issue-1996-07-02•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-02
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-02
issue-1996-07-02Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-02Proposed 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. 96-16872 Humane Treatment of Dogs and Cats; Wire Flooring
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34389-34391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16872]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
9 CFR Part 3
[Docket No. 95-100-1]
RIN 0579-AA78
Humane Treatment of Dogs and Cats; Wire Flooring
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the requirements for the humane
treatment of dogs and cats under the Animal Welfare Act to require that
if the floor of a primary enclosure for dogs or cats is constructed of
wire, the wire must be coated with a material such as plastic or
fiberglass. Coated wire has a larger diameter than bare wire, and is
therefore more comfortable on animals' feet. Coated wire is also not
susceptible to rust, improving the floor's structural strength and
making it easier to clean and sanitize than bare wire flooring. We
believe that requiring coated wire to be used for wire floors in
primary enclosures would improve comfort for dogs and cats housed in
wire-floored enclosures, would help eliminate foot injuries, and would
ensure that wire flooring for dogs and cats is clean and sanitary.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 95-100-1, 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. 95-100-1. 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: Mr. Stephen Smith, Staff Animal Health
Technician, REAC, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1234, (301) 734-4972.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Animal Welfare Act (the Act)(7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and
other requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care,
treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research
facilities, exhibitors, and carriers and intermediate handlers.
Regulations established under the Act are contained in 9 CFR parts 1,
2, and 3. Subpart A of 9 CFR part 3 (referred to below as the
regulations) contains specific standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of dogs and cats.
Recently, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
hosted public meetings in Kansas City and St. Louis, MO, and in
Washington, DC, to gather information on the regulations in 9 CFR part
3, subpart A, that apply to the care of dogs and cats in the commercial
pet trade. People attending the meetings included representatives of
animal protection organizations and members of affected industries,
such as dealers, research facilities, and commercial animal
transporters.
Each meeting was divided into four workshops covering specific
topic areas. One of the workshop topic areas concerned sanitation,
materials, flooring, and construction of primary enclosures. APHIS has
considered all of the recommendations and opinions expressed by
participants of this workshop at each of the meetings, as well as
APHIS' own experience in enforcing the Act, in developing this proposal
on flooring in primary enclosures. There were many recommendations
expressed in the workshops on issues other than flooring in primary
enclosures. APHIS is continuing to review and analyze all the
recommendations received, and will initiate additional rulemaking for
any changes deemed appropriate.
Currently, the regulations require that primary enclosures for dogs
and cats must, among other things, enable all surfaces in contact with
the animals to be readily cleaned and sanitized, or be replaceable when
worn or soiled. Primary enclosures must also ``(h)ave floors that are
constructed in a manner that protects the dogs' and cats' feet and legs
from injury, and that, if of mesh or slatted construction, do not allow
the dogs' and cats' feet to pass through any openings in the floor. If
the floor of the primary enclosure is constructed of wire, a solid
resting surface or surfaces that, in the aggregate, are large enough
[[Page 34390]]
to hold all the occupants of the primary enclosure at the same time
comfortably must be provided.''
Wire floors are preferable to solid floors for many dealers,
breeders, researchers, and exhibitors because waste material can pass
through the openings in the floor, making the enclosures easier to keep
clean. In many primary enclosures that have wire floors, the floors are
constructed of bare wire. It is our experience in enforcing the Act,
however, that bare wire flooring is inadequate in providing for the
comfort and well-being of dogs and cats.
Bare wire can be uncomfortable on dogs' and cats' feet because the
wire has a narrow diameter, providing inadequate support and
potentially causing lesions and sores on the animals' feet. Bare wire
is also prone to rust, which not only affects the structural strength
of the primary enclosure, but can cause foot injuries because rusty
wire is abrasive and because dogs and cats may be cut or poked by
broken, rusty pieces of wire. Rusted wire is also difficult to clean
and sanitize thoroughly, because the rust makes the wire semi-porous in
places, allowing bacteria and viruses to remain even after thorough
cleaning. Further, bare wire flooring often sags or bends between
structural supports, creating an uncomfortable resting surface for the
animals.
Wire that has been coated with plastic, fiberglass, or similar
material has a larger diameter than bare wire, so that floors
constructed from coated wire provide better support and are more
comfortable on dogs' and cats' feet. Coated wire also eliminates the
problem of rusting, making coated wire floors easier to clean and
maintain, and less likely to cause foot injuries, than bare wire
floors. In addition, the coating on the wire adds strength, making it
less likely that coated wire would sag or bend between structural
supports.
For these reasons, we are proposing to prohibit bare wire in the
construction of primary floors and to require that if the floor of a
primary enclosure for dogs or cats is constructed of wire, the wire
must be coated with a material, such as plastic or fiberglass, that can
be cleaned and sanitized readily. We are not proposing to limit the
material with which the wire must be coated to only plastic or
fiberglass because there is a variety of materials currently on the
market that would be adequate, and new and better materials may be
introduced in the future. Also, depending on the size of the openings
in the flooring, and the size and weight of a particular animal,
different diameters of coated wire may be adequate to provide increased
comfort for the animals. Some wires are sold, however, that are coated
with a very thin layer of material, which would not provide any
increased comfort over bare wire. For this reason, we propose to
further require that the coated wire must have a well-rounded surface
and must be of a large enough diameter so that it is comfortable on the
animals' feet and protects the animals' feet from injury. Also, coated
wire floors would have to be strong enough so that the floor does not
sag or bend between structural supports.
We realize that replacing existing bare wire flooring could be a
substantial cost, depending on the size of the facility. Coated wire
flooring is significantly more expensive than bare wire. To ease the
burden of complying with the new requirement, we are proposing that the
final rule would have two effective dates: one 30 days after
publication of the final rule and one 2 years after publication of the
final rule. Any new construction done on and after 30 days after
publication of the final rule would have to be in compliance with the
new flooring requirements. Also, on and after 30 days after publication
of the final rule, any bare wire floors in existing primary enclosures
that are replaced because of wear would have to be replaced in
compliance with the new flooring requirements. On and after 2 years
from the effective date of a final rule, all licensees and registrants
would have to comply with the new requirements. Wire floors usually
wear out from rust and general usage within a 2 year time-frame, so we
believe that almost all existing bare wire floors would be replaced by
coated wire before the 2 year grace period expired. The delayed
effective date would give breeders, dealers, researchers, and
exhibitors the opportunity to retain their existing bare wire floors
until they wear out under normal usage. The 2 year delay would also
give time to prepare for the additional cost of replacing existing
floors.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
impact of this rule on small entities. However, we do not currently
have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects
of this rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments
concerning potential effects. In particular, we are interested in
determining how many licensees and registrants would have to replace
bare wire flooring as a result of this proposed rule and the average
number of animals these licensees house, to help us better determine
the economic impact of this proposal.
Under the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) the Secretary
of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other
requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care, treatment,
and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities,
exhibitors, and carriers and intermediate handlers.
This proposed rule would require that if the floor of a primary
enclosure for dogs or cats is constructed of wire, the wire must be
coated with a material, such as plastic or fiberglass, that can be
cleaned and sanitized readily, is comfortable on the animals' feet, and
protects the animals' feet from injury. The coated wire must also be
strong enough so that the floor does not sag or bend between structural
supports. We believe that requiring coated wire floors in primary
enclosures would improve comfort for dogs and cats housed in wire-
floored enclosures, would help eliminate foot injuries, and would
ensure that wire flooring for dogs and cats is clean and sanitary.
This proposed rule would affect all breeders, dealers, research
facilities, and exhibitors of dogs and cats that are licensed or
registered under the Animal Welfare Act and that house their animals in
primary enclosures with bare wire floors. There are currently 4,325
licensed breeders and dealers, 2,339 licensed exhibitors, and 2,688
registered research facilities and sites. We do not know how many of
these licensees and registrants house dogs and cats. Further, we cannot
determine the exact number of licensees and registrants that house
their dogs and cats on wire flooring or the total number of animals
involved, but it is known that a significant percentage of licensees
and registrants do use wire flooring in primary enclosures because it
is easier to maintain than solid flooring. Most wire floored enclosures
are constructed with bare wire. Some licensees, however, have converted
existing bare wire flooring to coated wire, and coated wire flooring is
currently the preferred material for new construction.
The market price of both bare and coated wire varies depending on
the quality and diameter width of the material. Floor space
requirements for primary enclosures also vary depending
[[Page 34391]]
on the size of the animals. Large dogs on average require about 13
square feet of floor space, while small dogs require about 6.5 square
feet. Bare wire of the type most often used currently sells for about
$1.50 per square foot. Coated wire that meets the other standards for
use under the Animal Welfare Act sells for between $2.25 and $5.00 per
square foot. Requiring the use of coated wire could result in increased
costs for replacement of between 60 and 233 percent. Thus, replacing
bare wire with coated wire could result in additional expenditures
ranging from $4.87 to $22.75 for each small dog housed and from $13.00
to $45.50 for each large dog. We estimate that it would take
approximately 1 to 1\1/2\ hours per cage to replace bare wire flooring
with coated wire. Labor could run from $5.00 to $10.00 per hour.
The total cost to an individual licensee or registrant would depend
on the number of animals being housed. However, because coated wire
floors do not rust, they need to be replaced far less frequently than
bare wire floors. Therefore, the initial cost of replacing the floors
would be made up, in part, over a period of time, because the coated
wire floor will provide longer use.
To ease the burden of complying with the new requirement, we are
proposing that the final rule would have two effective dates: one 30
days after publication of the final rule and one 2 years after
publication of the final rule. Any new construction done on and after
30 days after publication of the final rule would have to be in
compliance with the new flooring requirements. Also, on and after 30
days after publication of the final rule, any bare wire floors in
existing primary enclosures that are replaced because of wear would
have to be replaced in compliance with the new flooring requirements.
On and after 2 years from the effective date of a final rule, all
licensees and registrants would have to comply with the new
requirements. Wire floors usually wear out from rust and general usage
within a 2 year time-frame, so we believe that almost all existing bare
wire floors would be replaced by coated wire before the 2 year grace
period expired. The delayed effective date would give breeders,
dealers, researchers, and exhibitors the opportunity to retain their
existing bare wire floors until they wear out under normal usage. The 2
year delay would also give time to prepare for the additional cost of
replacing existing floors.
The alternative to this proposed rule would be to make no change to
the flooring requirements for primary enclosures. After consideration,
we rejected this alternative because we believe that bare wire floors
are inadequate to provide for the comfort and well-being of dogs and
cats.
This proposed rule contains no paperwork or recordkeeping
requirements.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.028 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. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule. The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be
exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of 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 3
Animal welfare, Marine mammals, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Transportation.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 3 would be amended as follows:
PART 3--STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 3 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2156; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. In Sec. 3.6, a new paragraph (a)(2)(xii) would be added to read
as follows:
Sec. 3.6 Primary enclosures.
(a) General requirements. * * *
(2) * * *
(xii) The following requirements are effective for primary
enclosures constructed on or after [insert date 30 days after
publication of final rule] and for bare wire floors replaced on or
after [insert date 30 days after publication of final rule]. On or
after [insert date 2 years after publication of final rule] the
following requirements are effective for all primary enclosures. The
floor of the primary enclosure may not be constructed of bare wire. If
the floor of the primary enclosure is constructed of wire, the wire
must be coated with a material, such as plastic or fiberglass, that can
be cleaned and sanitized readily. The coated wire must have a well-
rounded surface and must be of a large enough diameter so that it is
comfortable on the animals' feet and protects the animals' feet from
injury. Coated wire floors must be strong enough so that the floor does
not sag or bend between structural supports.
Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of June 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16872 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16871 Humane Treatment of Dogs and Cats; Tethering and Temperature Requirements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34386-34389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16871]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 1 and 3
[Docket No. 95-078-1]
RIN 0579-AA74
Humane Treatment of Dogs and Cats; Tethering and Temperature
Requirements
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations for the humane
treatment of dogs and cats under the Animal Welfare Act by removing the
provisions for tethering dogs as a means of primary enclosure. We are
also proposing to amend the regulations by revising the temperature
requirements for indoor, sheltered, and mobile and traveling housing
facilities, and for primary conveyances used in transportation, to
require that the ambient temperature must never exceed 90 deg.F (32.2
deg.C) when dogs or cats are present. We are taking these actions
because our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us
to conclude that tethering dogs as a means of primary enclosure is not
a humane practice. Also, temperatures exceeding 90 deg.F can be
harmful to dogs and cats. These actions will help ensure that dogs and
cats in facilities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act will be
treated in a humane manner.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 95-078-1, 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. 95-078-1. 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: Mr. Stephen Smith, Staff Animal Health
Technician, REAC, APHIS, suite 6D02, 4700 River Road Unit 84,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234, (301) 734-4972.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)(7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and
other requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care,
treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research
facilities, exhibitors, and carriers and intermediate handlers.
Regulations established under the Act are contained in 9 CFR parts 1,
2, and 3. Subpart A of 9 CFR part 3 (referred to below as the
regulations) contains requirements concerning dogs and cats.
Recently, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
hosted public meetings in Kansas City and St. Louis, MO, and in
Washington, DC, to gather information on the regulations in 9 CFR part
3, subpart A, that apply to the care of dogs and cats in the commercial
pet trade. People attending the meetings included representatives of
animal protection organizations and members of affected industries,
such as dealers, research facilities, and commercial animal
transporters.
Each meeting was divided into four workshops covering specific
topic areas: (1) space requirements for primary enclosures, including
room for exercise; (2) sanitation, materials, flooring, and
construction of primary enclosures; (3) veterinary care and breeding
frequency; and (4) transportation by land and air. APHIS has considered
all of the recommendations and opinions expressed by participants of
these workshops at each of the meetings, as well as APHIS' own
experience in enforcing the Act, in developing this proposal on
tethering and temperature requirements. There were many recommendations
expressed in the workshops on issues closely related to what we are
proposing in this
[[Page 34387]]
document, as well as recommendations on issues other than tethering and
temperature requirements. APHIS is continuing to review and analyze all
the recommendations received, and will initiate additional rulemaking
for any changes deemed appropriate.
Tethering of Dogs
Currently, the regulations provide that dogs in outside housing
facilities regulated under the AWA may be kept on tethers as a means of
primary enclosure. Primary enclosure is defined in 9 CFR part 1 to
mean:
(A)ny structure or device used to restrict an animal or animals
to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen, run, cage,
compartment, pool, hutch, or tether. In the case of animals
restrained by a tether (e.g., dogs on chains), it includes the
shelter and the area within reach of the tether.
A dog whose primary enclosure is a tether would be attached to the
tether almost all of the time, except when it is allowed off of the
tether for exercise or other activities. The regulations require that a
dog on a tether must have a shelter (such as a dog house or other
structure) and the tether must allow the dog access to the shelter and
to food and water containers. The housing area where the dog is
tethered must be surrounded by a perimeter fence of sufficient height
to keep out unwanted animals.
Our experience in enforcing the AWA has led us to conclude that
continuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane. A tether
significantly restricts the dog's movement. A tether can also become
tangled around or hooked on the dog's shelter structure or other
objects, further restricting the dog's movement and potentially causing
injury. We are proposing to remove the option for facilities to use
tethering as a means of primary enclosure. We would remove all
references to tethering from the definition of primary enclosure in 9
CFR part 1, and we would remove the provisions for tethering as a means
of primary enclosure from the regulations in 9 CFR part 3. Facilities
would still have a number of primary enclosure options available to
them, such as a cage or a fenced-in run.
Temperature
The regulations for indoor housing facilities, sheltered housing
facilities, and mobile or traveling housing facilities that are
regulated under the AWA provide that the ambient temperature in the
facilities may not exceed 85 deg.F (29.5 deg.C) for more than 4
consecutive hours when dogs or cats are present. The regulations also
provide that when any person subject to the AWA transports dogs or
cats, the cargo spaces in primary conveyances (motor vehicle, rail, and
marine) and the holding areas in the terminal facilities (such as at
airports, rail stations, or maritime ports) may not exceed 85 deg.F
(29.5 deg.C) for more than 4 consecutive hours when dogs or cats are
present. The regulations for air transportation provide that cargo
areas must be heated or cooled as necessary to maintain an ambient
temperature that ensures the health and well-being of the dogs or cats
held there.
The regulations do not specify a maximum temperature at which dogs
or cats may be held for up to 4 hours. Because there is no maximum
temperature restriction in the regulations, it is conceivable that a
dog or cat could be exposed to extremely high temperatures for up to 4
hours. Temperatures exceeding 90 deg.F can be harmful to dogs and cats
even if they are exposed to those temperatures for less than 4 hours.
In the case of air transportation, there is no maximum temperature
specified to which dogs or cats can be exposed, even for over 4 hours.
Although the regulations do state that any cargo area where dogs or
cats are held must be cooled as necessary to maintain an ambient
temperature that ensures the health and well-being of the dogs or cats
held there, there have been incidents where dogs or cats were exposed
to extremely high temperatures during air travel. Such exposure
resulted in serious harm or, in some cases, death to those animals.
For these reasons, we are proposing to require that the ambient
temperature in indoor housing facilities, sheltered housing facilities,
mobile or traveling housing facilities, primary conveyances (motor
vehicle, rail, air, and marine), and terminal facilities must never
rise above 90 deg.F (32.2 deg.C) when dogs or cats are present.
Licensed dog and cat dealers and transporters of dogs and cats
would have several alternative methods of complying with this proposal.
They could install air conditioning or electric fans to cool the air
inside the facilities and conveyances. Dog and cat dealers could also
comply by establishing outdoor shelters, which are not subject to
temperature requirements, or providing animals in sheltered housing
facilities with outdoor runs where they are not already available.
Outdoor shelters and runs provide the dogs and cats with access to
fresh air, air movement (breezes and winds), shade (required by the
regulations), and other climatic and environmental factors which help
to alleviate suffering from high temperatures. Also, humidity levels
can become unbearable in enclosed facilities where the temperature
exceeds 90 deg.F. Suffering from humidity levels outdoors, even when
the temperature is above 90 deg.F, is usually mitigated by other
climatic factors, as described above.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office
of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
impact of this rule on small entities. However, we do not currently
have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects
of this rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments
concerning potential effects. In particular, we are interested in
determining the number and size of licensed facilities that would have
to make changes to comply with the proposed temperature requirements,
and the kind of change those licensees would likely choose in order to
comply (for example, installing air conditioning or constructing
outdoor facilities).
Under the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) the Secretary
of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other
requirements governing the humane handling, housing, care, treatment,
and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities,
exhibitors, and carriers and intermediate handlers.
This proposed rule would eliminate the use of tethering as a means
of primary enclosure for dogs, and would affect Class A and Class B
licensed dog dealers. Over 95 percent of Class A and Class B licensed
dog dealers are considered small businesses.
There is no information available on the actual number of Class A
and Class B licensed dog dealers who use tethering as a means of
primary enclosure. However, kennels and cages are currently the
preferred means of primary enclosure, with tethering sometimes used as
a temporary restraint. Tethering is no longer a generally accepted
practice within the dog dealer industry, and some industry groups
prohibit their members from using tethering as a means of permanent
restraint. Therefore, we do not expect this proposal to have a
significant impact on dog dealers, large or small, because tethering as
a means of primary
[[Page 34388]]
enclosure is rarely, if ever, utilized by Class A and Class B licensed
dog dealers.
This proposed rule would also revise the temperature requirements
for indoor, sheltered, and mobile and traveling housing facilities, and
for primary conveyances used in transportation, to state that the
ambient temperature must never exceed 90 deg.F (32.2 deg.C) when dogs
or cats are present. This temperature requirement would affect Class A
and Class B licensed dog and cat dealers. Currently, the regulations
state (except for air transportation) that the ambient temperature in a
facility, holding area, or cargo space must not exceed 85 deg.F (29.5
deg.C) for more than 4 consecutive hours. The regulations for air
transportation provide that cargo areas must be heated or cooled as
necessary to maintain an ambient temperature that ensures the health
and well-being of the dogs or cats held there.
There are currently a total of 4,325 licensed dog and cat dealers
(over 95 percent of which are considered small businesses, as stated
previously). We do not know precisely how many of these house only dogs
and/or cats, but it is probably close to 90 percent or more. We expect
that the additional temperature requirement would impact Class A and
Class B licensed dog and cat dealers mainly in the States of Arkansas,
Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa. These are States in which there
is a high concentration of Class A and Class B licensed dog and cat
dealers (approximately 2,326 dealers), and in which the temperatures
can be highly variable in the summer months, with many days reaching
temperatures above 90 deg.F. In most cases, if a dealer has been able
to comply with the requirement that the ambient temperature in the
facility must not exceed 85 deg.F for more than 4 consecutive hours,
they would likely be able to comply with this proposal without any
additional expense. We estimate that at least 85 percent of potentially
affected entities are already in compliance with the temperature
requirements in this proposed rule.
