Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 60211 

Note 3: MDHI Maintenance Manual CSP–

HMI–2, Section 20–30–00 Main Rotor Blade 

Painting pertains to the subject of this AD. 

This section of the maintenance manual 

recommends painting the inboard 24 inches 

(not to be exceeded) of the blade gloss white 

to aid in detecting a crack; and if this is done, 

painting all blades alike and rebalancing 

them. 

Note 4: TEs are used only to establish an 

additional inspection interval and not to 

establish an alternative retirement life. 

(d) 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 Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, for information about previously 

approved alternative methods of compliance. 

Note 5: Complying with the inspection 

procedures in the Accomplishment 

Instructions, paragraphs 2.B.(2). and 2.B.(3)., 

of MD Helicopter Inc. Service Bulletin (SB) 

SB369H–245R2, SB369E–095R2, SB500N–

023R2, SB369D–201R2, SB369F–079R2, 

SB600N–031R2, dated February 4, 2004, 

constitutes an approved alternative method 

of conducting the inspection required by 

paragraph (b) of this AD. 

Note 6: Complying with the Inspection 

Instructions procedures in paragraphs 2 and 

3 of HTC Mandatory SB, Notice No. 2100–

3R3, dated January 5, 2004, constitutes an 

approved alternative method of conducting 

the inspection required by paragraph (b) of 

this AD. 

(e) This amendment becomes effective on 

November 1, 2005. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 7, 

2005. 

David A. Downey, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20678 Filed 10–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. 96–ANE–35–AD; Amendment 

39–14339; AD 2005–21–01] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & 

Whitney JT8D–200 Series Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This amendment supersedes 

an existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) 

JT8D–200 series turbofan engines. That 

AD currently requires installing and 

periodically inspecting individual or 

sets of certain part number (P/N) 

temperature indicators on the No. 4 and 

5 bearing compartment scavenge oil 

tube and performance of any necessary 

corrective action. This AD requires 

installing and periodically inspecting 

two temperature indicators on all PW 

JT8D–200 series turbofan engines, 

including those incorporating high 

pressure turbine (HPT) containment 

hardware. This AD results from five 

uncontained HPT shaft failures. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent oil fires and 

the resulting fracture of the HPT shaft 

which can result in uncontained release 

of engine fragments; engine fire; inflight engine shutdown; and possible 

airplane damage. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

November 21, 2005. The Director of the 

Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the regulations as 

of November 21, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You can get the service 

information identified in this AD from 

Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East 

Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860) 

565–7700, fax (860) 565–1605. 

You may examine the AD docket at 

the FAA, New England Region, Office of 

the Regional Counsel, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA. You 

may examine the service information, at 

the FAA, New England Region, Office of 

the Regional Counsel, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Lardie, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803–5299; telephone (781) 238–7189, 

fax (781) 238–7199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by 

superseding AD 97–19–13, Amendment 

39–10134 (62 FR 49135, September 19, 

1997). The proposed AD applies to PW 

JT8D–200 series turbofan engines. We 

published the proposed AD in the 

Federal Register on September 29, 2004 

(69 FR 58099). That action proposed to 

require installing and periodically 

inspecting two P/N 810486 temperature 

indicators on all PW JT8D–200 series 

turbofan engines, including those 

incorporating HPT containment 

hardware. Thirteen HPT shaft fractures 

resulted in five uncontained HPT shaft 

failures. The HPT shafts fractured 

through the No. 41⁄2 oil return holes due 

to oil fires within the No. 4 and 5 

bearing compartment. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD Docket 

(including any comments and service 

information), by appointment, between 

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. See 

ADDRESSES for the location. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. We have 

considered the comments received. 

Concerns Over Considering the Engine 

Unserviceable 

Four commenters state that an engine 

should not be considered unserviceable 

and the engine removed from service if 

both temperature indicators are missing. 

The commenters state that we should 

allow installing new temperature 

indicators followed by a ground 

diagnostic test before further flight. 

One of those commenters states that 

considering the engine unserviceable 

imposes an undue hardship on 

operators. If one of the indicators is 

missing, PW Alert Service Bulletin 

(ASB) No. JT8D A5944 requires that the 

engine be tested using specific 

instructions to determine its 

serviceability and the engine be 

dispositioned accordingly. The theory 

used for one indicator missing is that 

the serviceability of the engine is now 

questionable and the engine must be 

proven serviceable before it can be 

returned to service. The commenter 

further states that any time engine 

serviceability is in question, it must be 

proven and cannot be assumed. 

