issue-1995-11-09•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-09
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-09
issue-1995-11-09Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-09Proposed 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. 95-27911 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27911]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 945
Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary
AGENCY: Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM),
National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The OCRM is announcing the dates and places of public hearings
on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan and proposed
regulations for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
Sanctuary.
DATES: For the dates of the hearings see the Supplementary Information
section.
ADDRESSES: For the locations of the hearing see the Supplementary
Information section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allen Tom, On-site Project Specialist,
at (808) 879-2818 (Maui), (808) 541-3184 (Oahu) or (800) 831-4888
(toll-free interisland). Copies of the DEIS/MP and Proposed Rules are
available upon request to the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National
Marine Sanctuary, 726 South Kihei Road, Kihei, HI 96753.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National
Marine Sanctuary was designated by law on November 4, 1992 (Subtitle C,
Title II, Pub. L. 101-587 (Oceans Act of 1992)). The primary purpose of
the designation is to protect humpback whales and their habitat in the
Hawaiian Islands. A notice of the availability of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan (DEIS/MP), the proposed
regulations, and a summary of the management plan were published in the
Federal Register on September 15, 1995 (60 FR 48000).
OCRM will hold public hearings on the DEIS/MP and Proposed
Regulations. The purpose of the public hearings is to receive oral
testimony from the public on the DEIS/MP and Proposed Rules. The
comments expressed at these hearings, as well as written comments
received on the DEIS/MP and Proposed Rules, will be considered in the
preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan
(FEIS/MP) and Rules. Written comments may also be submitted at these
public meetings or mailed to the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale
National Marine Sanctuary, 726 South Kihei Road, Kihei, HI. The period
to receive written comments ends on December 15, 1995.
Date, Time and Place of Public Hearings:
November 27, 7:00 PM: Hawaii County Council Room, 25 Aupuni Street,
Hilo, Hawaii
November 28, 7:00 PM: Kealakehe Elementary School, 74-511 Kealakaa
Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
November 29, 7:00 PM: Kaunoa Senior Center Cafeteria, 401 Alakapa
Place, Pa`ia, Maui
November 30, 7:00 PM: Tokai University Auditorium, 2241 Kapiolani
Blvd., Honolulu, Oahu
December 4, 7:00 PM: Lanai School and Public Library, 6th and
Fraiser Ave, Lanai City, Lanai
December 5, 7:00 PM: Molokai Yacht Club, Hio Place, Kauanakakai,
Molokai
December 6, 7:00 PM: Wilcox Elementary School Cafeteria, 4319 Hardy
Street, Lihue, Kauai
Public Participation: The hearings will be open to public
participation. Seats will be available on a first-come first-served
basis. There will be a sign up sheet at each location for anyone
wishing to give testimony. Individual speakers and organizations will
be given a 3 minute time limit to present their testimony.
(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary
Program)
Dated: November 6, 1995.
David L. Evans,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal
Zone Management.
[FR Doc. 95-27911 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27830 Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Vancouver, WA
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56539-56540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27830]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ANM-19]
Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Vancouver, WA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish Class D airspace at Pearson
Airpark, Vancouver, Washington, encompassing that area which is
excluded from the Portland International Airport Class C airspace and
commonly referred to as the Pearson Cutout. Pearson Airpark underlies a
proposed instrument approach procedure to Portland International
Airport, Portland, Oregon. If established, the airspace would promote
safety because aircraft operating at Pearson Airpark could be provided
traffic information and wake turbulence advisories, as appropriate. The
area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, ANM-530, Federal Aviation Administration,
Docket No. 95-ANM-19, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-
4056.
The official docket may be examined at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James C. Frala, ANM-535/A, Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No. 95-ANM-19, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone number: (206) 227-2535.
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 above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
ANM-19.'' The postcard will be date/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 at the address listed above 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 NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, System Management Branch, ANM-
530, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
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, which 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 D airspace at
Pearson Airpark, Vancouver, Washington. Pearson Airpark underlies a
proposed instrument approach procedure to Portland International
Airport, Portland, Oregon. If established, the Class D airspace would
require two-way radio communication with the control tower at Portland
International Airport, thus providing the necessary pilot/controller
connectivity for issuing traffic information and wake turbulence
advisories, as appropriate. The area would be depicted on aeronautical
charts for pilot reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket
are based on North American Datum 83. Class D airspace areas extending
upward from the surface of the earth are published in Paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995,
[[Page 56540]]
and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class D 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 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 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
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).
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. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 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 5000 Class D Airspace
* * * * *
ANM WA D Vancouver, WA
Vancouver, Pearson Airpark, WA
(Lat. 45 deg.37'14''N, long. 122 deg.39'30''W)
Portland International Airport, OR
(Lat 45 deg.35'19''N, long. 122 deg.35'51''W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 1,100 feet MSL in an area bounded by a line beginning at
the point where the 019 deg. bearing from Pearson Airpark intersects
the 5-mile arc from Portland International Airport extending
southeast to a point 1\1/2\, miles east of Pearson Airpark on the
extended centerline of Runway 8/26, and thence south to the north
shore of the Columbia River, thence west via the north shore of the
Columbia River to the 5-mile arc from Portland International Airport
and thence clockwise via the 5-mile arc to point of beginning.
* * * * *
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 26, 1995.
Richard E. Prang,
Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest Mountain
Region.
[FR Doc. 95-27830 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27816 Milk in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon Marketing Areas; Notice of Extension of Time for Filing Briefs
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56538-56539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27816]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 1124 and 1135
[Docket Nos. AO-368-A25, AO-380-A15; DA-95-01]
Milk in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern
Oregon Marketing Areas; Notice of Extension of Time for Filing Briefs
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Extension of Time for Filing Briefs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document extends the time for filing briefs on the record
of the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon hearing
held July 11, 1995, through July 12, 1995, in Portland, Oregon. The
Washington State Department of Corrections requested additional time to
review the hearing record and to prepare briefs.
DATES: Briefs are now due on or before December 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Briefs (6 copies) should be filed with the Hearing Clerk,
Room
[[Page 56539]]
1083, South Building, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
20250.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clifford M. Carman, Order Formulation
Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy Division, Room 2968, South Building, P.O. Box
96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 720-9368.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior documents in this proceeding:
Notice of Hearing: Issued June 15, 1995; published June 21, 1995
(60 FR 32282).
Extension of Time for Filing Briefs: Issued October 12, 1995;
published October 23, 1995 (60 FR 54315).
Extension of Time--Pacific Northwest, etc.--DA-95-01
Notice is hereby given that the time for filing briefs and proposed
findings and conclusions on the record of the public hearing held July
11 and 12, 1995, at Portland, Oregon, with respect to tentative
marketing agreements and to the orders regulating the handling of milk
in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon
marketing areas pursuant to the notice of hearing issued June 15, 1995,
and published June 21, 1995 (60 FR 32282), is hereby extended to
December 4, 1995.
The Washington Department of Corrections requested a further
extension of time to file briefs based on the impact certain proposals
could have on the Department of Corrections' milk production and sales
program. The briefing period originally ended September 25, 1995, but
was extended to October 23, 1995, based on a request from the Oregon
Department of Corrections. This additional extension of time to file
briefs is granted in accordance with the above-noticed deadlines.
This notice is issued pursuant to the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-
674), and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the
formulation of marketing agreements and marketing orders (7 CFR part
900).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1124 and 1135
Milk marketing orders.
Dated: November 2, 1995.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-27816 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27812 North Dakota Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56549-56551]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27812]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 934
[ND-032-FOR; Amendment XXII]
North Dakota Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and extension of public comment period
on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56550]]
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of additional proposed revisions and
additional explanatory information pertaining to a previously proposed
amendment to the North Dakota regulatory program (hereinafter, the
``North Dakota program'') under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The revisions and additional
explanatory information for North Dakota's proposed rules and statutes
pertain to the North Dakota program's Small Operator Assistance
Program, and individual civil and criminal penalties. The amendment is
intended to revise the North Dakota program to be consistent with the
corresponding Federal regulations and SMCRA.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4 p.m., m.s.t., November
24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to Guy
Padgett at the address listed below.
Copies of the North Dakota program, the proposed amendment, and all
written comments received in response to this document will be
available for public review at the addresses listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each
requester may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by
contacting OSM's Casper Field Office.
Guy Padgett, Director, Casper Field Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 E. ``B'' Street, Room 2128, Casper, WV
82601-1918, Telephone: (307) 261-5776
North Dakota Public Service Commission, Reclamation Division, Capitol
Building, Bismarck, ND 58505-0165, Telephone: (701) 224-4092
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Guy Padgett, Telephone: (307) 261-5776.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the North Dakota Program
On December 15, 1980, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the North Dakota program. General background information on
the North Dakota program, including the Secretary's findings, the
disposition of comments, and the conditions of approval of the North
Dakota program can be found in the December 15, 1980, Federal Register
(45 FR 82214). Subsequent actions concerning the North Dakota program
and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 934.12, 934.13, 934.15,
934.16, and 934.30.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated April 12, 1995, North Dakota submitted a proposed
amendment to its program pursuant to SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).
(Amendment number XXII, Administrative Record No. ND-W-01). North
Dakota submitted the proposed amendment in response to the required
program amendment at 30 CFR 934.16(y) and in response to an
inconsistency with SMCRA that was identified in a July 22, 1994,
rulemaking action (59 FR 37426). The provisions of the North Dakota
Century Code (NDCC) that North Dakota proposes to revise or add are:
NDCC 38-14.1-37(4) [SOAP, reimbursement of costs], and NDCC 38-12.1-08
[coal exploration, individual civil and criminal penalties].
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the May 2, 1995,
Federal Register (60 FR 21484), provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited public
comment on its adequacy (Administrative Record No. ND-W-04). Because no
one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was held. The public
comment period ended on June 1, 1995.
During its review of the amendment, OSM identified concerns
relating to the provisions of NDCC 38-12.1-08, individual civil
penalties. OSM notified North Dakota of the concerns by letter dated
August 28, 1995 (Administrative Record No. ND-W-12). North Dakota
responded in a letter dated October 19, 1995, by submitting additional
proposed revisions and additional explanatory information
(Administrative Record No. ND-W-14).
North Dakota proposes revisions to North Dakota Administrative Code
chapter 43-02-01 and additional explanatory information pertaining to
NDCC 38-12.1-08, individual civil and criminal penalties.
Specifically, North Dakota explains that North Dakota law does
provide statutory authority subjecting officers, directors, and agents
to individual civil and criminal penalties even though it is the
corporation, not the individuals, that committed the violation. North
Dakota cites statutory provisions not previously incorporated into the
North Dakota program, specifically NDCC 12.1-03-03. This statute
provides (1) that a person is legally accountable for any conduct he
performs or causes to be performed in the name of an organization, and
(2) that whenever duty or act is imposed upon an organization by a
statute or regulation, any agent of the organization having primary
responsibility for the subject matter of the duty is legally
accountable for an omission to perform the required act.
North Dakota further explains that the legislative hearings and the
legislative history of NDCC 38-12.1-08 demonstrates a legislative
intent (1) to subject directors, officers, and agents to civil and
criminal penalties even though it is the corporation, not the
individual, that committed the violation, and (2) to make NDCC 38-12.1-
08 no less stringent than SMCRA Section 518(f).
North Dakota also notes that NDCC 38-12.1-04 gives the commission
authority to enforce orders to effectuate NDCC chapter 38-12.1, and
that NDCC 38-12.1-08 imposes civil and criminal penalties for any
person who violates that chapter, which would include orders issued
pursuant to NDCC 38-12.1-04. Further, North Dakota notes that, as a
practical matter, there has been very limited coal exploration in the
State for the last decade.
Finally, North Dakota proposes to add new regulatory provisions at
North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) 43-02-01 to implement the
statutory provisions described above. The proposed rules include the
following provisions: (1) when a corporate permittee violates permit
conditions or any rule imposed under NDAC chapter 43-02-01 or NDCC
chapter 38-12.1, or fails or refuses to comply with orders issued by
the commission (with one exception), any director, officer, or agent
who willfully and knowingly authorized or carried out the violation,
failure, or refusal shall be held accountable, and the commission shall
enforce the civil and criminal penalties provided against the
corporation; (2) a civil penalty may be assessed only after opportunity
for public hearing; and (3) any civil penalties assessed may be
recovered by the commission in civil actions in the appropriate North
Dakota district court.
III. Public Comment Procedures
OSM is reopening the comment period on the proposed North Dakota
program amendment to provide the public an opportunity to reconsider
the adequacy of the proposed amendment in light of the additional
materials submitted. In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR
732.17(h), OSM is seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment
satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If
the amendment is deemed adequate, it will become part of the North
Dakota program.
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in
[[Page 56551]]
this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the commenter's
recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated under DATES
or at locations other than the Casper Field Office will not necessarily
be considered in the final rulemaking or included in the administrative
record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not
applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and
program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under section 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11,
732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with
SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other
requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 934
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: October 31, 1995.
Russell F. Price,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 95-27812 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27809 Alaska Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56547-56549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27809]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 902
[SPATS AK-004-FOR; Alaska Amendment IV]
Alaska Regulatory Program
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and extension of public comment period
on proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of revisions and additional
explanatory information pertaining to a previously proposed amendment
to the Alaska regulatory program (hereinafter, the ``Alaska program''
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
The revisions and additional explanatory information for Alaska's
proposed rules pertain to permit fees, geology description, return of
excess spoil to underground
[[Page 56548]]
workings, self-bonding, disposal of coal mine waste, protection of fish
and wildlife, blending of spoil into surrounding terrain, and road
construction. Additionally, Alaska is withdrawing its proposal to
revise Alaska rules pertaining to compliance information in permit
applications, administrative processing of permit applications,
Commissioner's findings, improvidently issued permits, permit revisions
and renewals, permit conditions, impoundment design and construction,
standards for revegetation success, inspections, cessation orders,
exemption for coal extraction incidental to the extraction of other
minerals, and definitions. The amendment is intended to revise the
Alaska program to be consistent with the corresponding Federal
regulations, clarify ambiguities, and improve operational efficiency.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4:00 p.m., m.s.t., November
24, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed or hand delivered to James
F. Fulton at the address listed below.
Copies of the Alaska program, the proposed amendment, and all
written comments received in response to this document will be
available for public review at the addresses listed below during normal
business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each
requester may receive one free copy of the proposed amendment by
contacting OSM's Denver Field Division.
James F. Fulton, Chief, Denver Field Division, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320, Denver, CO
80202-5733
Mr. Jules Tileston, Director, Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Mining and Water Management, 3601 C Street, Suite 800, Anchorage, AK
99503-5925, Telephone: (907) 762-2149
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James F. Fulton, Telephone: (303) 672-
5524.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Alaska Program
On March 23, 1983, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Alaska program as administered by the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources. General background information on the Alaska
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and conditions of approval of the Alaska program can be found
in the March 23, 1983, Federal Register (48 FR 12274). Subsequent
actions concerning Alaska's program and program amendments can be found
at 30 CFR 902.15 and 902.16.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated January 26, 1995, and FAX transmittals dated
February 13 and 14, 1994 (Administrative Record No. AK-E-01), Alaska
submitted proposed Amendment IV to its permanent program pursuant to
SMCRA (State Program Amendment Tracking System AK-004-FOR). Alaska's
proposed amendment consisted of: (1) revisions in response to required
program amendments codified at 30 CFR Part 902.16(a) (1), (2), (3),
(6)-(14), and (16); (2) revisions in response to program deficiency
letters from OSM dated November 1, 1989, February 7, 1990, and January
15, 1993; and (3) revisions proposed at Alaska's own initiative.
