Proposed Legal Interpretation, 39196-39197 [2010-16385]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
39196
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Service Bulletin (ASB) 205B–02–39, Revision
B, dated November 22, 2002, or BHTI ASB
212–02–116, Revision A, dated October 30,
2002.
(d) At intervals not to exceed 1,200 hours
TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first:
(1) Remove each main rotor blade, and
(2) Inspect each grip buffer pad on the
inner surfaces of each grip tang for
delamination (see Figure 1 of this AD). If
there is any delamination, remove the buffer
pad and inspect the grip surface for corrosion
or other damage.
Note 2: This inspection interval coincides
with the main rotor tension-torsion strap
replacement times.
(e) Within 2,400 hours TIS or at the next
overhaul of the main rotor hub, whichever
occurs first, and then at intervals not to
exceed 2,400 hours TIS:
(1) Remove each main rotor blade.
(2) Remove each grip buffer pad (if
installed) from the inner surfaces of each grip
tang.
(3) Visually inspect the grip surfaces for
corrosion or other damage.
(4) Fluorescent-penetrant inspect (FPI) the
grip for a crack, paying particular attention
to the upper and lower grip tangs. When
inspecting a grip, P/N 204–011–121–005,
–009, or –113, or ASI–4011–121–9, pay
particular attention to the leading and
trailing edges of the grip barrel.
Note 3: FPI procedures are contained in
BHTI Standard Practices Manual, BHT–ALL–
SPM.
(f) Before further flight:
(1) Replace any cracked grip with an
airworthy grip.
(2) Replace any grip with any corrosion or
other damage with an airworthy grip, or
repair the grip if the corrosion or other
damage is within the maximum repair
limitations found in the applicable
Component and Repair Overhaul Manual.
Note 4: BHTI ASB 212–94–92, Revision A,
dated March 13, 1995, and BHTI Operations
Safety Notice (OSN) 204–85–6, OSN 205–85–
9, and OSN 212–85–13, all dated November
14, 1985, also pertain to the subject of this
AD.
(3) Remove any grip, P/N 204–011–121–
009 or ASI–4011–121–9, that has been in
service for 15,000 or more hours TIS.
(4) Remove any grip, P/N 204–011–121–
121, that has been in service for 25,000 or
more hours TIS.
(g) Revise the Airworthiness Limitations
section of the applicable maintenance
manual or the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness (ICA) by establishing a new
retirement life of 15,000 hours TIS for grip,
P/N 204–011–121–009 or ASI–4011–121–9,
and 25,000 hours TIS for grip, P/N 204–011–
121–121, by marking pen and ink changes or
inserting a copy of this AD into the
maintenance manual or ICA.
(h) Record a 15,000 hour TIS life limit for
each grip, P/N 204–011–121–009 or ASI–
4011–121–9, and a 25,000 hour life limit for
each grip, P/N 204–011–121–121, on the
applicable component history card or
equivalent record.
(i) To request a different method of
compliance or a different compliance time
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jul 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR
39.19. Contact the Manager, Rotorcraft
Certification Office, Attn: Michael Kohner,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft
Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222–
5170, fax (817) 222–5783, for information
about previously approved alternative
methods of compliance.
(j) The Joint Aircraft System/Component
(JASC) Code is 6220: Main Rotor Head.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 5,
2010.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–16511 Filed 7–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA–2010–0667]
Proposed Legal Interpretation
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)
ACTION: Proposed interpretation.
SUMMARY: The FAA is considering
revising its broad prohibition on pro
rata reimbursement for the cost of
owning, operating and maintaining a
company aircraft when used for routine
personal travel by senior company
officials and employees under certain
conditions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 9, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments
identified by Docket Number FAA–
2010–0667 using any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief
Counsel, Regulations Division, Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: 202 267–3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) generally prohibits aircraft
operators from seeking reimbursement
for the costs associated with flights
conducted under part 91 of Title 14 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Certain exceptions to this general
prohibition may be found in 14 CFR
91.501. One of the exceptions, located
in § 91.501(b)(5), provides for limited
reimbursement for the ‘‘carriage of
officials, employees, guests, and
property of a company on an airplane
operated by that company, or the parent
or a subsidiary of the parent, when the
carriage is within the scope of, and
incidental to, the business of the
company (other than transportation by
air) and no charge, assessment or fee is
made for the carriage in excess of the
cost of owning, operating, and
maintaining the airplane, * * *. ’’
In 1993, the FAA’s Office of the Chief
Counsel issued a legal interpretation of
this provision that addressed officials
and employees of a company using the
company aircraft for personal travel.
