfield, Office
of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6196, e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Currently, subject to certain restrictions, any person who holds a
specific license from an Agreement State may conduct activities
permitted by that license in non-Agreement States and offshore waters
using an NRC general license. The general license is granted under the
authority contained in 10 CFR 150.20, ``Recognition of Agreement State
Licenses.'' To meet the requirements of Sec. 150.20, licensees must
submit an NRC Form 241 at least 3 days before engaging in the
activities (subject to some exceptions as noted in Sec. 150.20). If an
Agreement State licensee does not qualify for a general license under
Sec. 150.20, the licensee must apply for and obtain a specific license
to work in areas of NRC jurisdiction.
Need for Proposed Regulatory Action
The NRC believes that there are several problems with the current
regulations in Sec. 150.20 that necessitate a rulemaking. First, the
current regulation does not include provisions to allow Agreement State
licensees to qualify for an NRC general license when operating in areas
of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States. Second,
there has been some confusion regarding the NRC regulations applicable
to Agreement State licensees operating in areas of NRC jurisdiction
pursuant to Sec. 150.20. Third, Sec. 150.20 does not reference the
appropriate fee requirements applicable to Agreement State licensees
who file an NRC Form 241. Finally, there has been some confusion
regarding the filing procedures for an NRC Form 241.
[[Page 30840]]
Proposed Regulatory Action
Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction
The current wording of Sec. 150.20 has created confusion for
Agreement State licensees operating in areas of exclusive Federal
jurisdiction within Agreement States. An area of exclusive Federal
jurisdiction is an area over which the Federal Government exercises
legal control without interference from the jurisdiction and
administration of State law. Areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction
exist in both Agreement and non-Agreement States. Because the Federal
Government has sole authority over areas of exclusive Federal
jurisdiction in Agreement States, the NRC has jurisdiction over Atomic
Energy Act activities conducted in those areas. The notification
procedures (use of an NRC Form 241) regarding general licenses for
Agreement State licensees seeking to operate in areas of NRC
jurisdiction (i.e., non-Agreement States and offshore waters) are in
Sec. 150.20.
There is, however, no specific provision in Sec. 150.20 to indicate
that the NRC may grant reciprocity to Agreement State licensees to
conduct activities in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within an
Agreement State. The current regulation only authorizes a general
license for activities conducted in non-Agreement States, whether or
not in an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within that non-
Agreement State, and offshore waters. Despite the omission in the
regulation, the NRC staff, under current practice, permits an Agreement
State licensee to operate in an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction
within the Agreement State if the licensee submits an acceptable NRC
Form 241.
The lack of a specific reference to areas of exclusive Federal
jurisdiction has caused confusion for licensees, Agreement States, and,
occasionally, the NRC staff in interpreting the coverage of the
reciprocity provisions in Sec. 150.20. To alleviate these concerns,
this rulemaking would amend Sec. 150.20 to provide a specific reference
to areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
Regulatory Requirements Applicable to Sec. 150.20 Licensees
The specific references to other NRC regulatory requirements in
Sec. 150.20 also constitute a source of confusion. According to
Sec. 150.20(b), persons operating under the general license must comply
with a variety of specific NRC regulatory requirements. However,
Sec. 150.20 does not specifically reference all NRC regulations that
are applicable to materials licensees. To alleviate any potential
confusion, the new Sec. 150.20 would indicate clearly that licensees
operating pursuant to the rule's provisions must comply with all NRC
regulations applicable to materials licensees.
This amendment would be consistent with the original intent of the
rule. When originally issued in 1962 (27 FR 1351, February 14, 1962),
Sec. 150.20 required Agreement State licensees to comply with ``the
appropriate provisions of 10 CFR parts 20, 30, 31, 40, and 70'' of the
Commission's regulations. The rule required compliance with all NRC
regulations applicable to NRC materials licensees at that time. In
1965, many of the requirements in 10 CFR part 30 were relocated to
newly created regulatory provisions in 10 CFR parts 32, 33, 34, 35, and
36 (30 FR 8185, June 26, 1965). A conforming amendment to Sec. 150.20
was not made in response to this change. Since 1965, specific
requirements have been added to Sec. 150.20 that may have created the
impression that certain NRC requirements otherwise applicable to
materials licensees are not applicable to general licensees under
Sec. 150.20. This is not the case. It is NRC's position that Agreement
State licensees operating in areas of NRC jurisdiction pursuant to
Sec. 150.20 must comply with those regulations applicable to NRC
licensees. This proposed amendment would clarify the applicable
requirements.
Fees Imposed on Agreement State Licensees Operating Under Reciprocity
The proposed amendment would add appropriate references to
Sec. 150.20 regarding the relevant fee requirements in 10 CFR part 170.
The fee schedule in 10 CFR part 170 was updated to indicate that there
will be a charge for licensee revisions to an NRC Form 241 in addition
to the initial filing fee. A clarification to an NRC Form 241 does not
require a fee. Specific definitions for a revision versus a
clarification will be provided in the instructions to the NRC Form 241.
In addition, this proposed amendment would involve a minor
conforming change to the schedule for materials fees in Sec. 170.31,
``Schedule of Fees for Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory
Services, Including Inspections, and Import and Export Licenses,'' to
clarify that the fee requirement applies to activities conducted under
reciprocity pursuant to Sec. 150.20 regardless of the location of the
activities.