The provisions of the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) that Alaska
proposed to revise are: 11 AAC 05.010(a)(9) and 11 AAC 90.011, permit
fees; 11 AAC 90.001, adoption of rules by reference; 11 AAC 90.002,
responsibilities; 11 AAC 90.003, interim permits; 11 AAC 90.023,
identification of interests and compliance information; 11 AAC 90.025,
authority to enter and ownership information; 11 AAC 90.045(a), geology
description; 11 AAC 90.049, surface water information; 11 AAC
90.083(b), reclamation plan requirements, roads; 11 AAC 90.097,
transportation facilities; 11 AAC 90.099, placement of coal mine waste
in underground workings; 11 AAC 90.117, processing of permit
applications; 11 AAC 90.125, commissioner's findings; 11 AAC 90.126,
improvidently issued permits; 11 AAC 90.127, permit conditions; 11 AAC
90.129, permit revisions and renewals; 11 AAC 90.149, alluvial valley
floors; 11 AAC 90.163, exploration that substantially disturbs or is
conducted in areas designated unsuitable for mining; 11 AAC 90.173,
eligibility for small operator assistance; 11 AAC 90.207, self-bonding
provisions; 11 AAC 90.321, hydrologic balance; 11 AAC 90.323, water
quality standards; 11 AAC 90.325, diversions and conveyance of flow; 11
AAC 90.327, stream channel diversions; 11 AAC 90.336, impoundment
design and construction; 111 AAC 90.337, impoundment inspection; 11 AAC
90.341, underground mine discharges; 11 AAC 90.345, surface and ground
water monitoring; 11 AAC 90.375, public notice of blasting; 11 AAC
90.391, disposal of excess spoil or coal mine waste; 11 AAC 90.401,
coal mine waste, refuse piles; 11 AAC 90.407, coal mine waste, dams and
embankments; 11 AAC 90.409, coal mine waste, return to underground
workings; 11 AAC 90.423, protection of fish and wildlife; 11 AAC
90.443, backfilling and grading; 11 AAC 90.457, revegetation success
standards; 11 AAC 90.491, construction and maintenance of roads and
other transportation and support facilities; 11 AAC 90.601,
inspections; 11 AAC 90.613, cessation orders; 11 AAC 90.901,
applicability; 11 AAC 90.902, exemption for coal extraction incidental
to the extraction of other minerals; 11 AAC 90.907, public
participation; and 11 AAC 90.911, definitions.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the February 27,
1995, Federal Register (60 FR 10520), provided an opportunity for a
public hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited
public comment on its adequacy (Administrative Record No. AK-E-05).
Because no one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was held.
The public comment period ended on March 29, 1995.
During its review of the amendment, OSM identified concerns
relating to the proposed provisions at 11 AAC 05.010(a)(9) and 11 AAC
90.011, fees; 11 AAC 90.023, identification of interests and compliance
information; 11 AAC 90.117, processing of permit applications; 11 AAC
90.125, commissioner's findings; 11 AAC 90.126, improvidently issued
permits; 11 AAC 90.129, permit revisions and renewals; 11 AAC 90.149,
alluvial valley floors; 11 AAC 90.173, eligibility for small operator
assistance; 11 AAC 90.207, self-bonding provisions; 11 AAC 90.327,
stream channel diversions; 11 AAC 90.336, impoundment design and
construction; 11 AAC 90.391, disposal of excess spoil or coal mine
waste; 11 AAC 90.423, protection of fish and wildlife; 11 AAC 90.443,
backfilling and grading; 11 AAC 90.457, revegetation success standards;
11 AAC 90.491, construction and maintenance of roads and other
transportation and support facilities; 11 AAC 90.601, inspections; 11
AAC 90.901, applicability; 11 AAC 90.902, exemption for coal extraction
incidental to the extraction of other minerals; 11 AAC 90.907, public
participation; and 11 AAC 90.911, definitions.
OSM notified Alaska of the concerns by letter dated July 19, 1995
(Administrative Record No. AK-E-12). Alaska responded by letters dated
October 11 and October 24, 1995, and a FAX transmittal dated October
23, 1995, by submitting a revised amendment and additional explanatory
information (Administrative Record No. AK-E-14).
Alaska proposes revisions to and additional explanatory information
for: 11 AAC 05.010(a)(9) and 11 AAC
[[Page 56549]]
90.011, fees; 11 AAC 90.045(a), geology description; 11 AAC 90.099,
placement of coal mine waste in underground workings; 11 AAC 90.149,
alluvial valley floors; 11 AAC 90.173, eligibility for small operator
assistance; 11 AAC 90.207, self-bonding provisions; 11 AAC 90.327,
stream channel diversions; 11 AAC 90.391, disposal of excess spoil or
coal mine waste; 11 AAC 90.423, protection of fish and wildlife; 11 AAC
90.443, backfilling and grading; 11 AAC 90.491, construction and
maintenance of roads and other transportation and support facilities;
11 AAC 90.901, applicability; and 11 AAC 90.907, public participation.
Alaska proposes these revisions:
--11 AAC 05.010(a)(11) and 90.011, to move the regulatory requirements
for permit fees to the fee provisions for the whole department, and the
set a fee for incidental boundary revisions;
--11 AAC 90.045, to require that the description of geology must
include the deeper of the stratum immediately below the lowest coal
seam to be mined, or any aquifer below the lowest seam which may be
adversely affected by mining;
--11 AAC 90.099, to require that underground mining plans describe the
design, operation, and maintenance of any proposed facility to return
coal mine waste and excess spoil to underground workings;
--proposed 11 AAC 90.207(f)(7), to require, when the financial
conditions of a self-bond applicant or guarantor no longer meet the
bond conditions, that a cessation order be issued and reclamation
immediately commence;
--11 AAC 90.391, to require that coal mine waste placed in excess spoil
be nontoxic and nonacid forming;
--11 AAC 90.409, to allow excess spoil to be returned to underground
mine workings in certain circumstances;
--11 AAC 90.423, to require that, on request, the fish and wildlife
protection information required by 11 AAC 90.081 be provided to the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; and
--11 AAC 90.491(a)(8), to require that the use of acid- and toxic-
forming materials be prevented.
Additionally, Alaska proposes several additional minor editorial
revisions.
Alaska is also withdrawing its proposed revisions to: 11 AAC
90.023, identification of interests and compliance information; 11 AAC
90.117, processing of permit applications; 11 AAC 90.125,
commissioner's findings; 11 AAC 90.126, improvidently issued permits;
11 AAC 90.127, permit conditions; 11 AAC 90.129, permit revisions and
renewals; 11 AAC 90.336, impoundment design and construction; 11 AAC
90.457, revegetation success standards; 11 AAC 90.601, inspections; 11
AAC 90.613, cessation orders; 11 AAC 90.902, exemption for coal
extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals; and 11 AAC
90.911, definitions.
III. Public Comment Procedures
OSM is reopening the comment period on the proposed Alaska program
amendment to provide the public an opportunity to reconsider the
adequacy of the proposed amendment in light of the additional materials
submitted. In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM
is seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Alaska program.
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under ``DATES'' or at locations other than the Denver Field Division
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the administrative record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not
applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and
program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA
(30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11,
732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with
SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other
requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 902
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: October 26, 1995.
Richard J. Seibel,
Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
FR Doc. 95-27809 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27803 National Flood Insurance Program; Insurance Rates
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56552-56553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27803]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 61
RIN 3067-AC42
National Flood Insurance Program; Insurance Rates
AGENCY: Federal Insurance Administration, FEMA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would increase the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) chargeable (subsidized) rates, which apply to all
structures located in communities participating in the Emergency
Program of the NFIP and to certain structures in communities in the
Regular Program of the NFIP. The rule is proposed in order to bring
subsidized premiums more in line with the risk. We intend the proposed
rule to help the NFIP increase the capability to build reserves for
catastrophic loss years.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of
the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street
SW., room 840, Washington, DC 20472, (fax) (202) 646-4536.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles M. Plaxico, Jr., Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These proposed amendments, which would
increase the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) chargeable
(subsidized) rates, are the result of an ongoing review and reappraisal
of the NFIP and of continuing efforts to maintain a business-like
approach to its administration by emulating successful property
insurance programs in the private sector and, at the same time, to
achieve greater administrative and fiscal effectiveness in its
operations. The proposed amendments are intended to help the NFIP
increase its capability to build reserves for catastrophic loss years.
Coverage changes and optional deductibles, in addition to rate
increases, are part of the ongoing effort to achieve these goals.
The chargeable (subsidized) rates, for which an increase is being
proposed, are the rates applicable to structures located in communities
participating in the Emergency Program of the NFIP and to certain
structures in communities in the Regular Program of the NFIP.
These rates are countrywide rates for two broad building type
classifications which, when applied to the amount of insurance
purchased and added to the expense constant and Federal policy fee,
produce a premium income less than the expense and loss payments that
can be expected on the flood insurance policies issued on that basis.
Funds needed to supplement the inadequate premium income are provided
by the National Flood Insurance Fund. The subsidized rates are
promulgated by the Administrator for use under the Emergency Program
(added to the NFIP by the Congress in Section 408 of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1969) and for use in the Regular Program on
construction or substantial improvement started before the effective
date of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or on or before
December 31, 1974 (this additional grandfathering was added to the NFIP
by Congress in section 103 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973), whichever is later.
It should be noted that over the NFIP's history, the Program has
not been subjected to the truly catastrophic flood event. Thus, the
historical average is substantially less than could be expected over
the long term when the influence of the extremely infrequent, truly
catastrophic flood would result in a significant increase in the
average historical year's losses. It is because of these fortuitous
conditions, the lack of market penetration in areas suffering very
large floods, and relatively high market penetration in the
southeastern part of the United States, which has not suffered a
catastrophic flood event recently, that the Program has remained self-
supporting since 1986. However, the chargeable (subsidized) rates are
significantly less than those that would be charged on a full risk
basis.
Using current subsidized rates and projected full risk loss costs
at 1995 levels, it is expected that the average annual shortfall in the
risk portion of premiums needed to fund loss expenses, including the
catastrophic potential, is over $400.00 for each subsidized
policyholder.
The statutory mandate to establish chargeable rates requires the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to balance the need for
providing reasonable rates to encourage potential insureds to purchase
flood insurance with the requirement that the NFIP be a flexible
program that minimizes cost and distributes burdens equitably among
those who will be protected by flood insurance and the general public.
In the past, appropriations were required to replenish the
program's borrowing authority when income was not sufficient due to the
subsidy. Since 1986, FEMA has not asked Congress to appropriate any
taxpayer funds to pay for this subsidy. Recent years have been
extremely high loss years starting with Hurricane Hugo in 1989,
Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki in 1992, the great Midwest flooding of
1993, and several other major flooding events in 1995. FEMA believes it
is time for a reduction in the subsidy.
Section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as
amended, contains an annual rate increase limitation of 10 percent. The
rates to accomplish the proposed increase are in the following table.
It should be noted that the entire premium paid by the consumer
consists of two components: a risk rate as well as an expense
constant--a standard cost charged for each policy for administrative
processing. Although the rates in the table, which are the risk rates
for $100 worth of coverage, have been increased more than 10 percent,
the actual premium paid by the consumer, which also includes the
expense constant, would only increase by 10 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rates per year per
$100 coverage on
Type of structure -----------------------
Structure Contents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Residential................................. $0.68 $0.79
(2) All other (including hotels and motels with
normal occupancy of less than 6 months in
duration)...................................... .79 1.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparison, the current subsidized rates are as follows:
[[Page 56553]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rates per year per
$100 coverage on
Type of structure -----------------------
Structure Contents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Residential................................. $0.60 $0.70
(2) All other (including hotels and motels with
normal occupancy of less than 6 months in
duration)...................................... .70 1.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed increase would be balanced between the need to
decrease the subsidy and the objective of the statute for chargeable
rates--rates that are less than actuarial rates--i.e., to make flood
insurance available at reasonable rates so as to encourage prospective
insureds to purchase flood insurance.
The projected average annual premium for subsidized policies using
the revised chargeable rates and purchasing 1995 amounts of insurance
is $441.00, a $40.00 increase over the present average. Despite this
increase, the new rates produce only an estimated 39 percent of the
premium that would have to be charged if these policies were
actuarially rated (i.e., not subsidized).
National Environmental Policy Act
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq., and the implementing regulations
of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, FEMA
is conducting an environmental assessment of this proposed rule. If the
assessment concludes that there will be a significant impact on the
human environment as a result of the issuance of the proposed rule,
then an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Copies of the
environmental assessment, when developed, will be available for
inspection through the Rules Docket Clerk, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, room 840, 500 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20472.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined under Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993. To the extent
possible, this rule adheres to the principles of regulation as set
forth in Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of
Executive Order 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain a collection of information and
is therefore not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism
implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26,
1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 61
Flood Insurance.
Accordingly, FEMA proposes to amend 44 CFR part 61 as follows:
PART 61--INSURANCE COVERAGE AND RATES
1. The authority citation for Part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31,
1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.
2. Section 61.9 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 61.9 Establishment of chargeable rates.
(a) Pursuant to section 1308 of the Act, chargeable rates per year
per $100 of flood insurance are established as follows for all areas
designated by the Administrator under part 64 of this subchapter for
the offering of flood insurance.
Rates for New and Renewal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rates per year per
$100 coverage on
Type of structure -----------------------
Structure Contents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Residential................................. $0.68 $0.79
(2) All other (including hotels and motels with
normal occupancy of less than 6 months in
duration....................................... .79 1.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The contents rate shall be based upon the use of the individual
premises for which contents coverage is purchased.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'').
Dated: November 2, 1995.
Elaine A. McReynolds,
Administrator, Federal Insurance Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-27803 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27781 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56554-56559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27781]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 74-14; Notice 97]
RIN 2127--AG14
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Air bags are now standard equipment in millions of passenger
cars, light trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans and widely
regarded to be a noteworthy safety advance, especially in higher speed
crashes. However, air bags--even air bags with a lap/shoulder belt
being used--are not a cure-all for every type of injury in crashes. The
agency is aware of situations in which current air bag designs have
undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag
appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to
vehicle occupants.
This document is intended to inform the public about NHTSA's
actions to minimize these adverse side effects and to invite the public
to share information and views with the agency.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 26, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen R. Kratzke, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, NPS-10, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Mr.
Kratzke can be reached by telephone at (202) 366-5203 or by fax at
(202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Air bags are being offered on more and
more light vehicles (i.e., cars, pickup trucks, vans, and sport
utility vehicles). A decade ago, very few vehicles offered air bags
and those that did were almost exclusively expensive luxury cars.
In response to public demand, nearly every 1996 model year
passenger car will be equipped with dual air bags as standard
equipment. Installation of air bags is being accomplished in
advance of federal statutory requirements that dual air bags be
provided in all 1998 and later model year cars, and all 1999 and
later model year light trucks and vans.
Air bags have an impressive overall performance record. Since 1987,
they are estimated to have saved 911 lives. NHTSA estimates that in
1994 alone, air bags saved 374 lives. The agency fully expects these
numbers to continue to increase.
The agency emphasizes that the presence of an air bag does not mean
that it is less important for occupants to use their safety belts. Air
bags are supplemental restraints. The primary means of occupant
restraint, the safety belt, works in all types of crashes and is
particularly effective in preventing ejection, where the air bag has
limited benefits. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved
almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate
[[Page 56555]]
to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and
having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle
occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes.
Applying appropriate scientific techniques, NHTSA has been
carefully monitoring the real world performance of air bags, including
any side effects, for more than a decade. The agency published an
Evaluation Plan for front-seat occupant protection in January 1990 (55
FR 1586; January 17, 1990), which calls for periodic interim analyses
of effectiveness (a final evaluation of effectiveness will not be
possible until after air bags have been standard equipment for some
time on high production volume cars). An Interim Evaluation Report,
including analyses of fatality and injury reductions, was published in
June 1992. The agency also submitted a Report to Congress on this
subject in November 1992. The agency's analyses indicated that air bags
are producing benefits for vehicle occupants. NHTSA plans to update its
interim analyses of effectiveness early in 1996.
NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) provides
comprehensive, high quality data on highway crashes. These data are
used to relate human, vehicle, environmental, and roadway
characteristics to crash frequency and the severity of injuries
sustained in those crashes. NCSA has developed several programs for
providing these data. The Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS)
provides basic information on all highway crashes in the U.S. in which
one or more people die of their injuries within 30 days of a crash. The
National Accident Sampling System (NASS) provides information from
investigations of a statistical sample of police reported crashes at
all levels of injury severity. As part of NASS, detailed investigations
of 5,000 highway crashes are conducted annually to provide information
on crash dynamics, injury mechanisms, and consequences of those
mechanisms, and to support occupant protection research and rulemaking.
To supplement the NASS system, the Special Crash Investigation Program
conducts from 50 to 75 in-depth investigations per year, concentrating
on crashes involving air bag deployments. Paper copies of individual
investigations and electronic data files are available to the public.
For more information contact NCSA at (202) 366-5394.
In addition, NHTSA's Office of Research and Development has a
number of on-going projects examining specific air bag issues. A
discussion of these projects can be found in the technical paper
discussed later in this notice.