Requiring operators to remove the 

engine from service, simply because 

both of the indicators are missing, forces 

operators into a position without 

recourse. The commenter further states 

that this is the same condition already 

covered when one indicator is missing. 

The procedure to determine 

serviceability for both indicators 

missing should follow the procedure for 

one indicator missing but with minor 

changes. 

We agree. We have changed the 

compliance section of the AD to allow 

a ground diagnostic test before further 

flight if both temperature indicators are 

missing. 

AD Instructions Not Clear 

One commenter states that the AD 

instructions for a missing indicator are 

not clear. The instructions for one 

indicator missing assume that the 

missing indicator has a red window that 

has turned black. The commenter asks 

if the yellow window of the missing 

indicator should be assumed to be 

normal color or black. The condition of 

the remaining indicator would make a 

difference as to whether a diagnostic 

60212 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

test may be run or if the engine must be 

removed. 

We agree. PW supplied better 

instructions in Revision 5 to PW ASB 

No. JT8D A5944, which we incorporated 

by reference. For troubleshooting 

purposes, any missing temperature 

indicator is assumed to have the same 

indication as the remaining temperature 

indicator. Therefore, the results of the 

visual inspection of the one remaining 

temperature indicator should be 

doubled. This should minimize operator 

impact due to false indications. 

Follow-Up Inspection Requirements 

Too Restrictive 

One commenter states the follow-up 

inspection requirements for certain 

conditions are too restrictive. In the 

cases where the proposed requirements 

state to check the temperature indicators 

following every flight should be eased to 

require a check of the temperature 

indicators once a day. The commenter 

feels that the economic burden of 

checking the indicators following every 

flight outweighs the risk. 

We disagree. An indicator with a 

black window probably is a sign of an 

impending problem with the engine. 

The typical progression for the indicator 

windows to change from normal tan 

color to black is as follows: One yellow, 

two yellow, or two yellow with one or 

two red windows. Any combination 

other than this progression is not 

expected and would signal that the 

reliability of the engine is in question. 

For example, if both red windows, 

which are rated about 50 degrees 

Fahrenheit hotter than the yellow 

windows, have turned black, but none 

of the yellow windows have turned 

black, a problem may exist with the 

indicator installation, or hot air might 

be impinging from a stuck carbon seal. 

A ground diagnostic test cannot 

accurately reproduce the symptom of a 

stuck carbon seal. In one case following 

an indication of one yellow window and 

one red window turned black, a shaft 

fracture occurred only two cycles after 

a visual inspection, despite engine 

diagnostic test and other 

troubleshooting. This type of failure will 

occur quickly, which is why intensive 

inspections are required. 

Use of Dual-Window Temperature 

Indicators 

One commenter agrees with the 

proposed AD that dual-window 

temperature indicators should be used 

and sealed to minimize false 

indications. The commenter further 

states that in a situation where hot air 

impingement or indicator 

contamination is determined to cause a 

false indication, a ground diagnostic test 

should be allowed to return the engine 

to service. 

We partially agree. In most cases, 

operators will be unable to show that 

the source of black windows seen 

during a visual inspection is indicator 

contamination or hot air impingement. 

Operators must follow all of the 

manufacturer’s instructions for 

installation of temperature indicators to 

minimize false indications. 

Troubleshooting On-Wing 

Two commenters disagree with the 

last two dispositions in the table for 

Visual Inspection of Dual Window 

Indications, in Alert Service Bulletin 

(ASB) No. A5944, Revision 4, dated 

April 8, 2004. Those dispositions state 

to remove the engine, whereas the other 

dispositions in the table allow for 

troubleshooting the engine on-wing. The 

commenter states that troubleshooting 

for false indications should be also 

allowed for these two dispositions. Hot 

air impingement could be more likely 

due to close proximity to sources of 

contamination and would lead to false 

indications. The commenter did not 

supply any data or field experience to 

support the concern. 

We disagree. The new mandatory 

sealing instructions for the temperature 

indicators will prevent most false 

indications. An indicator combination 

of two yellow windows turned black 

with at least one red window turned 

black is not more likely a result of 

contamination due to hot air 

impingement than any other situation 

involving indicators showing at least 

one black window. If one properly 

installs the temperature indicators, the 

last two dispositions involving 

temperature indicators with black 

windows probably are a sign of a 

significant engine problem. Since 

uncontained HPT shaft fractures 

continue to occur, a more conservative 

approach is necessary to prevent their 

future occurrence. 

Use of an Immersion Thermocouple 

One commenter feels that an 

immersion thermocouple should be 

allowed for all situations in which a 

window of a temperature indicator has 

turned black. 

We disagree. An immersion 

thermocouple provides a more accurate 

reading of temperature. However, an 

immersion thermocouple can only be 

used during ground diagnostic tests and 

may not help detect in-flight issues that 

cannot be reproduced on the ground, 

such as a stuck carbon seal. We did not 

change the AD. 

Alert Service Bulletin Is Too Precise 

One commenter states that paragraph 

1.B of the Accomplishment Instructions 

of PW ASB No. A5944, Revision 4, 

dated April 8, 2004, is too precise for 

otherwise inaccurate temperature 

indicator measurements. The 

commenter states that the ASB requires 

diagnostic tests in intervals from before 

further flight to 10, 20, or 25 hours or 

cycles. 

We disagree. We used past failure 

event field data to establish diagnostic 

testing intervals. Temperature 

indicators, although they do not provide 

an absolute temperature indication, are 

an effective method of determining the 

health of the scavenge system. Requiring 

a full ground diagnostic test every 65 

hours would be an unnecessary 

economic burden for the operators. 

Therefore, for different indicator 

conditions, depending on the severity of 

the indications, different follow-on 

testing requirements are appropriate. 

Concerns With ASB Instructions 

One commenter states that the ASB 

instructions for manufacture of the 

thermocouple are inaccurate and 

incomplete in some areas, and too 

detailed in other areas. The instructions 

specify too long a thermocouple and 

provide no sealing instructions to 

prevent oil from leaking past the 

thermocouple. The instructions also are 

so detailed for drilling the chip detector, 

that the operator is left few other 

options. The commenter further states 

that PW should not mandate the brand 

of thermocouple. The commenter feels 

that operators should be given the intent 

of the design specifications for installing 

a thermocouple, and be given flexibility 

to choose their own installation based 

on these requirements. 

We agree. PW has revised the 

instructions for the thermocouple, 

which are in ASB No. JT8D A5944, 

Revision 5, dated October 3, 2005. 

Equivalent Parts 

One commenter states that the use of 

equivalent parts to temperature 

indicator, PW P/N 810486, should be 

permitted. A parts manufacturer 

approval (PMA)-equivalent, P/N 3641, is 

available. The commenter also requests 

that the AD wording be changed so that 

it does not imply that the OEM is the 

only supplier of an approved 

temperature indicator for this AD. 

We partially agree. PMA parts are 

acceptable. But presently only one, 

PMA P/N 3641, is available as a 

substitute for PW P/N 810486. We 

changed the AD to include this PMAequivalent. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 60213 

Other Changes to the Compliance 

Section for Clarification 

Several commenters suggest that the 

Compliance section is unclear. We agree 

that it could be clearer. We changed the 

Compliance section to clarify the 

procedures. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data, including the comments 

received, and determined that air safety 

and the public interest require adopting 

the AD with the changes described 

previously. We have determined that 

these changes will neither increase the 

economic burden on any operator nor 

increase the scope of the AD. 

Costs of Compliance 

There are about 2,345 PW JT8D–200 

series turbofan engines of the affected 

design in the worldwide fleet. We 

estimate that 1,143 engines installed on 

airplanes of U.S. registry would be 

affected by this AD. We also estimate 

that it would take about 1 work hour per 

engine to perform the actions, and that 

the average labor rate is $65 per work 

hour. Required parts would cost about 

$37 per engine. Based on these figures, 

we estimate the total cost of the AD to 

U.S. operators to be $116,586. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

Title 49 of the United States Code 

specifies the FAA’s authority to issue 

rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, 

Section 106, describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the Agency’s 

authority. 

We are issuing this rulemaking under 

the authority described in Subtitle VII, 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We have determined that this AD will 

not have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132. This AD will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the National Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify that this AD: 

(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) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared a summary of the costs 

to comply with this AD and placed it in 

the AD Docket. You may get a copy of 

this summary by sending a request to us 

at the address listed under ADDRESSES. 

Include ‘‘AD Docket No. 96–ANE–35–

AD’’ in your request. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by 

removing Amendment 39–10134 (62 FR 

49135, September 19, 1997) and by 

adding the following new airworthiness 

directive: 

2005–21–01 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 

39–14339. Docket No. 96–ANE–35–AD. 

