issue-1996-03-28•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-28
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-28
issue-1996-03-28Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-28Proposed 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FR Doc. 96-7613 Changes to An Approved Application; Proposed Rule and Draft Guidance Documents; Public Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13792-13793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7613]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13793]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 314, 600, and 601
[Docket No. 95N-0329]
RIN 0910-AA57
Changes to An Approved Application; Proposed Rule and Draft
Guidance Documents; Public Meeting
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting to discuss the proposed amendments to the biologics regulations
for reporting changes to an approved application and corresponding drug
regulations for submitting supplements for and reporting changes to an
application for well-characterized biotechnology products. The purpose
of the meeting is to solicit information and views on the agency's
proposed rule addressing reporting of changes to an approved
application as well as discuss the material and categories set forth in
the closely related draft guidance documents.
DATES: The public meeting will be held on Friday, April 19, 1996, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit written notices of participation, including a
brief summary of the presentation and approximate time requested, by
April 15, 1996. Written comments will be accepted until May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the National Institutes
of Health, Bldg. 10, Masur Auditorium, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda,
MD. Attendance may be limited to 500, which is the capacity of the
auditorium. Submit written notices of participation and comments to the
Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857. FDA requests that
persons who intend to participate notify the agency in advance. To
expedite processing, written notices of participation may also be FAXED
to 301-827-3843. 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. Transcripts of the meeting will be available for review at
the Dockets Management Branch (address above).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the meeting
or to advise FDA of an intent to participate: Margaret A. Tart, Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-42), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-
2000, FAX 301-827-3843.
For information regarding this document: Tracey H. Forfa, Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-630), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-594-
3074.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 29, 1996
(61 FR 2739), FDA announced its intent to hold a public meeting during
the pendency of the comment period that ends on April 29, 1996, for the
proposal to amend the biologics regulations for reporting changes to an
approved application and corresponding drug regulations for submitting
supplements for and reporting changes to an application for well-
characterized biotechnology products (21 CFR 314.70 and 601.12). During
this public meeting FDA is seeking comments on the proposed mechanisms
for reporting changes to an approved application. Specifically, FDA is
seeking comments on the three-category scheme for reporting changes in
the product, production process, equipment, facilities, or responsible
personnel. The three categories would include: (1) Supplement
submission and approval prior to distribution of a product made using a
proposed change that has a substantial potential to have an adverse
effect on a product's safety, purity, potency, or effectiveness; (2)
notification not less than 30 days prior to distributing a product made
using a proposed change that has a moderate potential to have an
adverse effect on a product's safety, purity, potency, or
effectiveness; and (3) an annual report describing changes that have
minimal potential to have an adverse effect on a product's safety,
purity, potency, or effectiveness.
Further, FDA is asking for comment on the proposed three-category
reporting system for biological product labeling changes. A change to a
product package label, container label, or package label would require
one of the following: (1) Submission of a supplement with FDA approval
required prior to product distribution; (2) submission of a supplement
with product distribution allowed prior to FDA approval; or (3)
submission of the final printed label in an annual report. Promotional
labeling and advertising would be required to be submitted under
procedures found at 21 CFR 314.81(b)(3)(i).
In addition, FDA is seeking public comment on the draft guidance
documents, ``Changes to An Approved Application; Draft Guidance'' and
``Draft Guidance; Changes to An Approved Application for Well-
Characterized Therapeutic Recombinant DNA-Derived and Monoclonal
Antibody Biotechnology Products,'' that were made available
concurrently with the proposed rule in the Federal Register of January
29, 1996 (61 FR 2748 and 2749). FDA is seeking comments on the
categorization of changes in the draft guidance documents and also on
the utility of the guidance documents to applicants. FDA is not,
however, intending to use this forum for additional discussion of the
agency's definition of a well-characterized therapeutic recombinant
DNA-derived and monoclonal antibody biotechnology product that was
originally announced in the Federal Register of December 8, 1995 (60 FR
63048).
The procedures governing the meeting can be found in 21 CFR part
15. Prior to the meeting, FDA will determine the amount of time
assigned to each person and the approximate scheduled time for each
presentation. A schedule showing the persons making presentations will
be filed with the Dockets Management Branch (address above), and mailed
or FAXED to each presenter before the meeting. Interested persons
attending the meeting who did not request an opportunity to make a
presentation will be given the opportunity to make an oral presentation
at the conclusion of the meeting, as time permits. However, no
participant may interrupt the presentation of another participant.
Comments received at the public meeting and written comments
submitted to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) by May 6,
1996, will be considered in the review of the proposed rule and
guidance documents to determine whether revisions are warranted. After
careful review of the public comments, FDA intends to revise the draft
guidance documents, if necessary, and publish a final rule.
Dated: March 25, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-7613 Filed 3-25-96; 4:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7606 Extension of Time for Receipt of Comments on Proposed Rule on Testing Requirements for Ocean Dumping
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7606]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 220 and 227
[FRL-5449-4]
RIN 2040-AC81
Extension of Time for Receipt of Comments on Proposed Rule on
Testing Requirements for Ocean Dumping
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Extension of time for receipt of comments on proposed rule on
testing requirements for ocean dumping.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 29, 1996, EPA published a proposed rule at 61 FR
7765, clarifying certain provisions of the Agency's ocean dumping
regulations relating to testing provisions of the regulations. The
proposal stated that written comments on the proposed rule would be
accepted until April 1, 1996. EPA has received several requests for an
extension of time to comment on the proposed rule, on the grounds that
several issues that the rule addresses require additional time for
analysis. The Agency has determined that an extension of time is in the
public interest, and that an additional 30 days to comment on the
proposed rule is reasonable. Consequently, the period for receipt of
comments on the proposed rule is extended until May 1, 1996.
DATES: The comment period is extended until May 1, 1996.
It should be noted that this extension of time for comment neither
represents any modification of the proposed rule, nor indicates a
change in the Agency's interpretation of the existing requirements
under the ocean dumping regulations. The extension of time for receipt
of comments simply provides those interested parties an additional 30
days to provide comments to the Agency on the proposed rule. All other
requirements stipulated in the initial proposal for receipt of comments
still apply.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lishman, Chief, Marine Pollution
Control Branch, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (4504F),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC,
20460, telephone 202/260-8448.
Dated: March 22, 1996.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7606 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7602 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13794-13796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7602]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5447-7]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of intent to delete Howe Valley Landfill Superfund Site,
Hardin County, Kentucky, from the National Priorities List.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces
its intent to delete the Howe Valley Landfill Site (the Site) from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky have
determined that the responsible parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required at the Site and therefore,
further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are not appropriate.
DATES: Comments may be submitted by midnight April 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Nestor Young, Remedial Project
Manager, North Superfund Remedial Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365.
Comprehensive information on this Site is available through the
public docket which is available for viewing at the Howe Valley
Landfill Site information repositories at the following locations:
Hardin County Public Library, 201 West Dixie Avenue, Elizabethtown, KY,
42701.
[[Page 13795]]
U.S. EPA Record Center, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30365.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nestor Young, U.S. EPA Region 4, 345
Courtland St., N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365, 404-347-3555 Ext. 2023 or 1-
800-435-9233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces its
intent to delete the Howe Valley Landfill Site, Hardin County,
Kentucky, from the National Priorities List (NPL), Appendix B of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
40 CFR Part 300, and requests comments on its deletion. EPA identifies
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of these
sites. As described in Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted
from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions in the unlikely event
that conditions at the site warrant such action.
The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site
for thirty days after publication of this action in the Federal
Register.
Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites
from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Howe Valley Landfill Site and
explains how the Site meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted
from, or recategorized on the NPL where no further response is
appropriate. In making a determination to delete a release from the
NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of
the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been implemented,
and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a
subsequent review of the site will be conducted at least every five
years after the initiation of the remedial action at the site to ensure
that the site remains protective of public health and the environment.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
this site: (1) EPA Region 4 has recommended deletion and has prepared
the relevant documents, (2) The Commonwealth of Kentucky has concurred
with the deletion decision, (3) Concurrent with this Notice of Intent
to Delete, a local notice has been published in local newspapers and
has been distributed to appropriate federal, state and local officials,
and other interested parties. This local notice announces a thirty (30)
day public comment period, provides an address and telephone number for
submission of comments, and identifies the location of the local site
repository; and (4) Region 4 has made all relevant documents available
in the Regional Office and local site information repository.
Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individuals rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management.
As mentioned in Section II of this document, Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for future response actions.
For deletion of this Site, EPA Region 4 will accept and evaluate
public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a
final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a
Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments
received.
A deletion occurs when the EPA Regional Administrator places a
final action in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local
residents by Region 4.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the
proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.
A. Site Background
The sparsely vegetated, eleven (11) acre Howe Valley Landfill Site
is situated at the end of Tom Duvall Lane, approximately 1.4 miles
south of State Road 86 near the towns of Cecilia and Vertrees,
Kentucky. The nearest community to the site is the unincorporated area
of Howe Valley.
B. History
Beginning in 1967, Kentucky Industrial Services, Inc. (KIS) used
the Howe Valley Site as an industrial waste landfill. The landfill
operated under the State-issued solid waste permit until June 1976,
when the Site was formally closed.
Upon the State's request, EPA conducted a Preliminary Assessment
(PA) and Site Investigation (SI). EPA found that between 2,000 and
5,000 drums were buried at the landfill, and confirmed that water
flowed towards Linders Creek. EPA proposed the site for inclusion on
the National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1986. The site was formally
included on the NPL in July 1987.
Under an Administrative Order with EPA, two Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPS) agreed to conduct a Removal Action and a Remedial
Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study (FS). The Removal Action,
performed in the summer of 1988, involved excavating a total of 9,150
full or partially filled drums; 1,621 empty drums; 6,000 small
containers; and 3,000 cubic yards of non-containerized waste. All
wastes and highly contaminated soils were sent off-site for permanent
disposal at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) approved
landfill.
On September 28, 1990, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) which
selected a remedy for contaminated soil still remaining on-site. The
major components of the remedy selected consisted of excavation and
off-site disposal of contaminated soil from the outer area and, on-site
treatment of contaminated soil from the central area.
The selected remedy included the following:
Excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil
containing elevated concentrations of inorganic compounds.
Implementation of a bench-scale treatability study to
insure that the selected aeration treatment (rototilling) will reduce
organic concentrations to acceptable levels.
Excavation and treatment of central area soil by aeration
via rototilling.
Five years of quarterly monitoring of Boutwell Spring and
any additional springs or wells that lay along the groundwater conduit
between the site and Boutwell Spring.
Placement of deed restrictions to limit usage of the
property and its associated groundwater.
Following issuance of the ROD in September 1990, EPA entered into
negotiations with Dow Corning
[[Page 13796]]
Corporation (Dow) to conduct the final clean-up. An agreement between
EPA and Dow was entered in the United States District Court on May 22,
1991.
Final cleanup actions were conducted between November 1991 and July
1994. On August 30, 1994, Dow's contractor submitted a Remedial Action
Report signifying successful completion of the remedial activities. The
report documents and discusses the work performed at the site. KDEP
concurred with the Remedial Action Report. The work was completed at a
cost of $2,928,681.
C. Characterization of Risk
Samples collected during the Removal and findings made in the RI/FS
indicated unacceptable levels of contamination in subsurface soils,
located in the central area and an outlying area of the site. Organic
contaminants were concentrated primarily in the central area, and the
outlying area contained only inorganic contaminants. In both these
areas, the contaminants were located within the near-surface (1 to 2
feet deep) and subsurface (3 to 9 feet deep) of the Site.
At completion of the remedial action, confirmatory sampling
verified that: (1) The ROD cleanup objectives were achieved, (2) all
actions specified in the ROD were implemented, and (3) the Site no
longer posed any threats to human health and the environment.
D. Operation and Maintenance
Since all of the contaminated soil was remediated, and quarterly
monitoring of Boutwell Spring was terminated, no long term Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) activities associated with the site are required.
E. Five-Year Review
EPA Region 4 has determined that the remedial action completed has
attained the site remediation objectives outlined in the ROD and that
no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain on-site
exceeding concentrations that will restrict unlimited use of the site
or threaten human health through unlimited exposure. Therefore, a 5-
year review of this site will not be required.
F. Explanation of Significant Differences
The remedy selected in the ROD was modified in two instances by
issuance of an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD). The first
ESD was issued in March 1993. This ESD modified the remedy to include:
removal of additional drums and contaminated material; identification
of subsurface soils containing an organic liquid and development of a
cleanup plan; and treatment of contaminated rainwater collected during
the excavation.
The second ESD was issued in August 1995 and it was done primarily
to eliminate the ROD requirement for 5 years of monitoring of Boutwell
Spring and the requirement for deed restrictions. Both of these
requirements were dropped due to the fact that the cleanup objectives
in the ROD were met, and no hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remained onsite that would restrict unlimited use of or
exposure to the Site.
G. State Concurrence to Delete the Howe Valley Site
The Commonwealth of Kentucky concurred with the deletion of the
Site by letter dated December 7, 1995. EPA, with concurrence of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, believes that the following criterion for
deletion have been met: (1) Responsible parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required; and (2) No further response
action by responsible parties is appropriate. Subsequently, EPA is
proposing deletion of Howe Valley Landfill Site from the NPL. Documents
supporting this action are available from the public docket.
Dated: March 14, 1996.
Phyllis P. Harris,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 4.
[FR Doc. 96-7602 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7595 Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area StudiesNational Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13996-14003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7595]
[[Page 13995]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 656
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area
Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and
International Studies; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13996]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 656
RIN 1840-AC27
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and
Area Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language
and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area
Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and
Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies (National
Resource Centers Program). These amendments are needed in order to
improve the application review process and to update the regulations in
light of developments in the field of foreign language, area, and
international studies. In the spirit of reinventing government, the
goal of the proposed changes is to markedly reduce the burden
associated with the application process. These proposed regulations
would (a) reduce the burden on applicants and readers by clarifying and
redesigning selection criteria to remove ambiguity and eliminate
repetition of information presented in applications, (b) facilitate
grantee selection by providing a larger point spread for greater
differentiation of rankings, and (c) improve program quality,
efficiency, and flexibility by adopting changes program management
experience shows to be appropriate.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Sara West, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Suite 600B, Portals Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-
5331. Comments may also be sent through the Internet to
``National__R[email protected]''.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in the
preceding paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara West. Telephone: (202) 401-9782.
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:
Background
The National Resource Centers Program is one of several
international education programs authorized under Part A of Title VI of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. The main provisions of
the regulations govern the awarding of grants designed to assist
eligible institutions of higher education in improving and developing
their programs in modern foreign languages and area or international
studies.
In the spirit of reinventing government, it is the Secretary's goal
to simplify the application process and management of the National
Resource Centers Program. The Secretary proposes changes to add clarity
to the review process, to decrease the current burden on applicants and
peer reviewers, to facilitate the application of uniform standards
among peer reviewers, and to increase flexibility in program management
for funded grantees and for the Secretary.
The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations for the National
Resource Centers Program by modifying the selection criteria for
applications and by adding activities to the list of definitions and to
the list of priorities.
Selection Criteria. The selection criteria currently used are very
general, leading to some misinterpretation of questions asked, frequent
repetition of information, and the inclusion of information that is not
pertinent to the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program. The
proposed changes seek to retain much of the sense of the current
criteria while removing ambiguity regarding requested information. The
purpose of the changes is to clarify what information should be
presented so that (a) all applicants will provide more focused
information necessary for evaluation of a proposal under this program,
(b) applicants will be able to present all relevant information within
fewer pages of proposal narrative, and (c) peer reviewers will be able
to more easily and accurately evaluate and rank proposals based on
comparative strengths.
A reorganized, broader point scale and clearly identified point
allocations for individual paragraphs of the selection criteria are
proposed in order to (a) enable peer reviewers to score more carefully
and accurately differentiate between proposals of high caliber, (b)
discourage peer reviewers from overlooking any individual question to
be scored, and (c) clarify for peer reviewers and applicants exactly
what requested information corresponds to each point value.
Expanded Definitions. The Secretary proposes to amend the
regulations in keeping with current standards in the field of area,
language, and international studies by (a) expanding the definition of
a comprehensive center to include curriculum development and community
outreach and (b) expanding the activities that define a comprehensive
center to include ``training'' as well as research. These activities
have long been standard at successful comprehensive National Resource
Centers.
Expanded Possible Priorities. The Secretary proposes to increase
flexibility in program management by expanding the list of possible
funding priorities to include course development. Course development
has long been a standard activity at National Resource Centers because
it is a primary means by which training programs are strengthened.
Including it in the list of possible priorities is, therefore, in
keeping with the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program.
Explanation of Changes
The proposed changes include the following:
Section 656.3. What activities define a comprehensive or undergraduate
National Resource Center?
Section 656.3(e)(2). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of
activities defining a comprehensive center to include training. The
current list does not accurately reflect the fact that National
Resource Centers train specialists in area, language, and international
studies.
Section 656.7. What definitions apply?
Section 656.7(d)(5). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of
activities under the comprehensive center definition to reflect two
activities commonly engaged in by successful grantees: curriculum
development and community outreach. Curriculum development is very
important for strengthening language and area centers and programs,
while community outreach is necessary in order for centers to function
as national resources. These activities are, therefore, integral to the
purpose of the National Resource Centers Program. Including curriculum
development and
[[Page 13997]]
community outreach in the list of activities would further clarify to
the public the purpose of the grants and activities commonly engaged in
by grantees.
Section 656.20. How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
Section 656.20(b). The Secretary proposes to expand the range of
possible points for applications in order to enable peer reviewers to
more carefully and accurately differentiate among proposals of high
caliber in scoring. It has been the Secretary's experience that
competition for grants under the National Resource Centers Program is
strong. Recent winning applicants have scored in the 80's and low 90's
on the current 100-point scale. As a result, there has been narrow
point differentiation between successful applicants and high-ranking
unsuccessful applicants. The Secretary believes that expanding the
possible point range would facilitate funding decisions by providing
peer reviewers with a larger scale on which to rank applications,
allowing for greater differentiation of scores for applications of
similar but different merit. The changed point scale, reflecting
changes in the technical review criteria and their point allocations,
would add 50 possible points for competitions for which there are no
announced competitive priorities and 60 possible points for
competitions for which competitive priorities have been announced.
Section 656.21. What selection criteria does the Secretary use to
evaluate an application for a comprehensive center?
The Secretary proposes extensive changes in the sections dealing
with selection criteria for comprehensive and undergraduate centers in
order to improve the program's application review process and to
reflect current standards in the field of foreign language, area and
international studies. Modifications to the criteria are meant to more
clearly identify the information that is relevant to the competition
and to allow applicants to streamline their applications, thereby
facilitating proposal writing for applicants and evaluation for peer
reviewers. The proposed criteria incorporate most aspects of the
current criteria, and applicants would, therefore, be expected to
provide much of the same information as in the past. By more
specifically identifying information to be provided in an application,
the proposed criteria would allow applicants to exclude less helpful,
generalized, and sometimes repetitious information and provide a
concise justification for proposed activities in light of the purpose
of the National Resource Centers Program.
Section 656.21(a). The Secretary proposes to replace the Plan of
operation criterion with a criterion called Program planning and
budget. The Program planning and budget criterion incorporates related
elements of the current Plan of operation, Budget and cost
effectiveness, and the Need and potential impact criteria. It has been
the Secretary's experience that the language of these current criteria
requires modification in order to avoid confusion among applicants and
peer reviewers regarding the meaning of the questions asked. For
example, one question under the Plan of operation criterion asks to
what extent the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the
program. Applicants and evaluators are frequently uncertain whether
``program'' refers to the National Resource Centers grant program or to
the applicant's training program. Additionally, the separation of these
related elements under the present criteria frequently causes
applicants to repeat the same information under several criteria. The
Secretary proposes to clarify information to be presented and eliminate
repetition by asking very explicit questions regarding the
administration, cost-effectiveness, quality, and long-term impact of
proposed activities in one criterion.
Section 656.21(b). The Secretary proposes to replace the Quality of
key personnel criterion with a criterion called Quality of staff
resources. The staff resources criterion would ask for the same kind of
information as the current key personnel criterion but would also
require more explicit information to be presented regarding faculty and
staff involvement in center activities and oversight and professional
development opportunities.
Section 656.21(c). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Budget and cost effectiveness criterion due to relocating questions on
this subject matter under the proposed Program planning and budget
criterion. The Secretary proposes a new Impact and evaluation criterion
that would combine related aspects of the current Need and potential
impact, Evaluation plan, and Plan of operation criteria. The
combination of these questions in one criterion is logical due to the
interrelatedness of questions about past performance and evaluating
future performance.
Section 656.21(d). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Evaluation plan criterion due to the inclusion of similar questions
under the proposed Impact and evaluation criterion. The Secretary
proposes to redesignate the criterion Commitment to the subject area on
which the center focuses, with a minor modification of language in
order to identify the information to be presented.
Section 656.21(e). The Secretary proposes to modify and redesignate
the Strength of library criterion. Due to the changes in information
technologies and the rising costs of maintaining traditional
collections, a library's book and periodical holdings are no longer the
only factor that should be considered in evaluating the strength of a
National Resource Center's library. The proposed regulations would
clarify information to be presented and take into account that library
resources can be provided in print and non-print media, through
cooperative collection and access arrangements with other library
collections, and through on-line, electronic data bases.