There are certain situations in which air bags can have adverse
side effects. As more and more vehicles are equipped with them, these
side effects have become better known to researchers. The agency wants
to act expeditiously to ensure that these adverse side effects of air
bags are minimized or eliminated.
This notice summarizes what NHTSA knows about side effects of air
bags and how it plans to minimize them in the future. NHTSA is also
asking manufacturers, insurers, members of the medical community, and
any other interested members of the public to share information about
air bag designs or experience.
In a frontal crash, the occupant moves forward toward the
windshield and instrument panel prior to air bag deployment. The air
bag inflator must produce enough energy to inflate the air bag fully in
about 25 milliseconds to ``cushion'' the occupant before the occupant
strikes the vehicle interior. The energy necessary to inflate the air
bag in such a short time interval can cause injury or even fatality to
an occupant who is not properly restrained, especially to children,
given their small stature and light weight.
The table below shows, in no particular order, the types of
situations in which the agency has some information suggesting there
may be a risk of serious injury to vehicle occupants from the air bag.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seating position of Probable cause of
Group affected primary risk problem
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unrestrained Small Statured Driver Position..... Proximity to Air Bag
and/or Older People. at Time of
Deployment.
Infants in Rear-Facing Child Passenger Position.. Proximity to Air Bag
Restraints. at Time of
Deployment.
Children Unrestrained in Passenger Position.. Proximity to Air Bag
Front Seat. at Time of
Deployment.
Out-of-Position Occupants... Driver and Passenger Proximity to Air Bag
Position. at Time of
Deployment
Persons with Disabilities... Driver Position..... Proximity to Air Bag
at Time of
Deployment;
Adaptive Equipment
between Air Bag and
Driver; Safety
Features in Vehicle
Must be Modified to
Accommodate
Adaptive Equipment.
Persons Experiencing Driver and Passenger Unknown; Under
Extremity Injuries. Position. Study.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears from this table that the primary task is to reduce the
risk to occupants who are very near the air bag at the time of
deployment. Such actions, however, won't necessarily help persons with
disabilities.
NHTSA has already taken steps to address the problem of infants in
rear-facing child seats by warning parents of air bag/infant restraint
interaction problems through consumer advisories and warnings on infant
restraints, on sun visors, and in owner's manuals. NHTSA's position is
that rear-facing child seats should be used only in the rear seat of a
vehicle with a passenger-side air bag.\1\ In addition, on May 23, 1995,
NHTSA published a final rule amending Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, to allow manufacturers the option of installing a manual
device that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side
air bag in vehicles in which infant restraints can only fit in the
front seat.
\1\ A complete description of various steps NHTSA has taken to
address this problem can be found in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
published on October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51158).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For air bag vehicles already on the road or being produced in this
model year, the agency's primary efforts will be directed at better
educating the public about the characteristics of air bags and the
steps which the public can take to minimize the likelihood of
experiencing adverse side effects from air bags. On October 27, 1995,
the agency issued a consumer advisory focusing on preventing children
from being injured. The consumer advisory recommends three specific
steps: (1) always restrain children properly, (2) put them in the back
seat whenever possible, and (3)
[[Page 56556]]
when they must ride in the front seat, move the seat back as far as
possible--away from the air bag. NHTSA will continue to work with state
safety officials, national safety and medical organizations, vehicle
manufacturers, insurers, and interested citizens to educate the public
in this area.
In addition, anyone with knowledge of an unusual injury or fatality
resulting from a low speed or other crash involving an air bag-equipped
vehicle is urged to report this information to NHTSA's Auto Safety
Hotline at (800) 424-9393 or (202) 366-0123.
For vehicles manufactured far enough in the future to incorporate
significant design changes, NHTSA believes that there will be
technological enhancements available that could minimize the unintended
side effects of air bags. Vehicle manufacturers and air bag suppliers
are now working on highly advanced air bags, often called ``smart
bags.'' These smart bags include advanced technologies for occupant
sensing, phased deployment of air bags, and so forth. These
technologies will be able to perform a number of functions, including
preventing air bag deployment when they sense that an occupant is too
close to the point of deployment, inflating the air bag at different
speeds according to the severity of the crash, and preventing the bag
from deploying in the absence of an occupant at that seating position.
Based on discussions with suppliers and vehicle manufacturers, NHTSA
anticipates these types of smart bags will eventually be widely
incorporated into production. The agency will step up its monitoring of
manufacturer efforts to use smart bags, especially the technologies
being explored, the practicability and reliability of smart bag
systems, and the timetables for availability of smart bag systems.
While NHTSA anticipates that these smart bag systems will
substantially minimize adverse side effects of air bags in the not too
distant future, this still leaves the question of what can be done in
addition to public education for the near future. Manufacturers may be
able to make adjustments to existing air bag systems. Further, NHTSA
may be able to make temporary adjustments to its regulations if it is
shown to be necessary to enable manufacturers to minimize any adverse
side effects during this period.
For example, Ford has requested that NHTSA amend its crash testing
procedures in Standard No. 208. The standard currently requires test
dummies to be protected in a 30 mile per hour (mph) crash both when
wearing safety belts and when not wearing the belts (i.e., protected by
the air bag alone). Ford asked that the test speed for the unbelted
dummies be lowered to 25 mph, while the test speed for the belted
dummies be raised to 35 mph. According to Ford, this change would allow
manufacturers to better ``tune'' the interaction between the air bag
and the safety belt so as to optimize the protection afforded to
occupants who use their belts. Ford stated that the current testing
procedure forces manufacturers to base occupant protection designs
solely on the air bag, rather than the interaction between the air bag
and the belt. Ford believes that such a change can reduce air bag-
induced injuries.
In response to this request, NHTSA prepared a detailed preliminary
technical assessment of the issues presented in Ford's request. This
technical assessment sets forth the agency's knowledge with respect to
injuries from air bags. To help move public discussion forward in this
area, NHTSA has placed copies of its technical assessment of the Ford
request in the public docket for this rulemaking. Interested members of
the public are invited to comment on the Ford proposal and to review
this assessment to gain a better understanding both of what is known
and of what is not known by NHTSA about injuries from deploying air
bags, as well as the agency's plans for further research and data
analyses in this area. Copies of the technical assessment can be
obtained from the Docket Section at the address given above or by
telephone at (202) 366-4949.
The agency hopes that this request for comments will help the
agency obtain the information needed to make reasoned decisions about
whether some regulatory changes are needed for the interim period,
whether some simple technological fixes are available to minimize side
effects until smart bags become a reality, or whether other activities,
such as consumer information, offer the best chance of effectively
minimizing these side effects.
Persons with disabilities may have problems with air bags in
addition to those that result primarily from their proximity to the air
bag at the time of deployment. While many drivers with disabilities may
have a problem because of having to sit very near the steering wheel,
they may also face unique problems because of the special adaptive
equipment needed to allow them to drive. This adaptive equipment may
reduce the protection afforded by air bags by interfering with their
deployment. In September 1994, the agency issued a consumer advisory
cautioning drivers with disabilities not to use steering control
devices mounted on a bar installed across the steering wheel hub (a
``spanner bar'').
Light trucks that meet certain criteria, defined as ``vehicles
manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities,'' are not
required to provide automatic protection until September 1, 1997.
Automatic protection may be either an air bag or an automatic belt. As
a practical matter, NHTSA believes that light truck manufacturers will
install air bags as the only type of automatic protection in their 1998
model year vehicles because of the Federal law that requires air bags
in all their vehicles as of September 1, 1998 (the 1999 model year).
NHTSA does not now have sufficient data to allow the agency to decide
if air bags will pose any unique problems for drivers with disabilities
because of the interaction with the special adaptive equipment needed
to allow people with disabilities to drive. However, the agency will
conduct testing during fiscal year 1996 to examine this subject in
detail. This testing will allow NHTSA to take any necessary regulatory
and/or consumer information actions before the current exclusion for
drivers with disabilities expires in September 1997.
Questions for the Public
To aid the agency in obtaining useful comments, NHTSA is including
an appendix to this notice which consists of a number of specific
questions and requests for data. For easy reference, the questions are
numbered consecutively. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide specific
responses for each question for which they may have information or
views. In addition, in order to facilitate tabulating the comments by
issue, the agency encourages commenters to respond to the questions in
sequence, and to identify the number of each question to which they are
responding.
NHTSA requests that commenters provide as specific a rationale as
possible, including an analysis of safety consequences, for any
positions that are taken. Commenters with a technical background are
encouraged to provide scientific analysis of these matters. The
automobile manufacturers and air bag component and system suppliers are
requested to define major milestones for future plans and give
estimated completion dates. The agency appreciates that much of this
information may be confidential business information and will treat it
in accordance with statutory requirements.
[[Page 56557]]
The list of questions does not purport to be an all inclusive list
of items or information which the public may have available and believe
is valuable in assessing the issues. Commenters are encouraged to
provide any other data that they believe are relevant.
Public Meeting
NHTSA anticipates holding one or more public meetings on this
subject after the written comments have been received.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This document seeks public input on possible regulatory and
nonregulatory responses to an emerging issue. It does not contain any
regulatory changes that have so far been identified as sufficiently
likely to warrant calculation of possible benefits and costs. The task
of calculating costs is further complicated by the fact that while some
of the regulatory changes would mandate changes to existing air bag
designs, those changes would not involve the addition or deletion of
easily identifiable design elements or features. NHTSA has not analyzed
the impact of this notice under E.O. 12866 and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. If at some time in
the future the agency proposes some regulatory action, it will make the
determinations in connection with that future action.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this notice in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that it does
not have significant federalism implications to warrant the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments. It is requested
but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CAR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
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, at the street address given above, and seven
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 CAR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available
for examination in the docket at the above address both before and
after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the
closing date will also be considered. Comments will be available for
inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue to file relevant
information as it becomes available in the docket after the closing
date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to examine
the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50)
Issued on November 6, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
Appendix--List of Questions
Field Experience With Air Bags
As discussed above, NHTSA relies on data from FARS and NASS,
including the Special Crash Investigation Program, to monitor air
bag performance in crashes. However, the public, particularly
insurers, vehicle manufacturers, and the medical community may have
information that would supplement the NHTSA data regarding air bag
performance in crashes.
1. Please provide any available air bag performance information
in the following areas, separately for each calendar year from 1987
to the present 2:
2 September 1, 1986 was the start of the phase-in of
automatic protection for all new passenger cars. Automatic
protection means a vehicle must offer either air bags or automatic
belts. Accordingly, 1987 was the first year for which any
substantial number of vehicles with air bags were on the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. The total number of air bag deployments in crashes during the
calendar year;
b. The air bag deployments in crashes for each make/model of
vehicle;
c. The total number of air bag deployments in crashes in which
the crash severity was 15 mph or less or in which little damage
occurred to the vehicle; and
d. Any cases of deployment in which the air bag may have
contributed to serious injuries or fatalities for occupants - if
such cases are identified, please provide details about the position
in which the occupant was seated (driver or passenger position), the
injured person's gender, age, height, and weight, whether the
occupant was belted, unbelted, or in a child restraint, and the
source for this information (e.g., police report, insurance claim,
hospital report, etc.).
e. Any cases of deployment in which the air bag may have saved
lives, prevented injuries or reduced injury severity, etc.
NHTSA requests that when insurance companies provide data about
field experience, it would be very helpful if they would include the
number of vehicles they insured in each calendar year (insured
vehicle years).
2. What information is available concerning the reduction or
increase in different types of injuries and injury severities that
may be associated with the introduction of air bags? The medical
community is especially requested to respond to this question.
Crash Sensing
NHTSA's data indicate that situations in which air bags appear
to have contributed to serious or fatal injuries have occurred at
crash severities below 15 mph, some even below 10 mph, with minimal
damage to the vehicle. The agency is asking the public to provide
information that would help NHTSA assess the range of deployment
thresholds currently chosen by vehicle manufacturers for their
different vehicles, why those differences exist, and the
manufacturers' efforts to adjust and redefine the algorithms used to
determine whether the air bag should deploy. Specifically, the
agency would like to learn:
3. What algorithms and calibrations do manufacturers use to
determine when the air bag should deploy in each of their vehicles?
4. What are the reasons why that threshold for air bag
deployment was chosen (e.g., corresponds to the speed at which an
unbelted occupant would experience facial fractures from steering
wheel, speed at which unbelted occupant would be likely to
experience serious chest injuries, etc.)?
5. NHTSA believes that manufacturers generally specify different
deployment thresholds for different vehicles. Is this belief correct
and, if so, what are the reasons why different deployment thresholds
are specified (e.g., more interior room in vehicle, different
intended use of vehicle, different target purchasers, etc.)?
6. How do the deployment thresholds specified for different
vehicles correlate to the speed the thresholds represent in a
frontal crash test into a fixed rigid barrier?
Air Bag Inflators
Ford indicated in its request to the agency that it could reduce
the air bag inflator onset
[[Page 56558]]
rate simply by decreasing the amount of propellant contained in the
inflator. Ford said that such a change could be made quickly and
would, in Ford's opinion, reduce the incidence of air bag-induced
injuries, particularly to upper extremities, and allow more optimal
tuning of current safety belt systems.
7. Please provide as detailed information as possible about
current air bag inflators, including inflator tank pressure curves,
the effect of reduced propellant on those pressure curves and the
overall performance of the inflator, and inflators that use dual or
multiple staged inflation. The agency is particularly interested in
learning why manufacturers have chosen the particular
characteristics for the inflators used in their vehicles (e.g.,
cost, simplicity, etc.) and the leadtime that would be needed to
change inflator characteristics in production vehicles.
Air Bag Design
NHTSA knows that there are many variables in air bag design that
may affect the performance of air bag systems in the field. The
agency would like to learn if there are data that indicate any of
these variables significantly affect the performance of air bag
systems. The variables NHTSA has identified thus far include:
--Air Bag Volume
--Air Bag Fold Patterns
--Air Bag Tethering
--Air Bag Venting
--Air Bag Mass/Material
--Shape and Size of Air Bag Module Opening
--Module location and deployment path
To help answer questions about these variables, NHTSA would like
to learn:
8. What are the parameters for each of the above variables on
the air bags used in current vehicles?
9. To the extent that a manufacturer uses different parameters
on different vehicles, what are the reasons for the difference?
10. What other variables not identified above affect air bag
performance, and what is the basis for that belief?
11. What is the estimated leadtime needed to change each of
these variables in production vehicles, and what are the reasons for
why such leadtime is needed?
Proximity Considerations
Most of the fatalities involving air bags have occurred to
children and small statured adults who were unbelted or otherwise
improperly restrained, possibly out of position, and very close to
the air bag at deployment. To assist the agency in identifying
possible approaches to mitigate the problem in these circumstances,
the public is asked to provide any data or information that may be
available on the following subjects:
12. Is there a quantified minimum safe distance from the
inflator nozzle/air bag at the time of deployment for air bags
generally or for any particular air bag designs? If so, please
provide that information and the data in support of that distance.
For the following questions, NHTSA is especially interested in
all the data and information that support the response given. In
addition, the agency would like the public to identify the trade-
offs that would be involved in taking any of these actions.
13. Do ``top mounted'' air bags substantially reduce the adverse
side effects at the passenger position?
14. Can the adverse side effects be substantially reduced by
recessing the inflator/air bag either in the steering wheel assembly
or in the dash?
15. Would displacement of the inflator away from the occupant at
deployment substantially reduce the adverse side effects?
16. Would pedal adjusters (which move the pedals closer to the
driver and allow the driver's arms instead of leg length to
determine how close the driver must sit) reduce adverse side effects
of air bags by allowing drivers to sit further back?
17. Would telescoping and/or tilt steering wheel assemblies
substantially reduce the adverse side effects of air bags?
18. Can advanced sensors, which would either sound a warning or
not deploy when an occupant was too close to an air bag,
substantially reduce the adverse side effects of air bags?
19. Would safety belt pre-tensioners reduce the risk of air bag
deployment injuries?
20. What laboratory test procedures and devices do manufacturers
use and find appropriate to assess inflation hazards to occupants in
close proximity to the driver or passenger air bag?