Interpretation 1993–17, August 2, 1993.
This letter is commonly referred to as
the ‘‘Schwab Interpretation.’’ In the
Schwab Interpretation, the FAA noted
that the personal travel was not within
the scope of the company’s business and
so did not meet the two-part test set
forth in § 91.501(b)(5), i.e., that it be
within the scope of and incidental to the
company’s business.
On March 1, 2010, the National
Business Aviation Association (NBAA)
requested the FAA consider revising the
long-standing Schwab Interpretation to
address highly placed officers and
employees of a company who could be
recalled at any moment, or whose travel
plans could be altered immediately
prior to the individual going on
personal travel. The FAA is considering
narrowing the broad prohibition
provided in the Schwab Interpretation;
the agency is publishing this notice to
seek comment on its revised
interpretation.
In the Schwab Interpretation, the FAA
rejected the argument that a need to
communicate with a senior company
official justified an assertion that the
personal travel was within the
company’s business. Instead, the FAA
noted that ‘‘[i]t may very well be that the
Company wants to maintain prompt
communications with Mr. Schwab when
he is on pleasure trips. That desire,
however, does not alter the fact that he
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules
is traveling for pleasure. As stated, the
Agency’s interpretations have held that
such carriage is not within the scope of,
and incidental to, the company’s
business. The ability of the Company to
communicate with him is in no way
dependent upon charging him for
carriage for such purposes.’’ The NBAA
made similar arguments in its recent
request that company officials have the
ability to conduct meaningful, real-time
work aboard company aircraft, and so
personal travel can be within the scope
of the company’s business even though
it is incidental to that business. The
FAA rejects this argument as sufficient
to merit a change in agency
interpretation of § 91.501(b)(5). If
anything, the advances in
communication technology weaken any
argument that the use of company
aircraft is necessary for personal travel.
The advent of laptop computers and
handheld PDAs has led to greater
communication than ever before.
The FAA finds more compelling the
argument that certain, highly-placed
officials and employees may be unable
to reliably schedule personal travel due
to the nature of their employment.
Recalling an individual from a
vacation because of an emergency is
clearly within the scope of a company’s
business. To the extent that using
company aircraft is the most efficient
way to transport the individual in an
emergency situation, the FAA would
not object to company aircraft being
used; although there could be some
question as to whether the transport was
still incidental to the company’s
business, such that both prongs of
§ 91.501(b)(5) apply.
However, the FAA believes there is
merit to the position that even the first
leg of the trip could, under limited
circumstances, be within the scope of a
company’s business, even though there
were no emergency circumstances at
play. The FAA recognizes that fairly
routine personal travel, such as a
summer vacation or weekend ski trip,
could be cancelled up to the last
moment because of compelling business
concerns. As such, the company may
determine that it is more efficient to
provide the company aircraft than to
reimburse the individual for the cost of
cancelled commercial airfare. In
addition, the company may be able to
accommodate the individual’s altered
plans by providing the company aircraft
as soon as possible after the compelling
business concern has been resolved. As
such, while the personal travel is not
within the scope of the company’s
business, indeed it is clearly incidental
to that business, the need to modify the
travel on very short notice may well be.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Jul 07, 2010
Jkt 220001
Likewise, to the extent that the return
trip is not compelled by emergency
circumstances, the ability of a company
to alter an individual’s travel plans on
very short notice may render a
particular flight both within the scope of
and incidental to the company’s
business. Thus, the FAA has tentatively
determined that a company could be
reimbursed for the pro rata cost of
owning, operating, and maintaining the
aircraft when used for routine personal
travel by an individual whose position
merits such a high level of company
interference into his or her personal
travel plans.
The FAA notes that not all personal
travel would meet these conditions. As
noted above, truly emergency
circumstances would likely obviate a
company’s ability to demonstrate that a
particular flight is incidental to the
company’s business. By the same token,
there are certain types of personal travel
that are unlikely to be altered or
cancelled, even for compelling business
reasons. For example, absent an
emergency, it is highly unlikely that a
senior officer or employee would be
expected to miss a significant event,
such as a wedding or funeral of a close
family member. It is also unlikely that
the individual would be expected to
cancel or reschedule necessary surgery
or other medical treatment.
In order to prevent companies from
abusing the proposed change in the
Schwab Interpretation, the FAA believes
that a company wishing to take
advantage of the interpretation should
maintain and regularly update a list of
individuals whose position within the
company require him or her to routinely
change travel plans within a very short
period of time. The company should be
prepared to share this list with the FAA
if requested. The FAA recognizes that
the Securities Exchange Commission
and Internal Revenue Service employ
the concept of ‘‘specified individuals’’ in
the context of certain reporting
requirements and taxation issues. These
individuals generally include officers,
directors, and more than 10 percent
owners of a company. The FAA does
not believe that all officers of a company
are likely to be subject to the level of
company control discussed above, nor
are all directors. Rather than issue a
blanket description of which
individuals may be covered by the
proposed revision, the FAA believes it
is appropriate for the company’s board,
or equivalent governing body, to list
which company individuals are so
situated. In addition, the company
would need to keep records indicating
that a determination has been made by
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
39197
the company that the flight in question
was of a routine personal nature.
Issued in Washingon, DC, on June 30,
2010.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2010–16385 Filed 7–7–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket No. USCG–2010–0600]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Fireworks Display,
Portland, OR
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the
establishment of a temporary safety
zone covering specified waters of the
Willamette River bounded by the
Hawthorne Bridge to the north,
Marquam Bridge to the south, and the
shoreline to the east and west in support
of the Oregon Symphony Celebration
Fireworks Display, Portland, Oregon.
The safety zone is necessary to help
ensure the safety of the maritime public
during the event and will do so by
prohibiting all persons and vessels from
entering the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or
his designated representative.
DATES: Comments and related material
must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before August 9, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2010–0600 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
E:\FR\FM\08JYP1.SGM
08JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39196-39197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16385]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA-2010-0667]
Proposed Legal Interpretation
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
ACTION: Proposed interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is considering revising its broad prohibition on pro
rata reimbursement for the cost of owning, operating and maintaining a
company aircraft when used for routine personal travel by senior
company officials and employees under certain conditions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 9, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0667 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief
Counsel, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone: 202 267-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally prohibits
aircraft operators from seeking reimbursement for the costs associated
with flights conducted under part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). Certain exceptions to this general prohibition may
be found in 14 CFR 91.501. One of the exceptions, located in Sec.
91.501(b)(5), provides for limited reimbursement for the ``carriage of
officials, employees, guests, and property of a company on an airplane
operated by that company, or the parent or a subsidiary of the parent,
when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, the
business of the company (other than transportation by air) and no
charge, assessment or fee is made for the carriage in excess of the
cost of owning, operating, and maintaining the airplane, * * *. ''
In 1993, the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel issued a legal
interpretation of this provision that addressed officials and employees
of a company using the company aircraft for personal travel.
Interpretation 1993-17, August 2, 1993. This letter is commonly
referred to as the ``Schwab Interpretation.'' In the Schwab
Interpretation, the FAA noted that the personal travel was not within
the scope of the company's business and so did not meet the two-part
test set forth in Sec. 91.501(b)(5), i.e., that it be within the scope
of and incidental to the company's business.
On March 1, 2010, the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA)
requested the FAA consider revising the long-standing Schwab
Interpretation to address highly placed officers and employees of a
company who could be recalled at any moment, or whose travel plans
could be altered immediately prior to the individual going on personal
travel. The FAA is considering narrowing the broad prohibition provided
in the Schwab Interpretation; the agency is publishing this notice to
seek comment on its revised interpretation.
In the Schwab Interpretation, the FAA rejected the argument that a
need to communicate with a senior company official justified an
assertion that the personal travel was within the company's business.