Effective Date 

(a) This airworthiness directive (AD) 

becomes effective November 21, 2005. 

Affected ADs 

(b) This AD supersedes AD 97–19–13, 

Amendment 39–10134. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney 

(PW) JT8D–200 series turbofan engines. 

These engines are installed on, but not 

limited to, McDonnell Douglas MD–80 series 

and Boeing 727 series airplanes. 

Unsafe Condition 

(d) This AD results from five uncontained 

high pressure turbine (HPT) shaft failures out 

of thirteen HPT shaft fractures due to oil fires 

in the No. 4 and 5 bearing compartments. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent oil fires; 

fracture of the HPT shaft which can result in 

uncontained release of engine fragments; 

engine fire; in-flight engine shutdown; and 

possible airplane damage. 

Compliance 

(e) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Installation of the Dual-Window 

Temperature Indicators 

(f) Install two dual-window temperature 

indicators on the No. 4 bearing compartment 

scavenge oil tubes of PW JT8D–200 series 

turbofan engines within 90 days after the 

effective date of this AD. 

(1) Use paragraph 1.A. of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of PW Alert 

Service Bulletin (ASB) No. JT8D A5944, 

Revision 5, dated October 3, 2005, to install 

the temperature indicators. 

(2) The use of part manufacturer approval 

(PMA)-equivalent temperature indicators, 

P/N 3641, made by Telatemp Corporation, is 

acceptable. 

Initial Visual Inspection of the Dual-Window 

Temperature Indicators 

(g) Perform initial visual inspection of the 

dual-window temperature indicators 

installed in paragraph (f) of this AD within 

65 hours time-in-service (TIS) since 

installation. 

(h) If the color of any temperature indicator 

window has turned black, perform 

troubleshooting, diagnostic testing, and 

corrective action as required, using paragraph 

1.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

PW ASB No. JT8D A5944, Revision 5, dated 

October 3, 2005. 

(i) If any temperature indicators are 

missing: 

(1) If one temperature indicator is missing, 

inspect the remaining temperature indicator 

and perform troubleshooting, diagnostic 

testing, and corrective action as required, 

using Paragraph B.2. of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of PW ASB No. JT8D A5944, 

Revision 5, dated October 3, 2005. 

(2) If both temperature indicators are 

missing: 

(i) Perform troubleshooting, diagnostic 

testing, and corrective action as required, 

using Figure 2 of the Accomplishment 

Instructions of PW ASB No. JT8D A5944, 

Revision 5, dated October 3, 2005. 

(ii) Perform both engine diagnostic tests as 

specified in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of PW ASB No. 

JT8D 5944, Revision 5, dated October 3, 

2005. 

(iii) If the engine fails the diagnostic tests 

for red indicators, do not perform the test for 

yellow indicators. Remove the engine from 

service. 

(3) If the test results show an oil 

overtemperature condition, remove the 

engine from service. 

(4) If the test results show no oil 

overtemperature condition: 

(i) Replace any temperature indicator that 

has turned black as specified in paragraph (h) 

of this AD; and 

(ii) Replace any temperature indicator that 

is missing as specified in paragraph (i) of this 

AD; and 

(iii) Return the engine to service, and 

inspect as specified in paragraph (g) of this 

AD. 

60214 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Repetitive Visual Inspection of the DualWindow Temperature Indicators 

(j) Perform repetitive visual inspections of 

the dual-window temperature indicators 

installed in paragraph (f) of this AD within 

65 hours TIS since-last-inspection. Use 

paragraph (h) of this AD to inspect the 

temperature indicators. 

Requirements for Thermocouple Installation 

for On-Wing Diagnostic Test 

(k) The requirements for thermocouple 

installation are listed in Appendix B of PW 

ASB No. JT8D A5944, Revision 5, dated 

October 3, 2005. 

On-Wing Diagnostic Test Information 

(l) To perform the on-wing diagnostics test, 

use Appendix C of PW ASB No. JT8D A5944, 

Revision 5, dated October 3, 2005. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(m) You must use Pratt & Whitney Alert 

Service Bulletin No. JT8D A5944, Revision 5, 

dated October 3, 2005, to perform the 

inspections and tests required by this AD. 