Filing Procedures
The proposed amendment would also clarify the procedures for filing
an NRC Form 241 for reciprocity described in Sec. 150.20(b). The
clarifications include identifying what needs to be submitted,
specifying the procedure to use when an emergency filing is necessary,
making revisions to the initial filing, and for radiography licensees,
emphasizing the need for a transportation quality assurance program.
These clarifications will not impose any additional requirements on the
Agreement State licensee.
Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations
The provisions in Sec. 150.20 would continue to be a Division 1
matter of compatibility. The Commission is currently developing
implementing procedures for a new Adequacy and Compatibility Policy
that was approved by the Commission on June 29, 1995. The Commission
expects that the approach to these matters in the new procedures will
be consistent with the approach discussed here.
Electronic Access
Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or
WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC
Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The bulletin board may be
accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of the commonly
available communications software packages, or directly via Internet.
Background documents on the rulemaking are also available, as
practical, for downloading and viewing on the bulletin board.
If using a personal computer and modem, the NRC rulemaking
subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll free
number (800) 303-9672. Communication software parameters should be set
as follows: parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1).
Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem
can then be accessed by selecting the ``Rules Menu'' option from the
``NRC Main Menu.'' Users will find the ``FedWorld Online User's
Guides'' particularly helpful. Many NRC subsystems and data bases also
have a ``Help/Information Center'' option that is tailored to the
particular subsystem.
The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can also be accessed by a direct dial
phone number for the main FedWorld BBS, (703) 321-3339, or by using
Telnet via Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703) 321-3339 to contact
FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld
menu by selecting the ``Regulatory, Government Administration and State
Systems,'' then selecting ``Regulatory Information Mall.'' At that
point, a menu will be
[[Page 30841]]
displayed that has an option ``U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission''
that will take you to the NRC Online main menu. The NRC Online area
also can be accessed directly by typing ``/go nrc'' at a FedWorld
command line. If you access NRC from FedWorld's main menu, you may
return to FedWorld by selecting the ``Return to FedWorld'' option from
the NRC Online Main Menu. However, if you access NRC at FedWorld by
using NRC's toll-free number, you will have full access to all NRC
systems, but you will not have access to the main FedWorld system.
If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and
menus, including the Rules Menu. Although you will be able to download
documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or
upload files (comments). If you contact FedWorld using FTP, all files
can be accessed and downloaded but uploads are not allowed; all you
will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher look).
An index file listing all files within a subdirectory, with
descriptions, is available. There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP
access.
Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the World Wide Web,
like FTP, that mode only provides access for downloading files and does
not display the NRC Rules Menu.
For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis,
Systems Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone (301) 415-5780; e-mail AXD[email protected].
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion
The Commission has determined that this proposed regulation is the
type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR
51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor
an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed
regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information
collection requirement subject to the Paper Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office
of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0032.
Public Protection Notification
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Analysis
This rulemaking would not impose any new requirements or additional
costs to licensees because the rulemaking would codify current practice
that allows Agreement State licensees to work under an NRC general
license. Because the rulemaking would improve the clarity and
consistency of the NRC's regulations, it could benefit Agreement State
licensees operating in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
Implementation of this rule should result in a minor reduction in
NRC resources (estimated to be one-sixth of a staff year per year)
continually being expended to explain our fee schedule and to clarify
for licensees and Agreement States the conditions under which an
Agreement State licensee can operate within an area of exclusive
Federal jurisdiction. Because NRC resources to amend Sec. 150.20 are
estimated to be about one-half of a staff year, this is a cost
effective one-time use of resources. This constitutes the regulatory
analysis for this proposed rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not
have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities.
The rulemaking would not impose any new requirements or additional
costs to licensees because the rulemaking would codify current practice
that allows Agreement State licensees to work under an NRC general
license. Because this proposed rulemaking would improve the clarity and
consistency of NRC's regulations, it could benefit Agreement State
licensees operating in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
Any small entity subject to this regulation which determines that,
because of its size, it is likely to bear a disproportionate adverse
economic impact should notify the Commission of this in a comment that
indicates the following:
(a) The licensee's size and how the proposed regulation would
result in a significant economic burden upon the licensee as compared
to the economic burden on a larger licensee.
(b) How the proposed regulations could be modified to take into
account the licensee's differing needs or capabilities.
(c) The benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be
avoided, if the proposed regulations were modified as suggested by the
licensee.
(d) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely
equalize the impact of regulations or create more equal access to the
benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special advantages
to any individual or group.
(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still
adequately protect public health and safety.
Backfit Analysis
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does
not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, a backfit analysis is
not required, because these amendments do not involve any provisions
that would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 150
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation,
Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Source material, Special
nuclear material.
10 CFR Part 170
Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental
relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power
plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to
adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 150 and 170.
PART 150--EXEMPTIONS AND CONTINUED REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN
AGREEMENT STATES AND IN OFFSHORE WATERS UNDER SECTION 274
1. The authority citation for part 150 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 274, 73
Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2021); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued
under secs. 11e(2), 81, 68 Stat. 923, 935, as amended, secs. 83, 84,
92 Stat. 3033, 3039 (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114). Section
150.14 also issued under sec. 53, 68 Stat. 930, as amended (42
U.S.C. 2073). Section 150.15 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub.