Section 656.21(f). The Secretary proposes to insert a new criterion
called Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. The
proposed criterion would incorporate related elements of the current
Quality of the center's instructional program and Quality of the
center's relationships within the institution criteria. The Secretary
believes that including all questions related to non-language course
offerings in one section would allow grantees to streamline their
proposals and avoid repetition. It has been the Secretary's experience
that combining questions about non-language and language courses in the
same criterion can lead to applicants' neglecting to provide full
information about both non-language and language training. Further, the
comprehensive nature of a resource center is reflected by the extent to
which it incorporates non-language training in addition to training in
language, literature, and linguistics. For these reasons, the Secretary
proposes to ask parallel questions regarding the quality of language
and non-language training under two separate criteria. It is the
opinion of the Secretary that separate criteria would emphasize the
importance to the National Resource Centers Program of both language
and area or international studies training.
Section 656.21(g). The Secretary proposes to address under this
criterion the Quality of the center's language instructional program.
Questions asked under this criterion are similar to questions currently
asked under Quality of the center's instructional program criterion but
more specifically identify information to be provided.
[[Page 13998]]
Section 656.21(h). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Quality of the center's relationships within the institution criterion
due to the inclusion of similar questions under the proposed Quality of
the center's non-language instructional program criterion. The
Secretary proposes a new Quality of curriculum design criterion that
would combine elements of the current Quality of the center's
relationships within the institution and Overseas activities criteria.
The new criterion would allow applicants to focus on the issue of
training options for students within the context of a single criterion.
Section 656.21(i). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Overseas activities criterion due to the inclusion of related questions
under the proposed Quality of curriculum design, Commitment to the
subject area on which the center focuses, and Quality of staff
resources criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience in this
program that overseas opportunities and activities have been critical
to providing successful training options for students and professional
development opportunities for faculty. Therefore, the Secretary
believes that it is more appropriate and more clearly related to the
purpose of the National Resource Centers Program to ask questions
regarding overseas activities in the context of curriculum design and
staff resources. The Secretary proposes to insert in this section a
modified Outreach activities criterion. Proposed changes to this
criterion reflect the Secretary's experience that outreach to
postsecondary institutions, business, the media, and the general public
is frequently overlooked in favor of elementary and secondary school
outreach. By specifying separate point allocations for different kinds
of outreach, the Secretary hopes to emphasize the importance to the
National Resource Centers Program of outreach to all communities.
Section 656.21(j). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Need and potential impact criterion due to the inclusion of related
questions under the proposed Program planning and budget and Impact and
evaluation criteria. The Secretary proposes to replace this criterion
with the current Degree to which priorities are served criterion,
decreasing the point value from 20 points to 10. It has been the
Secretary's experience that most proposals submitted for competitions
under this program succeed in securing almost all of the points
assigned to the competitive priority. A 20-point allocation to the
competitive priority can result in applications with weaker scores on
the mandatory criteria outscoring more fundamentally sound applications
that do not meet the priority. A 10-point competitive priority
allocation would continue to ensure that quality proposals that meet
the competitive priority are funded before quality proposals that do
not meet the priority. The Secretary proposes to decrease the total
possible points allocated for priorities in order to maintain
proportion in the competition and to ensure that only high quality
proposals are funded.
Section 656.21(k). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph
since the Outreach activities criterion would be included as previously
noted.
Section 656.21(l). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph
since the Degree to which priorities are served criterion would be
included as previously noted.
Section 656.22. What selection criteria does the Secretary use to
evaluate an application for an undergraduate center?
Like the criteria for comprehensive centers, the proposed
undergraduate center selection criteria incorporate most aspects of the
current criteria but are restructured to enable applicants to present
the appropriate information more succinctly and with less repetition.
The same selection criteria proposed for comprehensive centers are
proposed for undergraduate centers, with small variances in point
values and questions. The primary difference is that, for undergraduate
centers, only questions related to undergraduate training programs are
asked, while the comprehensive center selection criteria encompass
undergraduate, graduate, and professional training programs.
Section 656.22(a). As in the comprehensive centers selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to replace the Plan of operation
criterion with a criterion called Program planning and budget. The
Program planning and budget criterion incorporates related elements of
the current Plan of operation, Budget and cost effectiveness, and Need
and potential impact criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience
that the language of these current criteria requires modification in
order to avoid confusion among applicants and peer reviewers regarding
the meaning of the questions asked. Additionally, the separation of
these related elements into individual criteria frequently causes
applicants to repeat the same information under several guises. The
Secretary proposes to clarify information to be presented and eliminate
the need for repetition by asking very explicit questions regarding the
administration, cost-effectiveness, quality, and long-term impact of
proposed activities in one criterion.
Section 656.22(b). As in the comprehensive centers selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to replace the Quality of key
personnel criterion with a criterion called Quality of staff resources.
The staff resources criterion would ask for the same kind of
information as the current key personnel criterion, but would also
require more explicit information to be presented regarding faculty and
staff involvement in center activities and oversight and professional
development opportunities.
Section 656.22(c). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Budget and
cost effectiveness criterion due to relocating similar questions under
the proposed Program planning and budget criterion. The Secretary
proposes a new Impact and evaluation criterion that would combine
related aspects of the current Need and potential impact, Evaluation
plan, and Plan of operation criteria. The combination of these
questions in one criterion is logical due to the interrelatedness of
questions about past performance and evaluating future performance.
Section 656.22(d). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Evaluation plan criterion due to the inclusion of similar questions
under the proposed Impact and evaluation criterion and to redesignate
the current criterion Commitment to the subject area on which the
center focuses, with a minor modification of language in order to
identify the information to be presented.
Section 656.22(e). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to modify and redesignate the Strength
of library criterion. Due to the changes in information technology and
the rising costs of maintaining traditional collections, a library's
book and periodical holdings are no longer the only factor that should
be considered in evaluating the strength of a National Resource
Center's library. The proposed regulations would clarify information to
be presented and take into account that library resources can be
provided in print and non-print media, through cooperative collections
and access arrangements with other library collections, and through on-
line, electronic data bases.
Section 656.22(f). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria,
[[Page 13999]]
the Secretary proposes to add a new criterion called Quality of the
center's non-language instructional program. The proposed criterion
would incorporate related elements of the current Quality of the
center's instructional program and Quality of the center's
relationships within the institution criteria. The Secretary believes
that including all questions related to non-language course offerings
in one section would allow grantees to streamline their proposals and
avoid repetition. It has been the Secretary's experience that combining
questions about non-language and language courses in the same criterion
can lead to applicants neglecting to provide full information about
both non-language and language training. For that reason, the Secretary
proposes to ask parallel questions regarding the quality of language
and non-language training under two separate criteria. It is the
opinion of the Secretary that separate criteria would emphasize the
importance to the National Resource Centers Program of both language
and area or international studies training.
Section 656.22(g). The Secretary proposes to address under this
criterion the Quality of the center's language instructional program.
Questions asked under this criterion are similar to questions currently
asked under Quality of the center's instructional program criterion but
more specifically identify information to be provided.
Section 656.22(h). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Quality of
the center's relationships within the institution criterion due to the
inclusion of similar questions under the proposed Quality of the
center's non-language instructional program criterion. The Secretary
proposes a new Quality of curriculum design criterion that would
combine elements of the current Quality of the center's relationships
within the institution and Overseas activities criteria. The new
criterion would allow applicants to focus on the issue of training
options for undergraduate students within the context of a single
criterion.
Section 656.22(i). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Overseas activities criterion due to the inclusion of related questions
under the proposed Quality of curriculum design, Commitment to the
subject area on which the center focuses, and Quality of staff
resources criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience in this
program that overseas activities have been critical to providing
successful training options for students and professional development
opportunities for faculty. Therefore, the Secretary believes that it is
more appropriate and more clearly related to the purpose of the
National Resource Centers Program to ask questions regarding overseas
activities in the context of curriculum design and staff resources. The
Secretary proposes to add under this section a modified Outreach
activities criterion. Proposed changes to this criterion reflect the
Secretary's experience that outreach to postsecondary institutions,
business, the media, and the general public is frequently overlooked in
favor of elementary and secondary school outreach. By specifying
separate point allocations for different kinds of outreach, the
Secretary hopes to emphasize the importance to the National Resource
Centers Program of outreach to all communities.
Section 656.22(j). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Need and
potential impact criterion due to the inclusion of related questions
under the proposed Program planning and budget and Impact and
evaluation criteria. The Secretary proposes to replace this criterion
with the current Degree to which priorities are served criterion,
decreasing the point value from 20 points to 10. It has been the
Secretary's experience that most proposals submitted for competitions
under this program succeed in securing almost all of the points
assigned to the competitive priority. A 20-point allocation to the
competitive priority can result in applications with weaker scores on
the mandatory criteria outscoring more fundamentally sound applications
that do not meet the priority. A 10-point competitive priority
allocation would continue to ensure that quality proposals that meet
the competitive priority are funded before quality proposals that do
not meet the priority. The Secretary proposes to decrease the total
possible points allocated for priorities in order to maintain
proportion in the competition and to ensure that only high quality
proposals are funded.
Section 656.22(k). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph
since the Outreach activities criterion would be included as previously
noted.
Section 656.22(l). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph
since the Degree to which priorities are served criterion would be
included as previously noted.
Section 656.23. What priorities may the Secretary establish?
The Secretary proposes two modifications to this section that would
help to clarify and expand possible funding priorities.
Section 656.23(a)(3). The Secretary proposes to clarify that
intensive language instruction is not limited to 10 contact hours per
week by adding the phrase ``or more.'' Ten contact hours of instruction
per week is normally considered the minimum for what constitutes
intensive language training rather than the standard.
Section 656.23(a)(4). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of
types of activities to be carried out by adding ``course development.''
Course development is an important tool for strengthening training
programs and, therefore, is in keeping with the purpose of the National
Resource Centers Program.
Executive Order 12866
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 regulations clearly
stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other wording
that interfere 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. 656.20 How does the Secretary
evaluate an application?) (4) Is the description of the proposed
regulations in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this
preamble helpful in understanding the proposed regulations? How could
this description be more helpful in making the proposed 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 also be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW. (Room 5100 FB-10B), Washington,
DC 20202-2241.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a
[[Page 14000]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These proposed regulations merely correct or simplify and clarify
provisions contained in previous regulations and would impose minimal
requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds. The
small entities that would be affected by these proposed regulations are
small institutions of higher education receiving Federal funds under
this program. However, the regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on the institutions affected because the regulations
would not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary
Federal supervision.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 656.21 and 656.22 contain information 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: National Resource Centers Program for
Foreign Language and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International
Studies.
Institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of
higher education are eligible to apply for grants under these
regulations. The information to be collected is specified by the
proposed selection criteria and includes information currently
collected under regulations for this program. This information is
needed and used by the Department to make grants.
The Secretary estimates that this information collection will
decrease the current estimated burden of 155 hours per response to 100
hours per response. The estimated burden includes the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
application to be submitted. Competitions for the National Resource
Centers Program are held every three years, with approximately 150
respondents per competition.
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, DC 20503; Attention: Wendy Taylor.
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
utility;
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.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
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 Suite 600B, Portals Building, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, 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 656
Colleges and universities, Education, International education,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.015)
Dated: March 25, 1996.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by revising Part 656 as follows:
PART 656--NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA
STUDIES OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
1. The authority citation for Part 656 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 656.3 [Amended]
2. Section 656.3 is amended by adding ``training and'' before
``research'' in paragraph (e)(2).
3. Section 656.7 is amended by removing the word ``and'' at the end
of paragraph (d)(3), removing the period at the end of paragraph (d)(4)
and adding, in its place, ``; and'', and adding paragraph (d)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 656.7 What definitions apply?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Engages in curriculum development and community outreach.
* * * * *
4. Section 656.20 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 656.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
* * * * *
(b) In general, the Secretary awards up to 150 possible points for
these criteria. However, if the criterion in Secs. 656.21(l) or
656.22(l) is used, the Secretary awards up to 160 possible points. The
maximum possible points for each criterion are shown in parentheses.
5. Section 656.21 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 14001]]
Sec. 656.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate
an application for a comprehensive center?
The Secretary uses the following criteria in evaluating an
application for a comprehensive center:
(a) Program planning and budget. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the activities for which the applicant
seeks funding are of high quality and directly related to the purpose
of the National Resource Centers Program (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides a development plan
or timeline demonstrating how the proposed activities will contribute
to a strengthened program and whether the applicant uses its resources
and personnel effectively to achieve the proposed objectives (5
points);
(3) The extent to which the costs of the proposed activities are
reasonable in relation to the objectives of the program (5 points); and
(4) The long-term impact of the proposed activities on the
institution's undergraduate, graduate, and professional training
programs (5 points).
(b) Quality of staff resources. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are
qualified for the current and proposed center activities and training
programs, are provided professional development opportunities
(including overseas experience), and participate in teaching,
supervising, and advising students (10 points);
(2) The adequacy of center staffing and oversight arrangements,
including outreach and administration and the extent to which faculty
from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library
are involved (5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its
nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have been
traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic
minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly (5
points).
(c) Impact and evaluation. (20 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center's activities and training
programs have a significant impact on the university, community,
region, and the Nation as shown through indices such as enrollments,
graduate placement data, participation rates for events, and usage of
center resources; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a
clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and
treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups
that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of
racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and
the elderly (10 points); and
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan
that will be comprehensive and objective and that will produce
quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which
recent evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program
(10 points).
(d) Commitment to the subject area on which the center focuses. (10
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent
to which the institution provides financial and other support to the
operation of the center, teaching staff for the center's subject area,
library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach
activities, and qualified students in fields related to the center.
(e) Strength of library. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print
and non-print, English and foreign language) in the subject area and at
the educational levels (graduate, professional, undergraduate) on which
the center focuses; and the extent to which the institution provides
financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for
library staff in the subject area of the center (5 points); and
(2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions
are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other
libraries or on-line databases and the extent to which teachers,
students, and faculty from other institutions are able to access the
library's holdings (5 points).
(f) Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The quality and extent of the center's course offerings in a
variety of disciplines, including the extent to which courses in the
center's subject matter are available in the institution's professional
schools (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center offers depth of specialized
course coverage in one or more disciplines of the center's subject area
(5 points);
(3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number
of teaching faculty to enable the center to carry out its purposes and
the extent to which teaching assistants are provided with pedagogy
training (5 points); and
(4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for
undergraduate and graduate students (5 points).
(g) Quality of the center's language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center provides instruction in the
languages of the center's subject area and the extent to which students
enroll in those language courses (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center provides three or more levels of
language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other
than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate
foreign languages (5 points);
(3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to
teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the
application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including
faculty and teaching assistants) have been exposed to current language
pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching (5
points); and
(4) The quality of the language program as measured by the
performance-based instruction being used or developed, the adequacy of
resources for language teaching and practice, and language proficiency
requirements (5 points).
(h) Quality of curriculum design. (15 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center's curriculum has incorporated
undergraduate instruction in the applicant's area or topic of
specialization into baccalaureate degree programs (for example, major,
minor, or certificate programs) and the extent to which these programs
and their requirements (including language requirements) are
appropriate for a center in this subject area and will result in an
undergraduate training program of high quality (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center's curriculum provides training
options for graduate students from a variety of disciplines and
professional fields and the extent to which these programs and their
requirements (including language requirements) are appropriate for a
center in this subject area and result in graduate training programs of
high quality (5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the center provides academic and career
advising
[[Page 14002]]
services for students; the extent to which the center has established
formal arrangements for students to conduct research or study abroad
and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and the extent to
which the institution facilitates student access to other institutions'
study abroad and summer language programs (5 points).
(i) Outreach activities. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to which the center demonstrates a
significant and measurable regional and national impact of, and faculty
and professional school involvement in, outreach activities that
involve--
(1) Elementary and secondary schools (5 points);
(2) Postsecondary institutions (5 points); and
(3) Business, media, and the general public (5 points).
(j) Degree to which priorities are served. (10 points) If, under
the provisions of Sec. 656.23, the Secretary establishes specific
priorities for Centers, the Secretary considers the degree to which
those priorities are being served.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)
6. Section 656.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 656.22 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate
an application for an undergraduate center?
The Secretary uses the following criteria in evaluating an
application for an undergraduate center:
(a) Program planning and budget. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the activities for which the applicant
seeks funding are of high quality and directly related to the purpose
of the National Resource Centers Program (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides a development plan
or timeline demonstrating how the proposed activities will contribute
to a strengthened program and whether the applicant uses its resources
and personnel effectively to achieve the proposed objectives (5
points);
(3) The extent to which the costs of the proposed activities are
reasonable in relation to the objectives of the program (5 points); and
(4) The long-term impact of the proposed activities on the
institution's undergraduate training program (5 points).
(b) Quality of staff resources. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are
qualified for the current and proposed center activities and training
programs, are provided professional development opportunities
(including overseas experience), and participate in teaching,
supervising, and advising students (10 points);
(2) The adequacy of center staffing and oversight arrangements,
including outreach and administration and the extent to which faculty
from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library
are involved (5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its
nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have been
traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic
minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly (5
points).
(c) Impact and evaluation. (20 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center's activities and training
programs have a significant impact on the university, community,
region, and the Nation as shown through indices such as enrollments,
graduate placement data, participation rates for events, and usage of
center resources; the extent to which students matriculate into
advanced language and area or international studies programs or related
professional programs; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a
clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and
treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups
that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of
racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and
the elderly (10 points); and
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan
that will be comprehensive and objective and produce quantifiable,
outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which recent
evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program (10
points).
(d) Commitment to the subject area on which the center focuses. (10
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent
to which the institution provides financial and other support to the
operation of the center, teaching staff for the center's subject area,
library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach
activities, and qualified students in fields related to the center.
(e) Strength of library. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print
and non-print, English and foreign language) in the subject area and at
the educational levels (graduate, professional, undergraduate) on which
the center focuses; and the extent to which the institution provides
financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for
library staff in the subject area of the center (5 points); and
(2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions
are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other
libraries or on-line databases and the extent to which teachers,
students, and faculty from other institutions are able to access the
library's holdings (5 points).
(f) Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The quality and extent of the center's course offerings in a
variety of disciplines (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center offers depth of specialized
course coverage in one or more disciplines of the center's subject area
(5 points);
(3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number
of teaching faculty to enable the center to carry out its purposes and
the extent to which teaching assistants are provided with pedagogy
training (5 points); and
(4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for
undergraduate students (5 points).
(g) Quality of the center's language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center provides instruction in the
languages of the center's subject area and the extent to which students
enroll in those language courses (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center provides three or more levels of
language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other
than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate
foreign languages (5 points);
(3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to
teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the
application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including
faculty and teaching assistants) have been exposed to current language
pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching (5
points); and
(4) The quality of the language program as measured by the
performance-based instruction being
[[Page 14003]]
used or developed, the adequacy of resources for language teaching and
practice, and language proficiency requirements (5 points).
(h) Quality of curriculum design. (15 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center's curriculum has incorporated
undergraduate instruction in the applicant's area or topic of
specialization into baccalaureate degree programs (for example, major,
minor, or certificate programs) and the extent to which these programs
and their requirements (including language requirements) are
appropriate for a center in this subject area and will result in an
undergraduate training program of high quality (10 points); and
(2) The extent to which the center provides academic and career
advising services for students; the extent to which the center has
established formal arrangements for students to conduct research or
study abroad and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and
the extent to which the institution facilitates student access to other
institutions' study abroad and summer language programs (5 points).
(i) Outreach activities. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to which the center demonstrates a
significant and measurable regional and national impact of, and faculty
and professional school involvement in, outreach activities that
involve--
(1) Elementary and secondary schools (5 points);
(2) Postsecondary institutions (5 points); and
(3) Business, media and the general public (5 points).
(j) Degree to which priorities are served. (10 points) If, under
the provisions of Sec. 656.23, the Secretary establishes specific
priorities for centers, the Secretary considers the degree to which
those priorities are being served.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)
7. Section 656.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 656.23 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
(a) * * *
(3) Level or intensiveness of language instruction, such as
intermediate or advanced language instruction, or instruction at an
intensity of 10 contact hours or more per week.
(4) Types of activities to be carried out, for example, cooperative
summer intensive language programs, course development, or teacher
training activities.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-7595 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7593 Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area StudiesForeign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14006-14011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7593]
[[Page 14005]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VII
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 657
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area
Studies--Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14006]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 657
RIN 1840-AC28
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and
Area Studies--Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area
Studies--Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) Fellowships Program.
These amendments are needed in order to improve the application review
process and to update the regulations in light of developments in the
field of foreign language, area, and international studies. In the
spirit of reinventing government, the goal of the proposed changes is
to markedly reduce the burden associated with the application review
process. These regulations are intended to (a) reduce the burden on
applicants and readers by clarifying and restructuring selection
criteria to remove ambiguity and eliminate repetition of information
presented in applications, (b) facilitate funding decisions by
providing a larger possible point spread for greater differentiation of
rankings, (c) simplify the application process for applicants, improve
the cost-effectiveness of the program, and standardize program
management by adopting the fellowship award allocation system currently
used to administer other Federal fellowship programs, and (d) improve
program quality, efficiency, and flexibility by adopting changes
program management experience shows to be appropriate.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Sara West, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Suite 600B, Portals Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-
5331. Comments may also be sent through the Internet to ``FLAS--
F[email protected]''.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this preamble. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in the
preceding paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara West. Telephone: (202) 401-9782.
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:
Background
The Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program is one of
several international education programs authorized under Part A of
Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The
main provisions of the regulations govern the awarding of grants
designed to provide fellowship assistance to students enrolled in
advanced programs of modern foreign language and area or international
studies.
In the spirit of reinventing government, it is the Secretary's goal
to simplify the application process and management of the Foreign
Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program to benefit the public.
The Secretary intends the proposed changes to add clarity to the review
process, to decrease the current burden on applicants and peer
reviewers, to facilitate the application of uniform standards among
peer reviewers and in Federal fellowship program management, to
increase cost-effectiveness of the program, and to increase flexibility
in program management for funded grantees and for the Secretary.