Instead, the FAA noted that ``[i]t may very well be that the Company
wants to maintain prompt communications with Mr. Schwab when he is on
pleasure trips. That desire, however, does not alter the fact that he
[[Page 39197]]
is traveling for pleasure. As stated, the Agency's interpretations have
held that such carriage is not within the scope of, and incidental to,
the company's business. The ability of the Company to communicate with
him is in no way dependent upon charging him for carriage for such
purposes.'' The NBAA made similar arguments in its recent request that
company officials have the ability to conduct meaningful, real-time
work aboard company aircraft, and so personal travel can be within the
scope of the company's business even though it is incidental to that
business. The FAA rejects this argument as sufficient to merit a change
in agency interpretation of Sec. 91.501(b)(5). If anything, the
advances in communication technology weaken any argument that the use
of company aircraft is necessary for personal travel. The advent of
laptop computers and handheld PDAs has led to greater communication
than ever before.
The FAA finds more compelling the argument that certain, highly-
placed officials and employees may be unable to reliably schedule
personal travel due to the nature of their employment.
Recalling an individual from a vacation because of an emergency is
clearly within the scope of a company's business. To the extent that
using company aircraft is the most efficient way to transport the
individual in an emergency situation, the FAA would not object to
company aircraft being used; although there could be some question as
to whether the transport was still incidental to the company's
business, such that both prongs of Sec. 91.501(b)(5) apply.
However, the FAA believes there is merit to the position that even
the first leg of the trip could, under limited circumstances, be within
the scope of a company's business, even though there were no emergency
circumstances at play. The FAA recognizes that fairly routine personal
travel, such as a summer vacation or weekend ski trip, could be
cancelled up to the last moment because of compelling business
concerns. As such, the company may determine that it is more efficient
to provide the company aircraft than to reimburse the individual for
the cost of cancelled commercial airfare. In addition, the company may
be able to accommodate the individual's altered plans by providing the
company aircraft as soon as possible after the compelling business
concern has been resolved. As such, while the personal travel is not
within the scope of the company's business, indeed it is clearly
incidental to that business, the need to modify the travel on very
short notice may well be. Likewise, to the extent that the return trip
is not compelled by emergency circumstances, the ability of a company
to alter an individual's travel plans on very short notice may render a
particular flight both within the scope of and incidental to the
company's business. Thus, the FAA has tentatively determined that a
company could be reimbursed for the pro rata cost of owning, operating,
and maintaining the aircraft when used for routine personal travel by
an individual whose position merits such a high level of company
interference into his or her personal travel plans.
The FAA notes that not all personal travel would meet these
conditions. As noted above, truly emergency circumstances would likely
obviate a company's ability to demonstrate that a particular flight is
incidental to the company's business. By the same token, there are
certain types of personal travel that are unlikely to be altered or
cancelled, even for compelling business reasons. For example, absent an
emergency, it is highly unlikely that a senior officer or employee
would be expected to miss a significant event, such as a wedding or
funeral of a close family member. It is also unlikely that the
individual would be expected to cancel or reschedule necessary surgery
or other medical treatment.
In order to prevent companies from abusing the proposed change in
the Schwab Interpretation, the FAA believes that a company wishing to
take advantage of the interpretation should maintain and regularly
update a list of individuals whose position within the company require
him or her to routinely change travel plans within a very short period
of time. The company should be prepared to share this list with the FAA
if requested. The FAA recognizes that the Securities Exchange
Commission and Internal Revenue Service employ the concept of
``specified individuals'' in the context of certain reporting
requirements and taxation issues. These individuals generally include
officers, directors, and more than 10 percent owners of a company. The
FAA does not believe that all officers of a company are likely to be
subject to the level of company control discussed above, nor are all
directors. Rather than issue a blanket description of which individuals
may be covered by the proposed revision, the FAA believes it is
appropriate for the company's board, or equivalent governing body, to
list which company individuals are so situated. In addition, the
company would need to keep records indicating that a determination has
been made by the company that the flight in question was of a routine
personal nature.
Issued in Washingon, DC, on June 30, 2010.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2010-16385 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