L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section
150.17a also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42
[[Page 30842]]
U.S.C. 2152). Section 150.30 also issued under sec. 234, 83 Stat.
444 (42 U.S.C. 2282).
2. Section 150.20 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), the
introductory text of (b), (b)(1), and the introductory text of (c),
redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) as paragraphs (b)(4)
through (b)(6), revising redesignated paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5), and
adding new paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 150.20 Recognition of Agreement State licenses.
(a)(1) Provided that the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section have been met, any person who holds a specific license from an
Agreement State, where the licensee maintains an office for directing
the licensed activity and retaining radiation safety records, is
granted a general license to conduct the same activity in--
(i) Non-Agreement States;
(ii) Areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement
States; and
(iii) Offshore waters.
(2) The provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not apply
if the specific Agreement State license limits the authorized activity
to a specific installation or location.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any specific
license issued by an Agreement State to a person engaging in activities
in a non-Agreement State, an area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction
within an Agreement State, or in offshore waters under the general
licenses provided in this section, the general licenses provided in
this section are subject to all the provisions of the Act, now or
hereafter in effect, and to all valid rules, regulations and orders of
the Commission including the provisions of Secs. 30.7 (a) through (f),
30.9, 30.10, 30.14(d), 30.34, 30.41, 30.51 to 30.63, inclusive, of part
30 of this chapter; Secs. 40.7 (a) through (f), 40.9, 40.10, 40.41,
40.51, 40.61, 40.63 inclusive, 40.71 and 40.81 of part 40 of this
chapter; Secs. 70.7 (a) through (f), 70.9, 70.10, 70.32, 70.42, 70.51
to 70.56, inclusive, 70.60 to 70.62, inclusive, and to the provisions
of 10 CFR parts 19, 20, and 71 and subpart B of part 34, Secs. 39.15
and 39.31 through 39.77, inclusive, of part 39 of this chapter. In
addition, any person engaging in activities in non-Agreement States,
areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Agreement States, or in
offshore waters under the general licenses provided in this section:
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, shall, at
least 3 days before engaging in each such activity for the first time
in a calendar year, file an NRC Form 241, ``Report of Proposed
Activities in Non-Agreement States,'' 4 copies of its Agreement State
specific license, and the appropriate fee as prescribed in Sec. 170.31
of this chapter with the Regional Administrator of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Regional Office listed on the NRC Form 241 and in
appendix D of part 20 of this chapter for the Region in which the
Agreement State that issued the license is located. If an acceptable
method for filing 3 days before engaging in activities under
reciprocity is not available to the licensee, because of an emergency
or other reasons, the Regional Administrator may waive the 3-day time
requirement provided the Agreement State licensee informs the Region by
telephone, facsimile, an NRC Form 241, or letter of initial activities
or revisions to the information submitted on the initial NRC Form 241,
receives oral or written authorization for the activity from the
Region, and files an NRC Form 241, 4 copies of the Agreement State
license, and the fee payment within 3 days after the notification.
(2) Licensees that seek changes in work locations, radioactive
material, or work activities different from the information contained
on the initial NRC Form 241 must file an amended NRC Form 241 or letter
and the appropriate fee as prescribed in Sec. 170.31 of this chapter
with the Regional Administrator.
(3) Licensees engaging in radiography activities must comply with
Sec. 71.12 of this chapter, including quality assurance program
requirements for transportation.
(4) Shall not, in any non-Agreement State, area of exclusive
Federal jurisdiction within an Agreement State, or in offshore waters,
transfer or dispose of radioactive material possessed or used under the
general licenses provided in this section, except by transfer to a
person
(i) Specifically licensed by the Commission to receive such
material, or
(ii) Exempt from the requirements for a license for such material
under Sec. 30.14 of this chapter;
(5) Shall not, under the general license concerning activities in
non-Agreement States or in areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction
within Agreement States, possess or use radioactive materials, or
engage in the activities authorized in paragraph (a) of this section,
for more than 180 days in any calendar year, except that the general
license in paragraph (a) of this section concerning activities in
offshore waters authorizes that person to possess or use radioactive
materials, or engage in the activities authorized, for an unlimited
period of time.
* * * * *
(c) A person engaging in activities in offshore waters under the
general license provided for that purpose in paragraph (a) of this
section need not file an NRC Form 241 with the Commission under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, provided, that:
* * * * *
PART 170--FEES FOR FACILITIES, MATERIALS, IMPORT AND EXPORT
LICENSES, AND OTHER REGULATORY SERVICES UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
OF 1954, AS AMENDED
3. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9701, sec. 301, Pub. L. 92-314, 86 Stat.
222 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42
U.S.C. 5841); sec 205, Pub. L. 101-576, 104 Stat 2842, (31 U.S.C.
902).
4. Section 170.31 is amended by revising the introductory text of
Category 16 of the Schedule of Materials Fees to read as follows:
Sec. 170.31 Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other
regulatory services, including inspections, and import and export
licenses.
