66490 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

should be familiar with them. Any flight

condition that creates excessive angle of

attack on the main rotor blades can produce

a stall. Low main rotor RPM, aggressive

maneuvering, high collective angle (often the

result of high-density altitude, over-pitching

[exceeding power available] during climb, or

high forward airspeed) and slow response to

the low main rotor RPM warning horn and

light may result in main rotor stall. The effect

of these conditions can be amplified in

turbulence. Main rotor stall can ultimately

result in contact between the main rotor and

airframe. Additional information on main

rotor stall is provided in the Robinson

Helicopter Company Safety Notices SN–10,

SN–15, SN–20, SN–24, SN–27, and SN–29.

Mast Bumping: Mast bumping may occur

with a teetering rotor system when excessive

main rotor flapping results from low ‘‘G’’

(load factor below 1.0) or abrupt control

input. A low ‘‘G’’ flight condition can result

from an abrupt cyclic pushover in forward

flight. High forward airspeed, turbulence,

and excessive sideslip can accentuate the

adverse effects of these control movements.

The excessive flapping results in the main

rotor hub assembly striking the main rotor

mast with subsequent main rotor system

separation from the helicopter.

To avoid these conditions, pilots are

strongly urged to follow these

recommendations:

(1) Maintain cruise airspeeds greater than

60 KIAS and less than 0.9 Vne.

(2) Use maximum ‘‘power-on’’ RPM at all

times during powered flight.

(3) Avoid sideslip during flight. Maintain

in-trim flight at all times.

(4) Avoid large, rapid forward cyclic inputs

in forward flight, and abrupt control inputs

in turbulence.

Emergency Procedures Section

(1) RIGHT ROLL IN LOW ‘‘G’’ CONDITION

Gradually apply aft cyclic to restore positive

‘‘G’’ forces and main rotor thrust. Do not

apply lateral cyclic until positive ‘‘G’’ forces

have been established.

(2) UNCOMMANDED PITCH, ROLL, OR

YAW RESULTING FROM FLIGHT IN

TURBULENCE.

Gradually apply controls to maintain rotor

RPM, positive ‘‘G’’ forces, and to eliminate

sideslip. Minimize cyclic control inputs in

turbulence; do not overcontrol.

(3) INADVERTENT ENCOUNTER WITH

MODERATE, SEVERE, OR EXTREME

TURBULENCE.

If the area of turbulence is isolated, depart

the area; otherwise, land the helicopter as

soon as practical.

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used when approved by the Manager,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Rotorcraft

Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit

their requests through an FAA Principal

Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or

comment and then send it to the Manager,

Rotorcraft Standards Staff.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Rotorcraft Standards Staff.

(c) Special flight permits, pursuant to

sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and

21.199), will not be issued.

(d) This amendment becomes effective on

January 26, 1996.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December

11, 1995.

Daniel P. Salvano,

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 95–31139 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–ANM–17]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Wray, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes the

Wray, Colorado, Class E airspace. This

action is necessary to accommodate a

Global Positioning System (GPS)

Standard Instrument Approach

Procedure (SIAP) at Wray Municipal

Airport, Wray, Colorado.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, February 29,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James C. Frala, System Management

Branch, ANM–535/A, Federal Aviation

Administration, Docket No. 95–ANM–

17, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,

Washington 98055–4056; telephone

number: (206) 227–2535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On October 20, 1995, the FAA

proposed to amend part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 71) to establish Class E airspace at

Wray, Colorado, to accommodate a new

GPS SIAP at Wray Municipal Airport

(60 FR 54206). Interested parties were

invited to participate in the rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal. No

comments were received.

The coordinates for this airspace

docket are based on North American

Datum 83. Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth are

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995,

and effective September 16, 1995, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1 The Class E airspace listed in this

document will be published

subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to part 71 of Federal

Aviation Regulations establishes Class E

airspace at Wray, Colorado. The FAA

has determined that this regulation only

involves an established body of

technical regulations for which frequent

and routine amendments are necessary

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 there is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

FAA amends 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. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of 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.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Wray, CO [New]

Wray Municipal Airport, CO

(Lat. 40°06′00′′N, long. 102°14′27′′W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile

radius of the Wray Municipal Airport; that

airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet

above the surface bounded by a line

beginning at lat. 40°12′00′′N, long.

102°30′00′′W; to lat. 40°16′00′′N, long.

102°03′00′′W; to lat. 39°45′00′′N, long.

102°03′00′′W; to lat. 39°45′00′′N, long.

102°14′00′′W; to lat. 40°00′00′′N, long.

102°30′00′′W; thence to point of beginning.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 66491

1 60 FR 32,142 (1995).

2 The following eight parties filed comments in

response to the Notice: Representative Richard

Burr, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,

Fordham University, National Public Radio, North

Carolina Public Radio Association, Lisa Owens,

Southern Public Radio, and Wake Forest University.

3 15 CFR 2301.22(d). ‘‘Sectarian’’ is defined at 15

CFR 2301.1 as ‘‘that which has the purpose or

function of advancing or propagating a religious

belief.’’ The PTFP regulation at 15 CFR § 2301.22(d)

provides, ‘‘During the period in which the grantee

possesses or uses the Federally funded facilities

(whether or not this period extends beyond the

Federal interest period), the grantee may not use or

allow the use of the Federally funded equipment for

purposes the essential thrust of which are

sectarian.’’ NTIA considers these phrases to mean

the same thing.

4See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the

University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510 (1995);

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist. (Zobrest),

113 S.Ct. 2462 (1993); Witters v. Washington Dep’t

of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481, 487 (1986);

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983).

5Notice, supra note 1.

6See 44 FR 30898 (1979) for explanation of

NTIA’s previous policy. PTFP’s regulation

regarding sectarian programming appears at 15 CFR

2301.22(d).

7This interpretation stems from policy statement,

infra fn. 11 and was applied in the Fordham case.

8 403 U.S. 602 (1971). The constitutional test set

forth in Lemon—and the consistency between

NTIA’s new policy interpretation and that test—are

described in section III.A. of this policy statement,

infra.

9Public Telecommunications Facilities Program;

Report and Order, 44 FR 30898, 30902 (1979)

(Report and Order).

10 Id. at 30,900–30,901. Previously, organizations

organized for primarily religious purposes were

ineligible to apply for a PTFP planning grant,

although their affiliates were eligible to apply. See

15 CFR 2301.4(b)(2). We are revising this rule to be

consistent with the new policy adopted herein,

such that applicant eligibility will be the same for

both construction and planning grants. See the

conforming amendments to § 2301.4 (a) and (b).

11 60 FR 15636 (1995); 60 FR 8156 (1995).

12The applicant ‘‘will not use or allow the use of

the facilities for essentially sectarian purposes for

as long as the Applicant possesses or uses the

facilities . . . .’’ Public Telecommunications

Facilities Program, Grant Application, Assurances,

no. 30, at 9.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on

November 29, 1995.

Richard E. Prang,

Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic

Division, Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 95–31203 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

15 CFR Part 2301

[Docket Number 950613151–5304–02]

RIN 0660–XX02

Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program (PTFP), National Endowment

for Children’s Educational Television

(NECET), Telecommunications and

Information Infrastructure Assistance

Program (TIIAP)

AGENCY: National Telecommunications

and Information Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Final Policy Statement and

Conforming Rule Amendments.

SUMMARY: The National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA), U.S.

Department of Commerce, is publishing

a Final Policy Statement modifying the

interpretation of its policy on the use of

NTIA-funded equipment and materials

in connection with sectarian activities

and making conforming rule

amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jana

Gagner, (202) 482–1816.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On June 20, 1995, the National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce (NTIA), published a notice in

the Federal Register proposing to

modify NTIA’s interpretation of its

policy regarding the use of Federal grant

funds awarded by NTIA in connection

with sectarian activities.1 Eight parties

filed comments in response to the

Notice.2 Based on these comments and

current jurisprudence, NTIA is hereby

modifying its prior interpretation of its

rules, which prohibited the use of

NTIA-funded equipment, facilities, and

materials in connection with any

sectarian activities, no matter how

incidental.

Under its new interpretation, NTIA

will retain its present requirement that

grant funds not be used for purposes the

‘‘essential thrust of which are

sectarian,’’ 3 but will modify its

interpretation of this requirement as

follows. No more than an attenuated or

incidental benefit may inure to a

sectarian interest if a grantee uses NTIAfunded facilities in connection with a

sectarian activity. In addition, the use

must fall within the broad scope of a

grant program’s statutory purposes. A

grantee cannot, however, use NTIA

grant funds primarily to support

sectarian interests.

For the reasons discussed below,

NTIA believes that this approach is

consistent with current jurisprudence.4

We also discuss below in greater detail

the issues raised in the June Notice

regarding NTIA’s policy on sectarian

activities,5 NTIA’s interpretation of its

prior policy, comments received by

NTIA in response to the Notice, and the

application of NTIA’s new policy to

each of its grant programs. Our

discussion is informed by relevant First

Amendment jurisprudence, including

the recent Supreme Court holding in

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the

University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510

(1995).

II. Background

NTIA’s Prior Policy. In 1979, the

Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program (PTFP) of the NTIA adopted a

rule prohibiting funding for any

equipment, facilities, and other

materials that would be used for any

purposes the essential thrust of which is

sectarian.6 NTIA’s interpretation of this

rule has prohibited use of NTIA-funded

facilities and materials in connection

with any sectarian activity.7 In

implementing this ‘‘bright-line’’ policy

interpretation, NTIA relied upon Lemon

v. Kurtzman.8

NTIA’s policy interpretation did,

however, permit the ‘‘presentation in an

educational or cultural context of music

or art with a religious theme [or] of

programs about religion. It [also did] not

preclude distribution of instructional

programming of a secular nature to

church-related educational

institutions.’’ 9 In addition, sectarianaffiliated organizations could generally

apply for grant funds,10 subject, of

course, to the prohibition on the use of

NTIA-funded equipment, facilities, and

materials for purposes the essential

thrust of which is sectarian. NTIA’s two

newer grant programs, the National

Endowment for Children’s Educational

Television (NECET) and the

Telecommunications and Information

Infrastructure Assistance Program

(TIIAP), also adopted the same policy

and interpretation.11

In enforcing this policy over the years,

NTIA required grant applicants to

certify that they would comply with its

policy by signing an assurance to that

effect.12 By relying upon this assurance,

NTIA avoided evaluating programming

schedules for sectarian content as a

routine practice. Such evaluation

occurred only if information contained

in the application itself suggested that

the applicant would violate NTIA’s

policy, a complaint was filed with

NTIA, or NTIA otherwise became aware

of information that suggested that its

policy was being or would be violated.

By not routinely evaluating program

content and information transmitted

using NTIA-funded equipment and

materials, NTIA avoided excessive

Government entanglement with religion,