The Director of the Federal Register approved 

the incorporation by reference of this service 

bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR part 51. You can get a copy from 

Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, 

CT 06108; telephone (860) 565–7700, fax 

(860) 565–1605. You can review copies at the 

FAA, New England Region, Office of the 

Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive 

Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(NARA). For information on the availability 

of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

Related Information 

(n) None. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

October 3, 2005. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20501 Filed 10–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 801 

[TD 9227] 

RIN 1545–BE46 

Balanced System for Measuring 

Organizational and Employee 

Performance Within the Internal 

Revenue Service 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Final and temporary 

regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document contains final 

and temporary regulations relating to 

the balanced system for measuring 

organizational and employee 

performance within the IRS. The 

temporary regulations prospectively 

amend the existing final regulations in 

26 CFR part 801 to clarify when 

quantity measures, which are not tax 

enforcement results, may be used in 

measuring organizational and employee 

performance. The portions of this 

document that are final regulations 

provide necessary cross-references to 

the temporary regulations. These 

regulations affect internal operations of 

the IRS and the systems it employs to 

evaluate the performance of 

organizations within the IRS. The text of 

the temporary regulations also serves as 

the text of proposed regulations set forth 

in the Proposed Rules section in this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations 

are effective on October 17, 2005. 

Applicability Date: For dates of 

applicability, see §§ 801.7 and 801.8T. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil 

Worden, (202) 283–7900 (not a toll-free 

number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This document amends final 

regulations in 26 CFR part 801 (the 

Final Regulations) that implement the 

Balanced System for Measuring 

Organizational and Employee 

Performance within the IRS. The Final 

Regulations were published in the 

Federal Register on August 6, 1999 (64 

FR 42834–42837). The Final Regulations 

emanated from section 1201 of the 

Internal Revenue Service Restructuring 

and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 

105–206, 112 Stat. 685, 713 (1998) (the 

Act), which required the IRS to establish 

a performance management system for 

those employees covered by 5 U.S.C. 

4302 that, among other things, 

establishes ‘‘goals or objectives for 

individual, group, or organizational 

performance (or any combination 

thereof), consistent with the IRS’

performance planning procedures, 

including those established under the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993, division E of the ClingerCohen Act of 1966 * * *, Revenue 

Procedure 64–22 * * *, and taxpayer 

service surveys.’’ Section 1201 further 

required the IRS to use ‘‘such goals and 

objectives to make performance 

distinctions among employees or groups 

of employees,’’ and to use ‘‘performance 

assessments as a basis for granting 

employee awards, adjusting an 

employee’s rate of basic pay, and other 

appropriate personnel actions * * *.’’

In addition, section 1201 of the Act 

required that the IRS performance 

management system comply with 

section 1204, which prohibits the use of 

‘‘records of tax enforcement results’’

(ROTERs) in the evaluation of IRS 

employees or to suggest or impose 

production goals for such employees. 

Section 1204, however, does not 

prohibit the use of quantity measures in 

evaluating organizational and employee 

performance. The temporary regulations 

in this document amend the existing 

regulations in part 801 to clarify when 

quantity measures may be used in 

measuring organizational and employee 

performance. 

Explanation of Provisions 

The final regulations provide 

guidance and direction for the 

establishment of a balanced 

performance measurement system for 

the IRS. The three elements of this 

balanced measurement system are (1) 

customer satisfaction measures, (2) 

employee satisfaction measures and (3) 

business results measures. These 

organizational measures may be used to 

evaluate the performance of, or to 

impose or suggest production goals for, 

any organizational unit. 

The temporary regulations contained 

in this document relate primarily to the 

business results measures. Business 

results are measured through quality 

measures and quantity measures. 

Quality measures are based on reviews 

of a statistically valid sample of cases 

handled by certain organizational units 

such as examination, collection and 

Automated Collection System units. The 

quality review of other work units is 

determined according to criteria 

established by the Commissioner or his 

delegate. 

The IRS and Treasury Department 

have determined that the provisions of 

the existing part 801 regulations that 

limit the use of quantity measures in 

evaluating organizational units and 

imposing or suggesting production goals 

for employees restrict the IRS’ ability to 

monitor program performance and track 

effectiveness of operations, and have 

caused confusion as to what types of 

data or measures may be discussed 

between managers and employees and 

reflected in manager and employee 

goals. These temporary regulations 

remove the limitations on the use of 

quantity measures in evaluating the 

performance of, or imposing or 

suggesting goals for organizational units. 

These temporary regulations also 

remove the limitations on the use of 

quantity measures to impose or suggest 

goals for employees. The regulations 

continue to provide that performance