Near Term Considerations
The agency would like to know if there are near term (six months
to one year) changes which could significantly reduce the
probabilities of the serious injuries and fatalities attributed to
air bag deployment. The agency is aware that some possible near term
changes to air bags could involve safety tradeoffs; i.e., reducing
certain types of injuries while allowing increases in others,
offering higher protection at higher speeds at the expense of lower
speed crashes, or protecting certain types of occupants (e.g.,
belted or those of small stature) at the expense of others (e.g.,
unbelted or large occupants). The agency would like to obtain
information on possible near term changes and any safety tradeoffs
associated with such changes. NHTSA is particularly interested in
the effects of any potential changes on particular groups, such as
young adults and children, and occupants of the growing light truck
and van market, where belt use has traditionally been lower.
21. What would be the safety consequences of permitting manual
air bag cut-off switches? Are there policy or other considerations
that warrant treating the driver's and passenger's positions
differently? How difficult would it be to retrofit such devices for
vehicles on the road?
22. It seems that a change in deployment threshold could be made
relatively quickly simply by modifying the calibration of the
sensors or the algorithm used for deployment. What is the estimated
leadtime needed to change the deployment threshold used in current
air bag designs, and why is that amount of leadtime needed to make
such a change?
23. What would be the safety consequences of a reduction or
modification of the inflation rate?
24. How quickly can the manufacturers develop module locations
that are recessed in the steering wheel or the instrument panel?
Future Plans
The agency is aware that much effort is underway to develop
various levels of ``smart'' air bag systems. These smart air bag
systems may range from dual threshold sensors that deploy the bag at
different crash severities by recognizing whether the occupant is
restrained or unrestrained (such systems are already in some luxury
vehicles) to systems that include items such as:
Variable inflation rates
Occupant seat sensors
Proximity detection/sensing
Dual or multi-stage inflators/sensors
Dual or variable venting, etc.
25. Please provide detailed information concerning the
technologies and strategies being considered in each of the above
areas, as well as any other advanced air bag concepts, and the
potential and expected dates of implementation.
Obstacles to Near and Long Term Plans
26. The agency requests information and explanations of any
obstacles that may hinder advancements in reaching near or long term
solutions to these problems. These could include or require changes
in present regulations or the development of new regulations. Please
provide recommendations for any agency actions that could be
beneficial, the rationale for that action, and its safety
consequences (quantified, if possible).
27. As discussed above, Ford has requested that the agency
reduce FMVSS 208's unbelted test speed from 30 mph to 25 mph.
According to Ford, this would make it easier for it to reduce the
air bag inflation speed, thereby reducing low speed air bag
injuries.
a. If NHTSA were to make a short-term change in FMVSS 208 to
facilitate quick reductions in air bag inflation speeds (i.e., a
change that would apply until manufacturers can implement smart air
bags or other design changes to address low speed air bag injuries),
how would manufacturers respond? What would be the specific safety
consequences of such a change, including possible adverse
consequences for unbelted occupants and for occupants in much higher
speed crashes?
b. A reduction in FMVSS 208's unbelted test speed might not be
the only way to facilitate quick reductions in air bag inflation
speeds. For example, NHTSA could possibly retain the 30 mph unbelted
test but temporarily increase the chest loading maximum of 60 g's
for that test. FMVSS No. 208 currently specifies the same chest
loading maximum for both the belted and unbelted tests. The agency
notes that a preliminary review of recent biomechanical data
generated for NHTSA suggests that the human tolerance to
acceleration for serious chest injury may be higher for air bags
than for belts, because the air bag delivers a more broadly
distributed, uniform loading to the chest than does a safety belt.
Would
[[Page 56559]]
manufacturers respond to this type of change differently than for the
change suggested by Ford? What would be the specific safety
consequences of such a change, including possible adverse
consequences?
Air Bag Issues Related to Persons With Disabilities
28. What has been the experience in modifying air bag-equipped
vehicles to be driven by persons with disabilities? What type of
problems have been encountered? Have the drivers been pleased with
the results?
29. Has any person with a disability that you know of been
involved in a crash in which the air bag deployed at his or her
seating position?
30. Were any of these persons apparently saved from serious
injury by the air bag? If so, please describe the situation.
31. Has any person with a disability been injured by the
deployment of an air bag in a vehicle (mpv, car or truck)? If so,
please provide as much information as possible on the event.
32. Is it very common that children with disabilities (whether
small enough to use a child seat or not) must for health reasons sit
in the front seat to be near the driver, when the driver is the only
adult in the vehicle. Of these, how many can not use conventional
seat belts, or child seats, due to their disabilities?
33. How many persons in the U.S. use steering control devices
mounted on steering wheels containing air bags? What is your source
of data, or how would you estimate this number?
34. What types of conditions in persons with disabilities would
make them more susceptible to injury from an air bag (driver or
passenger) than any other person in the same seating position? Would
these people also be more susceptible to seat belt-induced injury?
[FR Doc. 95-27781 Filed 11-6-95; 11:29 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27744 Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship Program
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56920-56926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27744]
[[Page 56919]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 535
Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56920]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 535
RIN 1885-AA21
Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship Program
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to adopt these regulations and to add a
new Part 535 for the Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship Program
which is authorized by section 7145 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Improving America's Schools
Act of 1994 (the Act). The Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship
Program replaces the existing Bilingual Education Fellowship Program,
and expands the program to include post-doctoral fellowships.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 11, 1995.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Joyce Brown, U.S. Department of Education, 600
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5086, Switzer Building, Washington, D.C.
20202-6510. Comments may also be sent through the Internet to
``Graduate__F[email protected]''.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
this preamble under the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. A copy
of those comments may also be sent to the Department representative
named in the preceding paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Brown, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5086, Switzer Building,
Washington, D.C. 20202-6510. Telephone: (202) 205-9727. Individuals who
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8
p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These regulations would implement statutory
changes made when the program was reauthorized by the Improving
America's Schools Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-382, enacted October 20,
1994). These proposed regulations have been reviewed and revised in
accordance with the Department's ``Principles for Regulating,'' which
were developed to ensure that the Department regulates in the most
flexible, most equitable, and least burdensome way possible. These
principles advance the regulatory reinvention and customer service
objectives of the Administration's National Performance Review II and
are essential to an effective partnership with educational
institutions. The Secretary proposes these regulations because he
believes the regulations are necessary to implement the law and reflect
the greatest flexibility and least burden possible.
The Secretary held six regional meetings from June 15 through June
29, 1994 in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Antonio, and
Seattle. The purpose of these meetings was to obtain public input on
issues relevant to the development of new regulations for title VII
programs. The discussions at the meetings focused on ways that the
regulations could address educational reform, staff development,
standards and assessments, and relationships among the school, family,
community, and State.
The Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship Program addresses the
National Education Goal that relates to professional development for
educators.
The following is a summary of the provisions the Secretary believes
are necessary for implementing the statute. The summary does not
address regulatory provisions that merely restate statutory language.
Section 535.2 Eligibility
The statute does not specifically address the issue of who is
eligible to apply for a fellowship or how the distribution of funds
should be accomplished. Section 535.2 of the regulations would define
an eligible participant as an institution of higher education (IHE).
Individuals would be able to apply for fellowships through IHEs that
have been approved for participation under this program. Under
Secs. 535.10-535.23 IHEs would compete to be able to nominate
individuals for fellowships. Through this structure individuals would
receive fellowships under this program and IHEs would serve as conduits
for the funds. This is the procedure currently followed under the
program.
Section 535.3 Financial Assistance
Section 7148 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to provide
stipends, in amounts he determines to be appropriate, to persons
participating in training programs.
Under these regulations, the Secretary proposes to allow, for
master's and doctoral fellowship recipients, stipends of up to $500 per
month plus costs for tuition and fees, books, and travel related to
clinical experience or to practice teaching. Because of rising costs,
the Secretary proposes to raise the maximum amounts provided from the
amounts provided under the previous Fellowship Program.
For post-doctoral program fellowship recipients the Secretary
proposes to allow stipends of up to $40,000 and up to $5,000 for
publications, research and scholarly materials, research-related travel
and fees. The Secretary believes that these stipend amounts are
adequate to defray the costs a fellowship recipient may incur while
participating in the program.
Subparts B and C--Application Procedures and Evaluation of Applications
The statute does not prescribe how the Secretary will evaluate an
application. The proposed regulations provide that in order to
participate in this program, an IHE must submit to the Secretary an
application that responds to the selection criteria in either
Sec. 535.20 or Sec. 535.21, as appropriate.
The Secretary proposes to evaluate an IHE application by awarding
points based on the appropriate selection criteria and then, as
described in Secs. 535.20(e) and 535.22(e), to determine the maximum
number of fellowships that may be awarded at each IHE.
Section 535.30 Fellowship application, Section 535.40 Selection of
Fellows; Section 535.41 IHE Nominees
The statute does not specify minimum qualifications a Fellow must
have. The proposed regulations require that individuals apply for
fellowships through IHEs that have been approved for participation
under Secs. 535.20 and 535.22. The regulations propose that an IHE may
only nominate individuals for fellowships who (1) are proficient in
English and, if applicable, another language; (2) have experience in
providing services to, teaching in, or administering programs for LEP
individuals; (3) are planning to serve LEP individuals after completion
of their studies; (4) are eligible to receive assistance under 34 CFR
75.60 and 75.61; and (5) are citizens, nationals, or permanent
residents of the United States.
In addition, the regulations propose that an IHE may only nominate
for a master's or doctoral fellowship individuals who (1) have been
accepted for enrollment as full-time students in the IHE; and (2) have
an excellent academic record. The proposed regulations provide that an
IHE may only nominate for post-doctoral study
[[Page 56921]]
fellowships individuals who have doctoral degrees in relevant
disciplines that qualify those individuals to conduct independent
research on educational programs and policies for LEP individuals.
The Secretary proposes to restrict an IHE to nominees who meet
these requirements to ensure that Fellows will be highly qualified.
These requirements address the desire to provide fellowships to those
applicants who already have advanced language training, have a
demonstrated commitment to providing services to LEP individuals, and
will be able to complete quickly their program of study and begin
providing services to LEP individuals.
Section 535.50 Service Requirement
Under section 7145(b) of the Act, a fellowship recipient must agree
to work in an activity for a period of time equivalent to the period of
time during which the fellowship recipient receives assistance. To
ensure that the intent of the program is met by the Fellows and that an
activity is related to the program or authorized under part A of title
VII of the Act, the proposed regulations would require that the
activity be approved by the Secretary.
The proposed regulations provide that the recipient of a master's
or doctoral fellowship must begin working in these activities within
six months of the date on which the fellow is no longer enrolled as a
full-time student. In the case of a post-doctoral fellowship, the
regulations proposed that the recipient must begin working in these
activities within six months of the date on which the project period in
the approved area of study ends. The Secretary believes that within six
months after completion of the training, a fellow should be able to
find appropriate employment in a program for LEP children and youth.
Section 535.51 Repayment; Section 535.52 Repayment schedule; Section
535.53 Interest; Section 535.54 Deferment; Section 535.56 Waiver
Under section 7145(b) of the Act, if a fellowship recipient does
not meet the service requirement, the fellowship recipient must follow
procedures for repayment. The proposed regulations provide the
following rules and procedures regarding repayment by recipients who
are not meeting the service requirement:
(1) The Secretary would prorate the amount of repayment based on
the length of time that the fellowship recipient worked in an
authorized activity.
(2) A master's or doctoral fellowship recipient would be required
to begin repaying the fellowship amount plus interest within six months
of the date when the fellow is no longer a full-time student. Post-
doctoral fellows would be required to begin repaying the fellowship
amount plus interest within six months of the date when the fellow's
project period ends.
(3) The fellowship recipient would be able to pay in full or in
installments as approved by the Secretary.
In certain circumstances, the Secretary proposes to defer
repayment. Under section 7145(b) of the Act, the Secretary may waive
repayment in extraordinary circumstances.
The Secretary believes that these procedures regarding repayment
are necessary to inform individuals of their rights and obligations
regarding repayment. These procedures would help to ensure that funds
are used to carry out the purposes of this program.
Executive Order 12866
1. Assessment of Costs and Benefits
These proposed regulations have been reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order the Secretary has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those determined by the
Secretary to be necessary for administering this program effectively
and efficiently. Burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements, if any, are identified and explained elsewhere
in this preamble under the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these proposed regulations, the Secretary has
determined that the benefits of the proposed regulations justify the
costs.
The Secretary has also determined that this regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
To assist the Department in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comments
on whether there may be further opportunities to reduce any potential
costs or increase potential benefits resulting from these proposed
regulations without impeding the effective an efficient administration
of the program.
2. Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed regulations
clearly stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other
wording that interferes with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the
regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations
be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter)
sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a
numbered heading; for example, Sec. 535.1 What is the Bilingual
Education: Graduate Fellowship Program?) (4) Is the description of the
regulations in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this
preamble helpful in understanding the regulations? How could this
description be more helpful in making the regulations easier to
understand? (5) What else could the Department do to make the
regulations easier to understand?
A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand should be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Ave., SW., Room 5121, FB10, Washington,
D.C. 20202-2110.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
These proposed regulations would affect individuals. Individuals,
however, are not defined as ``small entities'' in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
The small entities that would be affected by these proposed
regulations are IHEs receiving Federal funds under this program. The
proposed regulations, however, would not have a significant economic
impact on the entities affected because the regulations would not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision. The regulations would impose minimal requirements to
create a system for disbursing funds to individual fellows through IHEs
and to ensure the proper accounting for expenditures of program funds.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 535.21, 535.23, 535.40, 535.50 and 535.57 contain
information
[[Page 56922]]
collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a
copy of these sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
its review.
Collection of Information: Bilingual Education--Graduate Fellowship
Program.
These regulations affect IHEs eligible for participation and and
individuals eligible for grants under this program. Sections 535.21,
535.23 and 535.40 require IHEs to provide information in their
applications that the Department needs and uses to select IHEs for
participation and to make awards. Sections 535.50 and 535.57 require
individuals to provide information demonstrating compliance with the
terms of the program. The Department needs and uses the information it
collects from the fellowship recipients to collect funds possibly owed
to the Department. Information from IHEs regarding approval for
participation is to be collected once every three years and all other
information is to be collected and reported once per year. Annual
public reporting burden for the collection of information is as
follows:
1. Sections 535.21, 535.23 and 535.40 are estimated to average 35
hours per response for 25 respondents.
2. Sections 535.50 and 535.57 are estimated to average 36 minutes
per response for 400 respondents.
These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503; Attention: Wendy Taylor, Desk
Officer for U.S. Department of Education.
The Department considers comments by the public on these proposed
collections of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect
if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect
the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the
proposed regulations.
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment
period, in Room 5630, Switzer Building, 330 C Street, SW., Washington,
D.C., between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the
proposed regulations in this document would require transmission of
information that is being gathered by or is available from any other
agency or authority of the United States.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 535
Bilingual education, Education, Educational research, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and fellowships, Teachers.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.195C Bilingual
Education: Graduate Fellowship Program.)
Dated: October 31, 1995.
Dang T. Pham,
Acting Director, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages
Affairs.
The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by adding a new Part 535 to read as follows:
PART 535--BILINGUAL EDUCATION: GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
Subpart A--General
Sec.
535.1 What is the Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship Program?
535.2 Who is eligible to participate in this program?
535.3 What financial assistance is available for fellowship
recipients?
535.4 What regulations apply?
535.5 What definitions apply?
Subpart B--How Does an IHE Apply to Participate in the Program?
535.10 How does an IHE apply to participate in the program?
535.11 What assurance must an application contain?
535.12 In what circumstances may an IHE waive the training
practicum requirement?
Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Approve an IHE's Participation?
535.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application to
participate in this program for master's and doctoral level
fellowships?
535.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
535.22 How does the Secretary evaluate an application to
participate in this program for post-doctoral study fellowships?
535.23 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
Subpart D--How Does an Individual Apply for a Fellowship?
535.30 How does an individual apply for a fellowship?
Subpart E--How Are Fellows Selected?
535.40 How does the Secretary select Fellows?
535.41 Who may an IHE nominate for fellowships?
535.42 What is the period of a fellowship?
Subpart F--What Conditions Must Be Met by Fellows?
535.50 What is the service requirement for a fellowship?
535.51 What are the requirements for repayment of the fellowship?
535.52 What is the repayment schedule?
535.53 What is the rule regarding interest?
535.54 Under what circumstances is repayment deferred?
535.55 What is the length of the deferment of repayment?
535.56 Under what circumstances is repayment waived?
535.57 How shall the fellowship recipient account for the
obligation?
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475, unless otherwise noted.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 535.1 What is the Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship
Program?
The Bilingual Education: Graduate Fellowship Program provides
financial assistance, through institutions of
[[Page 56923]]
higher education (IHEs), to individuals who are pursuing master's,
doctoral, or post-doctoral study related to instruction of limited
English proficient (LEP) children and youth in such areas as teacher
training, program administration, research and evaluation, and
curriculum development, and for the support of dissertation research
related to this study.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(a)(1))
Sec. 535.2 Who is eligible to participate in this Program?
(a) An IHE is eligible to participate in this program.
(b) An individual who meets the eligibility requirements under
Sec. 535.41 may apply for a fellowship through an IHE participating in
this program.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Sec. 535.3 What financial assistance is available for fellowship
recipients?
(a) The Secretary may authorize the following financial assistance
to master's and doctoral program fellowship recipients:
(1) Tuition and fees--the usual costs associated with the course of
study.
(2) Books--up to $300.
(3) Travel--up to $250 for travel related to practice teaching or
clinical experience.
(4) A stipend of up to $500 per month, including allowances for
subsistence and other expenses for a participant and his or her
dependents, if the participant is--
(i) A full-time student in a program of study that was in the
approved application; and
(ii) Gainfully employed no more than 20 hours a week or the annual
equivalent of 1040 hours.
(b) The Secretary may authorize the following financial assistance
to post-doctoral fellowship recipients:
(1) A stipend of up to $40,000 per year.
(2) Publications, research and scholarly materials, research-
related travel, and fees--up to $5,000.
(c) In authorizing assistance to fellowship recipients under
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the Secretary considers the
amount of other financial compensation that the fellowship recipients
receive during the training period.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7478)
Sec. 535.4 What regulations apply?
The following regulations apply to this program:
(a) 34 CFR 75.51, 75.60-62.
(b) 34 CFR Part 77.
(c) 34 CFR Part 85.
(d) The regulations in this Part 535.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Sec. 535.5 What definitions apply?
(a) Definitions in the Act. (1) The following terms used in this
part are defined in section 7501 of the Act:
Bilingual education program
Children and youth
Limited English proficiency
Native Hawaiian or Native American Pacific Islander Native language
educational organization
Office
Other programs for persons of limited-English proficiency
(2) The following terms used in this part are defined in section
7104 of the Act:
Indian tribe
Tribally sanctioned educational authority
(3) The following terms used in this part are defined in section
14101 of the Act:
Institution of higher education
Local educational agency (LEA)
(b) Definitions in EDGAR. The following terms used in this part are
defined in 34 CFR 77.1:
Applicant
Application
Award
Department
EDGAR
Fiscal year
Project
Recipient
Secretary
State
State educational agency (SEA)
(c) Program definition. The following definition also applies to a
term used in this part:
Act means the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475-7480)
Subpart B--How Does an IHE Apply to Participate in the Program?
Sec. 535.10 How does an IHE apply to participate in the program?
To apply for participation under this part, an IHE must submit an
application to the Secretary that--
(a) Responds to the appropriate selection criteria in Secs. 535.21
and 535.23; and
(b) Requests a specific number of fellowships to be awarded in each
proposed language or other curriculum group for the fellowship period
specified in Sec. 535.42.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Sec. 535.11 What assurance must an application contain?
An application that proposes to train master's- or doctoral-level
students with funds received under this part must provide an assurance
that the program will include a training practicum in a local school
program serving LEP students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7476(a)(3)(A))
Sec. 535.12 In what circumstances may an IHE waive the training
practicum requirement?
An IHE participating under this program may waive the requirement
in Sec. 535.11 for a training practicum for a master's or doctoral
degree candidate who has had at least one academic year of experience
in a local school program serving LEP students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7476(a)(3)(B))
Subpart C--How Does the Secretary Approve an IHE's Participation?
Sec. 535.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application to
participate in this program for master's and doctoral level
fellowships?
(a) The Secretary evaluates an application to participate in this
program for master's and doctoral-level fellowships on the basis of the
criteria in Sec. 535.21.
(b) The Secretary awards up to 100 points for these criteria.
(c) The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in
parentheses.
(d) After all the applications have been evaluated under
Sec. 535.21, the Secretary rank-orders the applications.
(e) The Secretary then determines the maximum number of fellowships
by language or other curriculum group that may be awarded at each IHE--
(1) Based on the IHE's capacity to provide graduate training in the
areas proposed for fellowship recipients; and
(2) To the extent feasible, in proportion to the need for
individuals with master's and doctoral degrees in the areas of training
proposed by the IHE.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Sec. 535.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
The Secretary uses the following selection criteria to evaluate an
application for participation in this program for master's and doctoral
level fellowships:
(a) Institutional commitment. (25 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine the quality of the institution's graduate
program of study, including consideration of--
(1) The extent to which the program has been adopted as a permanent
graduate program of study;
(2) The organizational placement of the program of study;
[[Page 56924]]
(3) The staff and resources that the IHE has committed to the
program;
(4) The IHE's demonstrated competence and experience in programs
and activities such as those authorized under the Act;
(5) The IHE's demonstrated experience in assisting fellowship
recipients to find employment in the field of bilingual education; and
(6) If the IHE has carried out a previous project with funds under
title VII of the Act, the applicant's record of accomplishments under
that previous project.
(b) Quality of the graduate academic program. (20 points) The
Secretary reviews each application to determine the quality of the
graduate program of study for which approval is sought, including--
(1) The course offerings and academic requirements for the graduate
program;
(2) The availability of related course offerings through other
schools or departments within the IHE;
(3) The IHE's focus and capacity for research;
(4) The quality of the standards used to determine satisfactory
progress in, and completion of, the program;
(5) The extent to which the program of study prepares Fellows to
improve the academic achievement of LEP children and youth; and
(6) In the case of a program designed to prepare trainers of
educational personnel for programs of bilingual instruction, the extent
to which the program incorporates the use of English and another
language to develop the Fellows' competencies as trainers of bilingual
educational personnel.
(c) Quality of key faculty members. (20 points) The Secretary
reviews each application to determine the qualifications of the key
faculty to be used in the program of study, including the extent to
which their background, education, research interests, and relevant
experience qualify them to plan and implement a successful program of
high academic quality related to instruction of LEP children and youth.
(d) Field-based experience. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to which the program of study
provides field-based experience through arrangements with LEAs, SEAs,
or persons or organizations with expertise in programs for LEP children
and youth.
(e) Evidence of local or national need. (10 points) The Secretary
reviews each application to determine the need for more individuals
trained, at the graduate level, in the area of study proposed by the
applicant.
(f) Recruitment plan. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the quality of the applicant's plan for
recruitment and nomination of students.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475, 7547)
Sec. 535.22 How does the Secretary evaluate an application to
participate in this program for post-doctoral study fellowships?
(a) The Secretary evaluates an application to participate in this
program for post-doctoral study fellowships on the basis of the
criteria in Sec. 535.23.
(b) The Secretary awards up to 100 points for these criteria.
(c) The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in
parentheses.
(d) After all the applications have been evaluated according to the
selection criteria, the Secretary rank-orders the applications.
(e) The Secretary designates the maximum number of fellowships that
may be awarded at each IHE based on the factors in Sec. 535.23(a), (c),
and (d).
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Sec. 535.23 What selection criteria does the Secretary use?
The Secretary uses the following selection criteria to evaluate an
application for participation in this program for post-doctoral level
fellowships:
(a) Institutional commitment. (35 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine the overall strength of the applicant's
commitment to meeting the educational needs of LEP children and youth,
including consideration of--
(1) The IHE's demonstrated competence and experience in programs
and research activities such as those authorized under subpart 2 of
part A of title VII of the Act;
(2) The extent to which the IHE's research environment is
supportive of the success of post-doctoral Fellows in their research;
(3) The IHE's demonstrated experience in assisting fellowship
recipients to find employment in the field of bilingual education;
(4) The IHE's procedures for the dissemination and utilization of
research findings; and
(5) If the IHE has carried out a previous project with funds under
title VII of the Act, the applicant's record of accomplishments under
that previous project.
(b) Proposed areas of research. (35 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine to what extent--
(1) There is a clear description of the areas of research proposed
to be undertaken by the post-doctoral Fellows;
(2) The research to be undertaken by the post-doctoral Fellows is
likely to produce new and useful information;
(3) The areas of proposed research relate to the educational needs
of LEP children and youth and of the educational personnel that serve
that population;
(4) The outcomes of the research and study are likely to benefit
the defined target population by improving the academic achievement of
LEP children and youth;
(5) The data collection and the data analysis plans are sound; and
(6) A project period for completion of the study, consistent with
period of availability of post-doctoral fellowships in Sec. 535.42, is
specified.
(c) Quality of key faculty members. (20 points) The Secretary
reviews each application to determine the qualifications of the key
faculty likely to assist, guide or mentor post-doctoral Fellows,
including the extent to which the faculty's background, education,
research interests, and relevant experiences qualify them to support
high-quality research and study performed by post-doctoral Fellows.
(d) Adequacy of resources. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine to what extent--
(1) The facilities planned for use are adequate;
(2) The equipment and supplies planned for use are adequate; and
(3) The commitment of the applicant to provide administrative and
other necessary support is evident.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Subpart D--How Does an Individual Apply for a Fellowship?
Sec. 535.30 How does an individual apply for a fellowship?
(a) An individual shall submit an application for a fellowship to
an IHE that has been approved for participation under Sec. 535.20 or
Sec. 535.22.
(b) Each participating IHE may establish procedures for receipt of
applications from individuals.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Subpart E--How Are Fellows Selected?
Sec. 535.40 How does the Secretary select Fellows?
(a)(1) A participating IHE shall submit names of nominees to the
Secretary.
(2) If the IHE has more than one nominee, the IHE shall rank the
[[Page 56925]]
nominees in order of preference to receive a fellowship.
(b) The Secretary selects new Fellows according to the rank order
prepared by the IHE, subject to the maximum number of fellowships
designated for that IHE under Sec. 535.20 and Sec. 535.22.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Sec. 535.41 Who may an IHE nominate for fellowships?
(a) In nominating individuals to receive master's and doctoral
level fellowships, an IHE shall only nominate individuals who--
(1) Have been accepted for enrollment as full-time students in an
approved course of study offered by the IHE;
(2) Have an excellent academic record;
(3) Are proficient in English and, if applicable, another language;
(4) Have experience in providing services to, teaching in, or
administering programs for LEP children and youth;
(5) Are planning to enter or return to a career in service to LEP
children and youth after completion of their studies;
(6) Are eligible to receive assistance under 34 CFR 75.60 and
75.61; and
(7)(i) Are citizens, nationals, or permanent residents of the
United States;
(ii) Are in the United States for other than temporary purposes and
can provide evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of
their intent to become permanent residents; or
(iii) Are permanent residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, or the Republic of Palau.
(b) In nominating individuals to receive post-doctoral fellowships,
an IHE shall only nominate individuals who--
(1) Have doctoral degrees in relevant disciplines that qualify
those individuals to conduct independent research on educational
programs and policies for LEP children and youth; and
(2) Meet the criteria in paragraphs (a) (3) through (7) of this
section.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Sec. 535.42 What is the period of a fellowship?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the
Secretary may award a fellowship--
(1) For a maximum of two one-year periods to an individual who
maintains satisfactory progress in a master's or post-doctoral program
of study; and
(2) For a maximum of three one-year periods to an individual who
maintains satisfactory progress in a doctoral program of study.
(b) Subject to the availability of funds and if an IHE provides
adequate justification, the Secretary may extend a fellowship beyond
the maximum period to a master's or doctoral Fellow who, for
circumstances beyond the Fellow's control, is unable to complete the
program of study in that period.
(c) A fellowship recipient who seeks assistance beyond the initial
one-year period must be renominated by the participating IHE.
(d) The Secretary may give preference to fellowship recipients in
their second or third year who maintain satisfactory progress in the
program of study prior to approving nominations of new Fellows.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475)
Subpart F--What Conditions Must Be Met by Fellows?
Sec. 535.50 What is the service requirement for a fellowship?
(a) Upon selection for a fellowship, a Fellow shall sign an
agreement, provided by the Secretary, to work for a period equivalent
to the period of time that the Fellow receives assistance under the
fellowship in an activity--
(1) (i) Related to the program; or
(ii) Authorized under part A of title VII of the Act; and
(2) Approved by the Secretary.
(b) A fellowship recipient shall begin working in an activity
specified in paragraph (a) of this section within six months of the
date from which--
(1) The master's or doctoral recipient ceases to be enrolled at an
IHE as a full-time student; or
(2) The post-doctoral recipient completes the project period in the
approved program of study.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(b))
Sec. 535.51 What are the requirements for repayment of the fellowship?
(a) A fellowship recipient who does not work in an activity
described in Sec. 535.50 shall repay the full amount of the fellowship.
(b) The Secretary prorates the amount a fellowship recipient is
required to repay based on the length of time the fellowship recipient
worked in an authorized activity compared with the length of time the
fellowship recipient received assistance.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(b))
Sec. 535.52 What is the repayment schedule?
(a) A fellowship recipient required to repay all or part of the
amount of the fellowship shall begin repayments--
(1) Within six months of the date the fellowship recipient meets
the criteria in Sec. 535.50(b) (1) or (2); or
(2) On a date and in a manner established by the Secretary, if the
fellowship recipient ceases to work in an authorized activity.
(b) A fellowship recipient must repay the required amount,
including interest, in a lump sum or installment payments approved by
the Secretary.
(c) The repayment period may be extended if the Secretary grants a
deferment under Sec. 535.54.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(b))
Sec. 535.53 What is the rule regarding interest?
(a) In accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717, the Secretary charges a
fellowship recipient interest on the unpaid balance that the fellowship
recipient owes.
(b) No interest is charged for the period of time--
(1) That precedes the date on which the fellowship recipient is
required to commence repayment; or
(2) During which repayment has been deferred under Sec. 535.54.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(b))
Sec. 535.54 Under what circumstances is repayment deferred?
The Secretary may defer repayment if the fellowship recipient--
(a) Suffers from a serious physical or mental disability that
prevents or substantially impairs the fellowship recipient's
employability in an activity described in Sec. 535.50;
(b) Demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that the
fellowship recipient is conscientiously seeking but unable to secure
employment in an activity described in Sec. 535.50;
(c) In the case of a master's or doctoral fellowship recipient, re-
enrolls as a full-time student at an IHE;
(d) Is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on active
duty;
(e) Is in service as a volunteer under the Peace Corps Act; or
(f) Demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that the existence
of extraordinary circumstances prevents the fellowship recipient from
making a scheduled payment.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(b))
Sec. 535.55 What is the length of the deferment of repayment?
(a) Unless the Secretary determines otherwise, a fellowship
recipient shall apply to renew a deferment on a yearly basis.
(b) Deferments for military or Peace Corps service may not exceed
three years.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(b))
[[Page 56926]]
Sec. 535.56 Under what circumstances is repayment waived?
The Secretary may waive repayment if the fellowship recipient
demonstrates the existence of extraordinary circumstances that justify
a waiver.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(b)(2))
Sec. 535.57 How shall the fellowship recipient account for the
obligation?
(a) Within six months of the date a fellowship recipient meets the
criteria in Sec. 535.50(b) (1) or (2), the fellowship recipient shall
submit to the Secretary one of the following items:
(1) A description of the activity in which the fellowship recipient
is employed.
(2) Repayment required under Secs. 535.51 and 535.52.
(3) A request to repay the obligation in installments.
(4) A request for a deferment or waiver as described in
Secs. 535.54 and 535.56 accompanied by a statement of justification.
(b) A fellowship recipient who submits a description of employment
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall notify the Secretary on a
yearly basis of the period of time during the preceding year that the
fellowship recipient was employed in the activity.
(c) A fellowship recipient shall inform the Secretary of any change
in employment status.
(d) A fellowship recipient shall inform the Secretary of any change
of address.
(e)(1) A fellowship recipient's failure to timely satisfy the
requirements in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section shall result
in the fellowship recipient being in non-compliance or default status
subject to collection action.
(2) Interest and costs of collection may be collected in accordance
with 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 34 CFR Part 30.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7475(b))
[FR Doc. 95-27744 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27725 Claims Collection Standards Debt Collection Act of 1982: Salary Offset
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27725]
========================================================================
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. 60, No. 217 / Thursday, November 9, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56538]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 179
RIN 3206-AH21
Claims Collection Standards Debt Collection Act of 1982: Salary
Offset
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to revise
the delegations of authority for matters affecting debt collection
reflected in Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed
amendment will clearly reflect the Chief Financial Officer's (CFO)
responsibility for providing policies, standards, and guidelines
concerning agency financial administration of all programs, and the
shared responsibility held by the CFO and the Associate Director for
the Retirement and Insurance Service for matters affecting debts owed
to the retirement, health, and life insurance programs.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to J. Gilbert Seaux, Chief Financial Officer
(CFO), Office of Personnel Management, Room 5489, 1900 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20415.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Loring, Accounting Officer, Office of the CFO, (202) 606-5028.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 11, 1994, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) published final rules (59 FR 35215) establishing
procedures for salary and administrative offsets for the administrative
accounts of this agency. In the final rules, 5 CFR 179.102 provided
specific delegations of authority to the CFO and to the Associate
Director for Retirement and Insurance. Since then, OPM has reviewed all
internal relationships and delegations. This revision clarifies the
agency's delegation of authority with regard to the provisions of the
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. The CFO has full responsibility
for providing policies, standards, and guidelines for OPM action on all
claims, including claims affecting the retirement, health, or life
insurance programs. For matters affecting debts caused by or to be
collected from payments from the retirement, health or life insurance
funds, the Associate Director has operating responsibility for
administration of these programs, subject to the CFO's policies,
standards, and guidelines.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation
only provides information about the division of responsibility within
the agency's organizational structure.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 179
Claims.
Office of Personnel Management.
James B. King,
Director.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend Part 179 of Title 5, Code of
Federal Regulations, as follows.
PART 179--CLAIMS COLLECTION STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 179 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 952; 5 U.S.C. 1103; Reorganization Plan No.
2 of 1978; 5 U.S.C. 5514; 5 CFR part 550 subpart K; 31 U.S.C. 3701;
31 U.S.C. 3711; 31 U.S.C. 3716; 31 U.S.C. 3720A.
2. Section 179.102 of subpart A is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 179.102 Delegation of authority.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Chief
Financial Officer and his or her delegatees are designated by the
Director and authorized to perform all the duties for which the
Director is responsible under the Debt Collection Act of 1982 and
Office of Personnel Management regulations. For administrative accounts
of the agency, the Chief Financial Officer and his or her delegatees
will request a review by the General Counsel or his or her designee for
claims processed (in amounts of $2500 or more) for compromise,
suspension, and termination of collection action.
(b) The Chief Financial Officer and the Associate Director for
Retirement and Insurance share responsibilities in matters affecting
debts caused by or to be collected from payments from the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund (Subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter
84), and claims under the provisions of the Federal Employees' Life
Insurance Fund (chapter 87), the Retired Federal Employees Health
Benefits Act (74 Stat. 849), the Employees Health Benefits Fund
(chapter 89), the Panama Canal Construction Annuity Act (58 Stat. 257),
and the Lighthouse Service Widows' Annuity Act (64 Stat. 465). To
ensure efficient administration, the Director delegates operating
responsibility for these matters to the Associate Director and his or
her delegatees, who, in the performance of this responsibility, shall
be subject to the policies, standards, and guidelines of the Chief
Financial Officer concerning financial administration.
[FR Doc. 95-27725 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27720 Radio Broadcasting Services; Claremore and Chelsea, OK
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27720]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-167; RM-8699]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Claremore and Chelsea, OK
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by
Michael P. Stephens, requesting the reallotment of Channel 264A from
Claremore to Chelsea, OK, and the modification of Station KTFR's permit
to specify Chelsea as its community of license. The allotment of
Channel 264A at Chelsea could provide the community with its first
local aural transmission service and enable Station KTFR to operate
with full Class A power of 6 kW. Channel 264A can be allotted to
Chelsea in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements, at coordinates 36-31-27 North Latitude; 95-26-55 West
Longitude, which represents a site restriction of 2.0 kilometers (1.2
miles) southwest, to avoid a short-spacing to Station KGLC, Channel
265A, Miami, OK.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 26, 1995, and reply
comments on or before January 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Michael
P. Stephens, P.O. Box 1250, Sapulpa, OK 74067 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-167, adopted October
24, 1995, and released November 2, 1995. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-27720 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27719 Radio Broadcasting Services; Chama, NM
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56553-56554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27719]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 95-166, RM-8717]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Chama, NM
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by KNXX,
Inc., seeking the allotment of Channel 255A to Chama, NM, as the
community's first local aural service. Channel 255A can be allotted to
Chama in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements without the imposition of a site restriction, at
coordinates 36-54-12 North Latitude and 106-34-42 West Longitude.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before December 26, 1995, and reply
comments on or before January 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Don
Davis, President, KNXX, Inc., 1217 Valencia Drive, NE., Albuquerque, NM
87110 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-166, adopted October
24, 1995, and released November 3, 1995. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
[[Page 56554]]
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-27719 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27712 Lowfat and Skim Milk Products, Lowfat and Nonfat Yogurt Products, Lowfat Cottage Cheese: Proposed Revocation of Standards of Identity; Food Labeling, Nutrient Content Claims for Fat, Fatty Acids and Cholesterol Content of Food
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56540-56547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27712]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56541]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 101, 131, and 133
[Docket Nos. 95P-0125, 95P-0250, 95P-0261, and 95P-0293]
Lowfat and Skim Milk Products, Lowfat and Nonfat Yogurt Products,
Lowfat Cottage Cheese: Proposed Revocation of Standards of Identity;
Food Labeling, Nutrient Content Claims for Fat, Fatty Acids and
Cholesterol Content of Food
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to remove
the standards of identity for sweetened condensed skimmed milk, lowfat
milk, skim (nonfat) milk, acidified lowfat milk, acidified skim
(nonfat) milk, cultured lowfat milk, cultured skim (nonfat) milk, sour
half-and-half, acidified sour half-and-half, lowfat yogurt, nonfat
yogurt, and lowfat cottage cheese, based in part, on petitions filed
jointly by the Milk Industry Foundation (MIF) and the Center for
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). FDA also is proposing to remove
the standards of identity for evaporated skimmed milk and lowfat dry
milk based on a petition filed by the American Dairy Products Institute
(ADPI). Removal of these food standards of identity would permit the
products covered by these regulations to be manufactured and labeled in
accordance with the general definition and standard of identity (the
general standard) in the regulations for foods named by use of a
nutrient content claim and a standardized term. These products would
then be named in a manner that is consistent with the agency's
definitions of the terms ``lowfat'' and ``nonfat'' established in
response to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (the 1990
amendments). This action will provide for consistency in the
nomenclature and labeling of these nutritionally modified milk products
and other foods bearing ``lowfat'' and ``nonfat'' claims and will
promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.
The agency also is proposing to amend the nutrient content claims
regulations for fat, fatty acids, and cholesterol content to provide
for ``skim'' as a synonym for ``nonfat'' when used in labeling milk
products.
This action also is a part of the agency's ongoing review of
existing regulations under President Clinton's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative.
DATES: Comments by January 23, 1996. FDA proposes that any final rule
that may issue based on this proposal, unless stayed by the filing of
proper objections, become effective January 1, 1998. Compliance may
begin on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nannie H. Rainey, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-158), Food and Drug Administration,
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-5099.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Regulatory History
One of the main purposes of the 1990 amendments (Pub. L. 101-535)
which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), was
to establish the circumstances in which claims that describe the
nutrient content of food could be made. In response to the mandates of
the 1990 amendments, FDA established definitions for specific nutrient
content claims in part 101 (21 CFR part 101) together with principles
for their use (58 FR 2302, January 6, 1993). In addition, at the same
time, FDA published a final rule (58 FR 2302 at 2431), that established
the general standard in Sec. 130.10 (21 CFR 130.10) for foods named by
use of a nutrient content claim defined in part 101, such as
``nonfat,'' ``lowfat,'' ``reduced fat,'' ``light,'' or ``reduced
calorie,'' in conjunction with a traditional standardized term, for
example, ``sour cream.''
As FDA noted in that final rule, certain standards of identity for
dairy products already incorporate terms such as ``nonfat,'' ``light,''
and ``lowfat'' in the names of the foods, including the standards for
lowfat dry milk (Sec. 131.123 (21 CFR 131.123)), nonfat dry milk
(Sec. 131.125 (21 CFR 131.125)), nonfat dry milk fortified with
vitamins A and D (Sec. 131.127 (21 CFR 131.127)), lowfat milk
(Sec. 131.135 (21 CFR 131.135)), acidified lowfat milk (Sec. 131.136
(21 CFR 131.136), cultured lowfat milk (Sec. 131.138 (21 CFR 131.138)),
light cream (Sec. 131.155 (21 CFR 131.155)), lowfat yogurt
(Sec. 131.203 (21 CFR 131.203)), nonfat yogurt (Sec. 131.206 (21 CFR
131.206)), and lowfat cottage cheese (Sec. 133.131 (21 CFR 133.131)).
In addition, there are standards for skim milk products that provide
for use of the synonym ``nonfat'' in place of the term ``skim'' in the
names of these foods. For example, skim milk (Sec. 131.143 (21 CFR
131.143)), acidified skim milk (Sec. 131.144 (21 CFR 131.144)), and
cultured skim milk (Sec. 131.146 (21 CFR 131.146)) may be labeled as
``nonfat milk,'' ``acidified nonfat milk,'' and ``cultured nonfat
milk,'' respectively. Some of the names in these standards are
inconsistent with the definitions for the corresponding nutrient
content claims established under the 1990 amendments.
Under section 403(r)(1)(A) of the act (21 U.S.C. 343(r)(1)(A)), a
food is misbranded if it bears a claim that characterizes the level of
any nutrient unless the claim is made using terms defined by the
regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Section
403(r)(5)(C) of the act provides an exemption from this requirement,
however, for nutrient content claims that are part of the name of a
food that is defined by a standard of identity that was issued before
enactment of the 1990 amendments. According to the legislative history,
this exemption was included in the law because Congress recognized the
possibility that nomenclature and nutrient content claims requirements
in preexisting standards of identity might conflict with the nutrient
content claim definitions adopted under the 1990 amendments (H. Rept.
101-538, 101st Cong., 2d sess. 22, June 13, 1990). The legislative
history went on to state that to the extent that those standards
provide requirements that are different from the definitions in the
regulations issued by FDA under the 1990 amendments, one basic purpose
of the 1990 amendments will be partially undermined (id.). However, the
legislative history affirmed that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (and, by delegation, FDA) has the authority to correct this
problem by amending the standards of identity to conform with the
regulations issued under section 403(r) of the act (id.).
The agency stated in the final rule establishing the general
standard (58 FR 2431 at 2444) that, at a later date, it would consider
amending the existing standards of identity for foods that use nutrient
content claims in their names to make the content requirements for
these foods consistent with the claims definitions it adopted.
Alternatively, the agency stated that it could delete some of the
standards and allow the foods defined by these standards to be named
[[Page 56542]]
using a nutrient content claim with a standardized term in accordance
with the general standard (Sec. 130.10). The proposed actions set out
below are intended, in part, to implement the latter option.
B. MIF and CSPI Petitions
This proposal also responds to two petitions filed by MIF and CSPI,
dated May 10, 1995 (Docket No. 95P-0125) and August 2, 1995 (Docket No.
95P-0250). The May 10, 1995, petition, requests that the agency revoke
the standard of identity for lowfat milk in Sec. 131.135 and the
standard of identity for skim milk in Sec. 131.143 and to regulate
these products under the general standard in Sec. 130.10. The August 2,
1995, petition, which references the May 10, 1995, petition, requests
that the agency revoke the standards of identity for 10 additional
products (i.e., sweetened condensed skimmed milk (Sec. 131.122 (21 CFR
131.122)), acidified lowfat milk (Sec. 131.136), cultured lowfat milk
(Sec. 131.138), acidified skim (or nonfat) milk (Sec. 131.144),
cultured skim (or nonfat) milk (Sec. 131.146), sour half-and-half
Sec. 131.185 (21 CFR 131.185)), acidified sour half-and-half
Sec. 131.187 (21 CFR 131.187)), lowfat yogurt (Sec. 131.203), nonfat
yogurt (Sec. 131.206), and lowfat cottage cheese (Sec. 133.131)) that
include nutrient content claims in their names. The petitioners stated
that the purpose of the petitions is to promote consistency in the use
of nutrient content claims concerning fat on food labels.
To provide for the continued use of the term ``skim'' in the
labeling of these skim milk products if FDA were to revoke the
standards for these foods as requested, MIF and CSPI submitted a third
petition, dated August 2, 1995, which requests that the agency amend
the nutrient content claims regulations in Sec. 101.62 to permit the
use of the term ``skim'' as a synonym for the term ``nonfat.'' That
petition was filed under Docket No. 95P-0293.
C. Niagara County Healthy Heart Program Petition
FDA also received a petition from the Niagara County Healthy Heart
Program (Docket No. 93P-0089) that requests that the agency amend the
standards of identity for lowfat milk (Sec. 131.135), acidified lowfat
milk (Sec. 131.136), and cultured lowfat milk (Sec. 131.138) by
deleting the two upper-levels for milkfat content in these foods. These
standards currently provide for the following fat levels: \1/2\, 1,
1\1/2\, or 2 percent milkfat. The petitioner stated that milkfat levels
of 1\1/2\ or 2 percent provided by these standards result in products
that contain more than 3 grams (g) fat per serving and that, thus, are
inconsistent with the agency's definition of ``low fat.'' In addition,
the petitioner claimed that these exceptions in the standards of
identity have the potential to confuse consumers and therefore should
be removed.
The agency notes that if the standards of identity for the lowfat
milk products are revoked, as proposed below, the need to remove the
upper-limits for milkfat (1\1/2\ and 2 percent) in these standards will
be rendered moot. However, if the comments do not support revocation of
the lowfat milk standards, the agency will consider alternative actions
such as those suggested by the petitioner as a means of correcting the
inconsistency between the standards in Secs. 131.135, 131.136, and
131.138, and the nutrient content claims regulations in
Sec. 101.62((b)(2) regarding the use of the term ``low fat'' on food
labels.
D. ADPI Petitions
This proposal also responds to two petitions filed by ADPI. One
ADPI petition, filed on August 11, 1995 (Docket No. 95P-0261), requests
that the agency revoke the standards of identity for evaporated skimmed
milk in (Sec. 131.132 (21 CFR 131.132)) and lowfat dry milk in
Sec. 131.123 and amend the standard of identity for dry cream in
(Sec. 131.149 (21 CFR 131.149)) by removing the reference to
Sec. 131.135 (the lowfat milk standard, which is being proposed for
revocation). According to the petitioner, their suggested change would
remove the lower-fat evaporated milk and dry milk standards that
contain product specifications that potentially conflict with approved
nutrient content claims applicable to foods in general. The petition
would also amend the dry cream standard so as to bring it into
conformity with the other suggested changes in the milk product
standards.
The other ADPI petition (Docket No. 95P-0293, dated August 10,
1995) requests that the agency provide for use of the term ``skim'' as
a synonym for ``nonfat'' in Sec. 101.62. ADPI stated that providing for
this term would allow use of the familiar term ``skim'' in the name of
the lower fat evaporated milk product if the existing standard in
Sec. 131.132 is revoked, and this product is manufactured and labeled
in conformance with the general definition and standard of identity in
Sec. 130.10.
E. Regulatory Reinvention Initiative--Review of Regulations
In addition, this proposal is a part of a larger agency project
being undertaken in response to President Clinton's memorandum of March
4, 1995, to heads of departments and agencies, entitled ``Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative'' (Ref. 1). This memorandum, among other things,
directs departments and agencies to do a page-by-page review of
regulations and to eliminate or revise those that are outdated or
otherwise in need of reform. The review of the standards of identity
for dairy products has revealed that a number of the products that are
defined by individual standards in parts 131 and 133 (21 CFR parts 131
and 133) could be more appropriately covered by the general standard in
Sec. 130.10. Thus, the agency is proposing to remove those standards
cited by the MIF, CSPI, and ADPI that are inconsistent with food
labeling policy established under the 1990 amendments and that are
unnecessary in light of the general standard in Sec. 130.10.
