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 

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 

http://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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 § 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. 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0600] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, 

Portland, OR 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

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: 

http://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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS