issue-1996-03-12•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-12
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-12
issue-1996-03-12Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-12Proposed 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. 96-5861 Screening at Privately Owned Bird Quarantine Facilities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9957-9958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5861]
========================================================================
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. 49 / Tuesday, March 12, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 9957]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 92
[Docket No. 94-132-1]
Screening at Privately Owned Bird Quarantine Facilities
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations that apply to
privately owned bird quarantine facilities for imported birds to
provide for the use of nylon screening and to clarify the meaning of
``double screened.'' The proposed amendments would give facility
operators a choice of screening materials and would clarify the
regulations.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before May 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 94-132-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 94-132-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Tracye R. Butler, Staff
Veterinarian, Import/Export Animals, National Center for Import and
Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231,
(301) 734-5097.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 92.100 through 92.107, ``Subpart
ABirds'' (referred to below as ``the regulations''), govern the
importation of certain birds to prevent the introduction of
communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. As a condition of
importation, all imported birds must be quarantined for a minimum of 30
days upon their arrival in the United States. Under
Sec. 92.101(c)(2)(ii), certain personal pet birds may remain in the
owner's possession during the 30-day quarantine if kept separate from
other birds. In all other cases, imported birds must be quarantined in
either a U.S. Department of Agriculture quarantine facility or in a
privately owned quarantine facility that meets standards set forth in
Sec. 92.106(c).
The standards for privately owned quarantine facilities for
imported birds include installation of screening over all openings to
the outside to prevent the entry of rodents and insects, which could
transmit disease. The regulations require that all screening be metal
and that all openings to the outside be double-screened (see
Sec. 92.106(c)(2)(ii)(A)).
When the regulations were originally adopted, metal mesh was the
most commonly available screening material capable of preventing the
entry of rodents and insects into the quarantine area. Therefore, metal
mesh screens were specified in the regulations. Now, however, strong
and durable nylon mesh screening is widely available. This nylon mesh
screening effectively prevents the entry of insects into the quarantine
area. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the use of nylon mesh
screening to prevent the entry of insects in privately owned bird
quarantine facilities. Under this proposal, metal mesh screening would
continue to be required for preventing the entry of rodents into the
quarantine area. This proposed action would offer operators of these
facilities a screening alternative.
We are also proposing to clarify the existing regulations
concerning double screening. Double screening is currently required on
all openings to the outside. However, the term ``double screening'' is
not defined in the regulations. We are therefore proposing to amend the
regulations to state clearly that the screening would have to be
comprised of one screen that is insect-proof and a second metal screen
that is rodent-proof with a mesh size no larger than 1 inch x 1.5
inches (2.54 cm x 3.81 cm). The two screens would have to be separated
by at least 3 inches (7.62 cm) with the metal rodent-proof screen used
as the exterior screen. This 3-inch separation is necessary for
security purposes; if a person approaches the screened wall from the
outside of the quarantine facility, the 3-inch separation between the
rodent-proof screen and the insect-proof screen will help prevent the
person from being able to touch the birds, and the birds will not be
able to peck at the person. If a privately owned bird quarantine
facility has a sun room for the hatching eggs of ratites, as provided
in Sec. 92.106(c)(2)(ii)(P), the screening in the sun room would have
to conform to these proposed requirements.
We believe these proposed actions would expand the selection of
screening materials for the operators of privately owned bird
quarantine facilities while continuing to minimize the risk of insect
or rodent problems at those facilities and would clarify the
regulations.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Our economic analysis indicates that the proposed amendments would
have little economic impact on privately owned bird quarantine
facilities. Metal and nylon mesh are comparably priced. In addition,
the proposed rule would add nylon mesh as a screening option; it would
not require quarantine facilities to be re-screened. We anticipate that
the proposed clarification concerning double screening would have no
effect on facilities.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
[[Page 9958]]
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 92
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 92 would be amended as follows:
PART 92-IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND CERTAIN
ANIMAL AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON
1. The authority citation for part 92 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1662; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105,
111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. In Sec. 92.106, paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) and (c)(2)(ii)(P)(1)
would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.106 Quarantine requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) Be constructed only with material that can withstand continued
cleaning and disinfection. All solid walls, floors, and ceilings must
be constructed of impervious material. All openings to the outside must
be double-screened, with an interior screen of metal or nylon mesh that
is impervious to biting insects such as gnats or mosquitos, and an
exterior metal screen that is rodent-proof and is made of wire, such as
rabbit wire, hardware cloth, or smooth welded wire, with mesh size no
larger than 1 inch x 1.5 inches (2.54 cm x 3.81 cm). The interior and
exterior screens must be separated by at least 3 inches (7.62 cm);
* * * * *
(P) * * *
(1) Any of the exterior walls may be replaced by a double-screened
wall set in a concrete or concrete-block curb. The double screening
shall be of wire mesh or wire mesh and nylon mesh, as provided in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, with the interior and exterior
screens of the sun room wall separated by at least 3 inches (7.62 cm);
the concrete or concrete block curb must be at least 12 inches high,
impermeable to water, and able to prevent the escape of water, manure,
and debris.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of March 1996.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-5861 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5857 Airworthiness Directives; Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-1000A and Model Hawker 1000 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9958-9960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5857]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9959]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-180-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-1000A
and Model Hawker 1000 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe
125-1000A and Model Hawker 1000 series airplanes. This proposal would
require a one-time inspection for adequate clearances between, and
damage to, the flap cables and turnbuckles, airbrakes cables and
turnbuckles, and all other flight control cables and turnbuckles at
keel subframe 15A; and various follow-on actions, if necessary. This
proposal is prompted by reports of chafing due to insufficient
clearance between the flaps turnbuckle and the subframe, and between
the airbrakes cable and the subframe. The actions specified by the
proposed AD are intended to prevent such chafing, which could result in
damage to the flaps turnbuckle and the airbrakes cable, and subsequent
fraying or seizing of the flight control cables. These conditions, if
not corrected, could result in restriction or loss of the flight
controls.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-180-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager Service Engineering,
Hawker Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-
0085. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-180-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-180-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness
authority for the United Kingdom, recently notified the FAA that an
unsafe condition may exist on certain Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-
1000A and Model Hawker 1000 series airplanes. The CAA advises that it
received reports of chafing of the flaps turnbuckle and the airbrakes
cable at keel subframe 15A. The cause of this chafing has been
attributed to insufficient clearance between the flap turnbuckle and
the subframe, and between the airbrakes cable and the subframe. Such
insufficient clearance and resultant chafing could result in damage to
the flap cables and/or turnbuckles and the airbrakes cable, and
subsequent fraying or seizing of the flight control cables. These
conditions, if not corrected, could result in restriction or loss of
the flight controls.
Raytheon Corporate Jets has issued Hawker Service Bulletin SB.27-
168, dated July 17, 1995, which describes procedures for a one-time
visual inspection for adequate clearances and/or damage of the flap
cables and turnbuckles, airbrakes cables and turnbuckles, and all other
flight control cables and turnbuckles at keel subframe 15A (left- and
right-hand side); and various follow-on actions, if necessary. (These
follow-on actions include modification, repair, and replacement of
damaged cables.) The CAA classified this service bulletin as mandatory
in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in
the United Kingdom.
These airplane models are manufactured in the United Kingdom and
are type certificated for operation in the United States under the
provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant
to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA
informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the
findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined
that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are
certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require a one-time visual inspection for adequate
clearances between, and/or damage to, the flap cables and turnbuckles,
airbrakes cables and turnbuckles, and all other flight control cables
and turnbuckles at keel subframe 15A (left- and right-hand side); and
various follow-on actions, if necessary. The actions would be required
to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously.
The FAA estimates that 25 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work
hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$1,500, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD
[[Page 9960]]
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Beech Aircraft Corporation (Formerly DeHavilland; Hawker Siddeley;
British Aerospace, PLC; Raytheon Corporate Jets, Inc.): Docket 95-
NM-180-AD.
Applicability: Model BAe 125-1000A and Model Hawker 1000 series
airplanes, as listed in Hawker Service Bulletin SB.27-168, dated
July 17, 1995; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent restriction or loss of the flight controls due to
insufficient clearance and resultant chafing and damage to the flaps
cable and/or turnbuckle and the airbrakes cable, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Perform
a one-time detailed visual inspection for adequate working
clearances and for damage of the flap, airbrakes, and other flight
control cables and turnbuckles with the structure at keel subframe
15A (left- and right-hand sides) specified in Hawker Service
Bulletin SB.27-168, dated July 17, 1995. Perform the inspection in
accordance with that service bulletin. The detailed visual
inspection for working clearances shall be conducted for each
affected flight control through its full range of travel.
(1) If all clearances are within the limits specified in the
service bulletin, and no damage is found: No further action is
required by this AD.
(2) If the clearance for the flaps controls is outside the
limits specified in the service bulletin: Prior to further flight,
accomplish Modification SB 27-168-253705B in accordance with the
service bulletin.
(3) If the clearance for the airbrakes controls is outside the
limits specified in the service bulletin: Prior to further flight,
repair in accordance with the service bulletin.
(4) If any cable is found to be damaged, and the damage exceeds
the limits defined in Chapter 20-10-31 of the Airplane Maintenance
Manual: Prior to further flight, replace the damaged cable with a
new cable in accordance with the service bulletin.
(5) If any turnbuckle, keel subframe, or polythene strip is
found to be damaged: Prior to further flight, repair in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-
113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA
Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send
it to the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 6, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-5857 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5855 Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and DC-9- 80 Series Airplanes, and C-9 (Military) Airplanes, Equipped With a Ventral Aft Pressure Bulkhead
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9960-9963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5855]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-186-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and DC-9-
80 Series Airplanes, and C-9 (Military) Airplanes, Equipped With a
Ventral Aft Pressure Bulkhead
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas
Model DC-9 and DC-9-80 series airplanes, Model MD-88 airplanes, and C-9
(Military) airplanes, that currently requires repetitive inspections to
detect fatigue cracking in the area of the attach tees of the ventral
aft pressure bulkhead. That AD was prompted by reports of fatigue
cracking found in that area. This proposed action would require revised
inspection and repair procedures, and would provide for terminating
action. It would also delete certain airplanes from the applicability
of the rule. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to
prevent the propagation of fatigue cracking, which could lead to
structural failure of the ventral aft pressure bulkhead and subsequent
rapid depressurization of the airplane.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-186-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this
location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications
Business Administration, Department C1-L51 (2-60). This
[[Page 9961]]
information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712; telephone
(310) 627-5237; fax (310) 627-5210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-186-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-186-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On July 24, 1989, the FAA issued AD 89-16-12, amendment 39-6287 (54
FR 31649, August 1, 1989), which is applicable to McDonnell Douglas
Model DC-9 and DC-9-80 series airplanes, Model MD-88 airplanes, and C-9
(military) airplanes, equipped with a ventral aft pressure bulkhead.
That AD requires repetitive optically aided visual inspections and high
frequency eddy current inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the
area of the attach tees of the ventral aft pressure bulkhead, and
repair or replacement, if necessary. Subsequent inspections are
required after any repair or replacement. That action was prompted by
reports of fatigue cracking found in the aft pressure bulkhead attach
tees. The requirements of that AD are intended to prevent fatigue
cracking from propagating in this area. If such cracking is not
detected and corrected in a timely manner, it could result in
structural failure of the ventral aft pressure bulkhead and subsequent
rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Service Information Referenced in the Existing AD
AD 89-16-12 references McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin A53-231,
dated February 21, 1989, as the appropriate source for service
information relative to the required inspection and repair procedures.
Although AD 89-16-12 was applicable to airplanes equipped specifically
with a ventral aft pressure bulkhead, the procedures contained in that
service bulletin applied to airplanes equipped with a non-ventral aft
pressure bulkhead. At the time that AD 89-16-12 was issued, the
manufacturer had advised the FAA that it was developing new inspections
and corrective action that would be pertinent to airplanes with ventral
aft pressure bulkheads. However, in consideration of the safety
implications of the unsafe condition presented by fatigue cracking, the
FAA considered it inappropriate to delay AD action relevant to those
airplanes until the new inspections were developed. At that time, the
FAA found that the inspection and repair procedures contained in
Service Bulletin A53-231 were acceptable, only as an interim measure,
for addressing fatigue cracks in airplanes with ventral aft pressure
bulkheads.
New Developments Since Issuance of Existing AD
Since the issuance of AD 89-16-12, the manufacturer has developed a
new series of inspection procedures that are specifically designed to
detect fatigue cracking at the attach tees on airplanes equipped with
ventral aft pressure bulkheads. These inspections, along with an
appropriate schedule for conducting them, were developed in order to
ensure that fatigue cracking in the subject area of these particular
airplanes is detected and corrected before cracking can grow to a
critical length. Such fatigue cracking, if allowed to propagate
unchecked, could result in structural failure of the ventral aft
pressure bulkhead and subsequent rapid depressurization of the
airplane.
New Service Information
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995, which describes
procedures for conducting various types of repetitive inspections to
detect cracking in the ventral aft pressure bulkhead web-to-fuselage
tee sections. It also describes procedures for replacement of cracked
parts. The inspections can be conducted in either of two ways:
OPTION I entails repetitive visual and low frequency eddy
current inspections from the aft side of the bulkhead.
OPTION II entails repetitive high and low frequency eddy
current inspections from the forward side of the bulkhead.
If any cracking is found, the service bulletin calls for
replacement of the cracked tee section. If it is replaced with new like
parts, the inspections must continue to be accomplished; if it is
replaced with a new improved part (that is not susceptible to the
subject fatigue cracking), the inspections of that tee section may be
discontinued. When all six aft pressure bulkhead tee sections are
replaced with the new improved parts, the repetitive inspections can be
discontinued.
FAA's Findings
As discussed previously, at the time when AD 89-16-12 was issued,
the FAA considered that the inspections described in Service Bulletin
A53-231 were acceptable, as an interim measure only, in detecting
fatigue cracks before they could grow to a critical size. However, the
FAA now finds that the new inspection procedures specified in McDonnell
Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232 are more effective than those
previously required. They are more effective not only because the
procedures are tailored specifically for inspecting the ventral
bulkhead, but because they are more suited for finding (and correcting)
smaller cracks in the ventral bulkhead.
Additionally, the FAA finds that the schedule for repetitive
inspections specified in the service bulletin is appropriate. While
certain of the repetitive inspection intervals are shorter than those
of the inspections currently required by AD 89-16-12, the FAA considers
that these intervals are warranted in order to ensure that fatigue
[[Page 9962]]
cracks are detected before they can propagate.
In light of these factors, the FAA has determined that the new
inspection procedures described in McDonnell Douglas Alert Service
Bulletin A53-232 must be accomplished in order to positively address
the identified unsafe condition presented by fatigue cracking.
Explanation of Requirements of Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 89-16-12 to completely revise the
currently required inspection program. This proposed AD would require
either repetitive visual and low frequency eddy current inspections
(``OPTION I''), or repetitive high and low frequency eddy current
inspections (``OPTION II''), to detect cracking in the attach tee area
of the ventral aft pressure bulkhead. Any cracked tee section would be
required to be replaced prior to further flight. Replacement of all six
aft pressure bulkhead tee sections with new improved parts would
constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspection
requirements of the AD. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously.
While the proposed AD provides for a terminating action, the FAA is
not proposing to mandate that it be accomplished. The FAA considers
three criteria for those situations where repetitive inspections of a
crack-prone area may be permitted to continue indefinitely, even though
a positive fix to the problem exists: (1) The area is easily
accessible, (2) the cracking is easily detectable, and (3) the
consequences of the cracking are not likely to be catastrophic. The FAA
has determined that the circumstances warranting continual repetitive
inspections associated with this proposed AD meet these three criteria.
This proposed AD also would revise the applicability of the rule to
delete Model MD-88 airplanes. Because the terminating action specified
in this proposed AD was installed on those airplanes during production,
those airplanes are not subject to the unsafe condition addressed by
this action.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 1,500 Model DC-9 and DC-9-80 series
airplanes, and C-9 (military) airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 1,000 airplanes of U.S.
registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
To accomplish the actions specified as ``OPTION I'' of the proposed
AD would entail approximately 22 work hours per visual inspection and
12 work hours per low frequency eddy current inspection. The average
labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost
impact on U.S. operators who elect to accomplish OPTION I is estimated
to be $2,040 per airplane per inspection cycle.
To accomplish the actions specified as ``OPTION II'' of the
proposed AD would entail approximately 8 work hours per high and low
frequency eddy current inspection. The average labor rate is $60 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators
who elect to accomplish OPTION II is estimated to be $480 per airplane
per inspection cycle.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-6287 (54 FR
31649, August 1, 1989), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
McDonnell Douglas: Docket 95-NM-186-AD. Supersedes AD 89-16-12,
Amendment 39-6287.
Applicability: Model DC-9-10, -20, -30, -40, and -50 series
airplanes; Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82) and DC-9-83 (MD-
83) series airplanes; and C-9 (military) airplanes; equipped with a
ventral aft pressure bulkhead; as listed in McDonnell Douglas Alert
Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995;
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent the propagation of fatigue cracks that could result
in structural failure of the ventral aft pressure bulkhead,
accomplish the following:
(a) Accomplish the requirements of either paragraph (a)(1),
``OPTION I,'' or (a)(2), ``OPTION II,'' of this AD in accordance
with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2,
dated April 28, 1995. The initial inspection of either option must
be accomplished at the applicable time specified in Table 1 of this
AD.
[[Page 9963]]
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total accumulated landings as of the
effective date of this AD Initial inspection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 35,000....................... Prior to the accumulation of
36,500 total landings, or
within 1,500 landings after
the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
35,000 or more......................... Within 300 landings after the
effective date of this AD; or
within 3,500 landings after
accomplishing the last
inspection performed in
accordance with AD 89-16-12;
whichever occurs later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) OPTION I: Accomplish the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Conduct a low frequency eddy current inspection to detect
cracks of the side areas above the floor between longerons 7 and 17
on fuselage left and right sides. Repeat this inspection at
intervals not to exceed 1,500 landings.
(ii) Conduct an optically aided detailed visual inspection to
detect cracks of the top and lower areas from longeron 7 left side
to longeron 7 right side, and on the lower fuselage from longeron 17
to longeron 20 on fuselage left and right sides. Repeat this
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 landings.
(iii) Conduct an optically aided detailed visual inspection to
detect cracks of the bottom area from longeron 20 left side to
longeron 20 right side. Repeat this inspection thereafter at
intervals no to exceed 3,500 landings.
(2) OPTION II: Conduct both a high frequency and a low frequency
eddy current inspection for cracks around the entire periphery of
the fuselage from the forward side of the bulkhead. Repeat these
inspections at intervals not to exceed 2,500 landings.
(b) If any cracked tee section is found during any inspection
required by this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the
requirements of either paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with the procedures specified in McDonnell Douglas Alert
Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995:
(1) Replace the cracked tee section with a new like part. Once
that replaced part has accumulated 35,000 landings, repeat the
inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD.
(2) Replace the cracked tee section with an improved part, as
specified in the alert service bulletin. Such replacement
constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections of
that section of the tee only.
(c) Replacement of all six aft pressure bulkhead tee sections
with new improved parts, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert
Service Bulletin A53-232, Revision 2, dated April 28, 1995,
constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by this
AD.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 6, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-5855 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5848 Amendment to Definition of ``Substance Abuse Professional''
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9969-9972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5848]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
49 CFR Part 40
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 121
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Part 199
Federal Railroad Administration
49 CFR Part 219
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Part 382
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 653 and 654
[OST Docket No. OST-96-1132, Notice 96-3]
RIN 2105-AC33
Amendment to Definition of ``Substance Abuse Professional''
AGENCIES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Aviation Administration,
Research and Special Programs Administration, Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Each of the Department's alcohol testing rules include a
definition of a substance abuse professional. By this action, the
Department is consolidating these definitions into its Department-wide
testing procedures rule and adding to the definition substance abuse
professionals certified by the International Certification Reciprocity
Consortium.
DATES: Comments should be received by April 11, 1996. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent, preferably in triplicate, to Docket
Clerk, Docket No. OST-96-1132, Department of Transportation, 400 7th
Street, S.W., Room PL-400, Washington, D.C. 20590. Comments will be
available for inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. Commenters who wish the receipt of their
comments to be acknowledged should include a stamped, self-addressed
postcard with their comments. The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the
postcard and mail it back to the commenter.
[[Page 9970]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Swart, Program Analyst, Office of
Drug Enforcement and Program Compliance, Room 10317 (202-366-3784); or
Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and
Enforcement, Room 10424, (202-366-9306); 400 7th Street, S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Omnibus Transportation Employees Testing
Act of 1991 required that an opportunity for treatment be made
available to covered employees. To implement this requirement in its
alcohol and drug testing rules issued in February 1994, the Department
of Transportation established the role of the ``substance abuse
professional'' (SAP). The DOT rules require an employer to advise a
covered employee, who engages in conduct prohibited under these rules,
of the resources available for evaluation and treatment of substance
abuse problems, including the names, addresses, and telephone numbers
of SAPs and counseling and treatment programs. The rules also provide
for SAP evaluation to identify the assistance needed by employees with
substance abuse problems. In many cases (e.g. the Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration rules), this process
and the role of the SAP apply to drug testing as well as alcohol
testing.
The primary safety objective of the DOT rules is to prevent,
through deterrence and detection, alcohol and controlled substance
users from performing transportation safety-sensitive functions. The
SAP is responsible for several duties important to the evaluation,
referral, and treatment of employees identified through breath and
urinalysis testing as being positive for alcohol and/or controlled
substance use, or who refuse to be tested, or who have violated other
provisions of the DOT rules.
The SAP's fundamental responsibility is to provide a comprehensive
face-to-face assessment and clinical evaluation to determine if the
employee needs assistance resolving problems associated with alcohol
use or prohibited drug use. If the employee is found to need assistance
as a result of this evaluation, the SAP recommends a course of
treatment with which the employee must demonstrate successful
compliance prior to returning to DOT safety-sensitive duty. Assistance
recommendations can include, but are not limited to: In-patient
treatment, partial in-patient treatment, out-patient treatment,
education programs, and aftercare. Upon the determination of the best
recommendation for assistance, the SAP will serve as a referral source
to assist the employee's entry into an acceptable treatment or
education program.
In general, the DOT rules prohibit a covered employee who has
engaged in conduct prohibited by the rules from performing any safety-
sensitive functions until meeting the conditions for returning to work,
which include a SAP evaluation, demonstration of successful compliance
with any required assistance program, and a successful return-to-duty
test result (below 0.02 for alcohol test and/or a negative drug test).
Therefore, the SAP follow-up evaluation is needed to determine if the
employee demonstrates successful compliance with the original treatment
recommendation. In addition, the SAP directs the employee's follow-up
testing program.
The DOT rules define the SAP to be a licensed physician (Medical
Doctor or Doctor of Osteopathy), a licensed or certified psychologist,
a licensed or certified social worker, or a licensed or certified
employee assistance professional. In addition, alcohol and drug abuse
counselors certified by the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse Counselors (NAADAC) Certification Commission, a national
organization that imposes qualification standards for treatment of
alcohol and drug related disorders, are included in the SAP definition.
All must have knowledge of and clinical experience in the diagnosis and
treatment of substance abuse-related disorders (the degrees and
certificates alone do not confer this knowledge). The rules do not
authorize individuals to be SAPs who meet only state certification
critera because qualifications vary greatly by state. In some states,
certified counselors do not have the experience or training deemed
necessary to implement the objectives of the rules. State-certified
addiction counselors could have, of course, taken the NAADAC competency
examination to receive certification.
The issue of who should be regarded as qualified to be a SAP was
one of the most commented-upon issues in the rulemaking leading to the
February 1994 rules (see 59 FR 7334-36; February 15, 1994). In the time
since these rules were issued, various parties have continued to
request that they be included within the definition of SAPs. In
evaluating how to respond to such requests, the Department has taken
the view that any expansion of the definition of SAPs should ensure
that the qualifications of persons playing this important role not be
diluted.
The International Certification Reciprocity Consortium (ICRC)/
Alcohol & Other Drug Abuse (Suite 213, 3725 National Drive, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27612) petitioned the DOT for inclusion of its certified
counselors in the SAP definition. Upon receipt of the petition, the DOT
began a thorough evaluation of the ICRC proposal, including information
from ICRC related to counselor eligibility criteria, quality assurance
procedures, codes of ethics, and certification and testing parameters.
We also reviewed ICRC information on testing procedures, examination
availability, and psychometrician standards.
The results of our evaluation support the conclusion that ICRC has
rigorous standards in place and that their counselors warrant inclusion
in the Department's SAP definition. Their program requirements for
professional counselors and their testing and certification procedures
(as well as test availability) are consistent with those of other
groups already defined as qualified for participation. After careful
review and evaluation of the ICRC petition, supporting documentation,
and testing methodology the DOT has decided to propose including ICRC
certified counselors in its SAP definition. ICRC-certified counselors
must meet examination, experience, and other standards comparable to
NAADAC-certified counselors, who are included in the existing SAP
definition. The Department is aware that other organizations may be
interested having their members qualify as SAPs. Such organizations
should contact the Office of Drug Enforcement and Program Compliance
(see ``For Further Information Contact'') for information on the
Department's process for reviewing petitions for inclusion in the SAP
definition.
Also, the Department has decided that, for convenience, we will
propose consolidating SAP-related matters into Part 40, its Department-
wide procedural regulation. Therefore, we propose to add a definition
of SAP--including ICRC-certified counselors--to Part 40, while the SAP
definitions in each of the operating administration rules would be
removed. In a subsequent notice, the Department anticipates proposing
to consolidate into Part 40 other material concerning the SAP's role in
the return-to-duty process.
With this action, the SAP definition would change from
Substance abuse professional means a licensed physician (Medical
Doctor or Doctor of Osteopathy), or a licensed or certified
psychologist, social worker, employee assistance professional, or an
addiction
[[Page 9971]]
counselor (certified by the National Association of Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse Counselors Certification Commission) with knowledge of
and clinical experience in the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol
and controlled substances-related disorders.
to:
Substance abuse professional means a licensed physician (Medical
Doctor or Doctor of Osteopathy); or a licensed or certified
psychologist, social worker, or employee assistance professional; or
an addiction counselor (certified by the National Association of
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors Certification Commission or by
the International Certification Reciprocity Consortium / Alcohol &
Other Drug Abuse). All must have knowledge of and clinical
experience in the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol and controlled
substances-related disorders.
The last sentence would be reworded slightly to emphasize the
Department's intent--incorporated in the February 1994 definition--that
each SAP, regardless of the source of his or her credentials,
personally have knowledge of and clinical experience in the diagnosis
and treatment of alcohol and controlled substances-related disorders.
Regulatory Process Matters
The proposed rule is considered to be a nonsignificant rulemaking
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, 44 FR 11034. It also is a
nonsignificant rule for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The
Department certifies, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the
NPRM, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities. The NPRM would not impose any
costs or burdens on regulated entities, serving merely to broaden the
definition of service providers under the rule. The rule has also been
analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in
Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that it does not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
The Department is soliciting comment for 30 days on this proposal,
rather than a longer time, on two grounds. First, it is highly
desirable to be able to issue a final rule promptly, in order to permit
ICRC-certified individuals to perform as SAPs with as little delay as
possible. This is particularly important in light of the fact that,
beginning January 1, 1996, many additional transportation employers
began to be covered by the drug and alcohol rules, and an expanded pool
of SAPs will be useful to serve the expanded universe of regulated
parties. Second, the Department believes that this is a
noncontroversial action, on which we anticipate little public comment.
OST
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40
Drug testing, Alcohol testing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 49 CFR Part 40 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 40--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 40 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 102,301,322; 49 U.S.C. app. 1301nt., app.
1434nt., app. 2717, app. 1618a.
Sec. 40.31 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 40.3, after the definition of ``specimen bottle,'' a
definition of ``substance abuse professional'' is proposed to be added,
to read as follows:
Substance abuse professional. A licensed physician (Medical Doctor
or Doctor of Osteopathy); or a licensed or certified psychologist,
social worker, or employee assistance professional; or an addiction
counselor (certified by the National Association of Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse Counselors Certification Commission or by the International
Certification Reciprocity Consortium /Alcohol & Other Drug Abuse). All
must have knowledge of and clinical experience in the diagnosis and
treatment of alcohol and controlled substances-related disorders.
Issued this 6th day of March, 1996, at Washington, D.C.
Federico Pena,
Secretary of Transportation.
FAA
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Airplanes, Air
transportation, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Drugs, Narcotics, Pilots,
Safety, Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 121, as follows:
PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 121 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 400113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
Appendix I [Amended]
2. In Appendix I, Sec. II, the definition of ``Substance abuse
professional'' is proposed to be removed.
Appendix J [Amended]
3. In Appendix J, Sec. I, subsection C, the definition of
``Substance abuse professional'' is proposed to be removed.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 6, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.
RSPA
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 199
Alcohol testing, Drug testing, Pipeline safety, Recordkeeping and
reporting.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, RSPA proposes to amend 49
CFR Part 199 as follows:
PART 199--DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING
1. The authority for Part 199 would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60103, 60104, and 60108; 49
CFR 1.53.
2. In 49 CFR 199.205, the definition of ``Substance abuse
professional'' is proposed to be removed.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 6, 1996.
D.K. Sharma,
Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration.
FRA
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 219
Alcohol and drug abuse, Railroad safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FRA proposes to amend 49
CFR Part 219, as follows:
PART 219--CONTROL OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE
1. The authority for part 219 would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20111, 20112, 20113, 20140,
21301, 21304; Pub. L. 103-272 (July 5, 1994); and 49 CFR 1.49(m).
Sec. 219.5 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 219.5, the definition of ``Substance abuse
professional'' is proposed to be removed.
[[Page 9972]]
Issued in Washington, DC on March 6, 1996.
Donald M. Itzkoff,
Deputy Administrator.
FHWA
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 382
Alcohol and drug abuse, Highway safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FHWA proposes to amend
49 CFR part 382, as follows:
PART 382--CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL USE AND TESTING
1. The authority for part 382 would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31306; 49 U.S.C. app. 31201 et. seq.; 49
U.S.C. 31502; 49 CFR 1.48.
Sec. 382.107 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 382.107, the definition of ``Substance abuse
professional'' is proposed to be removed.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 6, 1996.
Rodney Slater,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
FTA
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 653
Drug testing, Grant programs--transportation, Mass transportation,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
49 CFR Part 654
Alcohol testing, Grant programs--transportation, Mass
transportation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety,
Transportation.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Federal Transit
Administration proposes to amend 49 CFR Parts 653 and 654, as follows:
PART 653--PREVENTION OF PROHIBITED DRUG USE IN TRANSIT OPERATIONS
1. The authority for Part 653 would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5331; 49 CFR 1.51.
Sec. 653.7 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 653.7, the definition of ``Substance abuse
professional'' is proposed to be removed.
PART 654--PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL MISUSE IN TRANSIT OPERATIONS
1. The authority for Part 654 would continue to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5331; 49 CFR 1.51.
Sec. 654.7 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 654.7, the definition of ``Substance abuse
professional'' is proposed to be removed.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 6, 1996.
Gordon J. Linton,
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-5848 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5826 Interstate Rate of Return Prescription Procedures and Methodologies, Subpart G, Rate Base
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9968-9969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5826]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 65
[CC Docket No. 96-22; FCC 96-63]
Interstate Rate of Return Prescription Procedures and
Methodologies, Subpart G, Rate Base
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend its
rules regarding, ``Interstate Rate of Return Prescription Procedures
and Methodologies,'' to revise the rate base treatment of prepaid
postretirement benefits other than pensions (OPEB) costs recorded In
Account 1410, Other Noncurrent Assets, and all items in Account 4310,
Other Long-Term Liabilities, including accrued liabilities related to
OPEBs. The Commission is taking this action to update its interstate
rate base rules so that items of similar nature can be afforded uniform
treatment under the rate base rules.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 12, 1996, and reply
comments must be filed on or before May 14, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clara Kuehn or Thaddeus Machcinski,
Common Carrier Bureau, Accounting and Audits Division, (202) 418-0800.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Federal
Communications Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket
No. 96-22, Amendments to Part 65, Interstate Rate of Return
Prescription Procedures and Methodologies, Subpart G, Rate Base, FCC
96-63, adopted February 20, 1996 and released March 7, 1996. The
complete text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for
[[Page 9969]]
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's
Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20554,
and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service, Inc., at 2100 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037, telephone number (202) 857-3800.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking invites comment on proposals
to revise the rate base treatment of prepaid postretirement benefits
other than pensions (OPEB) costs recorded in Account 1410, Other
Noncurrent Assets, and all items in Account 4310, Other Long-Term
Liabilities, including accrued liabilities related to OPEBs. The
Commission notes that it does not agree with the suggestion by some
parties that modification of its Part 65 regulations be deferred until
the conclusion of several pending investigations of LEC tariffs, which
include exogenous adjustments for OPEB costs, but invites comment on
this issue.
2. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to include prepaid
OPEB costs recorded in Account 1410, Order Noncurrent Assets, in the
interstate rate base. The rationale for this action is our tentative
conclusion that prepaid OPEB costs in excess of the SFAS-106 cost
calculation earn a return, which benefits ratepayers by reducing
amounts companies must accrue in future periods. Because investors fund
these excess prepayments, this Notice proposes to include these excess
prepayments in the rate base. The Commission invites comment on this
proposal.
3. Currently, unfunded accrued pension costs recorded in Account
4310 are removed from the rate base, although other items recorded in
Account 4310, such as accrued OPEB liabilities, are not removed from
the rate base. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to accord to
the accrued OPEB liabilities recorded in Account 4310 the same rate
base treatment presently accorded to unfunded accrued pension costs
without modifying the rate base treatment for other items recorded in
Account 4310. Alternatively, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also
proposes to exclude all amounts recorded in Account 4310 from the
interstate rate base. It is the Commission's tentative conclusion that
all items recorded in Account 4310 should be removed from the rate base
because these amounts are zero-cost sources of funds, those funds
provided to a carrier without cost to investors. The Commission invites
comment on these proposals.
4. In the Notice the Commission states that this rulemaking is a
non-restricted notice and comment proceeding. Ex parte presentations
are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they
are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1202,
1.1203, 1.1206.
5. In the Notice the Commission certifies that the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply to this rulemaking proceeding
because if the proposals in this proceeding are adopted, 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. Because of the nature of local exchange and access
service, the Commission has concluded that LECs, including small LECs,
are dominant in their fields of operation and therefore are not ``small
entities'' as defined by that act. The Secretary has sent 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 Section 603(a) of that act.
Ordering Clause
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 201 through 205, 220, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201 through 205, 220 and
403, notice is hereby given of proposed amendments to Part 65, Subpart
G of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Part 65, Subpart G, as described in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 65
Administrative practice and procedure; Communications common
carriers; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-5826 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5825 Revision of Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9964-9966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5825]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 73
[MM Docket No. 96-16, FCC 96-49]
Revision of Broadcast EEO Rule and Policies
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in MM
Docket No. 96-16 seeks comment regarding various proposals to
streamline the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
requirements with respect to certain broadcasters whose circumstances
may justify this type of relief, while, at the same time, maintaining
an effective EEO program for the broadcast industry. These proposals
include alternatives for reducing paperwork burdens, new incentives for
the establishment of joint recruitment efforts, and revisions to the
test by which stations are permitted to rely on an alternative labor
force when analyzing their EEO efforts. The Commission also seeks
comment on a proposal to adopt guidelines for imposing sanctions for
EEO violations to increase predictability for broadcasters and to
facilitate the processing of renewal applications.
DATES: Initial comments due April 30, 1996; reply comments due May 30,
1996. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
information collections are due April 30, 1996. Written comments must
be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the
proposed and/or modified information collections on or before May 13,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, 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, N.W., Washington,
DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to Timothy Fain,
OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC
20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope G. Cooper, Mass Media Bureau,
Enforcement Division. (202) 416-1450. For additional information
concerning the information collections contained in this NPRM, contact
Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order
and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 96-16, adopted
February 8, 1996, and released February 16, 1996.
The complete text of this NPRM, which was adopted in MM Docket No.
96-16, is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., at (202) 857-
3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Synopsis of Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment regarding various
proposals to streamline the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) requirements with respect to certain broadcasters whose
circumstances may justify this type of relief, while, at the same time,
maintaining an effective EEO program for the broadcast industry. These
proposals included alternatives for reducing paperwork burdens, new
incentives for the establishment of joint recruitment efforts, and
revisions to the test by which stations are permitted to rely on an
alternative labor force when analyzing their EEO efforts. The
Commission also seeks comment on the proposal to adopt guidelines for
imposing sanctions for EEO violations to increase predictability for
broadcasters and to facilitate the processing of renewal applications.
2. The Commission's broadcast EEO Rule requires broadcast licensees
to establish and maintain an EEO program designed to provide equal
employment opportunities for minorities and women in all aspects of
their employment policies and practices. The objective of the EEO
program is twofold: to promote programming that reflects interests of
minorities and women in the local community in addition to those of the
community at large and to deter discriminatory employment practices. A
basic rationale underlying the broadcast EEO Rule has been that a
broadcaster can more effectively fulfill its duty to serve the needs of
the entire community if it makes a good faith effort to employ
qualified women and minorities.
3. The Commission uses an efforts-based approach to assessing EEO
compliance. The Commission focuses on a station's equal employment
opportunity program, its consistent efforts to contact sources likely
to refer qualified female and minority applicants and self-analysis of
its outreach program. Broadcast stations with five or more full-time
employees are required to file general information regarding
recruitment and hiring practices as part of their license renewal
application and workforce data as part of their annual employment
reports. In order to comply with the requirement of self-assessing
their outreach efforts, the Commission also requires broadcasters to
keep records of their EEO efforts and the results of those efforts.
4. The Commission seeks comment as to which categories of stations
might qualify for reduced recordkeeping and filing requirements or, in
some cases, be exempted from these duties altogether. Categories being
considered include station staff size, market size, and size of the
local minority labor force. The Commission also seeks comment on
possible options for relief for qualifying stations. Under one
approach, stations would only have to certify that they meet the
qualifying factor or factors and would then be exempt from further
reporting requirements. Under another approach, the Commission would
maintain reporting requirements but allow broadcasters a choice among
possible recruitment options, one of which might be participation in
recruiting events like job fairs. The Commission also asks for comment
on an industry proposal to permit broadcasters not to retain detailed
job-by-job recruitment records if their employment profiles meet
certain benchmarks.
[[Page 9965]]
5. The Commission also proposes to give broadcasters credit for
using the recruiting resources of a central source, such as a state
broadcast association, under certain circumstances. In addition, the
Commission asks for comment on whether it can improve the current test
under which stations may evaluate their EEO efforts with reference to a
labor force other than the labor force of the Metropolitan Statistical
Area in which the station is located.
6. Finally, the Commission also seeks comment on proposed
guidelines for imposing forfeitures for EEO violations. In the NPRM,
the Commission vacated the EEO Policy Statement, which contained
similar guidelines, because an analogous Commission decision was
vacated by the Court of Appeals. The proposed guidelines set forth in
the NPRM are expected to provide greater certainty regarding sanctions
which may result from EEO violations in specific circumstances. It is
also anticipated that the proposed guidelines will facilitate the
resolution of EEO cases by the Commission.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the
following proposed and/or continuing information collections, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. The NPRM has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are
requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This NPRM, MM Docket No. 96-16, ``Order and NPRM on Streamlining
Broadcast EEO Rules and Policies, Vacating the EEO Forfeiture Policy
Statement and Amending Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules to
Include EEO Forfeiture Guidelines'' which does not have an OMB control
number, proposes revisions that will affect four existing collections.
The revisions are proposed to affect the following:
Title: Section 73.2080.
Form Numbers: FCC 395-B, FCC 396, FCC 396-A.
Type of Review: Revision to Existing Collections.
Respondents: Broadcast Permittees/Licensees.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0212.
Title: Section 73.2080 Equal Employment Opportunity Program.
Number of Respondents for Section 73.2080: 13,072.
Estimated time per response: 52 hours per year.
Annual Burden: 679,744.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0390.
Title: Broadcast Station Annual Employment Report.
Number of Respondents for FCC 395-B: 13,550.
Estimated time per response: 0.88 hours per report.
Annual Burden: 11,924.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0120.
Title: Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Model Program Report.
Number of Respondents for FCC 396-A: 2068.
Estimated time per response: 1 hour.
Annual Burden: 2,068.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0113.
Title: Broadcast Equal Employment Opportunity Program Report.
Number of Respondents for FCC 396: 235.
Estimated time per response: 3 hours.
Annual Burden: 705.
Total annual burden: 694,441.
Needs and Uses: This rulemaking proceeding seeks comment on
specific proposals to streamline our broadcast equal employment
opportunity (EEO) requirements without diminishing the effectiveness of
the EEO program. If adopted, some of these proposals would reduce the
filing and recordkeeping requirements of qualifying broadcast stations;
and would likely amend Section 73.2080 (3060-0212) and would revise the
following FCC Forms: FCC 395-B (3060-0390), FCC 396-A (3060-0120), and
the FCC 396 (3060-0113). Any changes to these forms or our rules as a
result of this proceeding involving television stations would require
statutory amendment. These requirements collectively make up the
Commission's EEO program. The records kept in accordance with Section
73.2080 are used by broadcast licensees in the preparation of the
station's EEO Program (FCC Form 396) submitted with the license renewal
application. The data collected on the FCC 395-B is used by FCC staff
to monitor a broadcast station's efforts to afford equal employment
opportunity and to assess industry trends. The data collected on the
FCC 396-A is reviewed by FCC analysts to determine if stations will
provide equal employment opportunity to all qualified persons without
regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. If these
programs were not maintained there could be no assurance that efforts
are being made to afford equal opportunity in employment.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the proposals
suggested in the NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the
IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing
deadlines as comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they must have a
separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a
copy of the NPRM, including the Initial 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,
Public Law No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601, et. seq.
(1980).
I. Reason for Action: This proposed rule making is designed to
solicit comments regarding the Commission's efforts to amend our EEO
Rule to ensure its effectiveness while affording relief to licensees
and permittees of small stations and other distinctly situated
broadcasters, and, generally, streamlining the operation of the EEO
Rule for all broadcasters. This proposed rule making is also designed
to solicit comments regarding the Commission's proposed adoption of
forfeiture guidelines fashioned after those articulated in the EEO
Policy Statement, 9 FCC Rcd 929 (1994), 59 Fed. Reg. 12606 (March 17,
1994). That decision was patterned after Policy Statement, Standards
for Assessing Forfeitures, 8 FCC Rcd 6215 (1993), 58 Fed. Reg. 44767
(August 25, 1993), which was vacated by the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States Telephone
Ass'n v. FCC, 28 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
II. Objectives: The Commission is seeking information regarding the
impact of its EEO Rule on broadcasters of small stations and other
distinctly situated broadcasters, the paperwork burden of all
broadcasters in their attempt to comply with our rules and policies
regarding equal employment
[[Page 9966]]
opportunity, and the guidelines to be used in implementing its
authority to issue increased monetary forfeiture penalties for EEO
violations.
III. Legal Basis: The proposed action is authorized under the
authority contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 303(r), 503(b).
IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements:
None.
V. Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These
Rules: None.
VI. Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities
Involved: Adoption of these forfeiture guidelines, as well as other
proposals set forth in this NPRM, could affect all licensees, including
those that qualify as small business entities.
VII. Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small
Entities Consistent with the Stated Objectives: In this item, we
solicit comment on proposals to amend the EEO Rule to maintain the
Rule's viability while reducing the paperwork required of broadcasters
of small stations and other distinctly situated broadcasters. The item
also solicits comments on better ways to accomplish the goals of
developing guidelines for determining forfeiture amounts and providing
notice to the public about the range of forfeiture amounts that may be
assessed for EEO violations. We are unable to assess at this time what,
if any, economic impact the proposed rule change would have on small
business entities. A full assessment of the potential economic impact,
as required by Section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
[Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)] will be made, if applicable, at
the final rulemaking stage.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting, Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-5825 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5824 Implementation of Section 273(d)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996Dispute Resolution Regarding Equipment Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9966-9968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5824]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[GC Docket No. 96-42, FCC 96-87]
Implementation of Section 273(d)(5) of the Communications Act of
1934, as Amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996--Dispute
Resolution Regarding Equipment Standards
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing to adopt a rule which will
establish a dispute resolution process to be used by non-accredited
standards development organizations in the event that a dispute
resolution process is not agreed upon by all parties when establishing
industry-wide standards or generic requirements for telecommunications
equipment or customer premises equipment as required by 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 273(d)(5). The rule will also establish penalties to be assessed
against delaying parties. This proposal is in response to legislation
enacted by Congress.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 1, 1996 and reply
comments are due on or before April 11, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and Reply Comments may be mailed to the Office of
the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C.
20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon B. Kelley. Office of General
Counsel, at (202)418-1720.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
1. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 1, amended the
Communications Act by creating a new section 273, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 273,
which sets forth procedures to be followed by non-accredited standards
development organizations 2 that set industry-wide 3
standards and requirements for manufacturing telecommunications
equipment. The procedures allow interested industry parties to
participate in setting industry-wide standards or generic requirements
and require the organization and such parties to attempt to develop a
dispute resolution process in the event of disputes on technical
issues. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 273(d)(4). Section 273(d)(5) requires the
Commission to prescribe within 90 days of enactment a dispute
resolution process to be used in the event all parties cannot agree to
a dispute resolution process. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 273(d)(5). Thus, the
Commission's dispute resolution process is triggered only if the
parties fail to agree to a process for resolving technical issues on
their own. Section 273(d)(5) also requires the Commission to
``establish penalties to be assessed for delays caused by referral of
frivolous disputes to the dispute resolution process.'' Id.
\1\ Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
\2\ As defined in section 273(d)(8)(E), [t]he term `accredited
standards development organization' means any entity composed of
industry members which has been accredited by an institution vested
with the responsibility for standards accreditation by the industry.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 273(d)(8)(E). Thus, for example, Bell
Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore) would not be an accredited
standards development organization and is subject to the section 273
procedures. H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 39
(1996).
\3\ As defined in section 273(d)(8)(C), [t]he term `industry-
wide' means activities funded by or performed on behalf of local
exchange carriers for use in providing wireline telephone exchange
service whose combined total of deployed access lines in the United
States constitutes at least 30 percent of all access lines deployed
by telecommunications carriers in the United States as of the date
of the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
47 U.S.C. Sec. 273(d)(8)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The purpose of this proceeding is to establish dispute
resolution procedures as provided for in section 273(d)(5). In section
II(A) below, members of the public are requested to comment on the
proposal set forth here and are also encouraged to submit alternative
dispute resolution proposals that they believe would better implement
this statutory section. Comment is also sought on methods for selecting
an arbitrator or neutral and on the issue of whether the Commission
should make its employees available for that purpose. In section II(B),
we solicit proposals or recommendations concerning the types of
penalties that should be assessed for referral of frivolous disputes.
II. Proposed Regulations
A. Binding Arbitration Proposal
3. As explained above, section 273(d)(5) directs the Commission to
prescribe a dispute resolution process to be used by non-accredited
standards development organizations in situations where the parties
involved cannot agree on the dispute resolution process to be used. 47
U.S.C. 273(d)(5). Specifically, section 273(d)(5) provides:
--[w]ithin 90 days after the date of enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission shall prescribe a
dispute resolution process to be utilized in the event that a
dispute resolution process is not agreed upon by all the parties
when establishing and publishing an industry-wide standard or
industry-wide generic requirement for telecommunications
[[Page 9967]]
equipment or customer premises equipment, pursuant to paragraph
(4)(A)(v). The Commission shall not establish itself as a party to
the dispute resolution process. Such dispute resolution process
shall permit any funding party to resolve a dispute with the entity
conducting the activity that significantly affects such funding
parties interests, in an open, nondiscriminatory, and unbiased
fashion within 30 days after the filing of such dispute. Such
disputes may be filed within 15 days after the date the funding
party receives a response to its comments from the entity conducting
the activity. The Commission shall establish penalties to be
assessed for delays caused by referral of frivolous disputes to the
dispute resolution process.
47 U.S.C. 273(d)(5). According to the Conference Report, the intended
purpose of the Commission's dispute resolution process is to ``enable
all interested parties to influence the final resolution of the dispute
without significantly impairing the efficiency, timeliness, and
technical quality of the activity.'' \4\
\4\ H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. 39 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. We propose here to require binding arbitration as the dispute
resolution process. Binding arbitration involves the submission of the
dispute to a third party or arbiter who renders a decision after
hearing arguments and reviewing evidence. The parties to the dispute
are bound by this final decision. Because it is less formal and complex
than a formal hearing (i.e., procedural and evidentiary rules may be
relaxed), arbitration is often less costly and time consuming than
other dispute resolution mechanisms. Given the short 30-day period for
completing the dispute resolution process, we believe binding
arbitration presents the most feasible dispute resolution approach. We
also seek comment on whether additional procedures are necessary in the
event that the dispute resolution process is not resolved within the
allotted 30-day time period.
5. Although binding arbitration appears to be the only dispute
resolution method that could be accomplished within the short statutory
period for completion of the dispute resolution process, we also seek
comments on other approaches that might be used. For example, other
methods of alternative dispute resolution include mediation,
conciliation, neutral evaluation, settlement judges, mini-trial, or
hybrids of these methods, such as ``med-arb'' (first, the neutral third
party serves as a mediator and then as an arbitrator empowered to
decide any issues not resolved through mediation). Although the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, Pub. L. No. 101-552 (Nov. 15,
1990), contained a sunset date of October 1, 1995, we also invite
parties to review its provisions in making recommendations to us.
6. In addition, we seek comment on what types of procedures are
needed to govern the selection of an arbitrator or neutral fact-finder.
For example, should the arbitrator or neutral be selected by agreement
of the involved parties? If so, what procedures should apply in the
event parties are unable to reach agreement on the arbitrator? We ask
commenters to address these issues. Commenters may also wish to address
whether Commission staff who have expertise in the area of dispute
resolution should be available to serve as neutrals/arbitrators. We
note, however, that any such proposal to use Commission staff could
raise issues concerning the staff's delegated authority and the
procedures for application for review to the full Commission in section
5(c)(4) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 155(c)(4).
B. Complaints of Frivolous Disputes
7. Section 273(d)(5) directs the Commission to establish penalties
for delays caused by the referral of frivolous disputes to the dispute
resolution process. We request commenters to assist us in defining what
constitutes a ``frivolous dispute.'' For example, section 1.52 of the
Commission's rules requires that any document filed with the Commission
be signed by the party or his counsel and that such signatures certify
that the party or attorney has read the document, that ``to the best of
his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support
it'' and that ``it is not interposed for delay.'' 47 CFR 1.52.\5\ This
appears to be a useful definition in this context as well. We expect
that findings concerning possible frivolous disputes and
recommendations for an appropriate penalty could be made in the first
instance by the resolver of the dispute, e.g., the arbitrator. We
encourage commenters to present specific proposals concerning
procedures for the referral of complaints of frivolous disputes to the
Commission.
\5\ See generally, FCC Public Notice, ``Commission Taking Tough
Measures Against Frivolous Pleadings,'' FCC 96-42, released February
9, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In addition, we seek public comment on the penalties that should
be assessed against delaying parties. Specifically, we ask commenters
to address whether the Commission should rely solely on its forfeiture
authority contained in section 503(b) of the Communications Act, or in
the alternative or in addition, whether it should, or could, impose
other penalties such as barring the party from further participation in
the standards and requirements development processes or the imposition
of costs on the complainant if its complaint is found to be frivolous.
In addressing these issues, commenters should consider what procedural
protections might be necessary to protect the party subject to such a
complaint. Further, in addressing the potential use of forfeitures,
commenters should consider the impact of section 503(b)(5), requiring
that, for certain persons, there be a citation and subsequent
misconduct before a forfeiture can be assessed. 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5).
III. Conclusion
9. As discussed above, we have proposed a dispute resolution
process, binding arbitration, that may be used in the event that
disputes arise over technical issues when setting standards pursuant to
section 273(d)(5) of the Act. To assist us in our efforts, we invite
public comment on this proposal and any other possible rules and
procedures that would enable us to fulfill the congressional directive.
IV. Procedural Matters
10. Pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and
1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before April 1, 1996
and reply comments on or before April 11, 1996. All relevant and timely
comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is
taken in this proceeding. To file formally in this proceeding,
participants must submit 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
and nine copies must be filed. Comments and reply comments should be
sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C. 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.
11. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a non-restricted notice
and comment proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except
during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as
provided in Commission rules. See generally 47
[[Page 9968]]
CFR Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
12. As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of the
proposals in this document. The IRFA is set forth in the paragraph
below. 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 Notice, but they must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial 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. P.L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C.
Section 601, et seq. (1980).
13. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Reason for Action: The
Telecommunications Act of 1996 permits a Bell Operating Company,
through a separate subsidiary, to engage in the manufacture of
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment after the
Commission authorizes the company to provide in-region interLATA
services. As one of the safeguards for the manufacturing process, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the Communications Act by
creating a new section 273, which sets forth procedures for a ``non-
accredited standards development organization,'' such as Bell
Communications Research, Inc., to set industry standards for
manufacturing such equipment. The statutory procedures allow outside
parties to participate in setting the organization's standards and
require the organization and the parties to attempt to develop a
process for resolving any technical disputes. Section 273(d)(5)
requires the Commission ``to prescribe a dispute resolution process''
to be used in the event that all parties cannot agree to a mutually
satisfactory dispute resolution process. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 273(d)(5). This
rulemaking proceeding was initiated to secure comment on our proposal
to rely on binding arbitration as this dispute resolution process. The
proposals advanced in this Notice are also designed to implement
Congress' goal of establishing procedures ``to enable all interested
parties to influence the final resolution of the dispute without
significantly impairing the efficiency, timeliness and technical
quality of the activity.'' H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 230, 104th Cong., 2d
Sess. 39 (1996).
Objectives: The Commission proposes a dispute resolution process
that requires parties to rely on binding arbitration which appears to
be the most feasible option given the 30 day period for completing the
dispute resolution process. It also seeks to adopt rules that conform
to specific statutory parameters. Section 273(d)(5) directs that the
Commission ``shall not establish itself as a party to the dispute
resolution process,'' that the process shall permit resolution ``in an
open, non-discriminatory and unbiased fashion within 30 days after the
filing of such dispute'' and that the Commission will ``establish
penalties to be assessed for delays caused by referral of frivolous
disputes to the dispute resolution process.'' 47 U.S.C. 273(d)(5).
Legal Basis: The proposed action is authorized under the
Communications Act, sections 4(i), 4(j), 273(d)(5), 303(r) and 403 of
the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154 (i) and (j), 273(d)(5),
303(r), and 403.
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: The
dispute resolution requirement contained in this Notice, if adopted,
will require parties to use binding arbitration in the event that all
parties cannot agree to a dispute resolution process. No reporting or
recordkeeping requirements are proposed in this Notice.
Federal Rules Which Overlap, Duplicate or Conflict With These
Rules: None.
Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities
Consistent with the Stated Objectives: This Notice solicits comments on
a variety of alternatives. Any additional significant alternatives
presented in the comments will also be considered.
IRFA Comments: We request written comments on the foregoing Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Comments must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the comment deadlines set forth in this Notice.
14. Authority to conduct this inquiry is given in sections 4(i),
4(j), 273(d)(5), 303(r) and 403 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
154 (i) and (j), 273(d)(5), 303(r) and 403.
15. Further information on this proceeding may be obtained by
contacting Sharon B. Kelley, Office of the General Counsel, 202/418-
1720.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Dispute resolution process,
Manufacturing by Bell operating companies, Non-accredited standards
development organization, Penalties for delaying parties.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-5824 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5823 Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9963-9964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5823]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[MM Docket No. 95-176, FCC 96-71]
Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 adds a new
section 713, Video Programming Accessibility, to the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended. Section 713 requires the Commission to conduct
inquiries and report to Congress on the availability of video
programming with closed captioning and video descriptions. Prior to the
enactment of Section 713 on February 8, 1996, the Commission initiated
a Notice of Inquiry addressing the issues and seeking information on
closed captioning and video description, as is now required by Section
713. This Order announces the Commission's intent to use the comments
in the existing proceeding to implement Section 713 and to extend the
comment dates to ensure that sufficient time is provided to respond to
the legislative directive.
DATES: Comments are due on or before March 15, 1996, and reply comments
are due on or before April 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia A. Glauberman, Cable Services
Bureau, (202) 416-0800.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order
in MM Docket No. 95-176, FCC 96-71, adopted February 27, 1996, and
released on February 27, 1996. The full text of the Order is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.,
20554, and may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Service (``ITS, Inc.''), (202) 857-3800,
2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
Synopsis of the Order
1. Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-
104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996), adds a new section 713, Video Programming
Accessibility, to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').
Section 713(a) requires the Commission to complete an inquiry within
180 days of the date of enactment (February 8, 1996) to ascertain the
level at which video programming is closed captioned. A report on the
results of this inquiry shall be submitted to Congress. Within 18
months of enactment, the Commission is required to establish
regulations and implementation schedules to ensure that video
programming is fully accessible through closed captioning consistent
with Section 713 (b) through (e). Section 713(f) requires the
Commission to commence an inquiry within six months after the date of
enactment to examine the use of video descriptions on video programming
to ensure the accessibility of video programming to persons with visual
impairments.
2. Prior to the date of enactment, the Commission issued a Notice
of Inquiry (``Notice''), summarized at 60 FR 65052 (December 18, 1995),
seeking comment on a wide range of issues relating to closed captioning
and video description of video programming. Since the existing Notice
addresses the issues that the Commission must explore in the inquiries
required by Section 713, the Commission has determined that separate
proceedings are unnecessary to implement these provisions of the Act.
3. The Order announces the Commission's intent to use the
[[Page 9964]]
comments in the existing proceeding to implement Section 713. It also
extends the comment period until March 15, 1996, and the reply comment
period until April 1, 1996, to provide parties with an opportunity to
refine their comments and to focus on the specific information needed
to implement Section 713 of the Act.
Ordering Clauses
4. It is ordered, that the time for filing comments in the above-
captioned proceeding is extended to March 15, 1996, and the time for
filing reply comments is extended to April 1, 1996.
5. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in Sections
4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i) and 303(r), and Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-5823 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5744 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock Seasonal Allowances
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9972-9975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5744]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 672
[Docket No. 960228053-6053-01; I.D. 022296E]
RIN 0648-AI56
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock Seasonal Allowances
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations that would implement Amendment 45 to
the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).
This amendment proposes to allow NMFS to combine by regulatory
amendment the third and fourth quarterly allowances for pollock in the
Western and Central (W/C) Regulatory Areas into single seasonal
allowances that would become available October 1 of each fishing year
in the Western Regulatory Area and September 1 of each fishing year in
the Central Regulatory Area. Changes to the final 1996 harvest
specifications of GOA pollock are also proposed to reflect the proposed
revised seasonal allowances. These measures are necessary to address
management problems that have been identified by the fishing industry.
They are intended to further the management objectives of the FMP.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Ronald J. Berg, Chief, Fisheries
Management Division, Alaska Region, National Marine Fisheries Service,
P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; Attn: Lori Gravel. Copies of
Amendment 45 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review
(RIR) prepared for this Amendment 45 may be obtained from the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kent Lind (907) 586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The pollock fishery in the exclusive economic zone of the GOA is
managed by NMFS under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act) and is implemented by
regulations found at 50 CFR 672. General regulations governing U.S.
fisheries are also found at 50 CFR 620.
Background
This action proposes regulations to implement Amendment 45 to the
FMP. If approved by NMFS, this amendment would remove the requirement
that the total allowable catch (TAC) specified for pollock in the W/C
Regulatory Areas be divided into four equal quarterly allowances and
replace it with more flexible language that would require that the TACs
specified for pollock in the W/C Regulatory Areas be divided into
seasonal, rather than quarterly, allowances. The size, number, and
timing of seasonal allowances would be established in regulation. The
Council's objective in adopting Amendment 45 was to allow NMFS to
combine by regulatory amendment the third and fourth quarterly
allowances for pollock in the W/C Regulatory Areas into single seasonal
allowances that would become available October 1 of each fishing year
in the Western Regulatory Area and September 1 of each fishing year in
the Central Regulatory Area.
Since 1990, the TACs specified for pollock in the W/C Regulatory
Areas have been divided into four equal quarterly allowances, which
become available January 1, June 1, July 1, and October 1. The
quarterly allowance system was implemented as part of Amendment 19 to
the FMP to limit excessive harvests of roe-bearing pollock. At the
time, the Council also believed that a quarterly allowance system would
provide a more stable year-round pollock fishery for GOA-based vessels
and processors.
In November 1990, NMFS listed the Steller sea lion as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and subsequently approved
Amendment 25
[[Page 9973]]
to the FMP, which contained a variety of Steller sea lion protection
measures. Amendment 25 further subdivided the annual TAC specified for
pollock in the W/C Regulatory Area into three management districts
(Statistical Areas 610, 620, and 630). This action was implemented to
avoid a concentration of fishing effort in time and/or space that could
cause localized depletions of Steller sea lion prey and exacerbate the
decline of Steller sea lions. The effect of Amendment 25 was to divide
the TACs specified for pollock in the W/C Regulatory Areas into 12
individual allowances (four quarterly openings in each of the three
management districts)
Regulations implementing the quarterly allowance system established
by Amendments 19 and 25 are found at 50 CFR 672.20(a)(2)(iv). These
regulations also specify that within any fishing year, shortfalls in
one quarterly allowance be proportionately added to subsequent
quarterly allowances resulting in a sum for each quarterly allowance
not to exceed 150 percent of the original quarterly allowance; and that
within any fishing year, harvests in excess of a quarterly allowance be
deducted proportionately from subsequent quarterly allowances.
Problems With the Quarterly Allowance System
In August 1995, representatives of the GOA pollock industry
submitted a proposal to the Council that would combine the third and
fourth quarterly allowances of pollock TAC into a single seasonal
allowance. Under this industry proposal, the first and second quarterly
allowances would remain unchanged; 25 percent of the TAC on January 1
and 25 percent of the TAC on June 1. However, the third and fourth
quarterly allowances would be combined into a single seasonal allowance
of 50 percent of the TAC released on September 1, rather than the
current quarterly releases of 25 percent on July 1 and October 1.
In response to this proposal, representatives of the inshore sector
of the Bering Sea pollock fishery requested that the opening date for
the combined third and fourth quarter allowance be delayed until
October 1 so that Bering Sea-based vessels would have time to finish
the Bering Sea non-roe pollock fishery before the start of the final
pollock season in the W/C Regulatory Areas. In 1995, the Bering Sea
non-roe pollock season closed on September 23.
Industry and NMFS are in agreement that several problems exist with
the current quarterly allowance system for pollock in the W/C
Regulatory Area. The first problem is with chum salmon bycatch. Since
1991, chum salmon bycatch has been approximately 500 percent higher
during the third quarter pollock opening than any other quarter. In
1993, an estimated 59,000 chum salmon were taken during the third
quarter, and in 1995 an estimated 46,000 chum salmon were taken during
the third quarter pollock fishery. Delaying release of the third
quarter allowance until at least September, after chum salmon spawning
periods have passed, is expected to reduce chum salmon bycatch rates in
the pollock fishery.
A second problem identified by industry is that the current third
quarter pollock fishery conflicts with summer salmon processing
activities. During July, many GOA processors operate at near or full
capacity processing salmon. Delaying the July pollock opening until at
least September would allow processors to avoid scheduling conflicts
with salmon processing, maintain more stable production levels and,
maintain a more stable workforce. Processors currently report
difficulties in maintaining a workforce during September when fewer
fish are typically available, yet they need crews on hand in order to
be ready in October when bottom trawling reopens for groundfish. A
pollock opening in September or October would allow processors to more
easily span the gap between summer salmon fisheries and October bottom
trawl fisheries.
A third concern raised by both management agencies and industry is
that declining pollock stocks and escalating fishing effort have made
the GOA pollock fishery increasingly difficult to manage, especially
during the fourth quarter. The 1995 fourth quarter pollock season is a
case in point. Based on anticipated fishing effort, 1995 fourth quarter
pollock openings were set at 12 hours in Statistical Area 610, 24 hours
in Statistical Area 620, and 3 days in Statistical Area 630.
Nevertheless, substantial overharvest occurred in Statistical Area 630
due to greater than anticipated fishing effort from vessels crossing
over from the Bering Sea and western GOA. This management problem is
most acute during the fourth quarter for two reasons. First, TAC
allowances are frequently reduced in the fourth quarter to adjust for
overharvest of TACs during the other three quarters. Second, effort is
usually highest in the fourth quarter since vessels based in the Bering
Sea enter the W/C Regulatory Area for the fourth quarter pollock
fishery after the September closure of the non-roe season pollock
fishery in the Bering Sea.
Finally, some participants in the GOA pollock fishery have
requested the Council maintain concurrent GOA and Bering Sea pollock
seasons to discourage the Bering Sea-based fleet from participating in
GOA pollock openings. In 1995, the inshore component pollock non-roe
season in the Bering Sea opened on August 15 and closed on September
23, 1 week before the fourth quarter opening in the W/C Regulatory
Areas. As a result, operators of inshore vessels based in the Bering
Sea had both opportunity and incentive to crossover to the W/C
Regulatory Area to participate in the fourth quarter (October 1)
opening since they were idled with their crews available. This
additional fishing effort exacerbated efforts to manage small pollock
TACs in the W/C Regulatory Areas and led to substantial overharvest in
Statistical Area 630.
At its January 1996 meeting, the Council considered three opening
date options for a combined third and fourth quarter allowance;
September 1, September 15, and October 1. At this meeting, a coalition
of Bering Sea and central Gulf-based processors and vessels submitted a
compromise proposal to the Council that would establish an October 1
opening date for the Western Gulf Regulatory Area and a September 1
opening date for the Central Gulf Regulatory Area. Western Gulf-based
processors and fishermen expressed dissatisfaction with the compromise
proposal because an October 1 opening date in the Western Regulatory
Area would facilitate entry by Bering Sea-based vessels.
However, the Council subsequently recommended that NMFS implement
this compromise proposal as the preferred option. The Council believed
that an October 1 opening date for the Western Regulatory Area and a
September 1 opening date for the Central Regulatory Area would achieve
the objectives outlined above while causing the least amount of
dislocation for current participants in the fishery.
Regulatory Changes Proposed By This Action
This action would combine the third and fourth quarterly allowances
in the W/C Regulatory Areas into single seasonal allowances equal to 50
percent of the specified TACs. These combined allowances would open
October 1 in the Western Regulatory Area and September 1 in the Central
Regulatory Area. This action would retain the requirement that, within
any fishing year, shortfalls in the harvest of one seasonal allowance
be proportionately added to subsequent seasonal allowances resulting in
a sum
[[Page 9974]]
for each seasonal allowance not to exceed 150 percent of the original
seasonal allowance; and the requirement that, within any fishing year,
harvests in excess of a seasonal allowance be deducted proportionately
from subsequent seasonal allowances of the same fishing year.
Proposed Changes to 1996 Harvest Specifications
Final 1996 harvest specifications for GOA pollock were published in
the Federal Register on February 5, 1996 (61 FR 4304). The proposed
change from quarterly allowances to three seasonal allowances of
pollock TAC amounts specified for the W/C Regulatory Areas would
require that the final 1996 specifications be amended. First, footnote
2 to Table 1 would be revised to read as follows:
``Pollock is apportioned to three statistical areas in the
combined Western/Central Regulatory Area, each of which is further
divided into three seasonal allowances (Table 3). In the Eastern
Regulatory Area, pollock is not divided into seasonal allowances.''
Second, page 4308 of the final 1996 specifications, section 4,
``Apportionments of Pollock TAC Among Regulatory Areas, Season, and
Between Inshore and Offshore Components,'' and Table 3 would be amended
to reflect the proposed seasonal allowances of pollock:
4. Apportionments of Pollock TAC Among Regulatory Areas, Seasons,
and Between Inshore and Offshore Components
In the GOA, pollock is apportioned by area, season, and inshore/
offshore components. Regulations at Sec. 672.20(a)(2)(iv) require
that the TAC for pollock in the combined W/C GOA be apportioned
among statistical areas; Shumagin (61), Chirikof (62), and Kodiak
(63) in proportion to known distributions of the pollock biomass.
This measure was intended to provide spatial distribution of the
pollock harvest as a sea lion protection measure. Each statistical
area apportionment would be further divided into three seasonal
allowances (Table 3). In the Eastern Regulatory Area, pollock is not
divided into seasonal allowances.
Within any fishing year, any unharvested amount of any seasonal
allowance of pollock TAC would be added in equal proportions to the
subsequent seasonal allowances, resulting in a sum for each seasonal
allowance that does not exceed 150 percent of the original seasonal
allowance. Similarly, harvests in excess of a seasonal allowance of
TAC would be deducted in equal proportions from the remaining
seasonal allowances of that fishing year. Directed fishing for
pollock in the Western Regulatory Area (Statistical Area 610) would
be authorized in seasonal allowances beginning on January 1, June 1,
and October 1. Directed fishing for pollock in the Central
Regulatory Area (Statistical Areas 620 and 630) would be authorized
in seasonal allowances beginning on January 1, June 1, and September
1. The Eastern Regulatory Area pollock TAC of 2,810 metric tons (mt)
is not allocated among smaller areas or seasonal allowances.