II. Grounds for the Petitions
A. Removal of Standards
The petitioners pointed out that the regulations that FDA
promulgated in response to the 1990 amendments defined ``nonfat'' and
``low fat'' in ways that are in conflict with the standards of identity
for certain dairy products, e.g., skim (nonfat) milk and lowfat milk
products. The nutrient content claims regulations
(Sec. 101.62(b)(1)(i)) require that to qualify to bear the term
``nonfat,'' a food must have less than 0.5 g of fat per reference
amount customarily consumed. Conversely, the standards of identity for
skim milk and the related cultured and acidified skim milk products in
Secs. 131.143(a), 131.144(a), and 131.146(a), for example, allow these
``nonfat'' milk products to have up to 0.5 percent milkfat, which
translates to 1.2 g of fat per 8 fluid ounce serving, that is, per
reference amount customarily consumed. Similarly, whereas ``low fat''
foods (Sec. 101.62(b)(2)(i)(A)) generally must have 3 g or less of fat
per reference amount customarily consumed, the standards for ``lowfat''
milk products in Secs. 131.135(a), 131.136(a), and 131.138(a), for
example, allow these foods to contain as much as 2 percent milkfat, or
5 g of fat per reference amount customarily consumed (up to 60 percent
more than is permitted under the definition for the claim).
Thus, the petitioners stated, if a term such as ``low fat'' has one
meaning when applied to foods in general and a
[[Page 56543]]
different meaning when applied to a widely-consumed staple food such as
milk, the result might well be confusion in the minds of many consumers
as to the significance of the term. They further noted that the
Institute of Medicine, in ``Nutrition Labeling: Issues and Directions
for the 1990's,'' p. 251, 1990, stated that ``the message conveyed by
quantitative descriptors should be consistent, clear, and reliable * *
* [L]ow sodium, for example, should have the same meaning, whether it
is applied to soup, frozen peas, or meat.''
MIF and CSPI urged FDA to repeal the standards of identity for
lowfat milk, skim milk, and certain related dairy products and to make
the use of nutrient content claims for fat in the names of these dairy
products consistent with the use of nutrient content claims for fat on
other foods. The petitioners asserted that this action would enhance
the public health because it would eliminate consumer confusion about
the significance of these claims and would facilitate comparisons
between these dairy products and other foods.
In further support of their petitions, ADPI, MIF, and CSPI pointed
to the agency's expressed intention to establish consistency in
nutrient content claims as evidenced by its rejection of comments
urging it to define ``low fat'' differently for different foods. The
petitioners noted that in the proposed rule to establish definitions
for nutrient content claims (56 FR 60478 at 60487 and 60488, November
27, 1991), the agency explained:
The use of different criteria for different food categories has
several disadvantages that affect both consumers and the food
industry. When different criteria are used for different categories
of foods, consumers cannot use the nutrient content claims to
compare products across categories and will likely find it difficult
to use the descriptor in substituting one food for another in their
diets. * * * Furthermore, by having different criteria for different
food categories, it would be possible that some foods that did not
qualify to use the descriptor would have a lower fat content than
foods in other categories that did qualify. This situation would
contribute to consumer confusion and misunderstanding.
The petitioners claimed that this reasoning, which led FDA to adopt
uniform definitions for nutrient content claims, should lead the agency
to revoke the standards of identity for lower-fat fluid milk and yogurt
products. These standards establish criteria for the use of the terms
``lowfat'' and ``nonfat'' in milk product labeling that are
inconsistent with the criteria applicable to the labeling of other
foods. Consequently, according to the petitioners, the regulations
currently contain precisely what FDA has determined to avoid: Different
definitions of ``low fat'' for different foods.
The petitioners cited the legislative history of the 1990
amendments as indicating that Congress anticipated that FDA would take
action to make the nutrient content claims in standards of identity
consistent with those in the regulations established under the 1990
amendments. They also referred to the agency's recognition that it may
be appropriate to revoke the standards of identity containing nutrient
content claims, such as ``lowfat milk'' and ``skim (nonfat) milk,'' and
to subject these foods to the same regulations as other foods (58 FR
2431 at 2444).
The petitioners noted that if the agency were to eliminate the
standards of identity for ``lowfat milk'' and ``skim milk'' products,
these lower-fat milk products would be labeled according to the general
standard in Sec. 130.10. They would be named by a nutrient content
claim defined by regulation (such as ``nonfat,'' ``fat free,'' ``low
fat,'' or ``reduced fat'') in conjunction with the standardized name
for whole milk (i.e., ``milk'') in Sec. 131.110(e)(21 CFR 131.110(e)).
MIF and CSPI also stated that revocation of the standards of
identity for sour half-and-half and acidified sour half-and-half would
advance Congress's goal of making fat content claims clear and
consistent. They claimed that the sour half-and-half products and the
counterpart full-fat sour cream products are equivalent in every way
except for fat content, and except for the fact that the lower-fat sour
cream product names do not include the term ``sour cream.'' They
contended that because processors are required to use the standardized
name, e.g., ``sour half-and-half,'' ``cultured sour half-and-half,'' or
``acidified sour half-and-half,'' as appropriate, the relationship
between these products and their full-fat counterparts, ``sour cream,''
``cultured sour cream,'' or ``acidified sour cream,'' is obfuscated.
Therefore, the petitioners asked that the standards for the sour half-
and-half products be revoked.
B. Other Issues
The petitioners stated that two issues needed to be addressed for
the revocation of the standards for ``lowfat milk'' and ``skim milk''
to result in labels for the products that can be easily understood by
consumers.
The petitioners maintained that most products currently labeled as
``nonfat milk'' would be eligible to retain that name under the general
standard because nonfat milk contains less than 0.5 g of fat per
serving, in accordance with the definition of the term ``nonfat'' in
Sec. 101.62(b)(1)(i). However, the petitioners noted that these
products could not be called ``skim milk'' under the general standard
because the fat content claims regulations in Sec. 101.62 do not
authorize the use of the term ``skim.'' They stated that a significant
number of processors presently use the nomenclature ``skim milk,'' and
that ``skim'' is the term by which many consumers distinguish between
nonfat milk and all other forms of milk. The loss of authority to use
this traditional and widely recognized name would thus be extremely
disruptive. MIF stated that in view of widespread consumer reliance on
the name ``skim milk,'' it regards the approval of the descriptor
``skim'' (as a synonym for ``nonfat'') as essential to its continuing
support of the revocation of the skim milk standard.
MIF and CSPI also requested that the agency revoke the standard of
identity for sweetened condensed skimmed milk (Sec. 131.122). The
petitioners stated that if the agency provides for the synonym ``skim''
in Sec. 101.62, sweetened condensed skimmed milk could be manufactured
and labeled under Sec. 130.10 and could be named using the term
``skim'' in a manner that is consistent with other nonfat milk
products.
The second issue to be resolved, according to the petitioners,
concerns declaration of the percentage of milkfat in the name of the
food. The petitioners suggested that they expected the authority to
state the milkfat percentage before the name on product labels to
continue under the general standard because section 3(b)(1)(A)(iv) of
the 1990 amendments dictates that the regulations ``shall permit
statements describing the amount and percentage of nutrients in food
which are not misleading and are consistent with the terms defined''
under the act. The petitioners pointed out that the general nutrient
content claims regulations in Sec. 101.13(i) implement this provision
by providing that:
* * * the label or labeling of a product may contain a statement
about the amount or percentage of a nutrient if: (1) The use of the
statement on the food implicitly characterizes the level of the
nutrient in the food and is consistent with a definition for a claim
* * * or (3) The statement does not in any way implicitly
characterize the level of the nutrient in the food and it is not
false or misleading in any respect * * *.
MIF claimed that although the term ``implicitly characterizes'' is
somewhat ambiguous, it is clear that a percentage figure can be used if
it is consistent with the appropriate nutrient content claim (e.g.,
``2% reduced fat''; ``1% lowfat'').
[[Page 56544]]
MIF stated that it views the indication of the milkfat percentage
before the name of the product as an indispensable aspect of lower-fat
milk labeling because consumers have come to rely so heavily on these
numbers to differentiate between milk products. MIF further stated that
it would not be proposing the revocation of the lower-fat milk
standards if it believed that such an action would affect milk
processors' ability to state the milkfat percentage in the customary
manner.
The petitioners also discussed the nutritional aspect of deleting
the lower-fat milk, sour cream, and cottage cheese products standards
of identity, stating that this aspect of the proposed action would not
require additional action. They claimed that the only distinction of
note between the milk standard and the lower-fat dairy product
standards (e.g., lowfat milk and skim milk products), in relation to
nutritional content, is that vitamin A fortification to 10 percent of
the daily value (DV) is optional under the milk standard but mandatory
under the lower-fat milk standards. The petitioners stated that, even
if the skim milk and lowfat milk product standards were revoked,
vitamin A fortification of these products to 10 percent of the DV would
remain mandatory under the general standard.
The petitioners noted that because vitamin A is fat soluble, the
process of removing fat from milk unavoidably removes some vitamin A.
As a result, all commonly marketed lower-fat fluid milk products would
be required to have at least some added vitamin A in order to meet the
general standard's requirement that they not be nutritionally inferior
to milk (Sec. 130.10(b)). Moreover, they noted, the milk standard in
Sec. 131.110(b)(1) states that if vitamin A is added, it must be added
to the 10 percent DV level. Consequently, the petitioners concluded,
lower-fat milk products, labeled according to the general standard,
would have to be vitamin A fortified up to 10 percent of the DV. They
concluded that elimination of the lower-fat milk product standards
would have no practical effect on the nutritional benefit of these
products.
ADPI maintained that revocation of the standards for evaporated
skimmed milk and lowfat dry milk will not result in inferior dairy
products because these foods are produced by removal of water from
dairy products or are mixtures of other dairy products where water has
been removed to some extent. ADPI further stated that besides water,
the other key variable in evaporated milk and dry milk is fat. By
revoking the standards for evaporated skimmed milk and lowfat dry milk,
ADPI concluded that the amount of fat present in the products would be
communicated through the use of terms (i.e., nutrient content claims)
that would be consistent with the same terms applied to other foods.
The remaining nutritional attributes of these foods would remain
unchanged.
III. Proposed Actions
A. Removal of Standards
FDA agrees with the petitioners that the requested changes are
consistent with the agency's stated intent to have consistent
definitions across food categories for nutrient content claims.
Accordingly, FDA is proposing to repeal the standards of identity for
the lower-fat milk, sweetened condensed milk, evaporated milk, dry
milk, sour cream (i.e., sour half-and-half or acidified sour half-and-
half), and yogurt products, in Secs. 131.122, 131.123, 131.132,
131.135, 131.136, 131.138, 131.143 131.144, 131.146, 131.185, 131.187,
131.203, and 131.206, and lowfat cottage cheese in Sec. 133.131 that
include nutrient content claims in their names. Repeal of the standards
of identity for the lower-fat dairy products would allow these foods to
bear the nutrient content claims ``reduced fat,'' ``lowfat,'' or
``nonfat'' in conjunction with the standardized term ``milk,''
``sweetened condensed milk,'' ``evaporated milk,'' ``dry milk,'' ``sour
cream,'' or ``yogurt'' provided that they comply with the general
standard in Sec. 130.10. This standard in turn would require that all
such products bearing these nutrient content claims comply with the
definitions established for the claims in Sec. 101.62. Thus, consumers
would be presented with information on the fat content of the modified
milk, sour cream, and yogurt products that is consistent with that on
other foods and that will enable them to select much more readily those
products that will provide, in the case of ``low fat'' foods, 3 g or
less of fat per reference amount customarily consumed, or, in the case
of ``nonfat'' or ``fat free'' foods, those products that contain less
than 0.5 g of fat per reference amount and per labeled serving, than
they are able to do under the existing standards.
MIF and CSPI suggested that milk products that are currently
labeled as ``2 percent lowfat milk'' or ``1.5 percent lowfat milk,''
and which would not be entitled to bear that name after the standard of
identity for lowfat milk is removed, could be labeled as ``2 percent
reduced fat milk'' or ``1.5 percent reduced fat milk.'' The agency
agrees that a declaration of the percentage of fat is permitted under
the nutrient content claims regulations in Sec. 101.13(i). It also
agrees that continuing the percentage fat declaration as part of the
name would assist consumers in recognizing these milk and yogurt
products when the nutrient content claim in the names of these foods is
changed from ``lowfat'' to ``reduced fat'' under the general standard
(i.e, ``reduced fat milk, 2 percent milkfat,'' or ``reduced fat milk, 2
percent fat''). The agency points out that if it adopts this proposed
action, unlike under the existing standards, e.g., in Secs. 131.135 and
131.143, which provide that the name include a declaration of the
percentage of milkfat, the percentage fat declaration in the name under
Sec. 130.10 will be on a total fat basis (milkfat and any fat from
added optional ingredients).
ADPI and MIF requested that FDA provide for the continued use of
the name ``skim milk'' as an alternative to ``nonfat milk'' after the
standards of identity for skim milk products are repealed. They pointed
out that the regulations in Sec. 101.62(b) do not provide for the use
of ``skim'' as a synonym for ``nonfat'' or ``fat free.'' Thus, the name
``skim milk'' would not be available to producers of skim milk when
that product is made under the general standard. ADPI also requested
that the term ``skim'' be provided as a synonym for ``nonfat,'' so that
the lower-fat evaporated milk product can be labeled in a manner that
is consistent with the labeling of other lower-fat fluid milk products.
The agency has considered these requests and is proposing to amend
the regulations pertaining to nutrient content claims for fat in
Sec. 101.62(b)(1) to include ``skim'' as a synonym for ``nonfat'' in
characterizing the level of fat in modified milk products. FDA notes
that several standards in part 131 for skim milk products (i.e., skim
milk, acidified skim milk, and cultured skim milk in Secs. 131.143,
131.144, and 131.146) currently provide for the use of either
``nonfat'' or ``skim'' (or ``skimmed'' in the case of sweetened
condensed milk and evaporated milk) in the names of these products.
Based on their history of use in dairy product nomenclature, the agency
tentatively concludes that consumers understand the name ``skim milk''
to mean the same as ``nonfat milk''. Thus, the agency is proposing
under sections 403(r) and 701(a) of the act (21 U.S.C. 371(a)) to
include the term ``skim,'' when used to describe milk products, as a
synonym for ``nonfat'' in Sec. 101.62(b)(1), as set forth below.
FDA notes that in the absence of a specific standard of identity
for the
[[Page 56545]]
lower-fat sweetened condensed milk product or evaporated milk product,
manufacturers will be provided greater flexibility in selecting the fat
levels for these foods when they are made under the general standard.
As in the case of the other lower-fat milk and yogurt products, the
nutrient content claims used in the naming these foods under
Sec. 130.10 will be consistent with those used in the labeling of other
foods, thereby decreasing the potential for consumer confusion as to
the meaning of these nutrient content claims on food labels.
FDA also is proposing to remove the standard of identity for lowfat
cottage cheese in Sec. 133.131. The petitioners stated that virtually
all lowfat cottage cheese on the market has less than 3 g of fat per
the reference amount customarily consumed of 110 g. If so, this food
could continue to be labeled as ``lowfat cottage cheese'' under the
general standard. The agency notes that the standard of identity for
lowfat cottage cheese in Sec. 133.131(b)(2) requires that the
percentage of milkfat in the food be declared as part of the name of
the food. Thus, if Sec. 133.131 is removed, there will be no provision
requiring percentage declaration of milkfat content in conjunction with
the name of this food. However, because the name of the food includes a
nutrient content claim, a declaration of the amount of fat per
reference amount customarily consumed will appear in the nutrition
facts statement on the label. Thus, consumers will continue to have
access to information on the fat content of the lowfat cottage cheese
that can be used in making purchasing decisions. On the other hand,
manufacturers may continue to declare fat content as part of the name
of the food as has been suggested by the petitioners for lowfat milk
products.
The agency notes that standards of identity for two cream products
contain the term ``light'' in the names of the foods, light cream in
Sec. 131.155 and light whipping cream in Sec. 131.157 (21 CFR 131.157).
