issue-1996-06-10•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-10
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-10
issue-1996-06-10Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-06-10Proposed 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. 96-14707 Additional Requirements for Facilities Transferring or Receiving Select Infectious Agents
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29327-29333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14707]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
42 CFR Part 72
RIN 0905-AE70
Additional Requirements for Facilities Transferring or Receiving
Select Infectious Agents
AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health
Service (PHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule is being promulgated in accordance with
Section
[[Page 29328]]
511 of Public Law 104-132, ``The Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996,'' (enacted April 24, 1996) which requires such a
proposal be issued within 60 days of enactment and a final rule not
later than 120 days of enactment. CDC proposes this rule to place
additional shipping and handling requirements on laboratory facilities
that transfer or receive select infectious agents capable of causing
substantial harm to human health. CDC is concerned about the
possibility that the interstate transportation of certain infectious
agents could have adverse health consequences for human health and
safety. These requirements apply to laboratory facilities such as those
operated by government agencies, universities, research institutions,
and commercial entities. Those facilities requesting select infectious
agents listed in the regulation must register with the Secretary of
HHS, or with registering entities authorized by the Secretary, as
capable and equipped to handle the select infectious agents in
accordance with requirements developed by CDC, the National Institutes
for Health (NIH), and the Department of Defense.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 10, 1996.
Written comments on the proposed information collection requirements
should also be submitted on or before July 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to the following address: Lynn Myers,
Office of Health and Safety, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333; telephone (404) 639-
2453 or 639-3235. Mail written comments on the proposed information
collection requirements to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th Street, NW, rm.
10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for CDC.
Copies: To order copies of the Federal Register containing this
document, send your request to: New orders, Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Specify the date
of the issue requested and enclose a check or money order payable to
the Superintendent of Documents, or enclose a Visa or MasterCard number
and expiration date. Credit card orders can also be placed by calling
the order desk at (202) 512-1800 or by faxing to (202) 512-2250. The
cost of each copy is $8.00. As an alternative, you can view and
photocopy the Federal Register document at most libraries designated as
Federal Depository Libraries and at many other public and private
libraries throughout the country that receive the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephen Morse, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333;
telephone (404) 639-3222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The current rules found at 42 C.F.R. Part 72
were last updated in 1980 and contain specific requirements for the
packaging, labeling, and transport of infectious agents shipped in
interstate commerce. That regulation does not currently contain
provisions restricting parties who may transfer these agents. This
proposed rule is designed to ensure that select infectious agents are
not shipped to parties who are not equipped to handle them
appropriately, or who otherwise lack proper authorization for their
requests, and to implement a system whereby scientists in research
institutions may continue transferring and receiving these agents
without undue burdens.
I. Background
In recent years, the threat of illegitimate use of infectious
agents has attracted increasing interest from the perspective of public
health. CDC is concerned about the possibility that the interstate
transportation of certain infectious agents could have adverse
consequences for human health and safety. CDC has already requested
that all those entities that ship dangerous human infectious agents
exercise increased vigilance prior to shipment to minimize the risk of
illicit access to infectious agents. Of special concern are pathogens
and toxins causing anthrax, botulism, brucellosis, plague, Q fever,
tularemia, and all agents classified for work at Biosafety level 4.
In particular, CDC has already requested that potential providers
of these agents carefully and thoroughly review all requests before
transferring these agents. This March, 1996, CDC request for voluntary
safeguards has been a first step in strengthening regulatory and
statutory protections in this area.
II. Proposed Rule
In accordance with Section 511 of Public Law 104-132, ``The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,'' CDC is
proposing new regulations regarding acquisition and transfer of select
infectious agents. These proposed regulations have been developed with
input from professional associations, the research community, law
enforcement authorities, and concerned members of the public. It is
anticipated that most facilities transferring these agents are engaged
in activities consisting of interstate commerce, thus subjecting both
intrastate and interstate transfers made by such facilities to this
regulation. In addition, because these agents have the potential for
causing mass destruction or widespread disease in humans, CDC has
determined intrastate transfers of these agents from one geographical
site to another also pose a risk of potential interstate transmission
of disease; therefore, intrastate transfers of these agents are also
subject to the regulation. Transfers within a single facility at a
single geographical site, however, are not subject to this regulation
provided, that the intended use of the agent remains consistent with
that specified in the most current transfer form. Facilities that
receive select infectious agents are responsible for implementing their
own tracking mechanisms of intra-facility transfers of agents within a
single geographical site.
The proposed rule is based upon the key principles of ensuring that
the public safety is protected without encumbering legitimate
scientific and medical research. In addition, the proposed rule focuses
on strengthening public-private sector accountability through
involvement with professional associations and close coordination with
the research community actually handling these agents. Such
relationships, combined with expanded federal criminal sanctions,
minimize the need for an additional, expansive federal regulatory
structure.
Specifically, the rule is designed to:
collect and provide information concerning the location
where certain potentially-hazardous infectious agents are transferred;
track the acquisition and transfer of these specific
infectious agents; and
establish a process for alerting appropriate authorities
if an unauthorized attempt is made to acquire these agents.
The proposed rule is premised upon the following fundamental
components: (1) A comprehensive list of select infectious agents; (2) a
registration of facilities transferring these agents; (3) transfer
requirements; (4) verification procedures including audit, quality
control, and accountability mechanisms; (5) agent disposal
requirements; and (6) research and clinical exemptions.
III. Select Infectious Agents List
The proposed list of select infectious agents (Appendix A) was
originally developed from agents placed on the ``Australia list'' (15
C.F.R. Part 799.1,
[[Page 29329]]
Supplement No. 1, Export Control Classification Number 1C61B) of
selected infectious agents whose export from the U.S. is controlled due
to their capacity for causing substantial harm to human health. After
consultation with experts representing affected professional groups,
the proposed list now includes those agents provided in Appendix A. CDC
will continue consultation with these groups and update the list as
necessary. Future updates will be published in the Federal Register for
public review and comment. Comments are specifically solicited
regarding those agents included or not included on this proposed list.
IV. Registration of Facilities Transferring Select Infectious
Agents
Commercial suppliers of these select infectious agents, as well as
government agencies, universities, research institutions, individuals
and private companies that transfer or obtain these agents, or that
wish to work with these agents, must register with the Secretary of HHS
or with an organization authorized by the Secretary. Registration
requires that a responsible facility official certify that the facility
and its laboratory operations meet the biosafety level 2, 3, and/or 4
requirements for working with infectious agents as described in the
Third Edition of ``CDC/NIH Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical
Laboratories.'' Inspection of the facility seeking registration may be
required by the Secretary or an organization authorized by the
Secretary to determine whether the applicant facility meets the
appropriate biosafety level requirements. In return for the
certification and a site registration fee, facilities will be issued a
unique registration number by the Secretary or the registering entity
indicating that the facility is registered to work with these select
infectious agents at the prescribed biosafety level. The registration
number will then be used to help validate all requests for transfer of
these agents.
Registration requests may be denied if the Secretary or the
registering entity determines that the applicant facility is not able
to comply with any provision of the regulation. Registrations may be
withdrawn by the Secretary or registering entity for failure to comply
with the regulation or if it is determined that a registered facility
can no longer handle agents at the appropriate biosafety level or
handles agents in a manner that appears intended to harm the health of
humans. Withdrawals and denials will be based upon sufficient evidence
in the discretion the Secretary or registering entity. Any withdrawal
or denial may be appealed to the Secretary.
V. Transfer Requirements
Prior to transferring one of these select infectious agents, the
proposed rule requires both the shipping (transferor) and receiving
(requestor) parties to initiate completion of an approved transfer
form. Completion of the form is finalized when the requestor
acknowledges receipt of the requested agent. The form includes the list
of these restricted agents and requires information about the
requestor, transferor, the requesting and transferring facilities,
their registration numbers, the restricted agent requested, and the
proposed use of the agent. The form must accompany the request or
purchase order for obtaining these restricted agents, a copy must be
maintained by both the requesting and transferring facility, and a copy
must be sent to a designated central repository which would be
available to Federal and authorized local law enforcement authorities
and other officials authorized by the Secretary. The form could later
be used for tracking purposes in case of illegitimate access to these
agents. Falsification of this form is a Federal criminal offense.
VI. Verification Procedures
To facilitate the shipment of these select infectious agents, each
facility shipping or receiving a covered agent must have a
``responsible facility official.'' This person should be either a
biosafety officer, a senior management official of the facility, or
both. The responsible facility official should not be the same person
as those individuals actually transferring and receiving the agents at
the facilities.
The requestor's responsible facility official must sign each
request, certifying that the individual researcher requesting the agent
is officially affiliated with the facility and that the laboratory
meets current CDC/NIH Guidelines for working with the requested agent.
The responsible facility official sending the restricted agent is
required to verify that the receiving facility holds a currently valid
registration number, indicating that the recipient has the required
biosafety level capability. Inability to validate the necessary
information may result in immediate notification of the appropriate
authorities.
After transfer of the agent, receipt must be acknowledged by the
recipient to the transferor electronically or telephonically within 24
hours, followed by a paper copy of receipt within 3 business days of
receiving the agent. Copies of the completed transfer form must be
retained by both the requestor's and transferor's facilities for a
period of five (5) years after the date of shipment or for one (1) year
after the agents are properly disposed, whichever is longer, and one
copy must be sent to the transferor's authorized registering entity for
placement in a centralized repository.
VII. Agent Disposal Requirements
The form requires a signed statement that the agents will be stored
in accordance with prudent laboratory practices, destroyed after
completion of the work, or transferred to an approved repository.
Facilities must have in place procedures for the appropriate disposal
of agents.
VIII. Research and Clinical Exemptions
In order to provide strains for reference diagnostic and research
studies at Biosafety Level 2 facilities, less pathogenic strains of
restricted viral agents as described in the CDC/NIH ``Biosafety in
Microbiological and biomedical Laboratories'' manual or those
specifically mentioned on the new CDC Form EA-101 are exempt from the
list of select infectious agents. Toxins for medical use, inactivated
for used as vaccines, or preparations for biomedical research use at an
LD50 for vertebrates of more than 100 nanograms per kilogram of
body weight, are exempt. Transfer of clinical specimens for diagnostic
and verification purposes is also exempt. However, isolates of these
agents from clinical specimens must be destroyed after confirmation or
sent to an approved repository after diagnostic procedures are
complete. Other than for these purposes, such isolates may not be
transferred to another site without using the transfer form and
approval by the responsible facility officials.
IX. Criminal and Civil Penalties
Violations of proposed 42 C.F.R. Part 72 are subject to criminal
penalties as prescribed in 42 U.S.C. 271 and 18 U.S.C. 3559 and 3571.
Specifically, individuals in violation of this rule are subject to a
fine of no more than $250,000 or one more year in jail, or both.
Violations by organizations are currently subject to a fine no greater
than $500,000 per event. A false, fictitious, fraudulent statement or
representation on the forms required in the regulation for registration
of facilities or for transfers of select agents is subject to a fine or
imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, for an individual;
and a fine for an organization. 18 U.S.C. 1001, 3517.
[[Page 29330]]
X. Public Comment
Public comment is solicited on all aspects of this proposed
amendment to the CDC regulation, ``Interstate Shipment of Etiologic
Agents,'' 42 C.F.R. Part 72. In addition, CDC solicits comments on the
following items:
(1) The list of select infectious agents covered by this proposed
rule (see Appendix A);
(2) The names of organizations that would be candidates to be
authorized by the Secretary as a ``registering entity'' to determine
those facilities that are capable of handling the agents covered by
this regulation;
(3) The names and addresses of all facilities with biosafety level
capacity that may handle these agents; and
(4) The utility of conducting mandatory preregistration inspections
of all applicant facilities versus random or for cause preregistration
inspections conducted in the discretion of the registering entity or
the Secretary.
(5) The advantages or disadvantages of the Secretary or registering
entity sending copies of transfer forms to the applicable state health
departments.
We are not able to acknowledge or respond to comments individually.
We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified
in the DATES section of this preamble, and, if we proceed with a
subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to
the document. In addition, all commenters are advised that, pursuant to
the Administrative Procedure Act, all information provided to CDC in
response to this request for comment will be publicly available.
XI. Analysis of Impacts
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866, Sections 202 and 205 of the
Unfunded mandate Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4), and by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 USC 603-605)
The Department has examined the potential impact of this proposed
rule as directed by Executive Order 12866, by sections 202 and 205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4, and by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603-605).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives, and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
This proposed rule is designed to ensure that select infectious agents
are not shipped to parties who are not equipped to handle them
appropriately or who otherwise lack proper authorization for their
requests. The approach selected decentralizes the oversight process for
this purpose, imposes minimal administrative costs, and prevents
possible serious, harmful effects to public safety and health. (The
proposal has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
the terms of the Executive Order.)
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, in sections 202 and 205,
requires that agencies prepare several analytic statements before
proposing a rule that may result in annual expenditures by State, local
and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million. As
any final rule resulting from this proposal would not result in
expenditures of this magnitude, such statements are not necessary.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis, describing the impact of the proposed
rules on small entities, but also permits agency heads to certify that
a proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Secretary hereby
has determined that this proposed rule would not have such impact, as
it would primarily affect large research institutions.
B. Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed rule contains information collection requirements
which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The title, description
and respondent description of the information collection are shown
below with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Included in the
estimate is the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. With respect to the following collection of
information, CDC invites comments on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
CDC's functions, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of CDC's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automatic collection techniques for other
forms of information technology.
Title: Additional Requirements for Facilities Transferring or
Receiving Select Infectious Agents.
Description: The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-132) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to regulate the transfer of certain infectious agents
harmful to humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
is the agency within the Department responsible for promulgating this
regulation. CDC is proposing a rule designed to ensure that select
infectious agents are not shipped to parties who are not equipped to
handle them appropriately, or who otherwise lack proper authorization
for their requests, and to implement a system whereby scientists in
research institutions may continue transferring and receiving these
agents without undue burdens. Respondents include laboratory facilities
such as those operated by government agencies, universities, research
institutions, and commercial entities.
Those facilities requesting select infectious agents listed in the
regulation must register with the Secretary of HHS, or with registering
entities authorized by the Secretary, as capable and equipped to handle
the select infectious agents in accordance with requirements developed
by CDC, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) and the Department of
Defense.
Title: Additional Requirements for Facilities Transferring or
Receiving Select Infectious Agents
Description: The Autiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-132) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to regulate the transfer of certain infectious agents
harmful to humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
is the agency within the Department responsible for promulgating this
regulation. CDC is proposing a rule designed to ensure that select
infectious agents are not shipped to parties who are not equipped to
handle them appropriately, or who otherwise lack proper authorization
for their requests, and to implement a system whereby scientists in
research institutions may continue transferring and receiving these
agents without undue burdens. Respondents include laboratory facilities
such as those operated by government agencies, universities, research
institutions, and commercial entities.
Those facilities requesting select infectious agents listed in the
regulation must register with the Secretary of HHS, or with registering
entities authorized by the Secretary, as capable and
[[Page 29331]]
equipped to handle the select infectious agents in accordance with
requirements developed by CDC, the National Institutes for Health (NIH)
and the Department of Defense.
Once registered, facilities must complete a federally-developed
form, CDC Form EA-101, for each transfer of an agent covered by this
proposed rule. Information on this form will include the name of the
requestor and requesting facility, the name of the transferor and
transferring facility, the name of the responsible facility official
for the transferor and requestor, the requesting facility's
registration number, the transferring facility's registration number,
the name of the agent(s) being shipped, and the proposed use of the
agent. The package is being revised to include the burden for
laboratories to register with the Secretary.
Description of Respondents: Commercial suppliers of these select
infectious agents, as well as government agencies, universities,
research institutions, and private companies that transfer or obtain
these agents, or that wish to work with these agents.
Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Frequency of Total annual Hour per
CFR section respondents responses responses response Total hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72.6(a)......................... 1,000 1 1,000 .25 250
72.6(d)......................... 1,000 3 3,000 1.05 3,150
72.6(e)......................... 120 21 2,520 .17 428
72.6(f)......................... 1,000 3 3,000 .11 330
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 4,158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting or Disclosures: These estimates are an approximation of
the average time expected to be necessary for a collection of
information. They are based on past experience of respondents reporting
such information to CDC. There are no capital costs or operating and
maintenance costs for the respondents associated with this information
collection.
The agency has submitted a copy of this proposed rule to OMB for
its review of these information collection. Interested persons are
requested to send comments regarding this information collection,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg.,
725 17th Street, NW., rm 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk
Officer for CDC. Submit written comments on the information collection
by July 10, 1996.
List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 72
Biologics, Packaging and containers, Transportation.
Dated: May 16, 1996.
David Satcher,
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Dated: May 28, 1996.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed to amend 42
CFR Chapter 1 as follows:
PART 72--INTERSTATE SHIPMENT OF ETIOLOGIC AGENTS
1. The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 264, 271; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 18 U.S.C. 3559,
3571; Public Law 104-132.
2. Sections 72.6 and 72.7 are added to read as follows:
Sec. 72.6 Additional requirements for facilities transferring or
receiving select infectious agents.
(a) Registration of facilities. (1) Prior to transferring or
receiving a select infectious agent listed in Appendix A of this part,
a laboratory facility shall register with a registering entity
authorized by the Secretary (paragraph (c) of this section) or be
approved by the Secretary as equipped and capable of handling the
covered agent at Biosafety Level (BSL) 2, 3, or 4, depending on the
agent.
(2) Registration will include:
(i) Sufficient information provided by the responsible facility
official indicating that the applicant facility, and its laboratory or
laboratories, are equipped and capable of handling the agents at BSL 2,
3, or 4, depending upon the agent, and the type of work being performed
with the agents;
(ii) Inspection of the applicant facility at the discretion of the
Secretary or the registering entity in consultation with the Secretary;
(iii) Issuance by the registering entity of a registration number
unique to each facility;
(iv) Collection of a periodic site registration fee by the
registering entity or the Secretary. A schedule of fees collected by
the Secretary to cover the direct costs (e.g., salaries, equipment,
travel) and indirect costs (e.g., rent, telephone service and a
proportionate share of management and administration costs) related to
administration of this part will be published in the Federal Register
and updated annually.
(v) Follow-up inspections of the facility by the registering entity
or the Secretary, as appropriate, to ensure the facility continues to
meet approved standards and recordkeeping requirements.
(3) Such registration shall remain effective until relinquished by
the facility or withdrawn by the Secretary or the registering entity.
(4) The registration may be denied or withdrawn by the registering
entity or the Secretary based on:
(i) Evidence that the facility is not or is no longer capable of
handling covered agents at the applicable biosafety level;
(ii) Evidence that the facility has handled covered agents in a
manner in contravention of the applicable biosafety level requirements;
(iii) Evidence that the facility has or intends to use covered
agents in a manner harmful to the health of humans;
(iv) Evidence that the facility has failed to comply with any
provisions of this part or has acted in a manner in contravention of
this part; or
(v) Failure to pay any required registration fee.
(5) The requirements for BSL-2, 3, and 4 operations pertaining to
this section are contained in the CDC/NIH publication, ``Biosafety in
Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories,'' Third Edition, May 1993
which is hereby incorporated by reference. To the extent the document
and this part are inconsistent, the part shall control.
(6) Additional specific requirements for handling toxins subject to
this part must be met and are found in 32 CFR 627.17 and in The
Biological Defense
[[Page 29332]]
Safety Program, Technical Safety Requirements (DA Pamphlet 385-69),
Subpart C--Operational Requirements.
(b) Appeals. A decision made by the Secretary or a registering
entity to deny or withdraw registration of a particular facility may be
appealed to the Secretary. An application for appeal must be received
by the Secretary no later than 14 days after the appealing party's
application for registration was denied or no later than 14 days after
the appealing party's registration was withdrawn. The application must
clearly identify the issues presented by the appeal and fully explain
the appealing party's position with respect to those issues. The
Secretary may allow the filing of opposing briefs, informal
conferences, or whatever steps the Secretary considers appropriate to
fairly resolve the appeal.
(c) Authorized registering entities. (1) The Secretary may
authorize a state agency or private entity to register facilities under
paragraph (a) of this section, if the Secretary determines that the
registering entity's criteria for determining the biosafety standards
for facilities handling select infectious agents are consistent with
the requirements contained in the CDC/NIH publication ``Biosafety in
Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories,'' Third Edition.
(2) A registering entity shall maintain:
(i) A database of all facilities formerly and currently registered
as BSL 2, 3, or 4 capable of working with agents in Appendix A of this
part. The database shall include the name and address of the registered
facility, the date the facility was registered, the facility's
registration number, and the name and phone number of the responsible
facility representative. The database shall remain publicly available.
(ii) A copy of each CDC Form EA-101 transmitted by each transferor
registered by that registering entity. Such forms shall be made readily
accessible to the Secretary and to appropriate federal law enforcement
authorities and/or authorized local law enforcement authorities.
(3) In the event the Secretary authorizes more than one registering
entity, or if otherwise necessary, the Secretary may require the
establishment of a consolidated database to carry out the provisions of
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(d) Requests for infectious agents. (1) Prior to the transfer of
any infectious agent contained in Appendix A, of this part a CDC Form
EA-101 must be completed for each transfer sought. As specified in CDC
Form EA-101, the information provided must include:
(i) The name of the requestor and requesting facility;
(ii) The name of the transferror and transferring facility;
(iii) The names of the responsible facility officials for both the
transferor and requestor;
(iv) The requesting facility's registration number;
(v) The transferring facility's registration number;
(vi) The name of the agent(s) being shipped; and
(vii) The proposed use of the agent(s).
(2) The form must be signed by the transferror and requestor, and
the responsible facility officials representing both the transferring
and requesting facilities. A copy of the completed CDC From EA-101 must
be retained by both transferring and requesting facilities for a period
of five (5) years after the date of shipment or for one (1) year after
the agents are properly disposed, whichever is longer. All CDC forms
EA-101 must be produced upon request to appropriate federal and
authorized local law enforcement authorities, officials authorized by
the Secretary, and officials of the registering entity.
(e) Verification of registration. (1) Prior to transferring any
agent covered by this part, the transferror's responsible facility
official must verify with the requestor's responsible facility
official, and as appropriate, with the registering entity:
(i) That the requesting facility retains a valid, current
registration;
(ii) That the requestor is officially affiliated with the
requesting facility; and
(iii) That the proposed use of the agent by the requestor is
correctly indicated on CDC Form EA-101.
(2) In the event that any party is unable to verify the information
required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, or there is suspicion
that the agent may not be used for the requested purpose, then the
party shall immediately notify CDC and the appropriate law enforcement
authorities.
(f) Transfer. (1) Upon completion of the CDC Form EA-101 and
verification of registration, the transferring facility must ship the
agents in accordance with packaging and shipping requirements in this
part or other applicable regulations.
(2) The requesting facility's responsible official must acknowledge
receipt of the agent telephonically or otherwise electronically within
24 hours of receipt and provide a paper copy of receipt to the
transferror within 3 business days of receipt of the agent.
(3) Upon telephonic acknowledgment of receipt of the agent, the
transferor shall provide a completed copy of CDC Form EA-101 within 24
hours to the registering entity (holding that facility's registration),
in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section for filing in a
centralized repository.
(g) Inspections. (1) Registering entities or the Secretary may
conduct random or for cause inspections of registered facilities to
assure compliance with this part. All CDC forms EA-101 and records
deemed relevant by inspecting officials must be produced upon request
to authorized personnel conducting these inspections. Inspections may
also include review of the mechanisms developed by a facility to track
intra-facility transfers not subject to this part as well as the
facility's agent disposal procedures.
(2) In addition, the Secretary may conduct inspections of
registering entities, and/or any consolidated database established in
accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section, to assure compliance
with this part.
(h) Exemptions. Select infectious agents otherwise covered by this
part are exempt from its provisions if:
(1) The agent(s) are less pathogenic strains which can be used for
reference diagnostic or verification procedures and/or research studies
at BSL-2, or lower, as described in the CDC/NIH publication,
``Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories,'' Third
Edition; or
(2) The agent is part of a clinical specimen intended for
diagnostic and/or reference verification purposes. Isolates of covered
agents from clinical specimens shall be disposed of in accordance with
paragraph (i) of this section after diagnostic procedures have been
completed.
(3) The agent is a toxin having an LD50 for vertebrates of
more than 100 nanograms per kilogram of body weight which is used for
legitimate medical purposes or biomedical research or is one of the
listed toxins which has been inactivated for use as a vaccine or
otherwise detoxified for use in biomedical research procedures.
(i) Agent disposal. (1) Upon termination of the use of the agent,
all cultures and stocks of it will be
(i) Securely stored in accordance with prudent laboratory
practices,
(ii) Transferred to another registered facility in accordance with
this part, or
(iii) Destroyed on-site by autoclaving, incineration, or another
recognized sterilization or neutralization process. (2) When an agent,
previously transferred to a facility in accordance with this part, is
destroyed, the
[[Page 29333]]
responsible facility official must formally notify the registering
entity. A copy of such formal notification must be kept on record by
the responsible facility official for a period of five (5) years and is
subject to paragraph (g) of this section.
(j) Definitions. As used in this section:
Facility means any individual or government agency, university,
corporation, company, partnerhship, society, association, firm, or
other legal entity located at a single geographical site that may
transfer or receive through any means a select infectious agent subject
to this part.
Registering entity means an organization or state agency authorized
by the Secretary to register facilities as capable of handling select
infectious agents at Biosafety Level 2, 3, or 4, depending on the
agent, in accordance with the CDC/NIH publication ``Biosafety in
Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories.''
Requestor means any person who receives or seeks to receive through
any means a select infectious agent subject to this part from any other
person.
Responsible facility official means an official authorized to
transfer and receive select infectious agents covered by this part on
behalf of the transferor's and/or requestor's facility. This person
should be either a biosafety officer, a senior management official of
the facility, or both. The responsible facility official should not be
an individual who actually transfers or receives an agent at the
facility.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services or her or his designee.
Select infectious agent means an agent, virus, bacteria, fungi,
rickettsiae or toxin listed in Appendix A of this part. The term also
includes genetically modified microorganisms or genetic elements that
contain nucleic acid sequences associated with pathogenicity from
organisms on Appendix A, and genetically modified microorganisms on
Appendix A, and genetically modified microorganisms or genetic elements
that contain nucleic acid sequences coding for any of the toxins in
Appendix A, or their toxic subunits.
Transfer (a) means the conveyance or movement from a point of
origination to a point of destination either
(1) From one state or territory to another or
(2) Entirely within one contiguous state or territory.
(b) The term does not include intra-facility conveyances within a
facility located at a single geographical site provided, that the
intended use of the agent remains consistent with that specified in the
most current transfer form.
Transferor means any person who transfers or seeks to transfer
through any means a select infectious agent subject to this part to any
other person.
Sec. 72.7 Penalties.
Individuals in violation of this part are subject to a fine of no
more than $250,000 or one year in jail, or both. Violations by
organizations are subject to a fine of no more than $500,000 per event.
A false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation on the
Government forms required in the part for registration of facilities or
for transfers of select agents is subject to a fine or imprisonment for
not more than five years, or both for an individual; and a fine for an
organization.
Appendix A to Part 72--Select Infectious Agents
Viruses
1. Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever virus
2. Chikungunya virus
3. Ebola virus
4. Hantaviruses
5. Japanese encephalitis virsus
6. Lassa fever virus
7. Marburg virus
8. Rift Valley fever virus
9. Tick-borne encephalitis viruses
10. Variola major virus (Smallpox virus)
11. Yellow fever virus
12. South American Haemorrhagic fever viruses (Junin, Machupo,
Sabia, Guanarito, and those yet to be decribed)
13. Encephalitis viruses (Venezuelan, Western, Eastern)
14. Kyasanur Forest Disease virus
Exemptions: Vaccine strains of these viral agents as described
in the third edition of the CDC/NIH ``Biosafety in Microbiological
and Biomedical Laboratories'' are exempt.
Bacteria*
1. Bacillus anthracis
2. Brucella abortus, B. melitensis, B. suis
3. Chlamydia psittaci
4. Clostridium botulinum
5. Francisella tularensis
6. Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) mallei
7. Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) pseudomallei
8. Yersinia pestis
Rickettsiae*
1. Coxiella burnetii
2. Rickettsia prowazekii
3. Rickettsia rickettsii
Fungi
1. Histoplasma capsulatum (incl. var duboisii)
Toxins
1. Abrin
2. Botulinum toxins
3. Clostridium perfringens toxin
4. Corynebacterium diphtheriae toxin
5. Cyanginosins
6. Staphylococcal enterotoxins
7. Shigella dysenteriae neurotoxin
8. Ricin
9. Saxitoxin
10. Shigatoxin
11. Tetanus toxin
12. Tetrodotoxin
13. Trichothecene mycotoxins
14. Verrucologen
Exemptions: Toxins for medical use, inactivated for use as
vaccines, or toxin preparations for biomedical research use at an
LD50 for vertebrates of more than 100 nanograms per kilogram
body weight (e.g., microbial toxins such as the botulinum toxins,
tetanus toxin, diphtheria toxin, and Shigella dysenteriae
neurotoxin) are exempt.
Recombinant organisms/molecules
1. Genetically modified microorganisms or genetic elements that
contain nucleic acid sequences associated with pathogenicity from
organisms on restricted list.
2. Genetically modified microorganisms or genetic elements tht
contain nucleic acid sequences coding for any of the toxins on the
restricted list, or their toxic subunits.
* The deliberate transfer of a drug resistance trait to
microorganisms on this list that are not know to acquire the trait
naturally is prohibited by HIH ``Guidelines for Research Involving
Recombinant DNA Molecules,'' if such acquisition could compromise
the use of the drug to control these disease agents in humans or
veterinary medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-14707 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-18-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14568 Cable Television Service; List of Major Television Markets
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14568]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 96-119; DA 96-833]
Cable Television Service; List of Major Television Markets
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, through this action, invites comments on its
proposal to amend its rules regarding the listing of major television
markets, to change the designation of the Cedar Rapids-Waterloo
television market to include the community of Dubuque, Iowa. This
action is taken at the request of Cedar Rapids Television Company
(``CRTV''), licensee of television station KCRG-TV, Channel 9, Cedar
Rapids, Iowa and it is taken to test the proposal for market
hyphenation through the record established based on comments filed by
interested parties.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 22, 1996 and reply comments
are due on or before August 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Stallings, Cable Services
Bureau, (202) 418-7200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CS Docket 96-119, adopted May 20, 1996
and released May 30, 1996. The full text of this decision is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20554,
and may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800, 1919 M Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20554.
Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The Commission, in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed
by the petitioner, proposed to amend Sec. 76.51 of the rules to add the
community of Dubuque to the Cedar Rapids-Waterloo television market.
2. In evaluating past requests for hyphenation of a market, the
Commission has considered the following factors as relevant to its
examination: (1) The distance between the existing designated
communities and the community proposed to be added to the designation;
(2) whether cable carriage, if afforded to the subject station, would
extend to areas beyond its Grade B signal coverage area; (3) the
presence of a clear showing of a particularized need by the station
requesting the change of market designation; and (4) an indication of
benefit to the public from the proposed change. Each of these factors
helps the Commission to evaluate individual market conditions
consistent ``with the underlying competitive purpose of the market
hyphenation rule to delineate areas where stations can and do, both
actually and logically, compete.''
3. Based on the facts presented, the Commission believes that a
sufficient case for redesignation of the subject market has been set
forth so that this proposal should be tested through the rulemaking
process, including the comments of interested parties. It appears from
the information before the Commission that the television stations
licensed to Cedar Rapids, Waterloo and Dubuque, Iowa do compete
throughout much of the proposed combined market area. Moreover, the
petitioner's proposal appears to be consistent with the Commission's
policies regarding redesignation of a hyphenated television market.
Nevertheless, because the facts before us indicate that KCRG-TV and the
stations licensed to Cedar Rapids, Waterloo and Dubuque may, in fact,
be competitive, we believe that the initiation of a rulemaking
proceeding is warranted. Proponents of amendments to Sec. 76.51 of our
rules, however, should be aware that the standard of proof to change
the rules is higher than the standard to simply initiate a rulemaking
proceeding. Under these circumstances, then, it may be helpful to
receive additional comment on the general nature of any competition
between KCRG-TV and other stations in the subject market for viewers,
programming and advertising revenues. Accordingly, comment is requested
in particular on what consequences, if any, result to the proposal from
the addition of Dubuque to the Cedar Rapids-Waterloo, Iowa television
market.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
4. The Commission certifies that the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 does not apply to this rulemaking proceeding because if the
proposed rule amendment is 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. A few
cable television system operators will be affected by the proposed rule
amendment. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with
paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Pub. L. 96-354, 94
Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. section 601 et seq. (1981).
Ex Parte
5. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, provided they are
disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR
1.1202, 1.1203 and 1.1206(a).
Comment Dates
6. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments
on or before July 22, 1996 and reply comments on or before August 12,
1996. All relevant and timely comments will be considered before final
action is taken in this proceeding. To file formally in this
proceeding, participants must file an original and four copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If participants want
each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an
original plus nine copies must be filed. Comments and reply comments
should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications
Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554.
7. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by
Sec. 0.321 of the Commission's rules.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William H. Johnson,
Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-14568 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14567 Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable Television Must- Carry Rules
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29333-29336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14567]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 95-178; FCC 96-197]
Definition of Markets for Purposes of the Cable Television Must-
Carry Rules
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comment on transitional mechanisms to
facilitate the switch from a local market definition based on
Arbitron's ``Areas of Dominant Influence'' (``ADIs'') to one using
Nielsen's ``Designated Market Areas'' (``DMAs'') for purposes of the
cable television broadcast signal carriage rules. The Commission
amended its rules to continue to use Arbitron 1991-1992 ADIs to define
local markets for the triennial must-carry/retransmission consent
election that must take place by October 1, 1996, and to switch to
Nielsen's DMAs beginning with the 1999 election in a Report and Order
adopted concurrently with the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(``Further NPRM'') and summarized elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. The Commission previously anticipated that updated
market lists
[[Page 29334]]
would be available coincident with the triennial must-carry/
retransmission consent election cycle. However, Arbitron ceased
publication of its market lists. The Commission is concerned that a
change in market designation procedures will affect a greater number of
stations, cable systems, and cable subscribers than would have been
affected by simply using a newer ADI market list, as had been
contemplated. Thus, the Further NPRM provides an opportunity for the
Commission and affected parties to further consider issues related to
the transition to a revised definition of local markets. The Further
NPRM also requests comment on procedures to refine the Section 614(h)
ad hoc market modification process in light of the new statutory
requirement that the Commission act on such requests within 120 days.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 31, 1996, and reply
comments are due on or before November 15, 1996. Written comments by
the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are
due October 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
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, NW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Glauberman or John Adams, Cable
Services Bureau, (202) 418-7200. For additional information concerning
the information collections contained in this FNPRM contact Dorothy
Conway at 202-418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CS Docket No. 95-178, FCC 96-197
adopted April 25, 1996, and released May 24, 1996. The full text of
this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW, Washington, DC. 20554.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may
contain either proposed or modified information collections. The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information
collections contained in this Order/FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Public and agency comments are
due at the same time as other comments on this FNPRM. 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) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (c) 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.
Synopsis of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The Further NPRM solicits additional information and provides
parties an opportunity to further consider issues relating to the
transition to market designations based on Nielsen's ``Designated
Market Areas'' (``DMAs''). It also seeks comment on procedures for
refining the section 614(h) ad hoc market modification process which
allows the Commission to modify the market areas of individual stations
and cable systems.
2. Under the signal carriage provisions added to the Communications
Act (``Act'') by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 (``1992 Cable Act''), commercial broadcast
television stations are permitted to elect once every three years
whether they will be carried by cable systems in their local markets
pursuant to the must-carry or retransmission consent rules. Section 614
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 534, provides that a station electing must-carry
status is entitled to insist on carriage of its signal. A station
electing retransmission consent as set forth in section 325 of the Act,
47 U.S.C. 325 negotiates a carriage agreement with each cable operator
and may be compensated for its station's carriage.
3. For purposes of these carriage rights, a station is considered
local on all cable systems located in the same television market as the
station. As enacted in 1992, section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Act required,
through a cross-reference to a Commission rule dealing with broadcast
ownership issues, that a station's market shall be determined using the
Arbitron Ratings Company's ``areas of dominant influence'' or ``ADI.''
The rules adopted in 1993 to implement these signal carriage provisions
established a mechanism for determining a station's local market for
each must-carry/retransmission consent cycle based on ADI market lists.
For the initial election in 1993, Arbitron's 1991-1992 Television ADI
Market Guide was used to define local markets and for each subsequent
election cycle an updated ADI market list was to be used.
4. However, since we established these procedures, Arbitron left
the television research business and the market list specified in the
rules for this year's election is unavailable. Congress also recognized
that Arbitron no longer publishes television market lists and the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``1996 Act''), Pub. L. 104-104, 110
Stat. 56 (1996), amended the definition of local market that referenced
ADIs. Specifically, Section 614(h)(1)(C) of the Act was amended by
Section 301 of the 1996 Act to provide that for purposes of applying
the mandatory carriage provisions, a broadcasting station's market
shall be determined ``by the Commission by regulation or order using,
where available, commercial publications which delineate television
markets based on viewing
patterns * * *.''
5. In addition, section 614(h) of the Act requires the Commission
to consider petitions for market modifications to add communities to or
exclude communities from a station's local market based on historical
carriage, signal coverage, local service, and viewing patterns. The
1996 Act modified this provision to require the Commission to act on
all petitions for market modifications within 120 days.
6. Prior to the 1996 Act, but consistent with its amended
definition of local market, we issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(``NPRM'') in this proceeding, summarized at 61 FR 1888 (January 24,
1996), seeking comment on three proposals for revising the mechanism
for determining local markets. First, the Commission could substitute
Nielsen Media Research's ``designated market areas'' or ``DMAs'' for
Arbitron's ADIs. While similar in many ways, the differences between
DMA and ADI market areas could result in a change in the area in which
a station can insist on carriage rights and a change in the stations
that a cable system is required to carry. The second option would be to
continue to use Arbitron's 1991-1992 Television ADI Market Guide to
define market areas, subject to individual review and refinement
through the section 614(h) process. Under this option, the local market
definition would remain unchanged, subject only to future individual
market modifications. A third proposal would be to retain the existing
market definitions for the 1996
[[Page 29335]]
election period and switch to a Nielsen based standard for subsequent
elections.
7. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment
on mechanisms for facilitating the transition from a market definition
system based on ADIs to one based on DMAs. We believe it will be useful
to consider various means of easing the difficulties that may be
associated with what, as the comments indicate, will be changes in the
carriage requirements applicable to many cable operators and
broadcasters. These changes potentially affect mandatory carriage
rights, channel positioning obligations, retransmission consent
negotiations, copyright payments, the expectations of cable
subscribers, programming contracts, and even the physical layout and
construction of cable plant and operations. Thus, by this Further NPRM,
we seek specific suggestions that would assist in this transition
process. In particular, we ask commenters to consider whether special
provisions should be made for particular types of stations or systems
to minimize the disruptions that could occur due to a switch to DMAs.
8. The Further NPRM also requests comment on the consequences of a
shift in definitions on the more particularized market boundary
redefinition process contained in section 614(h) of the statute, the
decisions that have been made under that section, and the proceedings
under it that would result from shifting market definitions. We seek
specific comment on what changes in the modification process might be
warranted given that administrative resources available to process
section 614(h) requests are limited and the 1996 Act establishes a 120-
day time period for action on these petitions. Under the existing
process, a party is free to make its case using whatever evidence it
deems appropriate. One means of expediting the modification process
might be to establish specific evidentiary requirements in order to
support market modification petitions under section 614(h) of the Act
and Sec. 76.59 of the rules. Therefore, in the Further NPRM, we propose
several specific information submission requirements and seek comment
on these and other alternatives that parties believe will assist the
Commission in its review of individual requests.
9. A second potential means of increasing the efficiency of the
decision making process with respect to market modification petitions
would be to alter to some extent the burden of producing the relevant
evidence. In particular, we seek comment on whether the process could
be expedited by permitting the party seeking the modification to
establish a prima facie case based on historical carriage, technical
signal coverage of the area in question, and off-air viewing, which
could then trigger an obligation on the part of any objecting entity to
complete the factual record by presenting conflicting evidence as to
the actual economic market involved.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
10. 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 Further NPRM, but they
must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
to the IRFA. The Secretary shall cause a copy of the Further NPRM,
including the IRFA, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration in accordance with section 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. (1981). Objectives. The objective of the Further NPRM is to
solicit comments on ways to ease the transition to a revised market
definition of local television markets based on Nielsen's DMAs for
must-carry/retransmission consent elections beginning in 1999. We
request information that will permit us to develop transitional
mechanisms to minimize problems that could result from changing market
designations on broadcasters' must-carry rights, cable operators'
signal carriage obligations, and the availability of local television
service to cable subscribers. The Further NPRM also seeks comment on
requirements intended to make the Section 614(h) market modification
process more efficient.
Legal Basis. Authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in
sections 4(i), 4(j) and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j) and 534, and in section 301 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104 (1996).
Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities
Affected. Changing from a market definition based on ADIs to one based
on DMAs could affect the area in which certain small commercial
broadcast television stations are entitled to elect must-carry/
retransmission consent rights and change the signal carriage
obligations of certain small cable systems. The further NPRM requests
proposals to minimize the impact on such small entities as well as
other stations and cable systems.
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements. None.
Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict with these
Rules. None.
Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing Impact on Small Entities
and Consistent with Stated Objectives. None.
Ex Parte
11. Ex parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding. 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 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
Comment Dates
12. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments
on or before October 31, 1996, and reply comments on or before November
15, 1996. To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an
original plus six copies of all comments, reply comments, and
supporting comments. If you would like each Commissioner to receive a
personal copy of your comments and reply comments, you must file an
original plus 11 copies. You should send comments and reply comments to
the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Room 239, Federal Communications Commission, 1919
M Street NW., Washington DC 20554.
Ordering Clauses
13. Authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in sections
4(i), 4(j) and 614 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j) and 534, and section 301 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104 (1996), part 76.
14. It is ordered that, the Secretary shall send a copy of the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.
Secs. 601 et seq. (1981).
[[Page 29336]]
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14567 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14549 Navajo Partitioned Land Grazing Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14549]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 161
RIN 1076-AC81
Navajo Partitioned Land Grazing Regulations
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; reopening of comment period and additional
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The comment period on the Department's proposed rule to 25
C.F.R. to govern the grazing of livestock on the Navajo Partitioned
Land (NPL) of the Navajo-Hopi Former Joint Use Area (FJUA) of the 1882
Executive Order reservation is reopened to provide additional
opportunity for public comment. Comments on this issue will be
considered along with comments on the proposed rule published in the
Federal Register on November 1, 1995.
DATES: Comments on these proposed rules must be submitted September 9,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Water
and Land Resources, Mail Stop: 4559-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20240, or telephone number (202) 208-4004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Curley, (602) 871-5151, Ext.
5105, at the Navajo Area Office in Window Rock, Arizona.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule was originally published
in the Federal Register November 1, 1995 (60 FR 55507). The original
comment period ended on January 2, 1996. Since the opening of the
comment period considerable input has been received from the Navajo and
Hopi Tribes. Due to the remoteness of the location and the inclement
weather a large number of Tribal members have not been able to include
their written comments. The reopening of this comment period for a
period of 90 days will allow for maximum input from the public.
Dated: April 8, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-14549 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14494 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14494]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 641
[I.D. 052096A]
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public hearings; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will
convene five public hearings on Draft Amendment 14 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) and
a draft environmental assessment (EA).
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until July 1, 1996. The public
hearings will be held from June 17 to June 21, 1996. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for specific dates and times.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to and copies of the draft
amendment are available from Mr. Wayne E. Swingle, Executive Director,
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard,
Tampa, FL 33609.
The hearings will be held in Florida. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
for locations of the hearings and public accommodations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne E. Swingle, 813 228-2815.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will be holding public hearings
on Draft Amendment 14 to the FMP and its draft EA. Amendment 14
includes management alternatives for regulating the fish trap fishery.
Alternatives under consideration include: (1) Creation of a commercial
vessel license system limiting participants in the trap fishery along
with provisions for the transfer of vessel permits, (2) extending the
current moratorium on the issuance of fish trap endorsements for 4 more
years, (3) limiting permits to current trap fishery participants and
phasing out the trap fishery after 10 years, and (4) evaluating the
effectiveness of enforcement of trap rules over 2 years before taking
further action. The current moratorium on new fish trap endorsements
expires in February 1997. Amendment 14 also includes several
alternatives related to area prohibitions on the use of fish traps
including prohibiting: (1) The use of fish traps south of 24 deg.54' N.
lat. (i.e., off Dry Tortugas, FL);
(2) use of traps in the Gulf of Mexico west of Cape San Blas, FL
(Appalachicola area); (3) use of traps on Riley's Hump (a 20 square
mile (51 km) spawning aggregation site, south of Dry Tortugas); and (4)
all fishing on Riley's Hump year round, making it a marine sanctuary.
Amendment 14 would modify the provisions for tending traps and
establish compliance conditions for the trap permit.
Additional management measures in Amendment 14 include: (1)
Modifying the FMP framework procedure for specifying total allowable
catch by allowing the Regional Director, in addition to being able to
open and close a commercial fishery, to reopen a closed commercial
fishery if needed to ensure that the fishery quota is harvested; (2)
modifying the transfer provisions for reef fish vessel permits (under
the reef fish commercial vessel permit moratorium) to allow transfers
of permits to an income qualifying operator; also allowing a vessel
owner 1 year to meet the income qualifications if the permit has been
issued based on income qualifications of the operator; and (3)
prohibiting the harvest of Nassau grouper in the Gulf of Mexico because
of resource declines.
The hearings are scheduled from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. as follows:
1. Monday, June 17, 1996--Holiday Inn Beachside, 3841 North
Roosevelt Boulevard, Key West, FL 33040
2. Tuesday, June 18, 1996--Naples Depot Civic-Cultural Center, 1051
Fifth Avenue South, Naples, FL 33940
3. Wednesday, June 19, 1996--Plantation Inn and Golf Resort, West
Fort Island Trail (CR 44W), Crystal River, FL 34423
4. Thursday, June 20, 1996--Steinhatchee Elementary School, First
Avenue South, Steinhatchee, FL 32359
5. Friday, June 21, 1996--Crawfordville Board of County
Commissioners Conference Room, Old Aaron Road (behind the Courthouse),
Crawfordville, FL 32326
Special Accommodations
These hearings are physically accessible to people with
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see
ADDRESSES) by June 12, 1996.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: June 3, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-14494 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14470 Screening Requirements of Carriers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29323-29327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14470]
========================================================================
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. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 29323]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Part 273
[INS No. 1697-95]
RIN 1115-AD97
Screening Requirements of Carriers
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (``the Service'') regulations by establishing procedures
carriers must undertake for the proper screening of passengers at the
ports of embarkation to become eligible for a reduction, refund, or
waiver of a fine imposed under section 273 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (the Act). This rule is necessary to enable the Service
to reduce, refund, or waive fines for carriers that have taken
appropriate measures to properly screen passengers being transported to
the United States, while continuing to impose financial penalties
against those carriers that fail to properly screen passengers.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before August 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments, in triplicate, to the
Director, Policy Directives and Instructions, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 5307, Washington, DC
20536, Attention Public Comment Clerk. Please include INS number 1697-
95 on your correspondence to ensure proper and timely handling. Also
include any written comments you may have concerning the proposed
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and fines levels that are included as
an appendix to this proposed rule. Comments are available for public
inspection at the above address by calling 202-514-3048, to arrange for
an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert F. Hutnick, Assistant Chief Inspector, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, 425 I Street, NW., Room 7216, Washington, DC
20536, telephone number (202) 616-7499.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The imposition of administrative fines has long been an important
tool in enforcing the United States immigration laws and safeguarding
its borders. Both section 273 of the Act and prior law reflect a
similar Congressional purpose to compel carriers, under pain of
penalties, to ensure enforcement of, and compliance with, certain
provisions of the immigration laws. In enacting both section 273 of the
Act of 1952 and section 16 of the Immigration Act of 1924 (the
precursor to section 273(a) of the Act of 1952), Congress intended to
make the carrier ensure compliance with the requirements of the law.
The carriers have long sought relief from fines by having the Service
consider extenuating circumstances related to the imposition of fines.
Prior to the enactment of section 209(a)(6) of the Immigration and
Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Public Law 103-416,
dated October 25, 1994, the Service, by statute, was not permitted to
reduce, refund, or waive fines imposed under section 273 of the Act
except pursuant to section 273(c) of the Act where the carrier could,
to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, demonstrate that it did
not know, and could not have ascertained by the exercise of reasonable
diligence, that the individual transported was an alien and that a
valid passport or visa was required.
This proposed rule provides procedures carriers must undertake for
the proper screening of aliens at the port of embarkation to become
eligible for reduction, refund, or waiver of a fine imposed under
section 273 of the Act. Nevertheless, it is important to note that
these are voluntary procedures for carriers. This proposed rule further
prescribes conditions the Service will consider before reducing,
refunding, or waiving a fine. Of primary importance will be the
carrier's performance in screening passengers. The Service will
determine a carrier's performance record by analyzing statistics on the
number of improperly documented passengers transported to the United
States by each carrier compared to the number of alien passengers
transported.
This proposed rule will enable the Service to reduce, refund, or
waive a fine imposed under section 273 of the Act for a carrier that
demonstrates successful screening procedures by achieving satisfactory
performance in the transportation of properly documented aliens to the
United States. This will enable the Service to reduce, refund, or waive
fines for carriers that have taken appropriate measures to properly
screen passengers while continuing to impose financial penalties on
carriers that fail to properly screen passengers. It is important to
note that the proposed rule does not impose any additional standards on
the carriers. Carriers are free to observe current fines procedures.
The Service wishes to maintain flexibility in assessing the success
of a carrier's screening procedures. The Service has devised an initial
means of measurement, as set forth in the following paragraphs, but
will re-examine this strategy if such re-examination is appropriate.
The Service is committed to working with the carriers and will consult
with them on any contemplated changes in the method of assessment. This
methodology described, therefore, is not included in the regulatory
language.
Under the proposed methodology, a carrier's performance level (PL)
will be determined by taking the number of each carrier's nonimmigrant
violations of section 273 of the Act for a fiscal year and dividing
this by the number of documented nonimmigrants transported by the
carrier and multiplying the result by 1000.
The Service shall establish an Acceptable Performance Level (APL),
based on statistical analysis of the performance of all carriers, as a
means of evaluating whether the carrier has successfully screened all
of its passengers in accordance with 8 CFR 273.3. The APL shall be
determined by taking the total number of all carrier nonimmigrant
violations of section 273 of the Act for a fiscal year and dividing
this by the total number of documented nonimmigrants transported by all
carriers for the same fiscal year and multiplying the result by 1000.
The Service shall establish a Second Acceptable Performance Level
(APL2),
[[Page 29324]]
based on statistical analysis of the performance of all carriers at or
better than the APL, as a means of further evaluating carrier success
in screening its passengers in accordance with 8 CFR 273.3. Using
carrier statistics for only those carriers which are at or better than
the APL, the APL2 shall be determined by taking the total number of
these carrier nonimmigrant violations of section 273 of the Act for a
fiscal year and dividing by the total number of documented
nonimmigrants transported by these carriers for the same fiscal year
and multiplying the result by 1000.
Carriers which have achieved a satisfactory PL at or better than
the APL, as determined by the Service, will be eligible for a 25
percent fine reduction in the amount of any fine covered by this
provision if the carrier applies for a reduction, refund, or waiver of
fines according to the procedures listed in 8 CFR 280.12 and 8 CFR
280.51. Carriers which have achieved a satisfactory PL at or better
than the APL2, as determined by the Service, will be eligible for a 50
percent fine reduction in the amount of any fine covered by this
provision if the carrier applies for a reduction, refund, or waiver of
fines according to the procedures listed in 8 CFR 280.12 and 8 CFR
280.51. Additional factors the Service will consider in determining
whether the Service will reduce, refund, or waive a fine under section
273 of the Act and the amount of such reduction, refund, or waiver are
the carrier's history of fines violations, including fines, liquidated
damages, and user fee payment records and the existence of any
extenuating circumstances. In the future, the Service may consider
other factors in evaluating carrier performance including participation
in data sharing initiatives or evaluation of a carrier's performance by
particular port(s) of embarkation and/or route(s) to determine carrier
fines mitigation levels.
To maintain flexibility in determining the success of a carrier's
screening procedures, the Service proposes to include in the regulation
neither the methodology it will use in determining a carrier's PL, the
APL, or the APL2 nor the fines reduction percentage levels. Both the
methodology in determining the success of a carrier's screening
procedures and the fines reduction percentages will be periodically
revisited by the Service to maximize carrier cooperation and vigilance
in their screening procedures. The Service shall compute all carrier
PLs, the APL, and the APL2 periodically but shall retain the
flexibility to use a past APL or APL2, if appropriate, in determining
carrier fines reduction, refunds, or waivers for a specific period(s).
The Service will publish any significant, adverse changes regarding
fines reduction in the Federal Register in accordance the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) prior to implementation. Maintaining
a flexible approach allows the Service to work in partnership with the
carriers toward the mutual goal of decreasing the number of improperly
documented nonimmigrants transported to the United States.
Carriers may elect to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the Service for the broader application of the reduction, refund, or
waiver of fines imposed under section 273 of the Act by agreeing to
perform additional measures to intercept improperly documented aliens
at ports of embarkation to the United States. Carriers performing these
additional measures to the satisfaction of the Commissioner would be
eligible for automatic fine reductions, refunds, or waivers as
prescribed in the MOU. Carriers signatory to the MOU with the Service
would be eligible for an automatic fine reduction of 25 or 50 percent
depending on whether a carrier's PL is at or better than the APL or
APL2 respectively, as determined by the Service. Carriers not signatory
to an MOU would not be eligible for automatic fine reductions, refunds,
or waivers. Nevertheless, this rule does not preclude any carrier,
whether or not signatory to the MOU, from requesting fines reduction,
refund, or waiver according to the procedures listed in 8 CFR 280.12
and 8 CFR 280.51. Additionaly, if the carrier's PL is not at or better
than the APL, the carrier may receive an automatic fine reduction of 25
percent, if it meets certain conditions, including: (1) It is signatory
to and in compliance with the MOU; (2) it submits evidence that it has
taken extensive measures to prevent the transport of improperly
documented passengers to the United States. This evidence shall be
submitted to the Assistant Commissioner for Inspections for
consideration. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, the
following: (a) Information regarding the carrier's document screening
training program, including attendance of the carrier's personnel in
any Service, Department of State, or other training programs, the
number of employees trained, and a description of the training program;
(b) information regarding the date and number of improperly documented
aliens intercepted by the carrier at the port(s) of embarkation,
including, but not limited to, the alien's name, date of birth,
passport nationality, passport number, other travel document
information, reason boarding was refused, and port of embarkation; and,
(c) any other evidence to demonstrate the carrier's efforts to properly
screen passengers destined for the United States; and (3) it appears to
the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner for Inspections that
other Service data and information, including the carrier's PL,
indicate the carrier has made a good faith effort to improve screening
of its passengers. The proposed MOU is attached as an appendix to this
proposed rule.
The levels for fines mitigation are loosely based on the Canadian
fines mitigation system. Based on performance levels of the carriers,
the Canadian system provides for an automatic fines reduction of 25
percent upon the carrier signing an MOU with the Canadian Government.
Through attaining performance standards established in the Canadian
MOU, carriers can earn further reductions of 50, 75, or 100 percent of
their fines.
This rule further clarifies fines imposed under section 273(d) of
the Act by stating that provisions of section 273(e) of the Act do not
apply to any fine imposed under section 273(d) of the Act, nor under
any provisions other than sections 273(a) and (b) of the Act.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in
accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has
reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that the rule
will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule merely removes any ambiguity between the
current regulations and section 273 of the Act.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is considered by the Department of Justice, Immigration
and Naturalization Service, to be a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and
Review, and has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
for review under E.O. 12866.
Executive Order 12612
The regulation proposed herein will 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 rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications
[[Page 29325]]
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 273
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Carriers, Penalties.
Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding a new part 273 as
follows:
PART 273--CARRIER RESPONSIBILITIES AT FOREIGN PORTS OF EMBARKATION;
REDUCING, REFUNDING, OR WAIVING FINES UNDER SECTION 273 OF THE ACT
Sec.
273.1 General.
273.2 Definition.
273.3 Screening procedures.
273.4 Demonstration by carrier that screening requirements were
met.
273.5 General criteria used for reduction, refund, or waiver of
fines.
273.6 Memorandum of Understanding.
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1323; 8 CFR part 2.
Sec. 273.1 General.
In any fines case in which a fine is imposed under section 273 of
the Act involving an alien brought to the United States after December
24, 1994, the carrier may seek a reduction, refund, or waiver of fine,
as provided for by section 273(e) of the Act, in accordance with this
part. The provisions of section 273(e) of the Act and of this part do
not apply to any fine imposed under section 273(d) of the Act, nor
under any provision other than sections 273(a) and (b) of the Act.
Sec. 273.2 Definition.
As used in this part, the term Carrier means an individual or
organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire to
the United States.
Sec. 273.3 Screening procedures.
(a) Applicability. The terms and conditions contained in paragraph
(b) of this section apply to those owners, operators, or agents of
carriers which transport passengers to the United States.
(b) Procedures at ports of embarkation. At each port of embarkation
carriers shall ensure that adequate steps are taken to prevent the
boarding of improperly documented aliens destined to the United States
by implementing the following procedures:
(1) Screening passengers by carrier personnel prior to boarding and
examining their travel documents to ensure that:
(i) The passport or travel document presented is not expired and is
valid for entry into the United States;
(ii) The passenger is the rightful holder; and
(iii) If the passenger requires a visa, that the visa is valid for
the holder and any other accompanying passengers named in the passport.
(2) Refusing to board any passenger determined to be improperly
documented. Failure to refuse boarding when advised to do so by a
Service or Consular Officer may be considered by the Service as a
factor in its evaluation of applications under Sec. 273.5.
(3) Implementing additional safeguards such as, but not necessarily
limited to, the following:
(i) For instances in which the carrier suspects fraud, assessing
the adequacy of the documents presented by asking additional, pertinent
questions or by taking other appropriate steps to corroborate the
identity of passengers, such as requesting secondary identification.
(ii) Conducting a second check of passenger documents, when
necessary at high-risk ports of embarkation, at the time of boarding to
verify that all passengers are properly documented consistent with
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. This includes a recheck of documents
at the final foreign port of embarkation for all passengers including
those originally boarded at a prior stop or who are being transported
to the United States under the Transit Without Visa (TWOV) or In-
Transit Lounge (ITL) Programs.
(iii) Providing an adequate level of security during the boarding
process so that passengers are unable to circumvent any carrier
document checks.
Sec. 273.4 Demonstration by carrier that screening requirements were
met.
(a) To be eligible to apply for reduction, refund, or waiver of a
fine, the carrier shall provide evidence that it screened all
passengers on the conveyance for the instant flight or voyage in
accordance with the procedures listed in Sec. 273.3
(b) The Service may, at any time, conduct an inspection of a
carrier's document screening procedures at ports of embarkation to
determine compliance with the procedures listed in Sec. 273.3. If the
carrier's port of embarkation operation is found not to be in
compliance, the carrier will be notified by the Service that its fines
will not be eligible for refund, reduction, or waiver of fines under
section 273(e) of the Act unless the carrier can establish that lack of
compliance was beyond the carrier's control.
Sec. 273.5 General criteria used for reduction, refund, or waiver of
fines.