Regulations at Sec. 672.20(a)(2)(v)(A) require that the domestic
annual processing (DAP) apportionment for pollock in all regulatory
areas and all seasonal allowances thereof be divided into inshore
and offshore components. One hundred percent of the pollock DAP in
each regulatory area is apportioned to the inshore component after
subtraction of amounts that are determined by the Director, Alaska
Region, NMFS (Regional Director) to be necessary to support the
bycatch needs of the offshore component in directed fisheries for
other groundfish species. The amount of pollock available for
harvest by vessels in the offshore component is that amount actually
taken as bycatch during directed fishing for groundfish species
other than pollock, up to the maximum retainable bycatch amounts
allowed under regulations at Sec. 672.20(g).
Third, Table 3 of the final 1996 specifications would be amended as
follows to reflect the proposed seasonal allowances of pollock:
Table 3.--Distribution of Pollock in the Western and Central Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of Alaska (W/C GOA).
[ABC for the W/C GOA is 52,000 mt. Biomass distribution is based on 1993 survey data. TACs are equal to ABC.
Inshore and offshore allocations of pollock are not shown. ABCs and TACs are rounded to the nearest 10 mt.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seasonal allowances \1\
Statistical area Biomass 1996 TAC --------------------------------
percent First Second Third
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shumagin (61)............................................ 49.0 25,480 6,370 6,370 12,740
Chirikof (62)............................................ 24.7 12,840 3,210 3,210 6,420
Kodiak (63).............................................. 26.3 13,680 3,420 3,420 6,840
Total................................................ 100.0 52,000 13,000 13,000 26,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As established under paragraphs (e) and (f) Sec. 672.23, the first and second seasonal allowances of W/C
pollock TAC amounts are available January 1 and June 1, respectively. The third seasonal allowance specified
for statistical area 61 would become available October 1 and the third seasonal allowance specified for
statistical areas 62 and 63 would become available September 1.
Classification
Section 304(a)(1)(D) of the Magnuson Act requires that regulations
proposed by a Council be published within 15 days of receipt of the FMP
amendment and regulations. At this time NMFS has not determined that
Amendment 45 to the FMP that this rule would implement is consistent
with the national standards, other provisions of the Magnuson Act, and
other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take
into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment
period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of E.O 12866.
An RIR was prepared for this proposed rule that describes the
management background, the purpose and need for action, the management
action alternatives, and the social impacts of the alternatives. The
RIR also estimates the total number of small entities affected by this
action and analyzes the economic impact on those small entities. Copies
of the RIR can be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
The analysis in the RIR shows that the economic effects of this
proposed rule to the regulated community would be positive and
relatively minor. Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result,
a regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
The section 7 consultations for the 1996 GOA and BSAI TAC
specifications have evaluated the potential for adverse effects to ESA
listed species including Steller sea lions, Snake River salmon, and
seabirds. An additional informal consultation to specifically evaluate
the effects of Amendment 45 on Steller sea lions was concluded on
February 16, 1996. As a result of these consultations, the Director,
Alaska Region, NMFS
[[Page 9975]]
determined fishing activities under this rule are unlikely to adversely
affect endangered or threatened species.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 672
Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 5, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Acting Program Manager Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 672 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 672--GROUNDFISH OF THE GULF OF ALASKA
1. The authority citation for part 672 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.
General Amendments
2. In Sec. 672.20, paragraph (a)(2)(iv); the first sentence of
paragraph (a)(2)(v)(A); and paragraph (c)(2) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 672.20 General limitations.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The TAC for pollock in the combined Western and Central
Regulatory Areas will be apportioned among Statistical Areas 610, 620,
and 630 in proportion to the distribution of the pollock biomass as
determined by the most recent NMFS surveys. Each apportionment will be
divided into three seasonal allowances of 25 percent, 25 percent and 50
percent of the apportionment, respectively, corresponding to the three
fishing seasons defined at paragraphs (c) and (f) of Sec. 672.23.
Within any fishing year, any unharvested amount of any seasonal
allowance will be added proportionately to all subsequent seasonal
allowances, resulting in a sum for each allowance not to exceed 150
percent of the initial seasonal allowance. Within any fishing year,
harvests in excess of a seasonal allowance will be deducted
proportionately from all subsequent seasonal allowances.
(v) * * * (A) The DAP apportionment of pollock in all regulatory
areas will be allocated entirely to vessels catching pollock for
processing by the inshore component after subtraction of an amount that
is projected by the Regional Director to be caught by, or delivered to,
the offshore component incidental to directed fishing for other
groundfish species. * * *
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2)--(i) Applicable after December 31, 1998. If the Regional
Director determines that the amount of a target species or ``other
species'' category apportioned to a fishery is likely to be reached,
the Regional Director may establish a directed fishing allowance for
that species or species group. The amount of a species or species group
apportioned to a fishery is the amount identified in the notice of
specifications as provided in paragraph (c)(1) of this section as these
amounts are revised by inseason adjustments, for that species or
species group, as identified by regulatory area or district and as
further identified according to any allocation of total allowable level
of fishing level (TALFF), the apportionment for joint venture
processing (JVP), the apportionment for DAP, the seasonal allowance of
pollock and, if applicable, as further identified by gear type. In
establishing a directed fishing allowance, the Regional Director shall
consider the amount of that species or species group or seasonal
allowance of pollock that will be taken as incidental catch in directed
fishing for other species in the same regulatory area or district. If
the Regional Director establishes a directed fishing allowance and that
allowance is or will be reached before the end of the fishing year or,
with respect to pollock, before the end of the season, NMFS will
prohibit directed fishing for that species or species group in the
specified regulatory area or district. If directed fishing for a
species or species group is prohibited, any amount of that species or
species group greater than the maximum retainable bycatch amount, as
calculated under paragraph (g) of this section, may not be retained and
must be treated as a prohibited species under paragraph (e) of this
section.
(ii) Applicable through December 31, 1998. If the Regional Director
determines that the amount of a target species or ``other species''
category apportioned to a fishery is likely to be reached, the Regional
Director may establish a directed fishing allowance for that species or
species group. The amount of a species or species group apportioned to
a fishery is the amount identified in the notice of specifications as
provided in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. These amounts are revised
by inseason adjustments, for a given species or species group, as
identified by regulatory area or district, and as further identified
according to any allocation of TALFF, the apportionment for JVP, the
apportionment for DAP, the seasonal allowance of pollock or, with
respect to Pacific cod, to an allocation to the inshore or offshore
component and, if applicable, as further identified by gear type. In
establishing a directed fishing allowance, the Regional Director should
consider the amount of that species group, seasonal allowance of
pollock, or allocation of Pacific cod to the inshore or offshore
component that will be taken as incidental catch in directed fishing
for other species in the same regulatory area or district. If the
Regional Director establishes a directed fishing allowance and that
allowance is or will be reached before the end of the fishing year or,
with respect to pollock, before the end of the season, NMFS will
prohibit directed fishing for the species or species group in the
specified regulatory area or district. If directed fishing for a
species or species group is prohibited, any amount of that species or
species group greater than the maximum retainable bycatch amount, as
calculated under paragraph (g) of this section, may not be retained and
must be treated as a prohibited species under paragraph (e) of this
section.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 672.23, paragraph (e) is revised and paragraph (f) is
added to read as follows:
Sec. 672.23 Seasons.
* * * * *
(e) Subject to other provisions of this part, directed fishing for
pollock in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska is
authorized in three seasons: (1) From 0:01 a.m., A.l.t., January 1
through 12 noon, A.l.t., April 1; (2) from 12 noon, A.l.t., June 1
through 12 noon, A.l.t., July 1; and (3) from 12 noon, A.l.t., October
1 through 12 midnight A.l.t., December 31.
(f) Subject to other provisions of this part, directed fishing for
pollock in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska is
authorized in three seasons: (1) From 0:01 a.m., A.l.t., January 1
through 12 noon, A.l.t., April 1; (2) from 12 noon, A.l.t., June 1
through 12 noon, A.l.t., July 1; and (3) from 12 noon, A.l.t.,
September 1 through 12 midnight A.l.t., December 31.
Nomenclature Amendments
Sec. 672.20 [Amended]
4. In addition to the amendments set out above, in Sec. 672.20, in
paragraph (c)(1), remove all occurrences of the word ``quarterly'' and
add in their place the word ``seasonal''.
[FR Doc. 96-5744 Filed 3-7-96; 11:37 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-5700 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Public Workshop on the Improvements of the Appliance Standards Rulemaking Process
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5700]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Public
Workshop on the Improvements of the Appliance Standards Rulemaking
Process
agency: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
action: Notice of new location of public workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: On February 22, 1996, the Department of Energy (the Department
or DOE) published a notice of public workshop (61 FR 6798, February 22,
1996) announcing a public workshop to be held on Tuesday, March 19,
1996, and Wednesday, March 20, 1996, at the Embassy Suites Hotel in
Arlington, Virginia. The workshop will discuss possible initiatives
that the Department will undertake to improve the appliance standards
program. Due to the overwhelming response to this workshop, a larger
facility will be required.
dates: The public workshop will be held on Tuesday, March 19, 1996,
from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, March 20, 1996, from 9:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
addresses: The new location for the workshop will be at the Washington
National Airport Hilton Hotel (Crystal City), 2399 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan D. Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-
431, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)
586-0371
Douglas W. Smith, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, Mail Station GC-70, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0103, (202) 586-3410
Deborah E. Miller, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, Mail Station EE-1,
1000 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, (202) 586-
8888.
supplementary information: The public workshop to discuss possible
initiatives that the Department will undertake to improve the appliance
standards program has been relocated. The workshop was originally
scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 19, 1996 and Wednesday, March
20, 1996, at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. The new
location for the workshop is the Washington National Airport Hilton
Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. A new location was necessary to
accommodate the large number of participants who have responded to the
February 22, 1996, notice of public workshop published by the
Department. 61 FR 798, February 22, 1996. The dates and times for the
workshop have not been changed.
Please notify Bryan Berringer at the above listed address of your
intention to attend the workshop or if you have any additional
questions.
Issued in Washington, DC, March 5, 1996.
Brian T. Castelli,
Chief of Staff, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 96-5700 Filed 3-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.