* * * * *
16. Reciprocity:
Agreement State licensees who conduct activities under the reciprocity
provisions of 10 CFR 150.20:
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 7th day of June, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 96-15402 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15395 Amersham Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30837-30839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15395]
========================================================================
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. 118 / Tuesday, June 18, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 30837]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 34
[Docket No. PRM-34-5]
Amersham Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by Amersham
Corporation. The petition has been docketed by the Commission and
assigned Docket No. PRM-34-5. The petitioner requests that the NRC
amend its regulations by removing the reference to ``associated
equipment'' from the radiography equipment regulations. The petitioner
believes that this amendment would clarify the licensing reviews of
sealed sources and radiographic exposure devices to meet the applicable
requirements.
DATES: Submit comments by September 3, 1996. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance
of consideration cannot be given except to those comments received on
or before this date.
ADDRESSES: For a copy of this petition, write: Rules Review Section,
Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information
and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: Docketing and Services Branch.
Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
For information on submitting comments electronically, see
``Electronic Access'' under the Supplementary Information section of
this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Nellis, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6257, or Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642, or E-
mail [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC received a petition for rulemaking dated March 28, 1996,
submitted by Amersham Corporation. The petition was docketed as PRM-34-
5 on April 8, 1996. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its
regulations governing performance requirements for radiography
equipment in 10 CFR Part 34.
Petitioner's Request
Amersham Corporation requests that the NRC amend its regulations to
remove reference to ``associated equipment'' from Sec. 34.20 so that
continued inspection and enforcement of the rule would be performed on
the basis of source and device reviews only. The petitioner believes
that the current good operating history and safety record of the
associated equipment, when it is used and maintained properly, supports
this action. The petitioner further requests that Sec. 34.28 be amended
to reflect appropriate inspection and maintenance requirements for all
of the radiography equipment, including associated equipment.
Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner believes that the current regulations for
radiography equipment standards are not clearly defined; thereby
resulting in confusion and noncompliance on the part of the users. The
petitioner believes that interpretation of the regulation by the NRC
has led to an undocumented requirement for reviews of the associated
equipment used by the radiography industry in addition to the reviews
of sealed sources and radiographic exposure devices. The petitioner
states that the NRC has expanded its reviews to cover associated
equipment without any formal rulemaking taking place, even though
Sec. 32.210 applies to the evaluation of sealed sources and devices and
not to other equipment. The petitioner asserts that because of the
undocumented definition that ``associated equipment'' is anything that
comes into direct contact with the source, the rule in being
interpreted and implemented inconsistently.
The petitioner states that ANSI N432, the standard referenced in
Part 34, was originally written as guidance for manufacturers on the
design and manufacture of standard radiography equipment. Amersham
Corporation, a member of the ANSI committee, recently discussed the
original intent of this standard with other committee members who
agreed the original intent was to serve as guidance for good
manufacturing practices and not as a regulatory approval checklist.
When the NRC included the standard in Part 34, the industry did not
foresee that regulatory approval would cover associated equipment in
detail.
NRC requested that Amersham's associated equipment (standard
controls and guide tubes) be approved under the affected device
registrations, specifically listed on the device sheet by model number.
The petitioner states that it realized later that the inclusion of the
associated equipment in the regulations placed unexpected restrictions
on manufacturers and users.
The petitioner understands that Agreement States do not require
that the associated equipment be listed and approved on the device
registration sheet as part of the radiography system for the other
manufacturers. The petitioner believes that this raises several issues,
in addition to putting it at a significant competitive disadvantage.
The petitioner indicates that this inconsistency highlights the
confusion in the way the rule is being interpreted and implemented for
associated equipment. The petitioner states that it adds confusion on
the part of users too, concerning regulatory compliance, when similar
items are treated in different ways depending on the manufacturer's
licensing body.
The petitioner also claims that there is another undocumented
requirement that users or manufactures cannot perform their own
certification of associated equipment. The current
[[Page 30838]]
version of Sec. 34.20 only requires that the equipment meet ANSI N432;
it does not state that regulatory approvals are needed to comply with
this regulation.
The petitioner believes that these interpretations are a broad
stretch of the original intent of Part 34. The petitioner states that
if these are the NRC's formal interpretations of the provisions, they
should be submitted as a proposed rule change because they are
significantly more restrictive than the current wording of Sec. 34.20
allows and constitute a substantial change in what was the standard
practice for sealed source and device reviews.
The petitioner states that since the effective date of the
amendments to Sec. 34.20, it has recognized the negative impact in the
following areas:
Increased exposures. The petitioner states that because collimators
are not being used currently in many of the applications in which they
were used before the regulation became effective, there are increased
exposures to personnel. Most collimators have not been approved by the
NRC or an Agreement State to meet Part 34 because the industry was not
aware that the NRC would require testing, a full safety review, and
regulatory approval to gain Part 34 endorsement for these parts.
Therefore, no approvals were sought before the regulation's effective
date. The petitioner asserts that some users are shut down because they
are authorized only to conduct radiography with collimators, and
approved collimators are not available. In other cases, to keep
exposures as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA) as is also required
by NRC regulations, users are continuing to work with unapproved
collimators. The petitioner asserts that there have been no significant
safety problems with the use of collimators in the past.
Economic considerations. The petitioner states that a manufacturer
or user in an NRC state must pay a substantial fee to get approvals for
the associated equipment. In addition to the fees, some users are
purchasing testing equipment or hiring professional engineers to prove
a piece of equipment that has been in use for the last twenty years can
now be deemed safe after it has been reviewed by the NRC. The
petitioner states that fees, the cost of new equipment, and
inconsistent interpretations and subsequent enforcement, puts NRC
licensees at a competitive economic disadvantage because Agreement
states do not require Part 34 compliance for the associated equipment.