The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations for the Foreign
Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program by modifying the
selection criteria for applications, by eliminating references to
undergraduate programs and fellowship recipients in keeping with
statutory requirements, by adopting a new system of allocating
fellowship awards, and by easing restrictions on the use of fellowship
awards abroad and clarifying that only academic year awards may be used
for research abroad.
Selection Criteria. The selection criteria currently used are very
general, leading to some misinterpretation of questions asked, frequent
repetition of information, and inclusion of information that is not
pertinent to the purpose of the Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships Program. The proposed changes seek to retain much of the
sense of the current criteria while removing ambiguity regarding
requested information. The purpose of the changes is to clarify what
information should be presented so that (a) all applicants will provide
more focused information necessary for evaluation of a proposal under
this program, (b) applicants will be able to present all relevant
information within fewer pages of the proposal narrative, and (c) peer
reviewers will be able to more easily and accurately evaluate and rank
proposals based on comparative strengths.
A reorganized, broader point scale and clearly identified point
allocations for individual paragraphs of the technical review criteria
are proposed in order to (a) enable peer reviewers to score more
carefully and accurately differentiate between proposals of high
caliber, (b) discourage peer reviewers from overlooking any individual
question to be scored, and (c) clarify for peer reviewers and
applicants exactly what requested information corresponds to each point
value.
Undergraduate References. The Higher Education Amendments of 1992,
Pub. L. 102-325, amended section 603 of the HEA to limit the awarding
of FLAS fellowships to graduate students. For that reason, the
Secretary eliminates references to undergraduate students or programs
and use of ambiguous terms such as ``advanced.'' The purpose of these
changes is to bring the regulations in line with the authorizing
statute and to clarify program requirements for applicants and
grantees.
System of Allocation. The Secretary proposes to increase cost-
effectiveness, simplify the application process and program management
for grantees, and bring the Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships Program more in line with other government fellowship
programs by amending the system of allocation. Under the system of
allocation currently used to administer this program, a FLAS fellowship
consists of a student subsistence allowance and tuition plus all
required fees. Grantees are expected to submit in their proposal
budgets a variety of tuition rates for graduate students at differing
levels of study and enrolled in different academic programs; for
example, public institutions provide different rates based upon
residency requirements, while both public and private institutions
often have varying tuition rates for graduate students enrolled in arts
and sciences or professional degree programs or at the dissertation
level. Grant monies are then allocated based on a combination of awards
at a variety of tuition rates for an individual grantee institution.
Because the rates supplied are projections based on rates in effect at
the time of application and not actual prospective tuition rates, and
because the grantee institutions do not know at
[[Page 14007]]
the time of the grant competition which students will compete
successfully for awards, the current system of allocation is imprecise.
While the Secretary might allocate funds for five awards to an
institution, there is no guarantee that the institution will make five
awards in the amounts assumed. Depending on the students selected, it
might actually make two awards at a high tuition rate or seven awards
at a low tuition rate.
Under the proposed system of allocation, a FLAS fellowship consists
of a student subsistence allowance and a standard institutional payment
(rather than full tuition plus fees) to be established by the Secretary
and announced in the application notice. This system of allocation is
commonly referred to as the ``cost-of-education allowance'' system. By
applying for an allocation of fellowship awards, the institution agrees
to accept the institutional payment published in the application notice
in lieu of any additional costs of tuition and fees. In cases in which
the institutional payment is greater than the actual cost of tuition
and fees at the institution, the excess institutional payment funds
must be applied toward additional fellowship awards. The purpose of
this amendment is to (a) simplify the budget portion of the application
process for applicants; (b) make the Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships Program more ``user-friendly'' for the public by adopting a
system of allocation currently used for a variety of Federal fellowship
programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education and other
agencies; (c) simplify grantee institutions' own competitions for
fellowship candidates by treating each applicant equally, regardless of
tuition rate; (d) eliminate imprecision in how funds will actually be
used by grantees and increase the accountability of grantee
institutions by requiring them to make a minimum number of awards with
their grant allocations; and (e) increase the cost-effectiveness of the
program by requiring institutions with high tuition rates to accept a
standard institutional payment in lieu of full tuition and fees.
Easing Limits on Overseas Use of Fellowships. Proposed changes to
the limitations on the use of funds for overseas fellowships seek to
expand grantees' program management options and clarify the appropriate
use of awards. The requirement that students using awards at overseas
language programs be at the advanced level of language study is
expanded to include intermediate-level study for all eligible languages
as well as beginning-level study of languages for which appropriate
instruction is not available in the United States. Additional
modifications are intended to clarify that only academic year awards
may be used abroad for research, and summer fellowships are to be used
for intensive language training rather than for short-term dissertation
research.
Explanation of Changes
The Secretary proposes to make the following changes:
Section 657.1 What is the Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships Program?
Section 657.1(a). The Secretary proposes to modify this section to
clarify that only graduate-level students are eligible to receive
awards since the 1992 reauthorization of the HEA. The current language
indicates that students who receive fellowships must be enrolled in
``advanced'' training. The Secretary believes that substituting the
word ``graduate'' for ``advanced'' more clearly states the statutory
requirement.
Section 657.2 Who is eligible to receive an allocation of fellowships?
Section 657.2(d). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the reference
to the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program
because undergraduate students are no longer eligible to receive awards
since the 1992 reauthorization of the HEA.
Section 657.3 Who is eligible to receive a fellowship?
Section 657.3(a)(3). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the entire
paragraph referring to students who are permanent residents of the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, because there is no longer a
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Section 657.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an institutional
application for an allocation of fellowships?
Section 657.20(b). The Secretary proposes to expand the range of
possible points for applications in order to enable peer reviewers in
scoring to more carefully and accurately differentiate between
proposals of high caliber. It has been the Secretary's experience that
competition for grants under the Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships Program is strong; recent winning applicants have scored
within a 15-point range on the current scale. As a result, there has
been narrow point differentiation among winning applicants and the
highest scoring unsuccessful applicants. The Secretary believes that
expanding the possible point range would facilitate funding decisions
by providing peer reviewers with a larger scale on which to rank
applications, allowing for greater differentiation of scores for
applications of similar but different merit. The changed point scale,
reflecting changes in the selection criteria and their point
allocations, would add 40 possible points for competitions for which
there are no announced competitive priorities and 50 possible points
for competitions for which competitive priorities have been announced.
Section 657.21 What criteria does the Secretary use in selecting
institutions for an allocation of fellowships?
The Secretary proposes extensive changes in this section in order
to improve the program's application review process and to reflect
current standards in the field of foreign language, area and
international studies. The proposed selection criteria identify
specific information to be provided in an application, thereby
facilitating proposal writing for applicants and evaluation for peer
reviewers. The proposed criteria incorporate most aspects of the
current criteria but are restructured to enable applicants to present
information in a more succinct and less repetitious manner.
Section 657.21(a). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Plan of operation criterion and substitute a Foreign language and area
studies awardee selection procedures criterion that incorporates
elements of the current Plan of operation and Need and potential impact
criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience that the language of
the current criterion has led to some confusion among grantees and peer
reviewers regarding what information should be presented. For example,
one question in the Plan of operation criterion asks about the extent
to which the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the
program. Applicants and peer reviewers are often uncertain whether
``program'' refers to the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships
Program or to the applicant's training program. The Secretary believes
that the proposed language would eliminate uncertainty and assist
applicants in writing, and peer reviewers in evaluating, proposals for
fellowship awards.
Section 657.21(b). The Secretary proposes to replace the Quality of
key personnel criterion with a criterion called Quality of staff
resources. The staff resources criterion would ask the same kind of
questions as the current key personnel criterion, but would also
require explicit information to be
[[Page 14008]]
presented regarding faculty and staff involvement in fellowship program
activities and oversight and professional development opportunities.
Section 657.21(c). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Evaluation plan criterion. The Secretary proposes an Impact and
evaluation criterion that would combine related aspects of the current
Need and potential impact, Evaluation plan, and Plan of operation
criteria. Combining elements of these criteria is logical due to the
interrelatedness of questions about past performance and evaluating
future performance.
Section 657.21(d). The Secretary proposes to modify the language of
the Commitment to the subject area on which the center or program
focuses criterion by clarifying those areas for which institutional
support should be identified. In the past, some applicant institutions
have shown support for the applicant's students by offering matching
funds or tuition waivers for fellowship grants received. Although the
Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program does not have a
cost-matching requirement, the Secretary would like to encourage
institutional efforts to promote the cost-effectiveness of the program
as well as institutional commitment to the applicant's training
program. For this reason, this criterion also asks applicants to
provide information about the extent to which the institution provides
financial support to graduate students in fields related to the
applicant's teaching program.
Section 657.21(e). The Secretary proposes to modify and redesignate
the Strength of library criterion. Due to the changes in information
technology and the rising costs of maintaining traditional collections,
a library's book and periodical holdings are no longer the only factor
that should be considered in evaluating the strength of an applicant
institution's library. The proposed regulations would clarify
information to be presented and take into account that library
resources can be provided in print and non-print media, through
cooperative collections and access arrangements with other library
collections, and through on-line, electronic data bases.
Section 657.21(f). The Secretary proposes to add a new criterion
called Quality of the applicant's non-language instructional program.
The proposed criterion would incorporate related elements of the
current Quality of the applicant's instructional program and Quality of
the applicant's relationships within the institution criteria. The
Secretary believes that including all questions related to non-language
course offerings in one section would allow grantees to streamline
their proposals and avoid repetition. It has been the Secretary's
experience that combining questions about non-language and language
courses in the same criterion can lead to applicants neglecting to
provide full information about both non-language and language training.
For that reason, the Secretary proposes to ask parallel questions
regarding the quality of language and non-language training under two
separate criteria. It is the opinion of the Secretary that separate
criteria would emphasize the importance to the Foreign Language and
Area Studies Fellowships Program of both language and area or
international studies training.
Section 657.21(g). The Secretary proposes to address under this
criterion the Quality of the applicant's language instructional
program. Questions asked under this criterion are similar to questions
currently asked under Quality of the applicant's instructional program
criterion but more specifically identify information to be provided.
Section 657.21(h). The Secretary proposes to replace the current
Overseas activities criterion with a criterion called Quality of
curriculum design. Relevant questions about overseas activities would
be asked under the proposed Quality of curriculum design, Commitment to
the subject area on which the applicant focuses, and Quality of staff
resources criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience in this
program that overseas activities have been critical to providing
successful training options for students and professional development
opportunities for faculty. Therefore, the Secretary believes that it is
more appropriate and more clearly related to the purpose of the Foreign
Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program to ask questions
regarding overseas activities in the context of curriculum design and
staff resources. The proposed Quality of curriculum design criterion
would combine elements of the current Overseas activities and Quality
of the applicant's relationships within the institution criteria. The
new criterion would allow applicants to focus on the issue of training
options for students within the context of a single criterion.
Section 657.21(i). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Need and potential impact criterion because related questions would be
asked under the proposed Foreign language and area studies fellowships
awardee selection procedures and Impact and evaluation criteria. The
Secretary proposes to redesignate the current Priorities criterion as
Sec. 657.21(i) and to decrease the point value from 20 points to 10. It
has been the Secretary's experience that most proposals submitted for
competitions under this program succeed in securing almost all of the
points allocated to the competitive priority. A 20-point allocation to
the competitive priority can result in applications with weaker scores
on the mandatory criteria ranking higher than quality proposals that do
not meet the priority. A 10-point competitive priority allocation would
continue to ensure that quality proposals that meet the competitive
priority are funded before quality proposals that do not meet the
priority. The Secretary proposes to decrease the total possible points
allocated for priorities in order to maintain proportion in the
competition and to ensure that only high quality proposals are funded.
Section 657.21(j). The Secretary proposes to eliminate this
paragraph because the Priorities criterion would be included under
Sec. 657.21(i).
Section 657.31 What is the amount of a fellowship?
The Secretary proposes to change the system of allocation of
fellowship award monies in order to simplify the administration of
awards for grantees, increase cost-effectiveness of the program, and
increase uniformity of procedures among federally funded fellowship
programs. The Secretary proposes to specify that each fellowship
awarded would consist of a standard institutional payment and a
subsistence allowance to be announced in the application notice
published in the Federal Register. The Secretary also proposes to
delete references to education levels of recipients since all
recipients must be at the graduate level.
Section 657.32 What is the payment procedure for fellowships?
Section 657.32(d). The Secretary proposes to limit the use of
fellowship funds by stating that funds not used by one fellowship
recipient for reasons of withdrawal are to be used for alternate
recipients to the extent that funds are available for a full
subsistence allowance. In addition, if actual tuition rates are less
than the institutional payment, excess funds must be used to fund
additional fellowships to the extent that funds are available for a
full subsistence allowance. This provision would maximize the cost-
efficiency of the fellowship funds by ensuring that low-tuition
institutions use excess funds to support additional fellows.
[[Page 14009]]
Section 657.33 What are the limitations on the use of funds for
overseas fellowships?
The Secretary proposes changes to this section that would ease
restrictions on and clarify appropriate use of overseas awards. It has
been the Secretary's experience that students at an intermediate level
of language study can benefit as much from an overseas study experience
as advanced students if enrolled in a high-quality language program.
Furthermore, appropriate instruction (particularly for less-commonly-
taught languages) is not always available in the United States.
Section 657.33(b)(1). The Secretary proposes to allow students at
the intermediate level of language study to enroll in overseas language
programs. Currently, only advanced students may use awards abroad.
Additionally, the Secretary proposes to allow the use of fellowship
awards for overseas study at the beginning level of languages for which
instruction is frequently not available in the United States.
Section 657.33(b)(2). In order to clarify for grantees that summer
fellowships are to be used for intensive language training rather than
short-term dissertation research, the Secretary proposes to specify
that awards may be approved for dissertation research during the
academic year only.
Executive Order 12866
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 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. 657.2 Who is eligible to receive an
allocation of fellowships?) (4) Is the description of the proposed
regulations in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this
preamble helpful in understanding the proposed regulations? How could
this description be more helpful in making the proposed 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 also be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. (Room 5100 FB-10B),
Washington, D.C. 20202-2241.
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 merely correct or simplify and clarify
provisions contained in previous regulations and would impose minimal
requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds. The
small entities that would be affected by these proposed regulations are
institutions of higher education receiving Federal funds under this
program. However, the regulations would not have a significant economic
impact on the institutions affected because the regulations would not
impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary Federal
supervision.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Section 657.21 contains information 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 this section to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information: Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowships Program.
Institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of
higher education are eligible to apply for grants under these
regulations. The information to be collected is specified by the
proposed technical review criteria and includes information currently
collected under regulations for this program. This information is
needed and used by the Department to make grants.
The Secretary estimates that this information collection will
decrease the current estimated burden of 155 hours per response to 100
hours per response. The estimated burden includes the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
application to be submitted. Competitions for the Foreign Language and
Area Studies Fellowships Program are held every three years, with
approximately 160 respondents per competition.
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.
The Department considers comments by the public on this proposed
collection of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection 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 collection 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.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
[[Page 14010]]
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 Suite
600B, Portals Building, 1280 Maryland Avenue, S.W., 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 657
Colleges and universities, Education, International education,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.015)
Dated: March 25, 1996.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by revising Part 657 as follows:
PART 657--FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES FELLOWSHIPS PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for Part 657 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 657.1 [Amended]
2. Section 657.1 is amended by revising the heading by removing the
word ``Fellowship'' and adding, in its place, the word ``Fellowships''
and by removing the word ``advanced'' and adding, in its place,
``graduate'' in paragraph (a).
Sec. 657.2 [Amended]
3. Section 657.2 is amended by removing ``or the Undergraduate
International Studies and Foreign Language Program, 34 CFR part 658,''
in paragraph (d).
Sec. 657.3 [Amended]
4. Section 657.3 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(3), adding
the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(1), and removing the word
``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(2).
5. Section 657.20 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 657.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an institutional
application for an allocation of fellowships?
* * * * *
(b) In general, the Secretary awards up to 140 possible points for
these criteria. However, if priority criteria are used, the Secretary
awards up to 150 possible points. The maximum possible points for each
criterion are shown in parentheses.
6. Section 657.21 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 657.21 What criteria does the Secretary use in selecting
institutions for an allocation of fellowships?
(a) Foreign language and area studies fellowships awardee selection
procedures. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each application to
determine--
(1) Whether the selection plan is of high quality, showing how
awards will be advertised, how students apply, what selection criteria
are used, who selects the fellows, when each step will take place, and
how the process will result in awards being made to correspond to any
announced priorities; and
(2) Whether the applicant provides information about current and
prospective applicant/award ratios.
(b) Quality of staff resources. (15 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are
qualified for the current and proposed activities and training
programs, are provided professional development opportunities
(including overseas experience), and participate in teaching,
supervising, and advising students (5 points);
(2) The adequacy of applicant staffing and oversight arrangements
and the extent to which faculty from a variety of departments,
professional schools, and the library are involved (5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its
nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have been
traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic
minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly (5
points).
(c) Impact and evaluation. (20 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the applicant's activities and training
programs have contributed to an improved supply of specialists on the
program's subject as shown through indices such as graduate enrollments
and placement data; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a
clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and
treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups
that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of
racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and
the elderly (15 points); and
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan
that will be comprehensive and objective and that will produce
quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which
recent evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program (5
points).
(d) Commitment to the subject area on which the applicant or
program focuses. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each application to
determine--
(1) The extent to which the institution provides financial and
other support to the operation of the applicant, teaching staff for the
applicant's subject area, library resources, and linkages with
institutions abroad (5 points); and
(2) The extent to which the institution provides financial support
to graduate students in fields related to the applicant's teaching
program (5 points).
(e) Strength of library. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print
and non-print, English and foreign language) for graduate students; and
the extent to which the institution provides financial support for the
acquisition of library materials and for library staff in the subject
area of the applicant (10 points); and
(2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions
are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other
libraries or on-line databases (5 points).
(f) Quality of the applicant's non-language instructional program.
(25 points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The quality and extent of the applicant's course offerings in a
variety of disciplines, including the extent to which courses in the
applicant's subject matter are available in the institution's
professional schools (10 points);
(2) The extent to which the applicant offers depth of specialized
course coverage in one or more disciplines on the applicant's subject
area (5 points);
(3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number
of teaching faculty to enable the applicant to carry out its purposes
and the extent to which
[[Page 14011]]
teaching assistants are provided with pedagogy training (5 points); and
(4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for
graduate students (5 points).
(g) Quality of the applicant's language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the applicant provides instruction in the
languages of the applicant's subject area and the extent to which
students enroll in those language courses (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides three or more levels
of language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines
other than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in
appropriate foreign languages (5 points);
(3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to
teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the
application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including
faculty and teaching assistants) have been exposed to current language
pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching (5
points); and
(4) The quality of the language program as measured by the
performance-based instruction being used or developed, the adequacy of
resources for language teaching and practice, and language proficiency
requirements (5 points).
(h) Quality of curriculum design. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the applicant's curriculum provides
training options for graduate students from a variety of disciplines
and professional fields and the extent to which these programs and
their requirements (including language requirements) are appropriate
for an applicant in this subject area and result in graduate training
programs of high quality (10 points);
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides academic and career
advising services for students (5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the applicant has established formal
arrangements for students to conduct research or study abroad and the
extent to which these arrangements are used; and the extent to which
the institution facilitates student access to other institutions' study
abroad and summer language programs (5 points).
(i) Priorities. (10 points) If one or more priorities have been
established under Sec. 657.22, the Secretary reviews each application
for information that shows the extent to which the center or program
meets these priorities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)
7. Section 657.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and
(b)(1), and adding new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 657.31 What is the amount of a fellowship?
(a) * * *
(2) Each fellowship includes an institutional payment and a
subsistence allowance to be determined by the Secretary.
(3) If the institutional payment determined by the Secretary is
greater than the tuition and fees charged by the institution, the
institutional payment portion of the fellowship is limited to actual
tuition and fees. The difference between actual tuition and fees and
the Secretary's institutional payment shall be used to fund additional
fellowships to the extent that funds are available for a full
subsistence allowance.
(4) If permitted by the Secretary, the fellowship may include an
allowance for travel and an allowance for dependents.
(b) The Secretary announces in an application notice published in
the Federal Register--
(1) The amounts of the subsistence allowance and the institutional
payment for an academic year and the subsistence allowance and the
institutional payment for a summer session;
* * * * *
8. Section 657.32 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 657.32 What is the payment procedure for fellowships?
* * * * *
(d) Funds not used by one recipient for reasons of withdrawal are
to be used for alternate recipients to the extent that funds are
available for a full subsistence allowance.
9. Section 657.33 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 657.33 What are the limitations on the use of funds for overseas
fellowships?
* * * * *
(b) The Secretary may approve the use of a fellowship outside the
United States if the student is--
(1) Enrolled in an overseas program approved by the institution at
which the student is enrolled in the United States for study at an
intermediate or advanced level or at the beginning level if appropriate
equivalent instruction is not available in the United States; or
(2) Engaged during the academic year in research that cannot be
done effectively in the United States and is affiliated with an
institution of higher education or other appropriate organization in
the host country.
[FR Doc. 96-7593 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7565 Amendments to Laboratory Certification Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13809-13810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7565]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
49 CFR Part 40
[OST Docket No. OST-96-1176, Notice 96-5]
RIN 2105-AC37
Amendments to Laboratory Certification Requirements
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes provisions that would permit drug testing
laboratories located outside the U.S. to participate in the
Department's drug testing program. The certification would happen on
the basis of recommendations from the Department of Health and Human
Services.
DATES: Comments should be received by May 13, 1996. Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent, preferably in triplicate, to Docket
Clerk, Docket No. OST-96-1176, Department of Transportation, 400 7th
Street SW., Room PL-400, Washington, DC, 20590. Comments will be
available for inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Commenters who wish the receipt of their
comments to be acknowledged should include a stamped, self-addressed
postcard with their comments. The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the
postcard and mail it back to the commenter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Room 10424, (202-366-
9306); 400 7th Street SW., Washington DC, 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Recently, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) issued a final rule applying its drug and alcohol testing
requirements to foreign-based drivers operating in the United States
(60 FR 49322; September 22, 1995). Under the rule, Canadian and Mexican
drivers who come into the United States will be subject to testing on
the same basis as U.S. drivers, beginning July 1, 1996, for employees
of larger carriers and a year later for employees of smaller carriers.
In any case, Canadian and Mexican employers who collect drug urine
specimens under FHWA rules will be able to have the specimens tested in
U.S. laboratories certified by the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS), on the same basis as U.S. employers. In the interest
of facilitating program implementation, the Department hopes that it
will be possible for Mexican and Canadian laboratories to participate
in the program as well.
Canadian and Mexican laboratories may participate in the DOT-
mandated testing program only if their participation is consistent with
the Department's statutory authority. Strict safeguards for the
accuracy and quality of laboratory tests are a key mandate of the
Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991.
The motor carrier portion of the Act (49 U.S.C. 31306(b), which
parallels the other modal sections of the Act), provides that, in
carrying out the requirement to establish a motor carrier drug testing
program, the Secretary ``shall'' develop requirements ``that shall''
(2) For laboratories and testing procedures for controlled
substances, incorporate the Department of Health and Human Services
scientific and technical guidelines dated April 11, 1988, and any
amendments to those guidelines, including mandatory guidelines
establishing--
(A) Comprehensive standards for every aspect of laboratory
controlled substances testing and laboratory procedures to be
applied in carrying out this section, including standards requiring
the use of the best available technology to ensure the complete
reliability and accuracy of controlled substances tests and strict
procedures governing the chain of custody of specimens collected for
controlled substances testing; * * *
(C) Appropriate standards and procedures for periodic review of
laboratories and criteria for certification and revocation of
certification of laboratories to perform controlled substances
testing in carrying out this section.
(3) Require that a laboratory involved in testing under this
section have the capability and facility, at the laboratory, of
performing screening and confirmation tests; * * *
The language of these provisions is clearly mandatory, a point
which the legislative history reinforces. Senate Report 102-54 (May 2,
1991), concerning S. 676, the bill that became the Act, notes, in
response to concerns about testing accuracy and false positive tests,
that ``By incorporating laboratory certification and testing procedures
developed by HHS and DOT * * * the Committee has taken affirmative
steps to ensure accuracy.'' (S. Rept. 102-54 at 7.) Later, in speaking
of the laboratory and other safeguards in the bill, the report says
that
These safeguards are critical to the success of any testing
program. They are designed to ensure that * * * there is
accountability and accuracy of testing. They provide what the
Committee believes are the basic minimums. * * * The Secretary is
urged to carefully review the safeguards in any testing program to
ensure they are adhered to in a vigorous manner. (Id. at 31)
More specifically on laboratory matters, the Committee said that
Incorporating the HHS guidelines relating to laboratory
standards and procedures * * * as DOT has done in Part 40 * * * is
an essential component of the procedural safeguards specified in
this subsection. * * * Realizing that these guidelines may be
subject to future modification, the Committee has acted to specify
that the basic elements of certain provisions now in effect are
mandated, including the need for comprehensive standards and
procedures for all aspects of laboratory testing of drugs * * *
[and] the establishment of standards and procedures for the periodic
review of laboratories and the development of criteria for
laboratory certification or revocation of such certification. (Id.
at 32)
It is noteworthy that Congress explicitly accepts an active DOT
role in establishing and carrying out the laboratory-related provisions
of the statute. What is mandatory is not that one agency or the other
play any particular administrative role in the process, but that the
protections embodied in the DHHS guidelines be applied, through DOT's
rules, to participants in the program. There is no bar in the statutory
language to a DOT rule assigning to DOT the task of reviewing and
certifying laboratories, so long as these actions by DOT are based on
the conformity of the laboratories to DOT's incorporation of DHHS
laboratory standards. Consequently, DOT has broad legal discretion to
take action in the area of drug testing procedures, extending to the
certification of laboratories.
DOT and DHHS are working closely together with respect to the
potential certification of foreign laboratories. As the two agencies
envision the process, there could be two different ways in which
foreign laboratories become certified. First, DHHS could review the
application of the foreign laboratory, in the same manner that it
reviews applications from U.S. laboratories. If the laboratory meets
DHHS standards, DHHS would recommend that DOT certify the laboratory
under DOT
[[Page 13810]]
authority. (The direct certifying authority of DHHS extends only to
laboratories that would participate in the Federal employee testing
program.) Second, DHHS could review the standards and procedures of a
foreign certifying agency. If DHHS determined that the foreign agency
had standards, procedures, and authority equivalent to those of DHHS,
DHHS would recommend to DOT that DOT deem the foreign agency to be an
equivalent certifying authority. Laboratories that the foreign agency
certified would then be permitted to participate in the DOT testing
program.
DOT and DHHS have discussed laboratory issues with officials of
Transport Canada, the Canadian Trucking Association and its affiliates,
and the Standards Council of Canada (a potential laboratory
certification organization in Canada), as well as representatives of
some Canadian laboratories. We have also had discussions with Mexican
officials concerning program and laboratory matters. While a number of
issues remain to be resolved, the Department is proposing a change to
49 CFR Sec. 40.39 to accommodate the possibility that foreign
laboratories may be able to participate in DOT-mandated drug testing.
The proposed amendment would add a new paragraph to authorize the
participation of foreign laboratories in the DOT drug testing program
in the two circumstances outlined above (i.e., based on a
recommendation by DHHS that a particular laboratory meets DHHS
certification requirements, or based on a certification by a foreign
certifying organization whose standards and process had been deemed
equivalent to those of DHHS). It should be emphasized that, if adopted,
the proposed amendment would not have the effect of actually certifying
any foreign laboratories. It would simply put in place a mechanism that
would allow such laboratories to participate, if and when DOT and DHHS
had determined that all issues had been resolved satisfactorily, in
full compliance with DHHS requirements for laboratory certification.
Regulatory Process Matters
The proposed rule is considered to be a nonsignificant rulemaking
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 44 FR 11034. It also is a
nonsignificant rule for purposes of Executive Order 12886. The
Department certifies, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the
NPRM, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would not impose any
costs or burdens on regulated entities, since it deals with a subject
(applying for laboratory certification) that is completely voluntary.
The rule has also been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The comment period is 45 days
rather than 60 because, in order to permit the Department to certify
foreign laboratories before the July 1, 1996, start date for testing of
foreign drivers, the Department needs to complete this rulemaking on an
expedited basis.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40
Drug Testing, Alcohol Testing, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements, Safety, Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 49 CFR Part 40 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 40--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 40 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322; 49 U.S.C. app. 1301nt., app.
1434nt., app. 2717, app. 1618a.
2. Section 40.39 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 40.39 Use of Certified Laboratories.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, employers
subject to this part shall use only laboratories certified under the
DHHS ``Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing
Programs,'' April 11, 1988, and subsequent amendments thereto.
(b) Employers subject to this part may also use laboratories
located outside the United States if--
(1) The Department of Transportation, based on a recommendation
from DHHS, has certified the laboratory as meeting DHHS laboratory
certification standards; or
(2) The Department of Transportation, based on a recommendation
from DHHS, has recognized a foreign certifying organization as having
equivalent laboratory certification standards and procedures to those
of DHHS, and the foreign certifying organization has certified the
laboratory pursuant to those equivalent standards and procedures.
Issued this 20th day of March 1996, at Washington, D.C.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-7565 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7550 Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-8-100 and -300 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13785-13787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7550]
========================================================================
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. 61, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13785]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 94-NM-89-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; de Havilland Model DHC-8-100 and -300
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of
comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document revises an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD), applicable to certain de Havilland Model DHC-8-100 and
-300 series airplanes, that would have required inspections to detect
corrosion on areas of the airplane structure where black film thermal
insulation is used; repair, if necessary; and replacement of black
insulation blankets with certain aluminized (silver) insulation. That
proposal was prompted by reports of corrosion forming on areas of the
airplane structure where the black film covers the thermal insulation
blankets. This action would expand the inspection area, and would
require replacement of the black film insulation in that area. This
action also would expand the applicability of the proposed AD to
include additional airplanes. The actions specified by this proposed AD
are intended to prevent degradation of the structural capability of the
airplane fuselage and sudden loss of cabin pressure due to corrosion of
the airplane fuselage structure.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 94-NM-89-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Bombardier, Inc., Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario
M3K 1Y5, Canada. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at
the FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New
York.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Hjelm, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANE-172, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor,
Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7523; fax (516) 568-
2716.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 94-NM-89-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 94-NM-89-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 39) to add an airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to
certain de Havilland Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series airplanes, was
published as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal
Register on September 27, 1994 (59 FR 49219). That NPRM would have
required a one-time visual inspection to detect corrosion on areas of
the airplane structure where black film thermal insulation is used, and
repair, if necessary; and replacement of black Orcan film insulation
blankets with AN4C aluminized (silver) film insulation. That NPRM was
prompted by reports of corrosion forming on areas of the airplane
structure where the black film covers the thermal insulation blankets.
That condition, if not corrected, could result in degradation of the
structural capability of the airplane fuselage and sudden loss of cabin
pressure due to corrosion of the airplane fuselage structure.
Since the issuance of that NPRM, Bombardier has issued revisions to
each of the service bulletins cited in the NPRM. These service bulletin
revisions are essentially the same as those referenced in the proposed
AD. However, in each of these revisions, the service bulletin
effectivity has been updated to remove those airplanes on which silver
insulation was installed during production. Further, references to
existing part numbers, part descriptions, and new part numbers have
been revised. Two of the service bulletin revisions address the black
thermal insulation in the passenger compartment area:
S.B. 8-25-89, Revision E, dated July 6, 1994; and
S.B. 8-25-92, Revision E, dated July 20, 1994.
Two of the service bulletins address the insulation in the air
conditioning ducts:
S.B. 8-25-90, Revision C, dated July 5, 1994; and
[[Page 13786]]
S.B. 8-25-93, Revision C, dated July 20, 1994.
One service bulletin revision addresses the insulation in the
flight compartment and the forward fuselage areas: S.B. 8-25-91,
Revision D, dated July 20, 1994.
Bombardier also issued Service Bulletin S.B. 8-21-68, dated July
20, 1994, which descries procedures to determine from the airplane
modification records if any of the retrofit kits listed in the service
bulletin have been installed on the airplane. The service bulletin also
describes procedures for removal of the black Orcon film insulation
that may have been installed in a retrofit kit; inspections for
corrosion of the airplane structure that has been in contact with the
black film insulation, and repair, if necessary; and replacement of the
black Orcon film insulation with AN4C aluminized (silver) film
insulation blankets. The effectivity of this service bulletin addresses
airplanes on which the black insulation was installed through retrofit
kits.
Additionally, Bombardier issued Service Bulletin S.B. 8-21-66,
Revision C, dated March 24, 1995, which describes procedures for
removal of the black Orcon film from delivery and recirculation ducts
of the air conditioning system in the rear fuselage, inspections for
corrosion of the airplane structure that has been in contact with the
black film insulation, and repair, if necessary. The service bulletin
also describes procedures for replacement of the black Orcon film
insulation with AN4C aluminized (silver) film insulation.
Transport Canada Aviation, which is the airworthiness authority for
Canada, classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued
Canadian airworthiness directives CF-94-25R1 and CF-94-26R1, both dated
June 30, 1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these
airplanes in Canada.
The FAA has examined the findings of Transport Canada Aviation and
has reviewed the service bulletin revisions and new service
information. The FAA has determined that the proposed rule must be
revised to cite the latest revisions of the service bulletins
referenced in the NPRM as the appropriate sources of service
information.
The FAA also has determined that the addressed unsafe condition is
also likely to exist or develop on the airplanes addressed in
Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-21-68. Therefore, the FAA has added
a new paragraph (a) to this supplemental NPRM to require the procedures
specified in that service bulletin.
Additionally, the FAA finds that the proposed rule must be revised
to address inspection for corrosion and replacement of black Orcon film
insulation with AN4C aluminized (silver) film insulation blankets in
the delivery and recirculation ducts of the air condition system, as
specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-21-66. The FAA has
revised paragraph (b) of this supplemental NPRM to include those
requirements.
In addition, the applicability of this supplemental NPRM has been
revised to specify that the AD applies to those airplanes on which
black Orcon film insulation is installed to include airplanes listed in
Bombardier Service Bulletins S.B. 8-21-66 and S.B. 8-21-68.
Since these changes expand the scope of the originally proposed
rule, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
There are approximately 378 Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 125 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this
proposed AD, that it would take approximately 650 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. (Work hours associated with the proposed
actions described in Service Bulletin S.B. 8-21-68 cannot be estimated
at this time since exact numbers of the retrofit kits installed are
unknown.) However, the FAA has been advised that the manufacturer plans
to provide required parts and to accomplish the required modification
at no expense to operators. Therefore, there is no cost impact to U.S.
operators that is associated with this proposed rule with regard to
labor charges or parts costs.
The FAA does recognize, however, that while operators may incur
administrative costs associated with compliance to this proposed rule,
the one-year compliance time specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this proposed AD should allow ample time for the proposed requirements
to be accomplished coincidentally with scheduled major airplane
inspection and maintenance activities, thereby minimizing the costs
associated with special airplane scheduling.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
De Havilland, Inc.: Docket 94-NM-89-AD.
Applicability: Model DHC-8-100 and -300 series airplanes,
equipped with black Orcon film insulation; certificated in any
category; and listed in the following Bombardier Service Bulletins:
[[Page 13787]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHC-8 models Service bulletin No. Revision level Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102, 103, and 106................ S.B. 8-25-89................... E July 6, 1994.
102, 103, and 106................ S.B. 8-25-90................... C July 5, 1994.
102, 103, 106, 301, 311, and 314. S.B. 8-25-91................... D July 20, 1994.
301, 311, and 314................ S.B. 8-25-92................... E July 20, 1994.
301, 311, and 314................ S.B. 8-25-93................... C July 20, 1994.
102, 103, 106, 301, 311, and 314. S.B. 8-21-68................... .................. July 20, 1994.
102, 103, 301, 311, and 314...... S.B. 8-21-66................... C March 24, 1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent degradation of the structural capability of the
airplane fuselage and sudden loss of cabin pressure due to corrosion
of the airplane fuselage structure, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes listed in Bombardier Service Bulletin S.B. 8-
21-68, dated July 20, 1994: Within one year after the effective date
of this AD, accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1), and
(a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Determine from the airplane modification records if any of
the retrofit kits listed in the service bulletin have been installed
in the airplane, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(i) If no kit has been installed, no further action is required
by this paragraph.
(ii) If any kit has been installed, prior to further flight,
remove any black film insulation blanket, and perform a visual
inspection to detect corrosion of all airplane structure in contact
with the black insulation, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(A) If any corrosion is found that is within the limits
specified in the service bulletin, prior to further flight, repair
in accordance with the service bulletin.
(B) If any corrosion is found that is beyond the limits
specified in the service bulletin, prior to further flight, repair
in accordance with a method approved by the New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA Engine and Propeller
Directorate.
(2) Install the AN4C aluminized (silver) film insulation in
accordance with the service bulletin.
(b) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD,
accomplish the requirements of paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3)
of this AD, in accordance with the following Bombardier service
bulletin, as applicable:
S.B. 8-25-89, Revision E, dated July 6, 1994;
S.B. 8-25-90, Revision C, dated July 5, 1994;
S.B. 8-25-91, Revision D, dated July 20, 1994;
S.B. 8-25-92, Revision E, dated July 20, 1994;
S.B. 8-25-93, Revision C, dated July 20, 1994; and
S.B. 8-21-66, Revision C, dated March 24, 1995.
(1) Remove any black Orcon film insulation from the flight
compartment and forward fuselage of the airplane, the passenger
compartment, the air conditioning ducts, and the delivery and
recirculation ducts of the air conditioning system in the rear
fuselage, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(2) Perform a visual inspection to detect corrosion of all
airplane structure in contact with the black insulation, in
accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(i) If any corrosion is found that is within the limits
specified in the service bulletin, prior to further flight, repair
in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(ii) If any corrosion is found that is beyond the limits
specified in the service bulletin, prior to further flight, repair
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO.
(3) Install the AN4C aluminized (silver) film insulation in
accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(c) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
black Orcon film insulation, part number AN46B/AN36B, on any
airplane.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, New York ACO. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, New York ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the New York ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 22, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7550 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7549 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and - 15 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13787-13789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7549]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-204-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and -
15 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model
DC-10-10 and -15 series airplanes. This proposal would require
repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the bulkhead tee caps, and
repair and follow-on actions, if necessary. The proposal would also
provide for an optional terminating modification for the repetitive
inspections. This proposal is prompted by reports of cracking in the
bulkhead tee caps at a fuselage station in the area of certain
longerons due to fatigue. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in loss
of pressurization and damage to adjacent structure.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 21, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-204-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This information may
be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
[[Page 13788]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Moreland, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California
90712; telephone (310) 627-5238; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-204-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-204-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On November 6, 1995, the FAA issued AD 95-23-09, Amendment 39-9429
(60 FR 61649, December 1, 1995), which is applicable to McDonnell
Douglas DC-10 series airplanes and Model KC-10A (military) airplanes.
That AD requires the implementation of a Structural Inspection Document
(SID) program of structural inspections to detect fatigue cracking, and
repair or replacement, as necessary, to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these airplanes as they approach the manufacturer's
original fatigue design life goal. Among other requirements, AD 95-23-
09 requires inspection of the bulkhead tee cap at station Y=1156.000
under the fleet leader operator sampling criteria. [The bulkhead tee
cap at station Y=1156.000 is designated as Principal Structural
Elements (PSE) 53.10.041B and 53.10.042B in McDonnell Douglas Report
Number L26-012, ``DC-10 Supplemental Inspection Document,'' which is
referenced in AD 95-23-09 as the appropriate source of service
information.] The fatigue life threshold (Nth) for this PSE is
31,898 landings. The sampling period for this PSE started in September
1989, and will end in June 1996. Sampling inspections are to be
accomplished within that interval for airplanes in the candidate fleet
that have accumulated more than 15,949 total landings(Nth/2).
The FAA has received several reports of cracking in the bulkhead
tee caps at fuselage station Y=1156.000 (left and right sides) in the
area of longerons 38 and 41.0. The cracking was found on Model DC-10-10
and -15 series airplanes that had accumulated between 56,394 and 72,931
total flight hours and between 21,629 and 26,094 total landings.
Investigation revealed that the cause of such cracking has been
attributed to fatigue. The FAA has determined that additional
inspections of this area will ensure that fatigue cracking is detected
before it reaches a critical length. Fatigue cracking, if not detected
and corrected in a timely manner, could result in loss of
pressurization and damage to adjacent structure.
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC10-53-168, dated August 9, 1995. The service bulletin
describes procedures for repetitive eddy current and radiographic
inspections to detect cracks in the bulkhead tee caps (left and right
sides) between longerons 38.0 and 41.0 at fuselage station Y=1156.000,
and repair and follow-on actions (i.e., repetitive inspections), if
necessary.
The service bulletin also describes an optional terminating
preventative modification that would eliminate the need for the
repetitive inspections. The modification includes cold working fastener
holes and a follow-on inspection program. Accomplishment of the
preventative modification will minimize the possibility of cracks
developing in the subject area of the bulkhead tee cap.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require repetitive eddy current and radiographic
inspections to detect cracks in the bulkhead tee caps (left and right
sides) between longerons 38.0 and 41.0 at fuselage station Y=1156.000,
and repair and follow-on actions, if necessary. The proposed AD would
provide for an optional terminating preventative modification that
would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspection
requirements. The actions would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the service bulletin described previously.
Operators should note that, although the service bulletin specifies
that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain
repair conditions, this proposal would require the repair of those
conditions to be accomplished in accordance with a method approved by
the Manager of the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate.
There are approximately 133 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10 and -
15 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The
FAA estimates that 121 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by
this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 3 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of
the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $21,780, or $180
per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
[[Page 13789]]
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95-NM-204-AD.
Applicability: Model DC-10-10 and -15 series airplanes, as
listed in McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin DC10-53-168, dated
August 9, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously. To prevent fatigue cracking, which could result in loss
of pressurization and damage to adjacent structure, accomplish the
following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total landings, or
within 1,500 landings after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, perform an eddy current and radiographic inspection,
as applicable, to detect cracks in the bulkhead tee caps (left and
right sides) in the area of longerons 38.0 through 41.0 at fuselage
station Y=1156.000, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Service
Bulletin DC10-53-168, dated August 9, 1995.
(1) If no cracks are detected, repeat the inspections thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 2,600 landings until paragraph (b) of
this AD is accomplished.
(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight,
accomplish the repair specified in either paragraph (a)(2)(i) or
(a)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Splice in a new bulkhead tee cap section at cracked area of
bulkhead tee cap in accordance with the service bulletin. Within
20,000 total landings after accomplishing this repair, perform eddy
current inspections to detect cracks in accordance with the service
bulletin. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 2,600 landings until paragraph (b) of this AD is
accomplished. If any crack is detected, prior to further flight,
repair it in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.
(ii) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager,
Los Angeles ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(b) Terminating action for the repetitive inspections required
by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(ii) of this AD is as follows:
(1) Accomplish the preventative modification and eddy current
open hole inspection in accordance with Condition 1 (no cracks in
bulkhead tee cap), Option 2, of the service bulletin. And
(2) Within 14,450 total landings following accomplishment of the
modification, perform an eddy current and radiographic inspection to
detect cracks in accordance with Condition 1 (no cracks in bulkhead
tee cap), Option 2, of the service bulletin.
(i) If no cracks are detected, repeat the inspections thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 3,950 landings.
(ii) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair
it in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles
ACO, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 22, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7549 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7548 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13789-13791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7548]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-208-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and -231
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A320-111, -
211, and -231 series airplanes. This proposal would require repetitive
high frequency eddy current inspections to detect cracks around the
fasteners of the lower forward corners of the sliding window frames,
and repair, if necessary. This proposal would also require installation
of a modification for each affected fastener hole, which would
terminate the repetitive inspections. This proposal is prompted by the
results of full-scale fatigue tests which indicated that fatigue
cracking occurred on the lower forward corner of the sliding window
frames at frame 4. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent such fatigue cracking, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-208-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
[[Page 13790]]
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-208-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-208-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Direction Generale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for France, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A320-111, -211, and
-231 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that, during full-scale fatigue
tests on a Model A320 series airplane test article, fatigue cracking
was found on the lower forward corner of the sliding window frames at
frame 4. Fatigue cracking on the lower forward corner of the sliding
window frames at frame 4, if not detected and corrected in a timely
manner, could result in rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1082, Revision 1, dated
November 9, 1994, which describes procedures for a high frequency eddy
current inspection to detect cracks around the five fasteners of the
lower forward corners of the sliding window frames at frame 4. For
cases where no cracks are detected during inspection, the service
bulletin describes procedures for either conducting repetitive
inspections, or installing Modification 23685P3199. The service
bulletin also permits further flight with cracking around the five
fasteners.
Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1044, dated
February 8, 1994, which describes procedures for installation of
Modification 23685P3199. The modification entails cold working each of
the five fastener holes on each side and installing a tension bolt.
Accomplishment of the modification on each of the 5 fasteners on each
side would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections.
The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued
French airworthiness directive 94-166-056(B), dated July 20, 1994, in
order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in
France.
This airplane model is manufactured in France and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed
of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD
action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require high frequency eddy current inspection(s) to
detect cracks around the 5 fasteners of the lower forward corners of
the sliding window frames at frame 4. For cases where no cracks are
detected during inspection, the proposed AD would require installation
of Modification 23685P3199, which would constitute terminating action
for the repetitive inspection requirements. The actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the procedures of the
service bulletins described previously.
Operators should note that, unlike the procedures described in the
referenced service bulletin, this proposed AD would not permit further
flight with cracking detected around any of the 5 fasteners of the
lower forward corner of the sliding window frame at frame 4. The FAA
has determined that, due to the safety implications and consequences
associated with such cracking, all cracks that are found must be
repaired prior to further flight. The repair would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with a method approved by the FAA.
The FAA estimates that 21 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 5 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$6,300, or $300 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 13791]]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Airbus Industrie: Docket 95-NM-208-AD.
Applicability: Model A320-111, -211, and -231 series airplanes;
manufacturer's serial numbers 002 through 008 inclusive, 010 through
014 inclusive, 016 through 078 inclusive, and 080 through 098
inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD are affected, the owner/operator must request approval for
an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c)
of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect
of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent fatigue cracking on the lower forward corner of the
sliding window frames at frame 4, which could result in rapid
depressurization of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Prior to the accumulation of 15,000 total landings, or 3
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first,
perform a high frequency eddy current inspection to detect cracks
around the 5 fasteners of the lower forward corners of the sliding
window frames at frame 4, in accordance with the procedures of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1082, Revision 1, dated November 9,
1994.
(1) If no cracks are detected, repeat the inspection thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 15,000 landings.
(2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair it
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization
Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(b) Prior to the accumulation of 30,000 total landings, or 5
years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
accomplish Airbus Modification 23685P3199 for each fastener hole, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1044, dated February
8, 1994. Accomplishment of the modification constitutes terminating
action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (a)
of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 22, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7548 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7547 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13791-13792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7547]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-252-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 Series
Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100
series airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of certain
flexible oxygen hoses, located in the flight compartment gangway and in
the consoles, with insulated hose assemblies. This proposal is prompted
by reports of either insufficient or no clearance between these hoses
and adjacent structure or electrical wiring. The actions specified by
the proposed AD are intended to prevent chafing of the flexible oxygen
hoses, which could result in an uncontrollable loss of oxygen from the
flightcrew oxygen system, and could allow the presence of oxygen in
areas where ignition is possible.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-252-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. This information may be examined at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2141; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-252-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-252-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is the airworthiness
authority for the Netherlands, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe
condition may exist on certain Fokker Model F28 Mark 0100 series
airplanes. The RLD advises that it has received reports indicating
that, on airplanes in production, no clearance was found to exist
between the flexible
[[Page 13792]]
oxygen hose located in the flight compartment gangway and the adjacent
electrical wiring. In addition, it was reported that no clearance was
found between the flexible oxygen hoses installed in the left-hand (LH)
and right-hand (RH) side consoles and the air conditioning ducts, and
there was insufficient clearance between these hoses and the adjacent
electrical wiring. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in
chafing of the flexible oxygen hoses and the subsequent uncontrollable
loss of oxygen from the flightcrew oxygen system. It also could result
in the presence of oxygen in areas where ignition is possible.
Fokker has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-35-004, dated May 17,
1995, which describes procedures for replacement of the flexible oxygen
hoses with insulated hose assemblies. The insulated hose assemblies are
intended to prevent chafing and damage of the hoses. The RLD classified
this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Dutch airworthiness
directive BLA 1995-050 (A), dated May 31, 1995, in order to assure the
continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the Netherlands.
This airplane model is manufactured in the Netherlands and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the RLD has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
RLD, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require replacement of flexible oxygen hoses with
insulated hose assemblies. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously.
The FAA estimates that 21 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 4 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $1,376 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $33,936,
or $1,616 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Fokker: Docket 95-NM-252-AD.
Applicability: Model F28 Mark 0100 series airplanes, having
serial numbers 11244 through 11321 inclusive, and 11323 through
11332 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent an uncontrollable loss of oxygen from the flightcrew
oxygen system due to chafing of the flexible oxygen hoses, which
could result in the presence of oxygen in areas where ignition is
possible; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 12 months or 3,000 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the flexible oxygen
hoses having part number (P/N) A66152-407, located in the left-hand
(LH) and right-hand (RH) side consoles with insulated tube
assemblies having P/N D66127-401; and replace the flexible oxygen
assemblies having P/N A66152-417, located in the flight compartment
gangway with insulated tube assemblies having P/N D66127-403; in
accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-35-004, dated May 17,
1995.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
a hose assembly with P/N A66152-417 or A66152-407, on any airplane.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
NOTE 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 22, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7547 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7517 Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management; Consolidation and Revision of Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13811-13812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7517]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Parts 656 and 697
[Docket No. 950915230-6080-02; I.D. 022796D]
RIN 0648-AH57
Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management; Consolidation and Revision of Regulations
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes consolidation of regulations pertaining to the
Atlantic striped bass and weakfish fisheries, which are now contained
in two CFR parts, into a single part. The consolidated regulations
would be revised to be more concise, better organized, and easier for
the public to use. In addition, certain prohibitions and definitions
currently in parts 656 and 697 would be removed and replaced by
references to general sections of the regulations to achieve conformity
and to eliminate unnecessary regulatory text. This action is part of
the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Tom Meyer, Office of Fisheries
Conservation and Management, F/CM1, National Marine Fisheries Service,
1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Meyer, (301) 713-2337.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
NMFS proposes to remove 50 CFR part 656 and revise 50 CFR part 697
by consolidating into part 697 the regulations previously contained in
parts 656 and 697. Duplicative regulatory text previously contained in
parts 656 and 697 would be eliminated.
In March 1995, President Clinton issued a directive to Federal
agencies regarding their responsibilities under his Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative. This initiative is part of the National
Performance Review and calls for immediate, comprehensive regulatory
reform. The President directed all agencies to undertake an exhaustive
review of all their regulations, with an emphasis on eliminating or
modifying those that are obsolete, duplicative, or otherwise in need of
reform. This proposed rule is intended to carry out the President's
directive with respect to the regulations implementing the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.)
and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act Appropriations
Authorization (16 U.S.C. 1851 note).
The consolidation and revisions proposed in this rule are not meant
to change the substance of the existing regulations. They are intended
to make the regulations easier for the public to use and to reduce the
volume and publication costs of the regulations.
In addition, some of the prohibitions and definitions currently in
parts 656 and 697 would be removed. Instead, the consolidated part 697
would reference definitions and general prohibitions to be contained in
50 CFR part 600 regulations; part 600 is also being proposed for
consolidation and revision through another rulemaking. The reference to
standard language, rather than the language now contained in parts 656
and 697, could result in some changes in how the Atlantic striped bass
and weakfish regulations are enforced. The intent of the proposed
changes is to achieve consistency of language, enhance understanding of
the regulation's requirements, and to eliminate unnecessary regulatory
text.
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of E.O. 12866.
[[Page 13812]]
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The proposed consolidation is not meant to change the
substance of the existing regulations. Proposed revisions to
definitions and prohibitions could result in minor changes in how the
regulations are enforced, but are not expected to change fishing
practices, costs, or revenues. As a result, a regulatory flexibility
analysis was not prepared.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 656 and 697
Fisheries, Fishing.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR chapter VI is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 656--[REMOVED]
1. Under the authority of 16 U.S.C. 1851 note, part 656 is removed.
2. Part 697 is revised to read as follows:
PART 697--ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
Sec.
697.1 Purpose and scope.
697.2 Definitions.
697.3 Relation to the Magnuson Act.
697.4 Civil procedures.
697.5 Specifically authorized activities.
697.6 Prohibitions.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1851 note, 5101 et seq.
Sec. 697.1 Purpose and scope.
The regulations in this part implement section 804(b) of the
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 5101
et seq., and section 6 of the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act
Appropriations Authorization, 16 U.S.C. 1851 note, and govern fishing
in the EEZ on the Atlantic Coast for species covered by those acts.
Sec. 697.2 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions in Sec. 600.10 of this chapter, the
terms in this part have the following meanings:
Atlantic striped bass means members of stocks or populations of the
species Morone saxatilis found in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean
north of Key West, FL.
Block Island Southeast Light means the aid to navigation light
located at Southeast Point, Block Island, RI, and defined as follows:
Located at 40 deg.09.2'N. lat., 71 deg.33.1'W. long; is 201 ft (61.3 m)
above the water; and is shown from a brick octagonal tower 67 ft (20.4
m) high attached to a dwelling on the southeast point of Block Island,
RI.
Continuous transit means that a vessel remains continuously
underway while in the EEZ.
Fish, when used as a verb, for the purposes of this part, means any
activity that involves:
(1) The catching, taking, or harvesting of fish;
(2) The attempted catching, taking, or harvesting of fish;
(3) Any other activity that can reasonably be expected to result in
the catching, taking, or harvesting of fish; or
(4) Any operations at sea in support or, or in preparation for, any
activity described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this definition.
Land means to begin offloading fish, to offload fish, or to enter
port with fish.
Montauk Light means the aid to navigation light located at Montauk
Point, NY, and defined as follows: Located at 41 deg.04.3'N. lat.,
71 deg.51.5'W. long.; is shown from an octagonal, pyramidal tower, 108
ft (32.9 m) high; and has a covered way to a dwelling.
Point Judith Light means the aid to navigation light located at
Point Judith, RI, and defined as follows: Located at 41 deg.21.7'N.
lat., 71 deg.28.9'W. long.; is 65 ft (19.8 m) above the water; and is
shown from an octagonal tower 51 ft (15.5 m) high.
Retain means to fail to return Atlantic striped bass or weakfish to
the sea immediately after the hook has been removed or the fish has
otherwise been released from the capture gear.
Weakfish means members of the stock or population of the species
Cynoscion regalis, found along the Atlantic coast from southern Florida
to Massachusetts Bay.
Sec. 697.3 Relation to the Magnuson Act.
The provisions of sections 307 through 311 of the Magnuson Act, as
amended, regarding prohibited acts, civil penalties, criminal offenses,
civil forfeitures, and enforcement apply with respect to the
regulations in this part, as if the regulations in this part were
issued under the Magnuson Act.
Sec. 697.4 Civil procedures.
The civil procedure regulations at 15 CFR part 904 apply to civil
penalties, permit sanctions, seizures, and forfeitures under the
Atlantic Striped Bass Act and the Atlantic Coastal Act, and the
regulations in this part.
Sec. 697.5 Specifically authorized activities.
NMFS may authorize, for the acquisition of information and data,
activities that are otherwise prohibited by the regulations in this
part.
Sec. 697.6 Prohibitions.
(a) Atlantic Coast weakfish fishery. In addition to the
prohibitions set forth in Sec. 600.725, the following prohibitions
apply. It is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:
(1) Fish for weakfish in the EEZ.
(2) Harvest any weakfish from the EEZ.
(3) Possess any weakfish in or from the EEZ.
(4) Fail to return to the water immediately, with the least
possible injury, any weakfish taken within the EEZ.
(b) Atlantic striped bass fishery. It is unlawful for any person to
do any of the following:
(1) Fish for Atlantic striped bass in the EEZ.
(2) Harvest any Atlantic striped bass from the EEZ.
(3) Possess any Atlantic striped bass in or from the EEZ, except
for the following area: The EEZ within Block Island Sound, north of a
line connecting Montauk Light, Montauk Point, NY, and Block Island
Southeast Light, Block Island, RI; and west of a line connecting Point
Judith Light, Point Judith, RI, and Block Island Southeast Light, Block
Island, RI. Within this area, possession of Atlantic striped bass is
permitted, provided no fishing takes place from the vessel while in the
EEZ and the vessel is in continuous transit.
(4) Fail to return to the water immediately, with the least
possible injury, any Atlantic striped bass taken within the EEZ.
[FR Doc. 96-7517 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7513 Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; Proposed Removal of FMP
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13810-13811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7513]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 628
[Docket No. 960315079-6079-01; I.D. 031296D]
Atlantic Bluefish Fishery; Proposed Removal of FMP
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes the withdrawal of Secretarial approval of the
Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and removal of its
implementing regulations. This action is taken in response to the
President's Regulatory Reform Initiative.
DATES: Public comments must be received on or before May 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Regulatory Impact Review are available from the Northeast Regional
Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930.
Comments should be sent to Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg, Regional
Director, at the same address above. Please mark the envelope
``Comments-- Bluefish Withdrawal.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin, 508-281-9104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bluefish is a species that is found and
harvested predominantly in state waters. The bluefish stock is
described as overexploited with total catch having decreased from
approximately 70,000 mt in 1983 to 22,000 mt in 1992 (17th Northeast
Regional Stock Assessment Workshop, 1994). The recreational catch
accounted for approximately 17,000 mt or 72 percent of the combined
recreational and commercial catch in 1992. The 1994 Marine Recreational
Fisheries Survey estimated that 93 percent of all recreational landings
(11,963,000 fish) in that year were taken in state waters.
The FMP was prepared through the joint efforts of the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). It was designed to promote conservation
of one of the most important Atlantic coast recreational species. It
was approved by the Secretary of Commerce on March 20, 1990. The
Council and the ASMFC
[[Page 13811]]
developed the FMP to address problems they anticipated could develop if
the fishery expanded or the resource declined. Prior to the approval of
the FMP there were few harvest regulations in any states, and
comprehensive management was non-existent. After adoption of the FMP,
all states implemented conservation measures. Annual management
measures (e.g., possession limits) are recommended by the ASMFC for
state waters and by the Council for the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The EEZ measures include a permit requirement for individuals
conducting a commercial fishery, a possession limit of 10 fish that
could be adjusted from 0 to 15 fish in order to reflect stock
conditions, a limit on commercial catch of 20 percent of the total
overall catch, and a framework that allowed for the imposition of
commercial fishery controls including state quotas when the commercial
limit is exceeded.
As part of the President's plan for reform of the Federal
regulatory system, NMFS proposes to remove the bluefish implementing
regulations. Since the ASMFC already adopted an Interstate Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Bluefish, the Magnuson Act regulations
implementing the Federal Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Atlantic
Bluefish Fishery are unnecessarily duplicative. Withdrawal of the FMP
is consistent with National Standard 7, which requires that management
measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary
duplication.
Furthermore, because the fishery takes place primarily in state
waters, the ASMFC is an appropriate authority for management. If future
management measures in the EEZ are required, the Atlantic Coastal Act
allows the states to request NMFS to implement complementary measures
in the EEZ.
The Atlantic Coastal Act requires that an interstate fishery
management plan contain a recommendation to the Secretary regarding
measures to be implemented in the EEZ before he can undertake action.
The Council and ASMFC have been working on a plan amendment, which
could be modified by ASMFC to specify EEZ management measures that
could be implemented under the Atlantic Coastal Act. NMFS does not
intend to withdraw the FMP until NMFS issues regulations for the EEZ
under the Atlantic Coastal Act.
Classification
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
NMFS prepared a draft EA for this action that discusses the impact
on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the EA may be
obtained from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Small Business Administration
that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the
number affected is less than 20 percent of the number of small entities
operating in the fishery.
List of Subjects for 50 CFR Part 628
Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service
For the reasons set out in the preamble, under the authority of 16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 50 CFR part 628 is proposed to be removed.
[FR Doc. 96-7513 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7471 Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13793-13794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7471]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13794]]
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
29 CFR Chapter XIV
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)
AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
ACTION: Fourth meeting of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EEOC announces the dates of the fourth meeting of the
``Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Regulatory Guidance on
Unsupervised Waivers of Rights and Claims under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act'' (the Committee). A Notice of Intent to form the
Committee was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 1995, 60
FR 45388, and a Notice of Establishment of the Committee was published
in the Federal Register on October 20, 1995, 60 F.R. 54207.
DATES: The fourth meeting will be held on April 16-17, 1996, beginning
at 10:00 a.m. on April 16. It is anticipated that the meeting will last
for two days. The session of April 17, 1996 will commence at 9:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the EEOC Headquarters, 1801 L
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph N. Cleary, Paul E. Boymel, or
John K. Light, ADEA Division, Office of Legal Counsel, EEOC, 1801 L
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507, (202) 663-4692.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Committee meetings, including the
meeting of April 16-17, will be open to the public. Any member of the
public may submit written comments for the Committee's consideration,
and may be permitted to speak at the meeting if time permits. In
addition, all Committee documents and minutes will be available for
public inspection in EEOC's Library (6th floor of the EEOC
Headquarters).
Persons who need assistance to review the comments will be provided
with appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule
an appointment call (202) 663-4630 (voice), (202) 663-4630 (TDD).
Copies of this notice are available in the following alternate formats:
large print, braille, electronic file on computer disk, and audio tape.
Copies may be obtained from the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
by calling (202) 663-4395 (voice), (202) 663-4399 (TDD).
Purpose of Meeting/Summary of Agenda
At the meeting, the Committee will continue to discuss the
unsupervised waiver legal issues that will be considered by the
Committee in drafting a recommended notice of proposed rulemaking for
EEOC approval.
Dated: March 23, 1996.
Frances M. Hart,
Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-7471 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-06-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7455 Electronic Records of Shipping Articles and Certificates of Discharge
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13796-13803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7455]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 14
[CGD 94-004]
RIN 2115-AE72
Electronic Records of Shipping Articles and Certificates of
Discharge
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to revise the way that information on
the ``engagement'' (shipment) and discharge of merchant mariners is
maintained and submitted and to accomplish editorial and other, slight
changes throughout its governing rules. The revision is due to
statutory amendments directing, in effect, that ship-operating
companies (``shipping companies'') maintain shipping articles and
certificates of discharge and that they electronically submit the
information from them. Nevertheless, it should reduce by about 70
percent the companies' burden of preparing articles and certificates,
should reduce proportionately the number of personnel manually entering
data and manually filing documents for the Coast Guard, and is in
keeping with the Administration's Reinventing Government initiatives.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA, 3406) [CGD 94-004], U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW, Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Justine Bunnell, Marine Personnel
Division, National Maritime Center, (703) 235-1951.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Request for Comments
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments.
Persons submitting comments should include their names addresses,
identify this rulemaking [CGD 94-004] and the specific section of this
proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. Please submit two copies of all comments and attachments in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. Persons wanting acknowledgment of
receipt of comments should enclose stamped, self-addressed postcards or
envelopes.
The Coast Guard will consider all comments received during the
comment period. It may change this proposed rule in view of the
comments.
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. A person may lodge a
request for a public hearing by writing to the Marine Safety Council at
the address under ADDRESSES. The request should include the reasons why
a hearing would be beneficial. If it determines that the opportunity
for oral presentations will aid this rulemaking, the Coast Guard will
hold a public hearing at a
[[Page 13797]]
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
Background and Purpose
In 1937 the Coast Guard became custodian of the program for
protection of merchant mariners (``mariners''). To ensure that mariners
are employed of their own will, that they are properly paid for their
service, and that their time in service is properly documented, they
and the masters or other persons in charge of their vessels, or these
persons' representatives, sign contracts, know as shipping articles
(``articles''). (From this point forward in the preamble, ``masters''
will stand for all of those persons other than mariners.)
The content and form, respectively, of articles for foreign and
intercoastal voyages appear at 46 U.S.C., Sec. Sec. 10302 and 10303,
and 10304; the content of articles for coastwise voyages appears at 46
U.S.C. 10502, even as the form of these articles remains unspecified by
statute; both the content and form of articles for voyages on the Great
Lakes remain unspecified by statute. (Articles consist of three parts:
(1) features of the voyage and of several reciprocal duties, clear down
the caloric value of food served to each mariner daily; (2) particulars
of engagement; and (3) particulars of discharge.) From 1937 usages or
practices regarding articles have changed little. The same has been
true regarding certificates of discharge.
When reporting for a foreign or intercoastal voyage--or for a
coastwise voyage (including a voyage on the Great Lakes) aboard a
vessel of 50 gross tons or more--the mariner presents to the master a
valid merchant mariner's document (``MMD'') listing the mariner's
qualifications. The master reviews the MMD, verifies the mariner's
qualifications, and enters the information in the particulars of
engagement (part 2 of the articles), then the master and the mariner
sign the articles in the appropriate places.
When finishing a foreign or intercoastal voyage, the master enters
the mariner's wages and date of discharge in the particulars of
discharge (part 3 of the articles), then the master and the mariner
sign the articles in the other appropriate places. The master completes
the certificate of discharge in the appropriate place, then the master
and the mariner sign it in the appropriate place. (The certificate
indicates the mariner's name and identification number, the dates and
places of shipment and discharge, the name and official number of the
vessel, and the name of the shipping company.) If the mariner holds a
continuous discharge book, the master also completes and signs it in
the appropriate place. The master ensures that the entries in the
continuous discharge book (if held), on the certificate, and in the two
particulars are proper, corresponding entries.
The mariner keeps the continuous discharge book (if held). The
mariner get the original of the certificate of discharge.
When leaving the vessel before the end of the voyage, the mariner
closes out the contract otherwise. He or she and the master sign a
``mutual agreement'' as well as the particulars of discharge; the
master notes in these particulars that the reason for the mariner's
leaving is mutual agreement. The master completes and signs a
certificate of discharge, then the mariner signs it. If the mariner
holds a continuous discharge book, the master completes and signs it.
At the end of the voyage, after all mariners have signed the
particulars of discharge and received their certificates of discharge,
the shipping company sends the articles and signed copies of the
certificates to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard reviews the articles
and certificates to ensure that they are complete and accurate. Next,
it manually enters the data off the certificates into its own sea-
service database and manually files the certificates in the mariners'
records. Last, it manually files the articles (alphabetically, by name
of vessel).
These usages or practices have prevailed for two generations. On
December 20, 1993, however, Congress enacted Public Law 103-206, the
Coast Guard Authorization Act for 1994. Title IV, Sec. 411, of that Act
added 46 U.S.C., sub-Secs. 10302(d) and 10502(e), each to read in full:
The owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual
in charge shall maintain the shipping agreement [``articles''] and
make [them] available to the [mariner].
It added 46 U.S.C. 10320 to read in full:
The Secretary shall prescribe regulations requiring vessel
owners to maintain records of [mariners] on matters of engagement,
discharge, and service. A vessel owner shall make these records
available to the [mariner] and the Coast Guard on request.
It added 46 U.S.C., Sec. 10502(f), to read the same, except that it
substituted ``shipping companies'' for ``vessel owners'':
The Secretary shall prescribe regulations requiring shipping
companies to maintain records of [mariners] on matters of
engagement, discharge, and service. The shipping companies shall
make these records available to the [mariner] and the Coast Guard on
request.
It also raised the penalties in 46 U.S.C., Secs. 10321(a) and
10508(b), from $500.00 to $5,000.00 for violating any provision of
these chapters or regulations prescribed under these chapters.
The Coast Guard had proposed the legislation because of budgetary
constraints leading to cuts in its workforce and of the advent of
computerization. Shipping companies will now be responsible for keeping
articles and signed copies of certificates of discharge. They will
still be free to submit them traditionally--but will now be free to
submit just the data from them electronically. Either way, the Coast
Guard will now maintain its sea-service database electronically. The
companies may develop their own software, use off-the-shelf software,
or obtain software developed by the Coast Guard, to generate articles
and certificates from existing records of personnel. Whichever of these
three courses a particular company follows, the Coast Guard will
provide standards that ensure compatibility for the electronic transfer
of data from the company's system to the Coast Guard's sea-service
database.
The primary purposes of this rule are to standardize the format of
articles (for all voyages that require them), to eliminate redundant
forms such as masters' reports of mariners shipped or discharged, to
authorize persons acting as masters to initiate and sign articles and
certificates of discharge, to confer on shipping companies the legal
and practical ability to transfer sea-service data electronically to
the Coast Guard, and in general to lighten recordkeeping and shift much
of what little remains onto the companies. The secondary purposes of
this rule are to publish new statutory penalties and to remove gender-
based language. A welcome effect of it would be to clarify 46 CFR Part
14.
Discussion of Proposed Rule
There would persist four separate subparts. But they would present
a logical flow of work, from the format of the articles to the
transmittal and storage of finished articles and certificates of
discharge.
New Subpart A (current Subpart 14.01)--General--would contain only
the purposes of the rule, several addresses of the Coast Guard, and
general doctrine on the disclosure and privacy of information held by
the Coast Guard. It would remit treatment of shipping articles into new
Subpart B.
New Subpart B (current Subpart 14.05)--Shipment of Merchant
Mariners--would cover all voyages
[[Page 13798]]
requiring or electing articles rather than only foreign and
intercoastal voyages.
New Sec. 14.201, Voyages upon which shipping articles are required
(current Secs. 14.01-5 and 14.05-10(c), (d), and (e)) would state which
voyages must have articles; abolish reference to the Master's Report of
Seamen Shipped or Discharged, Form CG-735T, which is an obsolete form;
and eliminate gender-based language. By abolishing reference to this
form, Sec. 14.213 would remove a non-statutory authority and would
standardize articles on all voyages requiring them.
New Sec. 14.203, Voyages upon which shipping articles are not
required (current Secs. 14.01-7 and 14.05-10(a)(1) through (5)), would
contain only editorial changes.
New Sec. 14.205, Production of credentials by merchant mariner
signing shipping articles (current Sec. 14.05-5), would eliminate
gender-based language.
New Sec. 14.207, Content and form of shipping articles (current
Sec. 14.05-1), would contain mainly editorial changes, but would
elaborate the entries required in articles.
New Sec. 14.209, Preparation of shipping articles at beginning of
voyage (current Sec. 14.05-3), would clarify that an individual other
than the master may be in charge of the vessel and would require that
the shipping company prepare a signed original, a signed copy, and an
unsigned copy of them.
New Sec. 14.211, Posting of copy of shipping articles (current
Sec. 14.05-2), would abolish reference to the Forecastle Card, Form CG-
704.
New Sec. 14.213, Report of shipment of merchant mariner (current
Sec. 14.05-10), would still treat the shipment of mariners but no
longer their discharge and would abolish reference to the Master's
Report of Seamen Shipped or Discharged, Form CG-735T, which is an
obsolete form. By abolishing reference to this form, Sec. 14.213 would
comply with the statutory command, among others, to standardize
articles on all voyages requiring them.
New Subpart C (current Subpart 14.10)--Discharge of Merchant
Mariners--would cover discharges on all voyages requiring them.
New Sec. 14.301, Paying off of merchant mariner during or after
voyage upon which shipping articles are required (current Sec. 14.05-
7), would eliminate gender-based language.
New Sec. 14.303, Discharge of fit merchant mariner in foreign port
(current Sec. 14.10-10), would eliminate gender-based language.
New Sec. 14.305, Discharge of incapacitated merchant mariner in
foreign port (current Sec. 14.10-20), would shorten and tighten the
current treatment as well as would eliminate gender-based language.
New Sec. 14.307, Entries in continuous discharge book, (current
Sec. 14.10-1), would abolish reference to the Record of Entry in
Continuous Discharge Book, Form CG-718E, which is an obsolete form.
New Sec. 14.309, Entries on certificate of discharge (current
Sec. 14.10-5), would require the shipping company to maintain copies of
certificates of discharge as well as would eliminate gender-based
language.
New Sec. 14.311, Entries in shipping articles at end of voyage
(current Sec. 14.05-15), would clarify the current contents as well as
would eliminate gender-based language.
New Sec. 14.313, Report of discharge of merchant mariner (current
Sec. 14.05-10), would perpetuate only the portion of the current
section pertaining to the discharge of mariners and would authorize the
electronic transmission of data to the Coast Guard.
New Sec. 14.315, Storage of shipping articles and of certificates
of discharge (current Sec. 14.05-15), would guide shipping companies in
the storage of articles and of certificates of discharge and establish
procedures for when companies merge or go out of business.
Current Subpart 14.15--Disclosure of Information Regarding
Shipments and Discharges of Merchant Mariners--would vanish as a
distinct subpart. Its one section would become new Sec. 14.105.
New Subpart D (current Subpart 14.20)--Oceanographic-Research
Vessels--would, of course, govern oceanographic-research vessels.
New Sec. 14.401, General (current Sec. 14.20-1), would correct
statutory cites as well as would eliminate gender-based language.
New Sec. 14.403, Exemptions (current Sec. 14.20-10), would correct
statutory cites as well as would eliminate gender-based language.
New Sec. 14.405, Procedures (current Sec. 14.20-5), would contain
only editorial changes.
New Sec. 14.407, Reports (current Sec. 14.20-15), would abolish
reference to the Master's Report of Seamen Shipped or Discharged, Form
CG-735T, which is an obsolete form, as well as would eliminate gender-
based language.
Regulatory Evaluation
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and would not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under that Order. It is not significant under the
regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation
(DOT) [44 FR 11040 (February 26, 1979)]. Its economic impact would be
so minimal, the Coast Guard expects, that a full Regulatory Evaluation
under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is
unnecessary.
Many shipping companies, for their own purposes and convenience,
already maintain electronic records of employment, from which they can
generate both articles and certificates of discharge. Until now they
have had to generate both by writing or typing. Now they will be able
to print both, when required, from the computer; transmit the data off
the certificates directly to the Coast Guard, using the software
developed by the Coast Guard if not software developed by themselves or
bought off the shelf; and still provide original certificates to their
mariners. Upgrades or enhancements to the software, and long-term
support for it, may cost them $250 a year. But initial issue of it, and
first-year support of it, will cost them nothing. And this new way of
doing business will save them time, effort, and money--about $1 million
a year. [Since most of these benefits accrue through new reductions of
paperwork, the detailed account of them appears under Collection of
Information, below.]
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act [5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], the
Coast Guard must consider whether this proposed rule, if adopted, would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. ``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-
for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions
with populations of less than 50,000,
Smaller shipping companies may lack the equipment necessary to
prepare articles and certificates of discharge and to transmit the data
from the certificates to the Coast Guard, electronically. But the Coast
Guard would continue to accept copies of the certificates from these
companies, by mail: They would not need to buy computers. This would
let the Coast Guard maintain an accurate sea-service database receiving
data from all companies required to submit them, by mail if not
electronically.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the
rule, if adopted, would not have a significant
[[Page 13799]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If, however,
you think that your business or organization qualifies as a small
entity and that the rule would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESS) explaining why you think it
qualifies and in what way and to what degree this rule would
economically affect it.
Collection of Information
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.], OMB
reviews each proposed rule that contains a collection-of-information
requirement, to determine whether the practical value of the
information would be worth the burden imposed by its collection.
Collection-of-information requirements include reporting,
recordkeeping, notification, and other, similar requirements.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
in the following sections: 14.207, 14.209, 14.213, 14.301, 14.303,
14.305, 14.307, 14.309, 14.311, 14.313, 14.315, 14,405, and 14.407. The
following particulars apply:
DOT No: 2115.
OMB Control Nos: 2115-0015 and 2115-0042.
Administration: U.S. Coast Guard.
Title: Electronic Records of Shipping Articles and Certificates of
Discharge.
Need for Information: To protect merchant mariners by ensuring that
records of their employment, wages, and next of kin are accurate and
are available for their review.
Proposed Use of Information: To promote safety aboard domestic
merchant vessels by ensuring that merchant mariners qualify by training
and service for original or upgraded credentials; to maintain sea-
service data toward retirement benefits; and to furnish those data in
the many cases litigated over collisions, injuries, or asbestosis
Forms
Current
The regulated community--shipping companies and mariners--would be
free to forgo the use of each of these records, in whole or in its
current form: Forecastle Card, CG-704; Shipping Articles, CG-705A;
Certificate of Discharge, CG-718A; Record of Entry, CG-718E; Continuous
Discharge Book, CG-719A; and (although OMB did not renew authority for
its use after February 1995) Master's Report of Seamen Shipped or
Discharged, CG-735T.
Proposed
The regulated community would still have to deal with all of the
data contained in these records, in some form: Shipping Articles, CG-
705A; and Certificate of Discharge, CG-718A.
Respondents: The chief regulatory impact would fall on the medium
and large shipping companies because they operate most of the vessels
required to execute articles and certificates of discharge. They would
continue to prepare, issue, and keep files of articles and of copies of
certificates. They would make these files accessible to the Coast Guard
and mariners upon request and would send--voyage by voyage, for the
sea-service database of the Coast Guard--either copies of certificates,
as they do now, though without articles, or data transmitted
electronically from these files.
Frequency of Response: Articles and copies of certificates of
discharges have been due after each voyage. Articles and certificates
would still have to be prepared for each voyage. Data from certificates
would still have to reach the Coast Guard after each voyage. But now
these data could move by wire rather than by mail; no forms would need
move, unless shipping companies chose not to avail themselves of the
benefits of this proposed rule, until after a lag of ten years. The
number and length of voyages depend on the companies.
Estimate of Total Burden:
Current
The master of each vessel prepares, by hand, large, antiquated
articles and certificates of discharge. The shipping companies send
these records to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard enters, by hand, sea-
service data into its database, and files originals of articles
(alphabetically, by names of vessels) and copies of certificates in
individual mariners' records. It leaves the copies in the records. But,
after three years, it transfers articles to the Federal Records Center
at Suitland, Maryland, which stores them for sixty years. And, after
three years of inactivity, it transfers the records themselves to that
Center, which again, stores them for sixty years.
Proposed
The master of each vessel would still prepare articles and
certificates of discharge. The shipping company would retain the option
of his or her preparing both forms manually and sending copies of
certificates to the Coast Guard for entry into its sea-service
database. But it would gain that of his or her preparing both forms
electronically--on software developed by themselves or the Coast Guard,
or bought from stock--and of transmitting the data from certificates
electronically to the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard would maintain the
record of sea service in its database for six years after the mariner's
last activity--such as taking out an upgraded, renewed, modified, or
duplicate license or MMD, or sailing--and then transfer its record, in
whatever electronic form, to the Center.
The burden would decrease greatly for companies that already had,
or that obtained, the capability of preparing articles and certificates
electronically from their current records of employment. (They would no
longer collect data more than once and could collect them however they
chose.) It would decrease considerably even for companies lacking this
capability. They would, while their masters continued preparing
articles and certificates manually, need only to send copies of
certificates to the Coast Guard voyage by voyage; even they would not
need to send articles to the Coast Guard voyage by voyage. So both the
cost of sending articles oftener than once a year and the cost of
sending them at all during the first ten years would be eliminated for
all companies: All would maintain files of articles and of copies of
certificates for ten years; then they would send the articles to the
Coast Guard, which would prepare the articles for storage at the
Federal Records Center, and the shipping companies would destroy their
copies of certificates, since the Coast Guard would hold the record in
its database. The added burden on these would take the forms of
allotting more storage space in their offices to maintain the articles
for ten years and of, about one work week for one person per company
per year after the first ten years, both packing the articles to send
to the Coast Guard for further storage and destroying their copies of
discharges. The Coast Guard invites comments on the size of this added
burden (or of any other burden, whether or not anticipated here).
Average Burden-Hours for Each Respondent: Each year, shipping
companies prepare about 8,000 articles with accompanying certificates
of discharge; this costs them almost $1.43 million. Each year
hereafter, they would still prepare about 8,000 articles with
accompanying certificates; but this would cost them just about $0.43
million. The reason is the efficiency that this rule would bring. For
each voyage, masters need about 2.5 hours to prepare the articles with
accompanying certificates and send them. For each voyage hereafter,
those able to file electronically would need about 0.5
[[Page 13800]]
hour to prepare the documents and 0.25 hour to file the data from them.
The burden-hours would diminish by just about 70 percent.
Savings
For Respondents
The average salary for the staff to prepare the articles and
certificates of discharge is $50 an hour. That staff could save 20,000
hours a year, though the exact figure would depend on two variables:
the numbers and kinds of vessels and voyages; and the offsetting
burden, in the eleventh and later years, of purging ten-year-old copies
of certificates and packing and sending ten-year-old articles. The
Coast Guard invites comments on the sizes of these two variables.
For Coast Guard
The Coast Guard would save in three ways: (1) on its own personnel,
(2) on its contractors' personnel, and (3) on storage-space. (1)
Although some shipping companies may continue to submit paper copies of
certificates of discharge requiring the Coast Guard to continue
entering data from some records, the Coast Guard would save 950 hours
or $20,000 a year on its own personnel. (2) The Coast Guard has
eliminated 10 ``positions'' and saved 19,000 hours and has lost
$460,000 a year from its budget to support contractors' personnel. And
(3) the Coast Guard would need 15 or 20 fewer cubic feet of storage-
space a year over the next 15 years and so would save $7,500--at $500 a
year over those years--on storage-space.
OMB has approved these requirements on paperwork under a separate
submittal pursuant the Paperwork Reduction Act [44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.]. Persons submitting comments on the requirements should submit
their comments both to OMB and to the Coast Guard where indicated under
ADDRESS.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that the rule would not have sufficient implications for
federalism to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
proposed rule and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.1B, the rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. Subparagraphs 2.B.2.e.(34) (a) and (c) of
that Instruction exclude, respectively, regulations that are editorial
or procedural and those that concern maritime personnel. A
Determination of Categorical Exclusion is available in the docket for
inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESS.
List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 14
Oceanographic research vessels, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seamen [Merchant mariners].
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to revise 46 CFR Part 14 to read as follows:
PART 14--SHIPMENT AND DISCHARGE OF MERCHANT MARINERS
Subpart A--General
14.101 Purpose of part.
14.103 Addresses of Coast Guard.
14.105 Disclosure and privacy.
Subpart B--Shipment of Merchant Mariners
14.201 Voyages upon which shipping articles are required.
14.203 Voyages upon which shipping articles are not required.
14.205 Production of credentials by merchant mariner signing
shipping articles.
14.207 Content and form of shipping articles.
14.209 Preparation of shipping articles at beginning of voyage.
14.211 Posting of copy of shipping articles.
14.213 Report of shipment of merchant mariner.
Subpart C--Discharge of Merchant Mariners
14.301 Paying off of merchant mariner during or after voyage upon
which shipping articles are required.
14.303 Discharge of merchant mariner in foreign port.
14.305 Discharge of merchant mariner in foreign port with
appearance before consul.
14.307 Entries in continuous discharge book.
14.309 Entries on certificate of discharge.
14.311 Entries in shipping articles at end of voyage.
14.313 Report of discharge of merchant mariner.
14.315 Storage of shipping articles and of certificates of
discharge.
Subpart D--Oceanographic-Research Vessels
14.401 General.
14.403 Exemptions.
14.405 Procedures.
14.407 Reports.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 103 and 105.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 14.101 Purpose of part.
Part 14 prescribes rules for the shipment and discharge of merchant
mariners aboard certain vessels of the United States.
Sec. 14.103 Addresses of Coast Guard.
(a) By mail: National Maritime Center (NMC-4A), U.S. Coast Guard,
Suite 510, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203-1804
(b) By facsimile: 703-235-1062
Sec. 14.105 Disclosure and privacy.
The Coast Guard makes information available to the public in
accordance with 49 CFR Part 7, including Appendix B.
Subpart B--Shipment of Merchant Mariners
Sec. 14.201 Voyages upon which shipping articles are required.
(a) Before proceeding either upon a foreign, intercoastal, or
coastwise voyage (including a voyage on the Great Lakes) listed in
paragraph (b) of this section or with the engagement or replacement of
a merchant mariner for such a voyage, each master or individual in
charge of a vessel of the United States shall execute shipping articles
however prepared, manually or electronically. The master or individual
in charge and each mariner engaged or replaced shall sign the the
articles.
(b) Except as provided by Sec. 14.203 of this part, articles are
required upon each voyage by a vessel of the United States--
(1) Of 100 tons or more, from a port in the United States to any
foreign port other than a port in--
(i) Canada;
(ii) Mexico; or
(iii) The West Indies;
(2) Of 75 gross tons or more, between a port of the United States
on the Atlantic Ocean and a port of the United States on the Pacific
Coast; or
(3) Of 50 gross tons or more, between a port in one State and a
port in another State other than an adjoining State.
Sec. 14.203 Voyages upon which shipping articles are not required.
Although they may be used for the voyage, shipping articles are not
required for any voyage by--
(a) A yacht;
(b) A vessel engaged exclusively in fishing or whaling;
(c) A vessel aboard which the merchant mariners are by custom or
agreement entitled to participate in the profits or results of a cruise
or voyage;
[[Page 13801]]
(d) A vessel employed exclusively in trade on the navigable rivers
of the United States;
(e) A ferry, or a tug used in ferrying, if the vessel is employed
exclusively in trade on the Great Lakes, other lakes, bays, sounds,
bayous, canals, or harbors; or
(f) An unrigged vessel other than a seagoing barge.
Sec. 14.205 Production of credentials by merchant mariner signing
shipping articles.
On engagement for a voyage upon which shipping articles are
required, each merchant mariner shall present to the master or
individual in charge of the vessel every document, certificate, or
license required by law for the service the mariner would perform.
Sec. 14.207 Content and form of shipping articles.