(a) Upon application by the carrier, the Service shall determine
whether circumstances exist which would justify a reduction, refund, or
waiver of fines pursuant to section 273(e) of the Act.
(b) Applications for reduction, refund, or waiver of fine under
section 273(e) of the Act shall be made in accordance with the
procedures outlined in 8 CFR 280.12 and 8 CFR 280.51.
(c) In determining the amount of the fine reduction, refund, or
waiver, the Service shall consider:
(1) The effectiveness of the carrier's screening procedures;
(2) The carrier's history of fines violations, including fines,
liquidated damages, and user fee payment records; and,
(3) The existence of any extenuating circumstances.
Sec. 273.6 Memorandum of Understanding.
(a) Carriers may apply to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Service for an automatic reduction, refund, or waiver of
fines imposed under section 273 of the Act.
(b) Carriers signatory to an MOU will to be required to apply for
reduction, refund, or waiver of fines in accordance with the procedures
outlined in 8 CFR 280.12 and 8 CFR 280.51, but will follow procedures
as set forth in the MOU.
(c) Carriers signatory to an MOU will have fines reduced, refunded,
or waived according to performance standards enumerated in the MOU or
as determined by the Service.
(d) Carriers signatory to an MOU are not precluded from seeking
additional reduction, refund, or waiver of fines in accordance with the
procedures outlined in 8 CFR 280.12 and 8 CFR 280.51.
Dated: May 29, 1996.
Doris Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Note: The appendixes A and B will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Appendix A--United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
Section 273(E) Memorandum of Understanding
This voluntary Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made between
____________________ (hereafter referred to as the ``Carrier'') and
the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (hereafter
referred to as the ``INS'').
The purpose of this MOU is to identify the undertakings of each
party to improve the performance of the Carrier with respect to its
[[Page 29326]]
duty under section 273 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the
Act) to prevent the transport of improperly documented aliens to the
United States. Based on the Carrier's Performance Level (PL) in
comparison to the Acceptable Performance Level (APL) or Second APL
(APL2) set by the INS, and based upon compliance with the other
stipulations outlined in the MOU, the INS may refund, reduce or
waive a part of the Carrier's section 273 of the Act administrative
penalties.
The MOU cannot, by law, exempt the Carrier from liability for
civil penalties. Although taking the steps set forth below will not
relieve the Carrier of liability from penalties, the extent to which
the Carrier has complied with this MOU will be considered as a
factor in cases where the INS may reduce, refund, or waive a fine.
It is understood and agreed by the parties that this MOU is not
intended to be legally enforceable by either party. No claims,
liabilities, or rights shall arise from or with respect to this MOU
except as provided for in the Act or the Code of Federal
Regulations. Nothing in this MOU relieves the Carrier of any
responsibilities with respect to United States laws, the Act, or the
Code of Federal Regulations.
This document, once jointly endorsed, will serve as a working
agreement to be utilized for all fines cases relating to section 273
of the Act, and reflects the mutual understanding of the Carrier and
the INS. This MOU shall take effect immediately upon its approval by
the Assistant Commissioner for Inspections and shall be a valid
working document for three years from such date.
The Carrier's compliance with the MOU shall be evaluated
periodically. The Carrier shall be notified in writing of its PL and
the overall APL for each rating period. Accordingly, the Carrier
agrees to begin prompt and complete implementation of all of the
terms listed in this MOU. The INS may terminate this MOU for the
Carrier's failure to abide by its terms. Either party may terminate
this MOU, for any reasons, with 30 days written notice. Any
subsequent fines will be imposed for the full penalty amount.
Appendix B--Memorandum of Understanding
1. Introduction
1.1 The Assistant Commissioner for Inspections shall exercise
oversight regarding the Carrier's compliance with this MOU.
1.2 The Carrier agrees to begin implementation of the
provisions set forth below immediately upon receipt of the MOU
signed by the Assistant Commissioner for Inspections.
1.3 The Carrier agrees to permit the INS to monitor its
compliance with the terms of this MOU. The Carrier shall permit the
INS to conduct an inspection of the Carrier's document screening
procedures at ports of embarkation before arrival in the United
States, to determine compliance with the procedures listed in this
MOU.
1.4 The Carrier agrees to designate a coordinator to be the
contact point for all issues arising from the implementation of this
MOU. The Carrier shall provide the INS with the coordinator's name,
title, address, telephone and facsimile number.
1.5 The Carrier shall require that all of its employees,
including its representatives, follow the stipulations of this MOU,
and comply with all requirements of the Act. The Carrier also agrees
to cooperate with the INS by facilitating an open exchange of
information.
2. Prompt Payment
2.1 The INS agrees to authorize a reduction in fine penalties
based on compliance with this MOU only if the Carrier has paid all
administrative fines, liquidated damages and user fees. This
includes interest and penalties that have been imposed by either a
formal order or final decision, except cases on appeal.
2.2 The Carrier agrees to promptly pay all administrative
fines, liquidated damages and user fees. This includes interest and
penalties that are imposed by a formal order or a final decision
during the time this MOU is in effect, except cases on appeal.
Prompt payment for the purposes of this MOU refers to payments made
within 30 days from the date of billing.
2.3 The INS shall periodically review the Carrier's record of
prompt payment for administrative fines, liquidated damages, and
user fees including interest and penalties. Failure to make prompt
payment will result in the loss of benefits of the MOU for the
subsequent period.
2.4 The Carrier agrees to select a person from its organization
as a contact point with the INS Office of Finance for the resolution
of payment issues. The Carrier shall provide the INS with the
contact person's name, title, address, telephone and facsimile
number.
3. Carrier Agreement
3.1 The Carrier shall refuse to carry any improperly documented
passenger.
3.2 The Carrier agrees to verify that trained personnel examine
and screen passengers' travel documents to verify that the passport,
visa (if one is required) or other travel documents presented are
valid and unexpired, and that the passenger, and any accompanying
passenger named in the passport, is the rightful holder of the
document.
3.3 The Carrier agrees to conduct additional document checks
when deemed appropriate, to verify that all passengers, including
transit passengers, are in possession of their own, and proper,
travel documents as they board the aircraft, and to identify any
fraudulent documents.
3.4 The Carrier agrees to permit INS and State Department
Consular officials to screen passengers' travel documents before or
after the Carrier has screened those passengers for boarding, when
permitted by competent local authorities.
3.5 In cases involving suspected fraud the Carrier shall assess
the adequacy of the documents presented by questioning individuals
or by taking other appropriate steps to corroborate the identity of
the passengers, such as requesting secondary identification.
3.6 The Carrier shall refuse to knowingly transport any
individual who has been determined by an INS official not to be in
possession of proper documentation to enter or pass through the
United States. Transporting any improperly documented passenger so
identified may result in a civil penalty. At locations where there
is no INS presence, carriers may request State Department Consular
officials to examine and advise on authenticity of passenger
documentation. State Department Consular officials will act in an
advisory capacity only.
3.7 Where the Carrier has refused to board a passenger based on
a suspicion of fraud or other lack of proper documentation, the
Carrier agrees to make every effort to notify other carriers at that
port of embarkation.
3.8 The Carrier shall maintain an adequate level of security
designed to prevent passengers from circumventing any Carrier
document checks. The Carrier shall also maintain an adequate level
of security designed to prevent stowaways from boarding the
Carrier's aircraft or vessel.
3.9 The Carrier agrees to participate in INS training programs
and utilize INS Information Guides and other information provided by
the INS to assist the Carrier in determining documentary
requirements and detecting fraud.
3.10 The Carrier agrees to make the INS Information Guides and
other information provided by the INS readily available for use by
Carrier personnel, at every port of embarkation.
3.11 The Carrier agrees to make appropriate use of
technological aids in screening documents including ultra violet
lights, magnification devices, or other equipment identified by the
INS to screen documents.
3.12 The Carrier agrees to expeditiously respond to written
requests from the appropriate INS official(s) for information
pertaining to the identify, itinerary and seating arrangements of
individual passengers. The Carrier also agrees to provide manifests
and other information, when permitted by local law, required to
identify passengers, information and evidence regarding the identity
and method of concealment of a stowaway, and information regarding
any organized alien smuggling activity.
3.13 Upon arrival at a Port-of-Entry (POE) and prior to
inspection, the Carrier agrees to notify INS personnel at the POE of
any unusual circumstances, incidents, or problems at the port of
embarkation involving the transportation of improperly documented
aliens to the United States.
4. INS Agreement
4.1 The INS agrees to develop an Information Guide to be used
by Carrier personnel at all ports of embarkation before the United
States. The Information Guide will function as a resource to assist
Carrier personnel in determining proper documentary requirements and
detecting fraud.
4.2 The INS agrees to develop a formal, continuing training
program to assist carriers in their screening of passengers.
Carriers may provide input to the INS concerning specific training
needs that they have identified. Initial and annual refresher
training will be conducted by the INS or Carrier representatives
trained by the INS.
[[Page 29327]]
4.3 To the extent possible, INS and State Department Consular
officials will consult, support, and assist the Carrier's efforts to
screen passengers prior to boarding.
4.4 The INS shall determine each Carrier's Performance Level
(PL) based on statistical analysis of the Carrier's performance, as
a means of evaluating whether the Carrier has successfully screened
all of its passengers in accordance with 8 CFR 273.3 and this MOU.
The PL is determined by taking the number of each Carrier's
violations of section 273 of the Act for a fiscal year \1\ and
dividing this by the number of documented nonimmigrants (i.e., those
nonimmigrants that submit an Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, I-
94T, or I-94W) transported by the Carrier and multiplying the result
by 1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The total number of carrier violations of section 273 of the
Act for a fiscal year is determined by taking the total number of
violations minus violations for the transportation of improperly
documented lawful permanent residents and rejected cases. Rejected
cases include those cases where the INS has determined that either:
(1) No fine occurred; or, (2) sufficient evidence was not submitted
to support the imposition of a fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5 The INS shall establish an Acceptable Performance Level
(APL), based on statistical analysis of the performance of all
carriers, as a means of evaluating whether the Carrier has
successfully screened all of its passengers in accordance with 8 CFR
273.3 and this MOU. The APL shall be determined by taking the total
number of all carrier violations of section 273 of the Act for a
fiscal year \1\ and dividing this by the total number of documented
nonimmigrants (i.e., those nonimmigrants that submit an Arrival/
Departure Record, Form I-94, I-94T, or I-94W) transported by all
carriers for a fiscal year and multiplying the result by 1000.