Enforcement. The petitioner asserts significant differences exist
in the level of enforcement implemented by the various Agreement States
and different NRC regions. Some users have been required to go to
extraordinary measures to prove a piece of equipment meets Part 34
requirements; in other cases the regulatory authority is not concerned
about the associated equipment. The petitioner notes that because the
inspection guidelines for inspecting against the new rule have not been
documented, demonstrating compliance is very difficult.
Inability to perform required work. The petitioner states that some
licensees require specialized equipment to perform radiography, such as
J-tubes, jet engine probes, and other rigid source stops. Under the
current interpretation of Sec. 34.20, all specialized equipment must be
approved. No user or manufacturer fully understood that all associated
equipment, including the specialized equipment, was covered by the
rule; therefore, no approvals were sought. Manufacturers believed only
a listing of models or a generic description of the specialized
equipment would be needed to get Part 34 endorsement.
Reasons for the Petition
The petitioner states that the associated equipment currently in
use has a good operational safety history. To prevent licensees from
using unacceptable equipment, the petitioner believes they should be
required to certify that any equipment used in conjunction with a
source or device be able to withstand the environment and use that is
expected, using the ANSI N432 standard as a baseline.
The petitioner believes ANSI N432 should be used as guidance for
the associated equipment not as a regulatory approval checklist.
Considering all the years of manufacturing experience and that none of
the associated equipment is deemed critical to safety, there is no need
to perform an additional outside review. The petitioner believes that
the manufacturer should be allowed to self-certify that the associated
equipment is fit for use, whether the certification is based on testing
in accordance with ANSI, relying on a good operational history, or
comparing it to a similar component.
The petitioner notes that there are some specific applications and
environments in which the ANSI requirements cannot be physically met,
but the part is still fit for use. The petitioner believes that it is
important that fitness for use be considered regardless of the ANSI
standard because it will result in a safer product being used.
The petitioner states that the regulatory review adds considerable
costs to the user and the manufacturer, without increased safety to the
user or the general public. Regulatory review will not result in the
manufacturer changing the design or method of manufacture for the
associated equipment that has been used successfully from an
operational and safety standpoint for the last 40 years.
The petitioner believes very strongly in the importance of proper
inspection and maintenance of all the equipment. The petitioner
recognizes that 75 percent of customer complaints or problems were the
result of inadequate maintenance, improper use, or damage. The
petitioner states that the majority of problems that have occurred in
the field could have been prevented by requiring that proper inspection
and maintenance be performed and that defective equipment be taken out
of use. The petitioner has not seen many problems as a result of basic
design or construction of the equipment.
Conclusion
The petitioner believes that ANSI N432 is the appropriate reference
for equipment requirements; however, it disagrees with the current NRC
interpretation that associated equipment requires a regulatory review.
The petitioner requests that the NRC clarify its interpretation. If the
definition of a sealed source and device in Sec. 32.210 is being
expanded to cover the associated equipment, the petitioner believes it
must go through a rulemaking change before it becomes a requirement.
Because the current interpretation is having a significant economic
impact on the entire industry, causing some programs to shut down until
it is resolved, the petitioner requests that the NRC temporarily
rescind this requirement until it can be clarified.
Electronic Access
Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or
WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC
Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The bulletin board may be
accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of the commonly
available communications software packages, or directly via Internet.
Background documents on this petition also are available for
downloading and viewing on the bulletin board.
If using a personal computer and modem, the NRC rulemaking
subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll-free
number 800-303-9672. Communication software
[[Page 30839]]
parameters should be set as follows: parity to none, data bits to 8,
and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1). Using the ANSI or VT-100 terminal
emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem can then be accessed by
selecting the ``rules menu'' option from the ``NRC main menu.'' Users
will find the ``FedWorld On-line User's Guides'' particularly helpful.
Many NRC subsystems and data bases also have a ``Help/Information
Center'' option that is tailored to the particular subsystem.
The NRC subsystem on FedWorld also can be accessed by a direct-dial
telephone number for the main FedWorld BBS, (703) 321-3339, or by using
Telnet via Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703) 321-3339 to contact
FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld
menu by selecting the ``Regulatory, Government Administration and State
Systems,'' then selecting ``Regulatory Information Mall.'' At that
point, a menu will be displayed that has an option ``U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission'' that will take you to the NRC on-line main
menu. The NRC on-line area also can be accessed directly by typing ``/
go nrc'' at a FedWorld command line. If you access NRC from FedWorld's
main menu, you may return to FedWorld by selecting the ``Return to
FedWorld'' option from the NRC on-line main menu. However, if you
access NRC at FedWorld by using NRC's toll-free number, you will have
full access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the
main FedWorld system.
If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and
menus, including the rules menu. Although you will be able to download
documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or
upload files (comments). If you contact FedWorld using FTP, all files
can be accessed and downloaded but uploading files is not allowed; you
will only see a list of files without descriptions (normal gopher
look). An index file listing all files within a subdirectory and
descriptions of those files, is available. There is a 15-minute time
limit for FTP access.
Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the Worldwide Web,
like FTP, that mode only provides access for downloading files and does
not display the NRC rules menu.
For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis,
Systems Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone (301) 415-5780; e-mail AXD[email protected].