FDA is not proposing to change these standards at this time. The agency
tentatively concludes that no change is necessary in the names of these
foods because of their long history of use, since 1940. These names
connote a difference in the texture of these products compared to the
higher fat cream product defined in 21 CFR 131.150, heavy cream. In
addition, light cream, which contains not less than 18 percent but less
than 30 percent milkfat is often labeled by one of its alternative
standardized names, as ``table cream'' or ``coffee cream.'' Light
whipping cream, which contains not less than 30 percent but less than
36 percent milkfat, is distinguished from heavy whipping cream, which
contains 30 percent or more of milkfat, not only by its lower fat
content but by its lighter, less dense texture on whipping. The agency
requests comments on the appropriateness of these names and on whether
consumers find the use of the term ``light'' in the names of these
foods to be misleading. If comments demonstrate that amendment of these
regulations is necessary, such action will be the subject of a later
rulemaking.
As noted by ADPI, the standard of identity for dry cream
(Sec. 131.149) provides that the food is obtained by removal of water
only from pasteurized milk or cream or a mixture thereof, which may
have been homogenized. The standard also provides that dry cream may be
obtained by blending dry milks as defined in Secs. 131.123(a),
131.125(a), and 131.147(a) with dry cream, as appropriate, provided
that the resulting product is equivalent in composition to that
obtained by the method described in the preceding sentence. Because
this proposal would remove the standard of identity for lowfat dry milk
in Sec. 131.123, ADPI requests that the dry cream standard be amended
to delete that reference. The agency also recognizes the need to delete
the reference in Sec. 131.123 and is proposing to make the change as
set out below.
FDA is not proposing to revoke the standards of identity for nonfat
dry milk and nonfat dry milk fortified with vitamins A and D, in
Secs. 131.125 and 131.127, respectively, because the use of the term
``nonfat'' in the names of these foods does not conflict with the
definition of the term ``nonfat'' in Sec. 101.62(b)(1). In addition,
the agency notes that ``nonfat dry milk,'' as defined by the Nonfat Dry
Milk, Milk Act of July 2, 1956, does not contain added vitamins A and
D. Retention of these standards will minimize confusion as to whether
these vitamins may be added to the food.
B. Vitamin Addition
The agency disagrees with the MIF's and CSPI's interpretation of
the impact of revoking the standards of identity for lowfat and skim
milk on the requirements for addition of vitamins A and D to lowfat
milk or nonfat milk that conform to Sec. 130.10. Under the existing
standards for lowfat and skim milk products in part 131, vitamin A
addition is mandatory, while vitamin D addition is optional. Vitamin A
is required to be added to a level of 2,000 International Units (IU)
per quart (500 IU or 10 percent of the DV per reference amount
customarily consumed). When vitamin D is added, the level must be 400
IU per quart (100 IU or 25 percent of the DV per reference amount
customarily consumed). However, under the general standard, the only
requirement for lower-fat milk products is that they not be
nutritionally inferior to milk as defined in Sec. 131.110. Vitamin A
levels in milk in winter have been reported to range from 500 to 1,000
IU per quart, while in summer (pasture), these levels range from 2,000
to 3,000 IU per quart (Ref. 2). Vitamin D levels range from 5 to 15 IU
(Ref. 2). Because the removal of milkfat from milk in the production of
the lower-fat milk products removes corresponding amounts of the
naturally occurring fat soluble vitamins, some amount of these two
vitamins would have to be added for the lower-fat products to comply
with the general standard. However, under Sec. 101.3(e), the amount
required to be added is only that necessary to make the level in the
lower-fat milk products at least equivalent to that in whole milk.
Because the addition of both vitamins A and D to whole milk is
optional, the requirements for levels of 2,000 IU of vitamin A and 400
IU of vitamin D per quart would not apply to products under the general
standard. Although such levels would be permitted, they would not be
required. Addition of vitamins A and D to these levels would be
permitted because milk under Sec. 131.110 can contain these amounts and
be named for example ``milk, vitamins A and D added.'' The lower-fat
milks could have equivalent levels and be named for example ``reduced
fat milk, vitamins A and D added,'' or ``nonfat milk, vitamin A
added,'' as appropriate.
The same rationale applies to vitamin addition in the lower- fat
yogurt products, in which both vitamin A and vitamin D addition is
optional. There are no provisions for addition of vitamins to sweetened
condensed skimmed milk. However, when the food is made under
Sec. 130.10, it must not be nutritionally inferior to sweetened
condensed milk. Lower-fat evaporated milk products, however, must be
fortified with vitamin D because addition of vitamin D in evaporated
milk is mandatory.
The agency requests comment on whether current levels of vitamins A
and D in the lower-fat milk products need to be maintained.
Specifically, the agency requests information on levels of vitamins A
and D currently in the milk supply and on the changes in these levels,
if any, that are likely to occur if the standards of identity for the
lowfat milk and skim milk products are
[[Page 56546]]
revoked. Information should include: (1) The percentage of milk
currently optionally fortified with one or both vitamins and the
likelihood of that changing; and (2) the percentage of lower-fat milk
products currently so fortified, and the likelihood that the
fortifications would continue if they were optional. Based on the
information received in comments, FDA will consider whether special
provisions are necessary (beyond the nutritional equivalency
requirements of Sec. 130.10) to require fortification of lowfat,
reduced fat, and nonfat milk products manufactured under Sec. 130.10.
C. Other Action--Unresolved Hearing Issue on the Lowfat Milk and Skim
Milk Standards
In the Federal Register of October 6, 1983 (48 FR 45545), FDA
published a notice of hearing on objections to a final rule (45 FR
81734, December 12, 1980) concerning the standards of identity for
lowfat milk and skim milk (Docket Nos. 81N-204F and 76N-0175). The
hearing was granted on four issues, three of which have been resolved
(51 FR 40313, November 6, 1986). One issue dealing with labeling
requirements of the standardized foods (i.e., the reasonableness of the
decision to prohibit use of the terms ``protein fortified'' and
``fortified with protein'' on labels of lowfat milk and skim milk
products containing not less than 10 percent milk-derived nonfat milk
solids) has not been resolved. However, if a final rule is issued to
remove the standards of identity for lowfat milk and skim milk in
Secs. 131.135 and 131.143, this unresolved issue will be rendered moot,
and no further rulemaking procedures regarding the stayed provision
will be necessary.
IV. Economic Impact
FDA has examined the economic implications of the proposed rule
amending 21 CFR parts 101, 131, and 133 as required by Executive Order
12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354). Executive
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches which maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Regulatory
Flexibility Act requires that the agency analyze options for regulatory
relief for small businesses. FDA finds that this proposed rule is not a
significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. In accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agency certifies that the
proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.
There are approximately 1,350 lowfat and 570 skim (nonfat) milk
products currently on the market. These products correspond to
approximately 3,500 lowfat milk and 1,600 nonfat milk stockkeeping
units (SKU's). If this rule is finalized as proposed, all milk products
currently using the terms ``lowfat'' and ``nonfat'' will have to comply
with the definitions established for those claims. Any milk product not
labeled in compliance with the term ``lowfat'' or ``nonfat'' will have
to be relabeled. According to the petitioners, most products currently
labeled as ``nonfat milk'' would be eligible to retain that name.
However, many products currently labeled as ``lowfat milk'' will not be
eligible to retain that name and will have to be relabeled as ``reduced
fat milk''. Specifically, products containing more than 1 percent
milkfat and currently labeled ``lowfat'' will have to be relabeled.
There are approximately 750 such products and approximately 2,225
SKU's.
Potentially, this regulation will also require changes in the
labeling of evaporated skimmed milk, lowfat dry milk, sour half-and-
half, acidified sour half-and-half, lowfat and nonfat yogurts, and
lowfat cottage cheese. There are approximately 5 evaporated skimmed
milk products and 8 SKU's, 1 lowfat dry milk product and 4 SKU's, 12
sour half-and-half products and 16 SKU's, approximately 119 lowfat
yogurts and 1,294 SKU's, approximately 91 nonfat yogurts and 813 SKU's,
and approximately 142 lowfat cottage cheese products and 436 SKU's.
There are no acidified sour half-and-half products in FDA's database.
FDA estimates that almost none of the nonfat yogurts and lowfat cottage
cheeses will require relabeling because these products most likely meet
FDA's definitions for ``lowfat'' and ``nonfat''. However, the sour
half-and-half products will require relabeling with the term ``reduced
fat'' in conjunction with the term ``sour cream.'' FDA estimates that
most of the lowfat yogurts contain too much fat to retain the term
``lowfat'' and will either be relabeled or reformulated.
There are four categories of costs associated with a mandatory
relabeling: Administrative, analytical, redesign, and inventory
disposal costs. The administrative costs associated with a labeling
regulation are the dollar value of the incremental administrative
effort expended in order to comply with a regulation. The magnitude of
administrative costs to a representative firm is a function of several
variables including the scope and intricacy of the regulation (positive
relationship), the number of distinct products, and the length of the
compliance period associated with the regulation (inverse
relationship). This proposed regulation is not anticipated to be an
intricate regulation. The administrative costs associated with a
nonintricate regulation with a compliance period in excess of 1 year is
$850 per small/medium firm and $6,300 per large firm. The total
administrative costs associated with this proposed regulation are
approximately $2.2 million.
Analytical tests are typically performed by technical personnel
employed by firms or at independent laboratories. These costs consist
of tests to determine nutrient and food component quantities required
by various labeling provisions. The agency does not anticipate that
this rule will cause any analytical testing. Because milk products are
already subject to nutrition labeling requirements, firms should
already be aware of the fat content of their products.
Incremental redesign costs depend on the type of printing process
used, the complexity of the label change, and the length of the
compliance period. Because printing activities are specific to
individual labels, computing incremental printing effort on a per-SKU
basis is necessary. The agency estimates that the changes required by
this proposed regulation will result in a simple two-color label
change. Also, because firms will have in excess of 1 year to comply,
redesign costs will be reduced by the fact that they can incorporate
mandated changes with previously planned label changes. Total redesign
costs of the proposed regulation are estimated at $3 million.
An additional cost category is the label inventory loss associated
with the transition from old to new labels. The cost of label inventory
loss depends on average label inventory and the length of the
compliance period. FDA is proposing an effective date that would allow
for over 1 year for firms to comply with any final rule that may result
from this rulemaking. A 1-year compliance period is sufficient to allow
producers of milk, yogurt, sour half-and-half, and cottage cheese
products to use up existing stocks of labels. Therefore, label
inventory disposal costs will be zero. The agency estimates that the
total costs of this proposed regulation will be approximately $5
million.
The agency believes that consumers will benefit from this
regulation because it will provide consistency in the
[[Page 56547]]
nomenclature of both standardized and nonstandardized foods that bear
nutrient content claims relating to their fat content.
V. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(b)(1) that this action
is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
VI. Comments
Interested persons may, on or before January 23, 1996, submit to
the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments
regarding this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be
submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to
be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading
of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
VII. References
1. Memorandum entitled ``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative'' from
President Clinton to heads of departments and agencies, March 4, 1995.
2. Jenness, Robert and Patton, Stuart, Principles of Dairy
Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY, pp. 403-404, 1959.
List of Subjects
21 CFR Part 101
Food labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 CFR Part 131
Cream, Food grades and standards, Milk, Yogurt.
21 CFR Part 133
Cheese, Food grades and standards, Food labeling.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is
proposed that 21 CFR parts 101, 131, and 133 be amended as follows:
PART 101--FOOD LABELING
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 101 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 5, 6 of the Fair Packing and Labeling Act
(15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455); secs. 201, 301, 402, 403, 409, 701 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342,
343, 348, 371).
2. Section 101.62 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.62 Nutrient content claims for fat, fatty acid, and
cholesterol content of foods.
* * * * *
(b) ``Fat content claims.'' (1) The terms ``fat free,'' ``free of
fat,'' ``no fat,'' ``zero fat,'' ``without fat,'' ``negligible source
of fat,'' or ``dietarily insignificant source of fat'' or, in the case
of milk products, ``skim'' may be used on the label or in labeling of
foods, provided that:
* * * * *
PART 131--MILK AND CREAM
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 131 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 401, 403, 409, 701, 721 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 371,
379e).
Sec. 131.122 [Removed]
4. Section 131.122 Sweetened condensed skimmed milk is removed from
subpart B.
Sec. 131.123 [Removed]
5. Section 131.123 Lowfat dry milk is removed from subpart B.
Sec. 131.132 [Removed]
6. Section 131.132 Evaporated skimmed milk is removed from subpart
B.
Sec. 131.135 [Removed]
7. Section 131.135 Lowfat milk is removed from subpart B.
Sec. 131.136 [Removed]
8. Section 131.136 Acidified lowfat milk is removed from subpart B.
Sec. 131.138 [Removed]
9. Section 131.138 Cultured lowfat milk is removed from subpart B.
Sec. 131.143 [Removed]
10. Section 131.143 Skim milk is removed from subpart B.
Sec. 131.144 [Removed]
11. Section 131.144 Acidified skim milk is removed from subpart B.
Sec. 131.146 [Removed]
12. Section 131.146 Cultured skim milk is removed from subpart B.
13. Section 131.149 is amended by revising the second sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 131.149 Dry cream.
(a) * * * Alternatively, dry cream may be obtained by blending dry
milks as defined in Secs. 131.125(a) and 131.147(a) with dry cream as
appropriate, Provided, That the resulting product is equivalent in
composition to that obtained by the method described in the first
sentence of this paragraph. * * *
* * * * *
Sec. 131.185 [Removed]
14. Section 131.185 Sour half-and-half is removed from subpart B.
Sec. 131.187 [Removed]
15. Section 131.187 Acidified sour half-and-half is removed from
subpart B.
Sec. 131.203 [Removed]
16. Section 131.203 Lowfat yogurt is removed from subpart B.
Sec. 131.206 [Removed]
17. Section 131.206 Nonfat yogurt is removed from subpart B.
PART 133--CHEESES AND RELATED CHEESE PRODUCTS
18. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 133 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 401, 403, 409, 701, 721 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 371,
379e).
Sec. 133.131 [Removed]
19. Section 133.131 Lowfat cottage cheese is removed from subpart
B.
Dated: October 27, 1995.
William K. Hubbard,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-27712 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-27577 Federal Process Agents of Surety Companies
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56551-56552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27577]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Fiscal Service
31 CFR Part 224
RIN 1510-AA49
Federal Process Agents of Surety Companies
AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend 31 CFR Part 224 (also appearing
as Treasury Department Circular 901, Revised) which governs surety
companies doing business with the United States. Specifically, it
proposes to eliminate the requirement that surety companies doing
business with the United States report their Federal process agent
appointments to the Financial Management Service (FMS). FMS no longer
needs or collects this information. This revision will make the
regulation consistent with current practice.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before
December 11, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Surety Bond Branch,
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, 3700 East-
West Highway, Room 6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782, Attn: Laura
Harshbarger.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorothy Martin, (202) 874-6850,
(Manager, Surety Bond Branch).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This regulation proposes to eliminate the
requirement that surety companies report their Federal Process Agent
appointments to the Financial Management Service. This action does not
eliminate the requirement for the companies to designate a person to
serve as a Federal Process Agent and to register them with the clerk of
the district court for the judicial district in which a surety bond is
to be given.
The proposed rule includes several editorial changes and a
realignment of the sections as a result of eliminating Sec. 224.5,
``Filing process agent appointment information with the Treasury.''
This regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined
in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a regulatory assessment is not
required. It is hereby certified that this revision will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This
change will clarify the regulation.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 224
Surety bonds, Insurance.
Accordingly, Part 224 of Title 31 is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 224--FEDERAL PROCESS AGENTS OF SURETY COMPANIES
1. The authority citation continues to read as follows:
Authority: 31 U.S.C. 9306.
2. Section 224.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 224.1 Statutory provision.
The rules and regulations in this Part are prescribed for carrying
into effect 31 U.S.C. 9306.
3. Section 224.5 is removed, and Sec. 224.6 is redesignated as
Sec. 224.5 and revised to read as follows:
Sec. 224.5 Process agents; termination of authority.
Whenever the authority of a process agent is terminated by reason
of revocation, disability, removal from the district, or any other
cause, it shall be the duty of the company to immediately make a new
appointment.
Sec. 224.7 [Redesignated as Sec. 224.6]
4. Section 224.7 is redesignated as Sec. 224.6, and revised to read
as follows:
[[Page 56552]]
Sec. 224.6 United States district courts; location of divisional
offices.
A list of the divisional offices of the court in each judicial
district where powers of attorney should be filed may be obtained from
the Surety Bond Branch, Financial Management Service, Department of the
Treasury, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
Dated: October 12, 1995.
Russell D. Morris,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 95-27577 Filed 11-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.