(a) (1) The content and form of shipping articles for each vessel
of the United States of 100 gross tons or more upon a foreign or
intercoastal voyage must conform to 46 U.S.C., Secs. 10302, 10303,
10304, and 10305. The articles must identify the nature of the voyage
and specify at least the name, the number of the license or merchant
mariner's document, the capacity of service, the time due on board to
begin work, and the name and address of the next of kin of, and the
wages due to, each merchant mariner, either who was discharged or whose
services were otherwise terminated during the month.
(2) The content and form of articles for each such vessel upon a
coastwise voyage (including a voyage on the Great Lakes) must conform
to 46 U.S.C. 10502. The articles must specify at least the matter
identified by paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except that they must
not specify the wages due to the mariner.
(b) Any shipping company that manually prepares the articles may,
upon request, obtain Shipping Articles, Form CG-705A, from any Officer
in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI), of the Coast Guard.
(c) Any company that electronically prepares the articles may, upon
request submitted to either address in Sec. 14.103, obtain a copy of
software developed by the Coast Guard to produce articles in the proper
format. Alternatively, a company may develop its own software or buy it
off the shelf; but, in either of these cases, it must secure approval
of the software from the National Maritime Center at either address in
Sec. 14.103 of this part.
Sec. 14.209 Preparation of shipping articles at beginning of voyage.
Each master or individual in charge of a vessel when shipping
articles are required shall prepare an original and two copies of the
articles. The original and one copy must be signed by the master or
individual in charge and by each merchant mariner under his or her
command; but the second copy must not be signed by any of them.
Sec. 14.211 Posting of copy of shipping articles.
On commencement of a foreign, intercoastal, or coastwise voyage
(including a voyage on the Great Lakes), each master or individual in
charge of a vessel when shipping articles are required shall ensure
that a legible copy of the articles, unsigned, is posted at a place
accessible to the crew.
Sec. 14.213 Report of shipment of merchant mariner.
(a) When a vessel of the United States sails upon a foreign,
intercoastal, or coastwise voyage (excluding a voyage on the Great
Lakes), each master or individual in charge shall, at the commencement
of the voyage, send one copy of shipping articles, signed by himself or
herself and by each merchant mariner under his or her command, to the
owner, charterer, or managing operator. He or she shall keep the
original throughout the voyage and enter in it all changes made to the
crew during the voyage.
(b)(1) When a vessel of the United States sails exclusively on the
Great Lakes, each master or individual in charge shall, at the
commencement of the season, or once the vessel is put into service,
whichever occurs earlier, send one copy of articles, signed by himself
or herself and by each mariner under his or her command, to the owner,
charterer, or managing operator.
(2) The master or individual in charge shall send supplementary
particulars of engagement covering each mariner engaged during the
month, signed by himself or herself and by each mariner under his or
her command, to the owner, charterer, or managing operator.
(3) The master or individual in charge shall, at the close of the
season, or once the vessel is withdrawn from service, whichever occurs
later, send articles, signed by himself or herself and by each mariner
under his or her command, to the owner, charterer, or managing
operator.
(c) When a vessel of the United States sails exclusively on bays or
sounds, each master or individual in charge shall, on the last day of
each calendar month, send articles, signed by himself or herself and by
each mariner under his or her command, to the owner, charterer, or
managing operator.
(d) Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of this
section is subject to a civil penalty of $5,000.
Subpart C--Discharge of Merchant Mariners
Sec. 14.301 Paying off of merchant mariner during or after voyage upon
which shipping articles are required.
Each master or individual in charge of a vessel when shipping
articles are required shall complete and sign, and each merchant
mariner paid off during or after such a voyage shall sign, the articles
and otherwise comply with the requirements of this subpart. When signed
by the master or individual in charge and by the mariner, the articles
constitute a release from the duties to which they bound their parties.
Sec. 14.303 Discharge of merchant mariner in foreign port.
Except as provided by Sec. 14.305 of this part, in a foreign port
where a United States consul or his or her representative (``consul'')
is available, each master or individual in charge of a vessel from
which a merchant mariner is being discharged in that port and each
mariner being discharged in that port shall sign the shipping articles
and the certificate of discharge in the presence of the consul.
Sec. 14.305 Discharge of merchant mariner in foreign port without
appearance before consul.
(a) In a foreign port where a United States consul or his or her
representative (``consul'') is available, the consul may waive the
appearance before the consul of--
(1) Any master or individual in charge of a vessel, if the consul
finds that he or she cannot accompany the merchant mariner to the
consul without placing the crew, the vessel, or the cargo at risk by
his or her absence; or
(2) Any mariner being discharged in that port, if the consul find
that the mariner cannot accompany the master or individual in charge to
the consul without placing himself or herself at risk.
(b) If the consul waives the personal appearance of either the
master or individual in charge or the mariner, the master or individual
in charge shall, as the case may be, send or give the consul--
(1) A written statement showing the name and official number of the
vessel, the name of the shipping company, and the type of voyage; the
name, the social-security number, the capacity of service, the date and
place of engagement, and the date and place of discharge of the
mariner; and the reasons why the
[[Page 13802]]
mariner is being discharged and why, as the case may be, the master or
individual in charge or the mariner cannot appear before the consul;
(2) An account of the wages due the mariner; and
(3) Either the funds to pay the wages or the commitment of the
company to pay.
(c) If the consul deems the statement, the account, and the funds
or the commitment satisfactory, the consul may discharge the mariner as
if both the master or individual in charge and the mariner had appeared
before him or her.
(d) If the consul deems the statement, the account, or the funds or
the commitment unsatisfactory, the consul may decline to discharge the
mariner--and may order the return of him or her to the vessel at the
expense of the vessel, so long as the return will cause no harm to the
mariner, the crew, the vessel, or the cargo.
(e) When an incapacitated merchant mariner cannot sign the shipping
articles, the certificate of discharge, or any other form (including a
Mutual Release, Form CG-713A) on leaving the vessel, the master or
individual in charge of the vessel shall complete the master's part of
the form and place the form with the mariner.
Sec. 14.307 Entries in continuous discharge book.
If a merchant mariner holds a continuous discharge book, the master
or individual in charge of the vessel shall make the proper entries in
it.
Sec. 14.309 Entries on certificate of discharge.
(a) Each master or individual in charge of a vessel shall, for each
merchant mariner being discharged from the vessel, prepare a
certificate of discharge and two copies--whether by writing or typing
them on the prescribed form with permanent ink or generating them from
computer in the prescribed format--and shall sign them with permanent
ink.
(b) Each mariner being discharged shall sign the certificate and
both copies with permanent ink.
(c) When the mariner leaves the vessel, the master or individual in
charge shall give the certificate to the mariner.
(d) Except as directed by Sec. 14.315 of this part, the shipping
company shall keep both copies of the certificate.
Sec. 14.311 Entries in shipping articles at end of voyage.
(a) At the end of each voyage upon which shipping articles are
required, the master or individual in charge of the vessel shall--
(1) Complete the articles, conforming the pertinent entries in them
to those on the certificate of discharge and its copies;
(2) Note in the articles the execution of each Mutual Release;
(3) Attach to the articles each Mutual Release and a copy of each
certificate; and
(4) Pay to each merchant mariner all wages due.
(b) When he or she is paid off, each mariner shall sign the
articles.
Sec. 14.313 Report of discharge of merchant mariner.
At the end of each foreign, intercoastal, or coastwise voyage by a
vessel of the United States, or of each voyage by such a vessel that
sails exclusively on bays or sounds (or by such a vessel at the close
of the season on the Great Lakes, or once the vessel is withdrawn from
service there, whichever occurs later), the shipping company shall
either--
(a) Send a copy of each certificate of discharge to the address in
paragraph 14.103(a) of this part; or
(b) Electronically transmit the data that go onto the certificates,
in proper format, via disk to the address in Sec. 14.103(a) of this
part, via modem to an electronic address which the shipping company may
request from the National Maritime Center or via internet.
Sec. 14.315 Storage of shipping articles and of certificates of
discharge.
(a) Each shipping company shall keep all original shipping articles
and copies of all certificates of discharge for ten years. The Coast
Guard will dispose of copies of certificates submitted manually, once
the data are entered into its sea-service database and are validated.
(b) Each shipping company that goes out of business or merges with
another company shall send all original articles to the address in
paragraph 14.103(a) of this part within 30 days of the transaction.
Subpart D--Oceanographic-Research Vessels
Sec. 14.401 General.
Unless otherwise provided by Title 46, U.S.C., by any amending or
supplementing that Title, or by this subpart, that Title--as far as it
governs the employment of merchant mariners--remains, and any act
amending or supplementing that Title becomes, applicable to
oceanographic-research vessels.
Sec. 14.403 Exemptions.
(a) Certain requirements of Title 46, U.S.C., do not apply to the
employment of merchant mariners on oceanographic-research vessels.
These requirements are those concerned with, among other things, the
shipment and discharge of mariners, their pay and allotments, and the
adequacy of their clothing. 46 U.S.C. 2113(2) allows exemptions of
oceanographic-research vessels from certain requirements of Part B, C,
F, or G of Subtitle II of Title 46 U.S.C., upon such terms as the
Secretary deems suitable. The exemptions available under this subpart
are subject to the terms specified below:
(1) No use of any exemption relieves the owner, charterer, managing
operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel of other
statutory responsibilities for the protection of every mariner under
his or her command.
(2) If it is presented at a reasonable time and in a reasonable
manner, the master or individual in charge shall receive, consider, and
appropriately address the legitimate complaint of any mariner.
(b) For any oceanographic-research vessel sailing with any mariner
employed by any firm, association, corporation, or educational or
governmental body or agency, the Commandant may grant exemptions from
Title 46, U.S.C.:
(1) Section 10301, Application.
(2) Section 10302, Shipping articles (for foreign and intercoastal
voyages).
(3) Section 10307, Posting of articles.
(4) Section 10308, Foreign engagements.
(5) Section 10311, Certificates of discharge.
(6) Sections 10313 & 10504, Wages.
(7) Sections 10314 & 10505, Advances.
(8) Section 10315. Allotments.
(9) Sections 10316 & 10506, Trusts.
(10) Sections 10321 & 10508, General penalties.
(11) Section 10502, Shipping articles (for coastwise voyages).
(12) Section 10509, Penalty for failure to begin coastwise voyages.
Sec. 14.405 Procedures.
(a) Upon written request by the owner, charterer, managing
operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel to the OCMI of
the Coast Guard in whose zone the vessel is located, the Commandant may
grant an exemption of any oceanographic-research vessel designated by
46 U.S.C. 2113(2) from any requirement of any section listed by
paragraph 14.403(b) of this part.
(b) The request must state--
(1) Any requirement of any section listed by paragraph 14.403(b) of
this part from which the applicant wishes an exemption; and
(2) What business-practices regarding, among other things, the
shipment and
[[Page 13803]]
discharge of merchant mariners, their pay and allotments, and the
adequacy of their clothing would justify the exemption.
(c) The OCMI will forward the request, along with his or her
recommendation, to the Commandant, who will determine whether to grant
any exemption of any vessel from any requirement. The OCMI will issue a
letter indicating any exemption granted. The master or individual in
charge of the vessel shall keep the letter aboard the vessel.
(d) If operating conditions change, the owner, charterer, managing
operator, master, or individual in charge of the vessel shall so advise
the OCMI. The OCMI will forward pertinent information on how the
conditions have changed, along with his or her recommendation, to the
Commandant, who will determine whether any exemption should remain
granted.
Sec. 14.407 Reports.
(a) The owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual
in charge of each oceanographic-research vessel of 100 gross tons or
more shall maintain a record of the employment, discharge, or
termination of service of every merchant mariner in the crew. At least
every six months, the person maintaining this record shall transmit it
to the Coast Guard--either manually, in the form of a copy of a
certificate of discharge, or electronically.
(b) The owner, charterer, managing operator, master, or individual
in charge of the vessel shall keep original shipping articles and a
copy of each certificate ready for review by the Coast Guard or the
concerned mariner upon request. (After the effective date of this rule,
the Coast Guard will no longer keep either original articles or copies
of certificates; it will keep only electronic records of employment.)
(c) The master or individual in charge of the vessel shall ensure
that every entry made in the articles agrees with the corresponding
entry made in a continuous discharge book, on a certificate, or in any
other proof of sea service furnished to the mariner.
(d) Each oceanogrpahic company shall keep all original articles and
copies of all certificates for ten years. After then each such company
shall send all articles to the address in paragraph 14.103(a) of this
part.
(e) Each oceanographic company that goes out of business or merges
with another company shall send all original articles to the address in
paragraph 14.103(a) of this part, within 30 days of the transaction.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
J.C. Card,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 96-7455 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7221 Telecommunications Act of 1996
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13803-13809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7221]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 96-57; FCC 96-117]
Telecommunications Act of 1996
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(``NPRM'') in order to solicit comment on the proper implementation of
Section 623(a)(7)(A) of the Communications Act. This NPRM is necessary
to fulfill the statutory requirement in Section 301(j) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 that the Commission allow cable
operators to aggregate, on a franchise, system, regional, or company
level, their equipment costs into broad categories regardless of the
varying levels of functionality of the equipment within each such broad
category. This proceeding will permit the Commission to issue final
rules.
DATES: Comments are due April 12, 1996. Reply comments are due April
22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ibn Spicer, Cable Services Bureau,
Financial Analysis Division (202) 418-2296.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in CS Docket No. 96-57, FCC 96-117, adopted March 18, 1996
and released March 20, 1996. The complete text of this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (room 239), 1919 M
Street N.W., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services,
Inc. (``ITS Inc.'') at (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street N.W., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20017.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), we propose to
amend our rules to implement Section 301(j) of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 (``1996 Act'') which adds a new Section 623(a)(7) to the
Communication Act of 1934, as amended (``Communications Act''). Section
301(j) of the 1996 Act requires that the Commission allow cable
operators to aggregate, on a franchise, system, regional, or company
level, their equipment costs into broad categories regardless of the
varying levels of functionality of the equipment within each such broad
category. That section also provides that ``[s]uch aggregation shall
not be permitted with respect to equipment used by subscribers who
receive only a rate regulated basic tier.''
Discussion
A. Cost Categorization
2. Section 301(j) of the 1996 Act requires the Commission to allow
regulated operators to aggregate ``their [customer] equipment costs
into broad categories, such as converter boxes, regardless of the
varying levels of functionality of the equipment within each such broad
category.'' We tentatively conclude that the statute intends that
equipment be classified and placed in categories based on the primary
purpose of the equipment.
3. We propose to amend the Equipment Basket provisions in Section
76.923(c) to allow categorization of customer equipment costs into
broad categories. We further propose eliminating the language in
Sections 76.923(f) and (g) that requires separate charges for each
significantly different type of remote control device, converter box,
and other customer equipment. We propose amending the rules to require
that equipment be categorized based on its primary purpose. Thus,
customer equipment, except equipment used by basic-only subscribers,
that is used for the same purpose may be aggregated into the same broad
category and priced at the same rate, regardless of the level of
functionality. We seek comment on whether the Commission should
establish a definition of the term ``level of functionality'' in order
to bring more certainty to these new rules. If commenters believe we
should do so, they should propose a definition of that term. Because
equipment rates to subscribers must be based on actual costs, operators
must base equipment charges on the same aggregation level as their
costs. We propose amending our rules to make this explicit. Section
76.923(l) currently permits small systems to average costs for
``similar types of equipment'' on a company-wide basis. We propose
eliminating this section since all systems shall be permitted to
aggregate equipment
[[Page 13804]]
pursuant to the new provisions in the 1996 Act.
4. Section 76.923(h) currently contains language that effectively
requires separate charges for connections, which includes inside wire,
additional outlets and signal boosters, if needed, used to provide
cable service to additional television receivers. That language was
included to implement Section 623(b)(3) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, which specifically required rates for installation
and monthly use of connections for additional television receivers be
separate from rates for the initial receiver. Therefore, we tentatively
conclude that additional connections may not be aggregated with initial
connections into a broad category.
B. Organizational Levels
5. In light of new section 623(a)(7), we propose that Section
76.923(c) of our rules be amended to specifically permit customer
equipment cost aggregation at the franchise, system, regional, or
company level. Because equipment rates to subscribers must be based on
actual costs, operators must base equipment charges on the same
aggregation level as their costs. We propose amending our rules to make
this explicit. Furthermore, to the extent that our current rules permit
cost aggregation of equipment only in a manner consistent with an
operator's practices on April 3, 1993, we propose eliminating this date
restriction. We tentatively conclude that such a restriction would
improperly prevent an operator from aggregating costs at higher
organizational levels, as specifically permitted in the statute.
6. We tentatively conclude that Congress did not intend that cost
aggregation be permitted to the same extent for installation charges.
We reach this tentative conclusion because Section 301(j) of the 1996
Act refers only to equipment and not to installations, whereas the 1992
Cable Act separately mentions installations. Consistent with our small
system rules, we believe that customer equipment charges are less
likely to vary significantly between systems, whereas installation
charges are more dependent on local labor and other costs that can vary
between communities. We recognize, however, that this requirement could
impose additional burdens on cable operators, since customer equipment
rates could be set at higher organizational levels than installation
rates. We therefore propose that operators be permitted to aggregate
installation costs based on specific service areas designated for the
aggregation of those costs. Under this approach, a rate could be
established for installation for a specific service area that is chosen
by the operator because the costs of providing installation are
substantially similar throughout all franchises in that chosen service
area. We seek comment on this approach. We also seek comment on whether
there are alternative levels at which installation costs could be
identified that would ease burdens on operators, yet still comport with
Congressional intent.
C. Basic-Only Subscriber Equipment
7. The 1996 Act prohibits ``[s]uch aggregation * * * with respect
to equipment used by subscribers who receive only a rate regulated
basic service tier.'' We tentatively conclude that Congress was
concerned that basic-only subscribers not subsidize the costs of more
sophisticated equipment used by subscribers taking services in addition
to basic. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that equipment used by
basic-only subscribers may not be aggregated into broad categories. We
propose amending Section 76.923(c) to provide that the cost of
equipment used by basic service-only customers may not be averaged with
other customer equipment. However, the statute is not clear as to
whether a cable operator may aggregate the costs of equipment used by
basic-only customers at higher organizational levels and developing
system, regional, or company average prices for such equipment.
Although we recognize this ambiguity, we believe that allowing cable
companies to aggregate the costs of equipment used by basic service-
only customers at a higher organizational level and develop a rate
based upon such aggregation does not contravene Congress' concern that
basic-only subscribers not subsidize the costs of more sophisticated
equipment used by subscribers taking other services in addition to
basic. Any aggregation of the costs of basic service-only equipment at
a higher organizational level will still only include equipment for
that level of service. We seek comment on this issue.
D. Equipment Rates Jurisdiction and Review
8. Affected local franchising authorities will continue to review
the equipment rates and supporting aggregated cost data as part of the
review of the cable operators' rate justifications for basic rates. We
recognize that the review of aggregated cost data regarding equipment
by each of the affected local franchising authorities could lead to
varying analyses and potentially inconsistent orders regarding that
data. We seek comment on whether there is an alternative that could be
more administratively efficient for local franchising authorities and
cable operators alike.
E. FCC Form 1205
9. Because of our above tentative conclusions and proposed rules
changes, we believe that FCC Form 1205 will need to be modified. We are
proposing revisions to Form 1205 and seek comment on these revisions.
The pages of Form 1205 containing revisions are set forth below.
Procedural Provisions
A. Ex Parte Presentations
10. This is a non-restricted notice-and-comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in
the Commission's rules. See generally 47 CFR Sections 1.1202, 1.1203,
1.1206(a).
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
11. Pursuant to Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Commission has prepared the following initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (``IRFA'') of the expected impact of these proposed policies
and rules on small entities. Written public comments are requested on
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same
filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to
the IRFA. Our initial regulatory flexibility analysis under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act indicates that if the proposed rule changes
are promulgated, there will not be a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities, as defined by Section
601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and that any impact will be to
give operators new, less burdensome options to comply with our rules.
We are committed to reducing the regulatory burdens on small cable
operators whenever possible, consistent with our other public interest
responsibilities. The Secretary shall send a copy of this NPRM of
Proposed Rulemaking to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sections 601 et seq. (1981).
12. The Commission issues this NPRM to consider the changes needed
to permit cable operators to aggregate equipment costs into broad
categories
[[Page 13805]]
and at the organizational level of their choice, as required by Section
301(j)) of the 1996 Act.
13. Objectives. To solicit comments on the rule changes needed to
implement Section 301(j) of the 1996 Act.
14. Legal Basis. Action as proposed for this rulemaking is
contained in Section 301(j) of the 1996 Act.
15. Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities
Affected. The proposals, if adopted, will not have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rules changes
would provide all regulated entities with new options, but would not
require them to change the methodology by which they currently justify
equipment rates. Thus, any economic impact of the rule changes will be
positive.
16. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements.
None.
17. Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with these
Rules. None.
18. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small
Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.
C. Comment Filing Procedures
19. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sections 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on April 12, 1996, and reply
comments on April 22, 1996. To file formally in this proceeding,
interested parties must file an original and four copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. We find these
periods for the filing of comments and reply comments to be reasonable
in light of the 1996 Act's mandate that the Commission issue revisions
to the appropriate rules and forms concerning the aggregation of
equipment costs within 120 days of enactment. See Florida Power & Light
Co. v. United States, 846 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1988) cert. denied, 490
U.S. 1045 (1989). Any party that wishes each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of its comments, must file an original and nine copies.
Comments and reply comments should be limited to 25 pages, with
reasonable margins and font size of at least 12 points, and sent to
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M
Street, N.W., Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554, with a copy to Lenworth
Smith, Jr. of the Cable Services Bureau, 2033 M Street, N.W., Room
805E, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239, Washington, D.C.