Single copies of this petition may be obtained by written request
or telefax ((#01) 415-5144) from: Rules Review Section, Rules Review
and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications Services, Office of Administration, Mail stop T6-D59, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Certain
documents related to this petition, including comments received, may be
examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower
Level), Washington, DC. These same documents may also be viewed and
downloaded electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board established
by NRC for this petition as indicated above.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of June, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-15395 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15339 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 30847-30848] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-15339] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 36 and 69 [CC Docket 96-45; DA-96-936] Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice of meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 30848]] SUMMARY: The purpose of the notice is to inform the general public of a meeting that will be held by the Federal-State Joint Board on universal service. DATES: The Federal-State Joint Board in CC Docket 96-45 will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, June 19, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. ADDRESSES: in Room 856 at 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Flannery, Accounting and Audits Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at (202) 418-0844. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the meeting, the Federal-State Joint Board will hear from two panels of experts addressing universal service issues set forth in Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act. In addition, the Federal-State Joint Board will consider whether to extend the two-year indexed cap on the rate at which the Universal Service Fund may grow. Federal Communications Commission. William F. Caton, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. 96-15339 Filed 6-12-96; 4:23 pm] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-15332 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Bumper Standard
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30848-30850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15332]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 571 and 581
[Docket No. 96-65; Notice 1]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Bumper Standard
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces public meetings to be held in Palm
Desert, California, and Washington, DC, at which NHTSA will seek
information on the appropriate classification and safety regulations
for golf carts and other small, light-weight vehicles that are capable
of being driven on the public roads. This document also invites written
comments on these subjects.
DATES: The public meeting in Palm Desert, California, will be held on
Thursday, July 18, 1996, at 1:00 p.m. The public meeting in Washington,
DC, will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 25, 1996. An agenda for
each meeting will be made based on the number of persons wishing to
make oral presentations and will be available on the day of the
meeting. Those wishing to make oral presentations at each meeting
should contact Z. Taylor Vinson, at the address or telephone number
listed below, by the close of business July 11, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public Meetings: The first public meeting will be held at
the City of Palm Desert Council Chambers, 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, California. The second public meeting will be held at DOT
headquarters, Nassif Building, Room 6200, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. Written Comments: Written comments may be submitted at
any time before or after the meetings, but not later than August 8,
1996. They should be sent to the Docket Section, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590, ATTN: Docket No. 96-65; Notice 1.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Z. Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590
(telephone 202-366-5263).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
As discussed below in more detail, vehicles such as golf carts have
not been regulated by NHTSA because they were not being used on the
public roads. Even where a vehicle is being used on the roads, NHTSA
has not regulated it if it was configured differently from passenger
cars or light trucks, and if it had a top speed of 20 mph or less.
However, the agency has become aware that the use and design of some of
these vehicles are evolving in previously unanticipated ways. Although
golf carts have traditionally been limited in their operations to golf
courses, a number of states have taken legislative actions that permit
the use of golf carts on the public roads at speeds up to 25 mph. In
addition, there appears to be a growing interest worldwide in small
vehicles of somewhat unusual configurations that are capable of
exceeding 20 mph, and that are intended for on-road use as city or
commuter cars. While some new golf cart-like vehicles do not really
resemble very small passenger cars, neither do they resemble the
traditional golf cart.
The agency therefore deems it timely to review its historical
position in light of this evolving situation. To aid it in its review,
NHTSA has decided to hold two public meetings to receive the comments
of local elected and law enforcement officials, manufacturers,
individual citizens who use these vehicles, public interest groups, and
other interested persons on safety and regulatory issues affecting golf
carts and other light-weight limited-speed vehicles.
II. Legal Considerations
A. Federal Law
Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 grants NHTSA regulatory authority over
``motor vehicles.'' All ``motor vehicles'' are subject to the Federal
motor vehicle safety standards promulgated by NHTSA pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30111, and to the notification and remedy provisions of 49
U.S.C. 30118-30121. A ``motor vehicle'' is a vehicle ``manufactured
primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways'' (Sec.
30102(a)(6)). The agency's interpretations of this term have centered
around the meaning of the word ``primarily.'' The agency has generally
interpreted the term to mean that a significant portion of a vehicle's
use must be on the public roads in order for the vehicle to be
considered to be a motor vehicle.
NHTSA's principal interpretation of Sec. 30102(a)(6) dates from
1969, and addressed the status of mini-bikes. NHTSA said that the
capability of a vehicle to be operated on the public roads would be an
important criterion in determining whether it was a ``motor vehicle'',
but that test would not be reached if there is clear evidence as a
practical matter that the vehicle was not being used on the public
roads. In NHTSA's view, ``in the case of self-propelled riding mowers,
golf carts, and many other similar self-propelled vehicles, such clear
evidence exists.'' Thus, the agency declined to regulate golf carts.
Without such clear evidence, NHTSA said that it would initially
defer to the manufacturer's judgment that a vehicle was not a ``motor
vehicle'' unless ``a substantial portion of the consuming public'' was
operating the vehicle on the public roads. In borderline cases, NHTSA
set forth criteria it would employ in determining whether a particular
vehicle is a ``motor vehicle.'' Noting the comparative rarity of mini-
bike use on public streets, and that the registration of mini-bikes for
use on public streets was precluded by laws of most jurisdictions
unless they were equipped with Standard No. 108-type lighting devices,
NHTSA said it would not consider mini-bikes to be ``motor vehicles'' if
their manufacturers:
(1) Do not equip them with devices and accessories that render them
lawful for use and registration for use on public highways under state
and local laws;
(2) Do not otherwise participate or assist in making the vehicles
lawful for operation on public roads (as by
[[Page 30849]]
furnishing certificates of origin or other title document, unless those
documents contain a statement that the vehicle was not manufactured for
use on public streets, roads, or highways);
(3) Do not advertise or promote them as vehicles suitable for use
on public roads;
(4) Do not generally market them through retail dealers of motor
vehicles; and
(5) Affix to the mini-bikes a notice stating in substance that the
vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or
highways and warning operators against such use.
The agency's interpretations since 1969 have added new elements to
the mini-bike criteria for determining whether vehicles capable of on-
road use are ``motor vehicles.'' The most important exclude motorized
equipment that have ``abnormal'' configurations and a top speed of 20
miles per hour or less. As an example, NHTSA informed ``trans2
Corporation'' in 1994 that its ``low-speed electric vehicle'' intended
for use in residential communities, university campuses, and industrial
complexes was not a ``motor vehicle'' because it had a top speed of 20
mph and unusual body features that made it readily distinguishable from
``motor vehicles.'' These features included an oval-shaped passenger
compartment, taillamps built into headrests, and a configuration the
approximate size and height of a golf cart.
On the other hand, in 1995, NHTSA informed Goodlife Motors
Corporation that its ``super golf car'' was a motor vehicle because it
had a top speed of 29 mph and its configuration resembled that of a
prototype Volkswagen passenger car. NHTSA is aware that several
companies want to manufacture small commuter-type battery-powered
vehicles which they call ``Neighborhood Electric Vehicles'' (``NEV'')
whose configuration may or may not be abnormal, and whose top speed may
be as much as 35 mph. This type of vehicle, too, is a ``motor vehicle''
under NHTSA's existing interpretations. As such, it must comply with
all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards adopted by NHTSA.
Moreover, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1), states may not prescribe
any non-identical standards that are applicable to an aspect of
performance covered by the NHTSA standards.
B. State Laws
1. California
a. Definitions of ``motor vehicle'' and ``golf cart''
Since 1959, the California Vehicle Code (``CVC'') has defined a
motor vehicle as any ``vehicle which is self-propelled'' (CVC Sec.
415). California defines a golf cart as ``a motor vehicle having not
less than three wheels in contact with the ground, having an unladen
weight less than 1,300 pounds which is designed to be and is operated
at not more than 25 miles per hour and designed to carry golf equipment
and not more than two persons, including the driver'' (CVC Sec. 345).
b. 1994 Cal SB 2610 and 1995 Cal AB 110
In 1992, California amended its Streets and Highway Code (``CSHC'')
to establish a Golf Cart Transportation Pilot Program for the City of
Palm Desert (CSHC Secs. 1930-37). The 1992 law was replaced in 1994 by
SB 2610 which added Chapter 6, CHSC, to establish a ``Golf Cart
Transportation Plan'' applicable to Palm Desert and the City of
Roseville.
The 1994 provision, Chapter 6, was amended in 1995 by AB 110 to
apply to any city or county in California. Chapter 6 as amended by AB
110 allows local jurisdictions to establish a Golf Cart Transportation
Plan area in which golf carts are permitted to operate on ``golf cart
lanes'', defined as ``roadways . . . shared with pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other motorists in the plan area'' (CSHC 1951). Each
plan must include minimum design criteria for safety features on golf
carts. Only seat belts and covered passenger compartments are
specifically required, but other safety features mentioned in the law
that a plan ``may include'' are headlamps, turn signals, mirrors, stop
lamps, and windshields.
A plan under the California law must also include a permit process
for golf carts to ensure that they meet the minimum design criteria,
and minimum safety criteria for golf cart operators. At a minimum, an
operator must have a valid California driver's license and carry a
minimum amount of insurance.
In addition, the law requires Golf Cart Transportation Plans to
allow only carts equipped with the requisite safety equipment to be
operated on ``separated golf cart lanes'' identified in the Plan. Lane
striping on the pavement surface is apparently sufficient for a lane to
qualify as a ``separated golf cart lane.'' Even though these are
separated lanes, they are not ``dedicated'' ones. In addition to golf
carts operating at speeds up to 25 mph, ``other motorists'' (which
NHTSA assumes to be operators of conventional vehicular traffic such as
cars, trucks, and buses) may also operate at speeds up to 25 mph in
these lanes.
In summary, through its Vehicle Code and Streets and Highway Code,
California now has in place a regulatory scheme under which golf carts
may use ``separated'', limited-speed portions of the public roads at
speeds up to 25 mph when equipped with the safety features required by
local authorities. Thus, unless NHTSA modifies its existing
interpretation, golf carts or other vehicles designed for use in such
jurisdictions that are capable of operating at speeds above 20 mph are
``motor vehicles'', subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. Moreover, under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Federal standards would
preempt the local requirements referred to in the California statutes.
2. Legislation in Other States
In Arizona, Senate Bill 1298 was enacted in 1996. It permits NEVs
to be operated at speeds up to 25 mph on public roads with posted
speeds of not more than 35-mph. The law does not require either that
separated lanes be created or that the NEVs be operated in those lanes
only. Florida House Bill 1329, which has passed both Houses of the
Florida Legislature, would also permit increased use of golf carts on
public roads.