4.6 The INS shall establish a Second Acceptable Performance
Level (APL2), based on statistical analysis of the performance of
all carriers at or better than the APL, as a means of further
evaluating carrier success in screening its passengers in accordance
with 8 CFR 273.3 and this MOU. Using carrier statistics for only
those carriers which are at or better than the APL, the APL2 shall
be determined by taking the total number of these carrier violations
of section 273 of the Act for a fiscal year \1\ and dividing by the
total number of documented nonimmigrants (i.e., those nonimmigrants
that submit an Arrival/Departure Record, Form I-94, I-94T, or I-94W)
transported by these carriers and multiplying the result by 1000.
4.7 The PL, APL, and APL2 may be recalculated periodically as
deemed necessary, based on Carrier performance during the previous
period(s).
4.8 Carriers whose PL is at or better than the APL are eligible
to receive an automatic 25 percent reduction, if signatory to and in
compliance with this MOU, on fines imposed under section 273 of the
Act for periods determined by the INS.
4.9 Carriers whose PL is at or better than the APL2 are
eligible to receive an automatic 50 percent reduction, if signatory
to and in compliance with this MOU, on fines imposed under section
273 of the Act for periods determined by the INS.
4.10 If the Carrier's PL is not at or better than the APL, the
Carrier may receive an automatic 25 percent reduction in fines, if
it meets certain conditions, including being signatory to and in
compliance with the MOU and the carrier submits evidence that it has
taken extensive measures to prevent the transport of improperly
documented passengers to the United States. This evidence shall be
submitted to the Assistant Commissioner for Inspections for
consideration. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, the
following: (1) Information regarding the Carrier's training program,
including participation of the Carrier's personnel in any INS, DOS,
or other training programs and the number of employees trained; (2)
information regarding the date and number of improperly documented
aliens intercepted by the Carrier at the port(s) of embarkation,
including, but not limited to, the aliens' name, date of birth,
passport nationality, passport number or other travel document
information, and reason boarding was refused; and (3) other
evidence, including screening procedure enhancements, technological
or otherwise, to demonstrate the Carriers good faith efforts to
properly screen passengers destined to the United States.
4.11 The Carrier may defend against imposition or seek further
reduction of an administrative fine if the case is timely defended
pursuant to 8 CFR part 280, in response to the Form I-79, Notice of
Intent to Fine. The Carrier must establish that extenuating
circumstances existed at the time of the violation in order to
receive any further reduction in fine penalties.
4.12 Nothing in this MOU precludes a carrier from seeking
reduction under 8 CFR 273.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Representative's Signature)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Title)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Carrier Name)
Dated:-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Inspections, United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Dated:-----------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-14470 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-14256 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Warning Devices
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29337-29339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14256]
[[Page 29337]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96-56, Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AF77
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Warning Devices
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, NHTSA proposes to rescind the Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard that regulates triangular warning devices
intended to be placed on the roadway behind disabled buses and trucks
that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 lbs.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires commercial carriers
to carry and use one of three types of warning devices: triangular
devices meeting Standard No. 125, fusees or flares. NHTSA is proposing
to rescind the Standard because FHWA can readily specify the carrying
and using of triangular warning devices meeting requirements other than
those in Standard No. 125. This proposal is part of the agency's
efforts to implement the President's Regulatory Reform Initiative to
remove unnecessary regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice numbers cited
at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section,
Room 5109, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested that 10
copies of the comments be submitted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Richard Van
Iderstine, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-21, telephone (202)
366-5280, FAX (202) 366-4329.
For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-
20, telephone (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.
Both may be reached at NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590. Comments should not be faxed to these persons, but should be
sent to the Docket Section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative
Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive ``Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative'' from the President to the heads of departments and
agencies, NHTSA undertook a review of its regulations and directives.
During the course of this review, NHTSA identified regulations that it
could propose to rescind as unnecessary or to amend to improve their
comprehensibility, application, or appropriateness. Among the
regulations identified for potential rescission is Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR Sec. 571.125).
Background of Standard No. 125
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, Warning
devices, specifies requirements for warning devices that do not have
self-contained energy sources (unpowered warning devices) and that are
designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 lbs. The unpowered warning
devices are intended to be placed on the roadway behind a disabled
vehicle to warn approaching traffic of its presence. The Standard does
not apply to unpowered warning devices designed to be permanently
affixed to the vehicle. The purpose of the Standard is to reduce deaths
and injuries due to rear-end collisions between moving traffic and
stopped vehicles.
The standard requires that the unpowered warning devices be
triangular, covered with orange fluorescent and red reflex reflective
material, and open in the center. These characteristics are intended to
assure that the warning device has a standardized shape for quick
message recognition and can be readily observed during both daytime and
nighttime, and does not blow over when deployed.
NHTSA has never required that any new vehicle be equipped with the
Standard No. 125 warning device or any other warning device. However,
as explained below, FHWA, which has authority to regulate interstate
commercial vehicles-in-use, mandates that operators of those vehicles
carry and use unpowered warning devices meeting Standard No. 125,
fusees or flares.
Previous Changes to Standard No. 125
Before 1994, Standard No. 125 applied to unpowered warning devices
that are designed to be carried in any type of motor vehicle. On May
10, 1993 (58 FR 27314), NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to
amend Standard No. 125 so that the Standard applies only to warning
devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 lbs.
NHTSA proposed to limit the scope of Standard No. 125 in order to
provide manufacturers of unpowered warning devices with greater design
freedom and to relieve an unnecessary regulatory burden on industry. At
the same time, the agency proposed to retain the requirements for
warning devices for buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000
lbs., primarily to support FHWA's regulation of commercial motor
vehicles under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) (49
CFR parts 350-399). Section 393.95 of the FMCSR requires either that
three Standard No. 125 warning devices or specified numbers of fusees
or flares be carried on all trucks and buses used in interstate
commerce. In a final rule published on September 29, 1994 (59 FR
49586), NHTSA limited the applicability of Standard No. 125 as
proposed.
Proposed Rescission of Standard No. 125
In the September 1994 final rule limiting Standard No. 125 to
unpowered warning devices designed to be carried in buses and trucks
with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs., NHTSA stated that it was
retaining Standard No. 125 in its narrowed form largely to ensure the
continued availability of standardized unpowered warning devices which
FHWA could specify as a means of complying with its warning device
requirements for commercial vehicle operators. After reviewing Standard
No. 125 in light of the President's Regulatory Review Initiative, NHTSA
tentatively has determined that the retention of Standard No. 125 is
not necessary to ensure the continued availability of unpowered warning
devices.
If Standard No. 125 were rescinded, FHWA would have two options.
First, it could adopt the current manufacturing standards for the
warning devices as an appendix to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. Section 393.95 would be revised to reference the newly
created appendix as opposed to Section 571.125.
Second, it could work with an industry voluntary standards setting
organization such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to
develop an industry standard on unpowered warning devices containing
requirements similar to those in Standard No. 125. Once those
requirements were developed, FHWA could incorporate them by reference
in Section 393.95.
[[Page 29338]]
NHTSA notes that it has a pending petition from the Transportation
Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI) requesting that NHTSA's testing
protocol for Standard No. 125, Laboratory Test Procedure for Warning
Devices (TP-125-00, April 1, 1977) be amended to reflect the TSEI's
recommended changes. If NHTSA were to rescind Standard No. 125,
equipment manufacturers could work with an industry standard setting
organization to specify the testing protocol that it deems appropriate.
Proposed Effective Date
Because the proposed removal of Standard No. 125 would relieve
regulatory restrictions without compromising safety, the agency has
tentatively determined that there is good cause for concluding that an
effective date earlier than 180 days after issuance is in the public
interest. Accordingly, the agency proposes that, if adopted, the
effective date for the final rule be 45 days after its publication in
the Federal Register.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposed rule was not reviewed under E.O. 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review. NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this rulemaking
action under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures and determined that it is not ``significant.'' If made
final, this rulemaking action would remove an unnecessary regulation
from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
This action is not expected to have any economic impact on
manufacturers of unpowered warning devices designed to be carried in
motor vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less since the agency does
not currently regulate the manufacture of those devices.
Based on its assumption that there would continue to be performance
requirements similar to those currently in Standard No. 125, NHTSA
tentatively concludes that the rescission of the Standard would, at
most, have only slight, nonquantifiable economic effects on
manufacturers of unpowered warning devices designed to be carried in
buses and trucks over 10,000 lbs. GVWR.
For these reasons, the agency has concluded that the economic
effects of this proposal would be so minimal that a full regulatory
evaluation is not required.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The agency has also considered the effects of this rulemaking under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) I certify that
this proposal would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If FHWA continued to specify an
unpowered warning device for buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater
than 10,000 lbs. that meets requirements similar or identical to those
in Standard No. 125, and to require operators of such vehicles to carry
the devices or other types of warning devices, the cost of the
unpowered warning devices should not change. Further, manufacturers of
those unpowered warning devices would continue to have essentially the
same market that they currently have. Accordingly, the agency has not
prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. The agency
has determined that the proposed rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has also analyzed this proposed rule for the purpose of
the National Environmental Policy Act. NHTSA has determined that the
proposed rule would not significantly affect the human environment.
5. Paperwork Reduction Act
Standard No. 125 specifies that the warning devices be marked with
certain information, that is considered to be an information collection
requirement, as that term is defined by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 1320. This collection of information has
been assigned OMB Control No. 2127-0506, (Warning Devices (Labeling))
and has been approved for use through March 31, 1996. Whether NHTSA
decides to ask for a reinstatement of this collection of information
will depend on the final action for this rulemaking.
6. Executive Order 12866 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. section 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the extent that the State requirement
imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles
procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. section 30161 sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Procedures for Filing Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered as
suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self- addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
[[Page 29339]]
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
part 571 as follows:
PART 571--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Sec. 571.125 [Removed and reserved]
2. Sec. 571.125 would be removed, and reserved.
Issued on: May 31, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-14256 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.