20554.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
20. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This NPRM
proposes a modified information collection for FCC Form 1205. As part
of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the
general public and the OMB to take this opportunity to comment on the
information collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB
comments are due 60 days from date of publication of this NPRM in the
Federal Register. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
21. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
information collections are due on or before 15 days after publication
in the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 10 days after
the comment due date. Written comments must be submitted by the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') on the proposed and/or modified
information collections on or before 60 days after date of publication
in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the
Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections
contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to Timothy Fain,
OMB Desk Officer, 10236, NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0603.
Title: Rates for equipment and installation used to receive the
basic service tier
Type of Review: Revision of existing collection
Respondents: Businesses or other for profit; state, local or tribal
government
Number of Respondents: 2,000.
Estimated Time Per Response: The commission estimates an average
burden of 4 hours for cable operators to maintain in-house accounting
records pertaining to 76.923. The Commission estimates a burden of 1
hour for cable operators contracting out for accounting services.
Total Annual Burden: We estimate 75% of respondents maintain
records in-house and 25% contract out. 1,500 (75% in-house) x 4 hours
= 6,000. 500 (25% contracted out) x 1 hour = 500. 6,000 + 500 = 6,500
hours.
Estimated costs per respondent: We estimate that operators
contracting out accounting assistance will pay $100 per hour for the
maintenance of their accounting systems. 500 (25% contracted out)
accounting systems x 4 hours @ $100 per hour = $200,000.
Needs and Uses: The information is used by cable operators in their
accounting systems to justify rates for equipment and installations.
OMB Approval Number: 3060-0592.
Title: FCC Form 1205 Determining Costs of Regulated Cable Equipment
and Installation.
Form No.: FCC Form 1205.
Type of Review: Revision of existing collection
Respondents: Business and other for profit; state, local and tribal
government
Number of Respondents: 8,800.
Estimated Time Per Response: The Commission estimates an average
burden of 12 hours for operators to complete the FCC Form 1205 in-
house. For operators contracting out accounting and legal assistance
for completing the FCC Form 1205, we estimate an average burden of 1
hour.
Total Annual Burden: We estimate 75% of operators complete the FCC
Form 1205 in-house and 25% contract out for assistance. 6,600 (75% in-
house) x 12 hours = 79,200. 2,200 (25% contracted out) x 1 hour =
2,200 hours. 79,200 + 2,200 = 81,400 hours. The average burden to local
franchising authorities to review FCC Form 1205s is estimated to be 8
hours per filing. We estimate local franchising authorities review
approximately 8,000 FCC Form 1205 filings annually. 8,000 x 8 hours =
64,000. 81,400 + 64,000 = 145,400 hours.
Estimated costs per respondent: We estimate postage and
photocopying costs of $2 per filing. 8,800 x $2 = $17,600. We
estimate that operators contracting out accounting assistance will pay
$100 per hour to complete FCC Form 1205. 2,200 (25% contracted out) x
12 hours @ $100 per hour = $2,640,000. $17,600 + $2,640,000 =
$2,657,600.
[[Page 13806]]
Needs and Uses: Information derived from FCC Form 1205 filings
facilitates the review of equipment and installation rates when
reviewed by applicable local franchising authorities.
Ordering Clauses
22. Accordingly, it is Ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i),
4(j), 303(r), and 623 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 543, Notice is Hereby Given
of proposed amendments to Part 76, in accordance with the proposals,
discussions, and statement of issues in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and that Comment is Sought regarding such proposals,
discussion, and statement of issues.
23. It is Further Ordered that, the Secretary shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the regulatory
flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration, in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Sections 601 et seq. (1981).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Proposed Amendatory Text
Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 76--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 76 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 2, 3, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 48 Stat. as
amended, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1101; 47
U.S.C. Secs. 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 532, 535, 542,
543, 552, as amended, 106 Stat. 1460.
2. Section 76.923 is amended by revising paragraphs (c), (f), and
(g), removing paragraph (l) and redesignating paragraphs (m) through
(o) as as paragraphs (l) through (n)and revising redesignated paragraph
(l) to read as follows:
Sec. 76.923 Rates for equipment and installation used to receive the
basic service tier.
* * * * *
(c) Equipment basket. A cable operator shall establish an Equipment
Basket, which shall include all costs associated with providing
customer equipment and installation under this section. Equipment
Basket costs shall be limited to the direct and indirect material and
labor costs of providing, leasing, installing, repairing, and servicing
customer equipment, as determined in accordance with the cost
accounting and cost allocation requirements of Sec. 76.924, except that
operators do not have to aggregate costs in a manner consistent with
the accounting practices of the operator on April 3, 1993. The
Equipment Basket shall not include general administrative overhead
including marketing expenses. The Equipment Basket shall include a
reasonable profit.
(1) Customer Equipment. Costs of customer equipment included in the
Equipment Basket may be aggregated, on a franchise, system, regional,
or company level, into broad categories. Except to the extent indicated
in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, such categorization may be made,
provided that each category includes only equipment having the same
primary purpose, regardless of the levels of functionality of the
equipment within each such broad category. When submitting its
equipment costs based on average charges, the cable operator must
provide a general description of the averaging methodology employed and
a justification that its averaging methodology produces reasonable
equipment rates.
(2) Basic Service Tier Only Equipment. Costs of customer equipment
included in the Equipment Basket, which is used by subscribers who
receive only a rate regulated basic service tier, shall not be
aggregated into broad cost categories. Costs of each significantly
different type of equipment must be classified into specific equipment
cost categories. The costs shall not be averaged with the costs of
equipment that is used by subscribers who receive only a rate regulated
basic service tier.
(3) Installation Costs. Installation costs may be aggregated only
for a specific service area, to the extent that the costs of providing
installation are substantially similar throughout all franchises in
that service area.
* * * * *
(f) Remote charges. Monthly charges for rental of a remote control
unit shall consist of the average annual unit purchase cost of remotes
leased, including acquisition price and incidental costs such as sales
tax, financing and storage up to the time it is provided to the
customer, added to the product of the HSC times the average number of
hours annually repairing or servicing a remote, divided by 12 to
determine the monthly lease rate for a remote according to the
following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MR96.005
Where, HR = average hours repair per year; and UCE = average annual
unit cost of remote.
(g) Other equipment charges. The monthly charge for rental of
converter boxes and other customer equipment shall be calculated in the
same manner as for remote control units. Separate charges may be
established for each category of other customer equipment.
* * * * *
(l) Cable operators shall set charges for equipment and
installations to recover Equipment Basket costs. Such charges shall be
set, consistent with the level at which Equipment Basket costs are
aggregated as provided in Sec. 76.923(c). Cable operators shall
maintain adequate documentation to demonstrate that charges for the
sale and lease of equipment and for installations have been developed
in accordance with the rules set forth in this section.
* * * * *
Attachment--Changes to the Instructions for FCC Form 1205
Note: This attachment will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
FCC Form 1205--Instructions for Determining Costs of Regulated Cable
Equipment and Installation
``Equipment Form''
Schedule B: Annual Operating Expenses for Service
Installation and Maintenance of Equipment. This schedule collects
total annual operating expenses for installation and maintenance of
cable facilities. The costs collected here include salaries,
benefits, and supplies.
Schedule C: Capital Costs of Leased Customer Equipment.
This schedule computes the annual capital costs for each type or
category of customer premises equipment that you offer in connection
with regulated service. The method of computing capital costs is the
same as that used in Schedule A.
Schedule D: Average Hours Per Installation. This
schedule is used only if you choose to charge average rates for
different types of installation services, as opposed to an hourly
service charge. This schedule collects the average hours required to
complete various types of installations.
Worksheet for Calculating Permitted Equipment and
Installation Charges. You must complete this worksheet only if you
are calculating the costs of specific equipment and installations to
derive the maximum rates you may charge for regulated equipment and
installations.
Worksheet for Calculating Total Equipment and
Installation Costs. Utilizing
[[Page 13807]]
the data collected and computed in Schedules A through D, this
worksheet calculates a monthly per subscriber cost of regulated
equipment and installations that is used to separate these costs
from cable services rates. You must complete this worksheet only if
you are filing this form in conjunction with a FCC Form 1200, Form
1220, or Form 1225 to establish maximum permitted rates for
regulated cable services.
Summary Schedule: Current Equipment and Installation
Rates. This Schedule collects information determined on the
Worksheet for Calculating Permitted Equipment and Installation
Charges and presents it in summary form together with your actual
equipment and installation charges.
General Instructions
You should complete this Form using financial data from the
company's general ledger and subsidiary records maintained in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The
Commission's cost accounting rules require that cable operators
maintain their accounts in accordance with these requirements and in
a manner that will enable identification of appropriate costs and
application of the Commission's cost assignments and allocation
procedures (see 47 CFR Sec. 76.924). The data submitted in this Form
1205 should be from the operator's fiscal year indicated on the
cover sheet. However, when there has been an unusual change in
operations, data from a representative month may be used for the
calculation of rates, subject to acceptance by the franchising
authority or, when applicable, by the FCC. You must attach
justification for this approach.
To the extent you have not previously maintained accounts in a
manner consistent with our rules, and do not have fully developed
cost data, you must indicate on this Form that you are using
estimates, where necessary, in calculating equipment and
installation costs and rates, and provide justification that the
estimates are reasonable.
The data for installations (includable in Schedules A and C) may
be identified only for a specific service area, to the extent that
the costs of providing installations are substantially similar
throughout all franchises in that service area. The data for
customer equipment (includable in Schedule C) may be identified on a
franchise, system, regional, or company level. For purposes of
calculating cable service rates on an FCC Form 1200, 1220, or 1225,
the cost data developed on this Form 1205 must be adjusted to the
franchise area level (see Worksheet for Calculating Permitted
Equipment and Installation Charges or Worksheet for Calculating
Total Equipment and Installation Costs below for instructions).
Cable operators completing this Form in conjunction with FCC
Form 1200 should be aware that the figure entered on line 14 of the
Worksheet for Calculating Total Equipment and Installation Costs
will be entered on either line D2 or line E2, and on line I2 of FCC
Form 1200.
Precision of Calculation; Rounding
If you are performing the calculations required by this form by
hand, you must display at least four decimal places. If you are
using a calculator or computer, you must carry out the calculation
to the full precision afforded by your calculator or computer and
display at least four decimal places. If you are using the
spreadsheet version of this form, the spreadsheet will round
calculations for you; you do not need to display additional decimal
places.
The only place you should round the figures is in the Summary
Schedule. These figures should be rounded to the nearest cent.
About the Spreadsheet
The FCC has developed an electronic spreadsheet to assist you in
making the necessary calculations on the Form 1205. We strongly
recommend that you make use of this spreadsheet.
If you use the spreadsheet, the values for the shaded boxes on
the Form 1205 will be calculated automatically and filled in for
you. Instructions for the corresponding line numbers are italicized.
You may submit a completed version of an official Form 1205, an
exact photocopy of that form, or a copy generated by Commission
software, provided that it has the appearance of an actual Form
1205.
If You Need Help
If you have any questions while completing this Form, please
call the FCC's Cable Services Bureau between 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time on Monday through Friday at (202) 418-2381.
FCC Notice to Individuals Required by the Privacy Act and the Paperwork
Reduction Act
The solicitation of personal information in this form is
authorized by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The
Commission and/or the local franchising authority will use the
information provided in this form to determine the reasonableness of
a cable company's rates. In reaching that determination, or for law
enforcement purposes, it may become necessary to provide personal
information contained in this form to another government agency. If
information requested on this form is not provided, processing may
be delayed. All information provided in this form will be available
for public inspection. Your response is required to apply the
Commission's cable rate standards and to provide a response to
consumer complaints. Respondents are not required to respond to this
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget control number.
Public reporting burden for this information is estimated to
average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden
estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Federal
Communications Commission, Records Management Division, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Do not send completed forms to this address.
The foregoing notice is required by the Privacy Act of 1974,
Pubic Law 93-579, December 31, 1975, 5 U.S.C. 522a(e)(3) and the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 104-13, May 22, 1995, 47 U.S.C.
3507.
Instructions for Schedule C--Capital Costs of Leased Customer Equipment
Schedule C computes the annual capital costs of equipment leased
to customers. Follow the instructions below for each type or
category of leased equipment.
Note: Subscriber drops up to the Commission-defined cable
network demarcation point at the customer's premises are considered
network equipment and may not be included as customer equipment on
Schedule C.
Line A--Equipment. List all customer equipment for which you
wish there to be a separate charge. You may calculate separate
charges for specific types of equipment including different models
of remote control units, different types of converter boxes, and
other equipment (e.g., splitters and amplifiers). However, at your
option, customer equipment may instead be listed in broad
categories, provided that each category includes only equipment
having the same primary purpose, regardless of the levels of
functionality of the equipment within each broad category. Except,
customer equipment which is used by subscribers who receive only a
rate regulated basic service tier, shall not be aggregated into
broad cost categories. Costs of each significantly different type of
equipment must be classified into specific equipment cost
categories.
The costs shall not be averaged with the costs of equipment that
is used by subscribers who receive only a rate regulated basic
service tier. In addition, with respect to the lease of cable
connections, the cost of additional connections may not be
aggregated with the cost of initial connections.
On an attached sheet, list separately each type or category of
other equipment for which you plan to develop a separate charge and
provide the necessary information as required on lines A through K
of Schedule C to compute the charge. A separate charge must be
developed for each type or category of other customer equipment.
Enter in the ``Other Equipment'' column of Schedule C the total
figures for the equipment included on your attachment.
Line B--Total Maintenance/Service Hours. Enter the total
maintenance and/or service hours. Attach a Schedule explaining how
you calculated these figures.
Line C--Total Number of Units in Service. Enter the total number
of units in service for leased remotes and converter boxes. For
other leased equipment, list the total number of units in service or
the total number of subscribers using this equipment, whichever is
appropriate. Use either the number of units or subscribers for the
last day of the fiscal year covered by this Form 1205.
Line D--Gross Book Value. Enter the gross book value of the
listed equipment as of the date you closed books for the time period
covered by the filing of this Form. The gross book value includes
the cost of a reasonable number of spare customer equipment units
that the operator keeps on-hand as replacements for broken
equipment.
Schedule D asks for information about four categories of
installations: (a) installations of
[[Page 13808]]
unwired homes; (b) installations of already wired homes; (c)
installations of additional connections at the time of initial
installation; and (d) installations of additional connections after
initial installation. These data are needed in the first worksheet
below to calculate the four separate average charges that the
Commission requires for an operator choosing to exercise the average
charge option. Spaces also are included for other specific types of
installations (such as those requiring extra long drops to the
home). Attach additional sheets as needed.
Worksheet for Calculating Permitted Equipment and Installation Charges
Step A: Hourly Service Charge (HSC).
The Hourly Service Charge (HSC) is designed to recover the costs
of service installation and maintenance of customer equipment. The
HSC will be used as a factor in developing permitted charges for
installation and monthly lease of individual pieces of equipment. To
calculate the HSC, you will compute your annual capital costs plus
expenses for the maintenance of customer equipment and the
installation of basic tier service. You will divide the total costs
and expenses by the total number of person-hours spent on those
activities over the past year.
The HSC includes the annual capital costs for installing,
maintaining, and repairing customer equipment for the specific
service area to which this filing applies; the capital cost of the
customer equipment itself, however, is not recovered through the
HSC. That cost is recovered through the lease of that type of
equipment (see Steps C through E of the Worksheet for Calculating
Permitted Equipment and Installation Charges).
Note 1: If an expense amount is included on Schedule B for
equipment sent out for repair, an appropriate adjustment to the
total labor hours reported on this Form must be made. This
adjustment adds ``equivalent labor hours'' to the total company
labor hours. This may be calculated, for example, as total costs
included on Schedule B for work sent out for repair divided by the
average company technician wage rate. The total cost may be
recovered by including the average hours in the computation for the
appropriate equipment charges computed in Steps C through E. In any
case that an amount is included on Schedule B for work sent out for
repair, explain all the adjustments made on the Worksheet. This
explanation must include the number of hours added on line 6 below
as well as a description of and the number of hours added into the
charges developed in Steps C through E.
Note 2: With respect to the calculation for labor costs
associated with installation of the drop up to the Commission-
defined cable network demarcation point at the customer's premises,
you have two options. The first option is to include the labor costs
associated with subscriber drops in the charges for installations.
The second option is to capitalize such costs in distribution plant
as part of the cost of drops. (In this case, the labor cost for
drops is recovered in the charges for cable services only--not in
installation or customer equipment charges.) If the second option is
chosen, the costs and the associated hours must be eliminated from
the charges for all customer equipment and installation charges.
Line 9d1--HSC. Enter the HSC from line 7.
Line 9d2--Average Hours Per Additional Connection Installation
Requiring Separate Installation. Enter the figure from line D of
Schedule D.
Line 9d3--Charge per Additional Connection Installation
Requiring Separate Installation. Multiply line 9d1 by line 9d2.
Line 9e--Other Installations (As specified in Schedule D, Line
E).
If there are more than three other types of installations,
attach a separate sheet showing how the charges for these other
installations are calculated.
Line 9e1--HSC. Enter the HSC from line 7.
Line 9e2--Average Hours Per Installation of Item 1. Enter the
figure on Schedule D, line E, Item 1.
Line 9e3--Charge per Installation of Item 1. Multiply line 9e1
by line 9e2.
Line 9e4--HSC. Enter the HSC from line 7.
Line 9e5--Average Hours Per Installation of Item 2. Enter the
figure on Schedule D, line E, Item 2.
Line 9e6--Charge per Installation of Item 2. Multiply line 9e4
by line 9e5.
Line 9e7--HSC. Enter the HSC from line 7.
Line 9e8--Average Hours Per Installation of Item 3. Enter the
figure on Schedule D, line E, Item 3.
Line 9e9--Charge per Installation of Item 3. Multiply line 9e7
by line 9e8.
Step C. Charges for Leased Remotes.
The rental charge for remote control units is designed to
recover the costs of providing and maintaining each type or category
of remote control unit leased by subscribers and includes a
reasonable profit. The charge determined in this step will not
reflect the costs of installation. You must repeat the following
substep calculations for each significantly different type or
category of remote listed in Schedule C. Describe each type or
category of remote in detail sufficient to identify differences
among types and/or categories. Attach extra sheets as needed.
Line 10--Total Maintenance/Service Hours. Enter the total
maintenance and/or service hours for each type or category of remote
from the corresponding column on Schedule C, line B.
Line 11--HSC. Enter the HSC from line 7.
Line 12--Total Maintenance and Service Cost. Multiply line 10 by
the HSC listed on line 11. The result is the total annual cost for
repairing and servicing each type or category of remote.
Line 13--Annual Capital Costs. Enter the annual capital costs
for each type or category of remote from the corresponding column of
line K on Schedule C.
Line 14--Total Cost of Remote. Add line 12 to line 13. The sum
is the total annual cost for each type or category of remote.
Line 15--Number of Units in Service. Enter the number of units
of each type or category of remote in service from the appropriate
column of line C on Schedule C.
Line 16--Unit Cost. Divide line 14 by 15. The result is the
annual unit cost of each type or category of remote.
Line 17--Rate per Month. Divide the figure from line 16 by the
number 12. The result will be the monthly cost of each type or
category of remote including a reasonable profit. This figure is the
maximum permitted monthly lease charge for each type or category of
remote.
Step D. Charges for Leased Converter Boxes.
The rental charge for a converter box is designed to recover the
costs of providing and maintaining that type or category of
converter box leased by a subscriber and includes a reasonable
profit. You must repeat the calculations in the following substeps
for each type or category of converter box listed in Schedule C.
Describe each type or category of converter box in detail sufficient
to identify differences among types and/or categories. Attach extra
sheets as needed.
Line 18--Total Maintenance/Service Hours. Enter the total
maintenance and/or service hours for each type or category of
converter box from the corresponding column of line B on Schedule C.
Line 19--HSC. Enter the HSC from line 7.
Line 20--Total Maintenance and Service Cost. Multiply the figure
from line 18 by the HSC listed on line 19. The result is the total
annual cost for repairing and servicing each type or category of
converter box.
Line 21--Annual Capital Costs. Enter the annual capital costs
for each type or category of converter box from the corresponding
column of line K on Schedule C.
Line 22--Total Cost of Converters. Add line 20 to line 21. The
sum is the total annual cost for each type or category of converter
box.
Line 23--Number of Units in Service. Enter the number of units
of each type or category of converter box from the corresponding
column of line C on Schedule C.
Line 24--Unit Cost. Divide line 22 by line 23. The result is the
annual unit cost of each type or category of converter box.
Line 25--Rate per Month. Divide the figure on line 24 by the
number 12. The result is the monthly cost of each type or category
of converter box including a reasonable profit. This figure is the
maximum permitted monthly lease charge for each type of converter
box.
Step E. Charges for Other Leased Equipment.
The rental charge for other leased equipment is designed to
recover the costs of providing and maintaining that equipment leased
by a subscriber and includes a reasonable profit. An operator
choosing to establish charges for different types of other equipment
must repeat the calculations in the following substeps for each type
or category of other equipment listed in Schedule C. Describe each
type or category of additional leased equipment in detail, e.g.,
additional connections. Attach extra sheets as needed.
Commission rules permit operators to charge for power boosters
installed in connection with additional connections. Operators may
establish a separate charge for the power boosters or may establish
a separate charge for additional connections with power boosters.
Such charges should be identified and included in Step E.
Line 26--Total Maintenance/Service Hours. Enter the total
maintenance and/or
[[Page 13809]]
service hours for this other equipment. Enter the figure from the
corresponding column on Schedule C, line B.
Line 27--HSC. Enter the HSC from line 7.
Line 28--Total Maintenance and Service Cost. Multiply the figure
on line 26 by the HSC listed on line 27. The result is the total
annual cost for repairing and servicing other equipment.
[FR Doc. 96-7221 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.