III. Expression of Support by State Officials and Others
NHTSA has received letters from several elected officials in
California asking the agency to support the concept of golf cart
transportation plans and the use of NEVs at speeds up to 25 mph on
public roads. The California officials who seek NHTSA's support for the
plans have represented that they have not identified any incidents
involving golf carts to justify safety concerns. NHTSA's public meeting
in Palm Desert will provide a forum for the expression of views by
local officials responsible for the implementation of golf cart
transportation plans and enforcement of traffic and safety laws, as
well as by citizens who use golf carts or NEVs pursuant to such plans.
The meeting will also allow officials from NHTSA and other interested
Federal agencies to examine at first hand the practical details of an
operating golf cart transportation plan, such as infrastructure
requirements and traffic flow.
[[Page 30850]]
IV. Market Forces
Another purpose for the public meetings will be for NHTSA to
achieve a better understanding of the market and the vehicles that may
emerge to serve the consumer preferences reflected in the legislative
developments in California, Arizona, and Florida.
At least one specialty manufacturer, Bombardier, Inc. (Bombardier)
has informed NHTSA that it would like to enter the market for a ``new
and growing segment of the transportation fleet: low-powered electric
vehicles.'' It has developed an NEV with a top speed of 25 mph for this
market, and believes that its vehicle
will provide a low cost, low speed, zero emissions mode of localized
transportation to meet the special needs of retirees, older
Americans and others living in gated communities for travel within
their community or for limited activities such as local golfing and
other recreation-related or short distance trips.
According to Bombardier, municipal governments endorse the concept
as a way of helping them meet Clean Air Act mandates for National
Ambient Air Quality Standards by eliminating the polluting effects of
short distance automobile trips.
Bombardier has asked NHTSA for an interpretation that the NEV it
wishes to manufacture and market in these communities is not a ``motor
vehicle'' for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
NHTSA will address this and other issues relating to the appropriate
regulatory treatment of golf carts and other small low-speed vehicles
after considering the oral presentations and comments made in response
to this notice.
V. Comments
It is in the context discussed above that NHTSA will reexamine its
current interpretation of ``motor vehicle'' to determine the reasonable
and appropriate treatment under Federal law of golf carts, NEVs, and
other low-speed vehicles. NHTSA invites interested persons to present
facts and legal arguments directed to the issues on which NHTSA seeks
information.
The agency seeks information on the following topics:
1. Current and anticipated state and municipal regulations,
including infrastructure requirements, relating to the use of public
roads by golf carts or NEVs at speeds between 20 and 35 mph.
2. The text of any existing or proposed state or local safety
standards applicable to golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed vehicles.
3. The views of owners and users of golf carts, NEVs, and other
low-speed vehicles.
4. Any data relating to on-road safety of golf carts, NEVs, and
other low-speed vehicles.
5. The views of law enforcement, safety, and health officials
concerning the on-road use of golf carts, NEVs, or other low-speed at
various speeds.
6. The views of manufacturers of golf carts, NEVs, and other low-
speed vehicles as to the burdens of compliance with Federal motor
vehicle safety standards and other regulations.
7. The views of commenters as to safety and bumper standards that
would be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for golf carts, NEVs,
and other low-speed vehicles.
8. The views of state and local officials as to Federal regulation
of golf carts, NEVs, and other low-speed vehicles.
9. The views of other affected associations, advocacy groups,
business entities, and individuals.
Written statements should be as specific as possible and provide
the best available supporting information. Suggestions should be
accompanied by a rationale for the suggested action and a forecast of
the expected consequences of that action.
VI. Procedural Matters
The agency intends to conduct the meetings informally so as to
allow for maximum participation by all who attend. Interested persons
may ask questions or provide comments during any period after a person
has completed his or her presentation if there is sufficient time
available, as determined by the presiding official. If time permits,
persons who did not ask prior to the meeting for an opportunity to
speak, but would like to make a statement, will be afforded an
opportunity to do so, at the discretion of the presiding official.
Those speaking at the public meeting should limit their
presentations to 20 minutes. If the presentation will include slides,
motion pictures, or other visual aids, please so inform the contact
person identified above so that the proper equipment may be made
available. Presenters are asked to submit at least one copy of their
presentation to the presiding official for inclusion in the public
record.
A schedule of participants making oral presentations will be
available in the designated meeting room before the beginning of the
meeting. NHTSA will place a copy of any written statement in Docket No.
96-65; Notice 1. The public may inspect the Docket for comments and
statements which may be received before or after the meeting. A
verbatim transcript of the meeting will be prepared and also placed in
the NHTSA docket as soon as possible after the meeting.
Attendance at the meeting is not a prerequisite for the submission
of written comments. NHTSA invites written comments from all interested
parties. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Room 5219, at the street address given above,
and 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 August 8,
1996, will be considered in formulating a decision on the issues
raised. After the closing date, NHTSA will continue to file relevant
comments and information in the docket as it becomes available. It is
therefore recommended that interested persons continue to examine the
docket for new material.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
[Docket No. 96-65, No. 1]
Issued: June 12, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-15332 Filed 6-14-96; 9:42 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.