However, if a dealer finds that he or she is not prepared to meet
the new requirement, the cost of compliance would depend on what method
the dealer chooses to cool the facility. For indoor and sheltered
housing facilities, the alternatives would most likely include: (1)
Installation of air conditioning. Installation of air conditioning
could cost between $1,000 and $3,000 per unit, and operational
expenditures for electricity could range between $200 to $500 per year;
(2) Installation of electric fans. Installation of electric fans could
cost between $300 and $500 per unit, and operational expenditures for
electricity could range between $100 to $300 per year; (3) Establishing
outdoor shelters, which are not subject to temperature requirements. We
estimate that it would cost $17.00 to $29.00 to establish an outdoor
facility for a single medium-sized dog that would meet the minimum
requirements of the regulations (based on 18 feet of chain-link fence
at $.40 to $.50 per foot, a $20 to $30 commercial dog house, and $10 to
$20 in labor); or (4) Providing dogs and cats in sheltered housing
facilities with outdoor runs where they are not already available. We
estimate that it would cost $8.60 to $22.50 to construct an outdoor run
for a single medium-sized dog that would meet the minimum requirements
of the regulations (based on 9 to 15 feet of chain-link fence at $.40
to $.50 per foot plus $5.00 to $15.00 in labor).
All these cost estimates could vary considerably depending on the
number of animals housed in the facility, the quality of the materials
used in construction, and the adaptability of existing structures.
Because most dog and cat dealers are small businesses, the cost of
installing air conditioning may comprise a significant portion of their
overall operational expenses. It is anticipated that the affected
dealers would choose the less costly alternatives of installing
electric fans or establishing outdoor shelters or runs.
We do not expect that this proposal would impact transporters of
dogs and cats. Most transporters (motor vehicle, rail, air, and marine)
already have the capacity to provide adequate ventilation and/or air
conditioning for animals in their cargo areas and holding facilities.
The majority of dog and cat deaths from extremely high temperatures in
cargo areas or holding facilities have been due to human error. This
proposal would help ensure that transporters utilize their existing
capacity to maintain a healthy temperature range for the animals they
transport, and would not likely require transporters to install
additional cooling systems.
The alternative to this proposed rule would be to make no changes
to the temperature and tethering requirements in the regulations. After
consideration, we rejected this alternative because we believe that
tethering dogs as a means of primary enclosure is not a humane
practice, and because temperatures exceeding 90 deg.F can be harmful
to dogs and cats.
This proposed rule contains no paperwork or recordkeeping
requirements.
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. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This rule would not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule. The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be
exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of 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
9 CFR Part 1
Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research.
9 CFR Part 3
Animal welfare, Marine mammals, Pets, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Transportation.
Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 1 and 3 would be amended as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. The authority citation for part 1 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(g).
2. In Sec. 1.1, the definition for primary enclosure would be
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Primary enclosure means any structure or device used to restrict an
animal or animals to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen,
run, cage, compartment, pool, or hutch.
* * * * *
PART 3--STANDARDS
3. The authority citation for part 3 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131-2156; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Secs. 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5 [Amended]
4. In Secs. 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5, paragraph (a) of each section would
be amended by
[[Page 34389]]
adding a new identical sentence at the end of each paragraph to read as
set forth below:
(a)* * * The ambient temperature in the facility must never rise
above 90 deg.F (32.2 deg.C) when dogs and cats are present.
* * * * *
Sec. 3.6 [Amended]
5. Section 3.6 would be amended by removing paragraph (c)(2), and
by redesignating paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) as paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3), respectively.
6. In Sec. 3.15, paragraphs (d) and (e) would be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 3.15 Primary conveyances (motor vehicle, rail, air, and marine).
* * * * *
(d) During air transportation, dogs and cats must be held in cargo
areas that are heated and cooled as necessary to maintain an ambient
temperature that ensures the health and well-being of the dogs or cats.
The ambient temperature in the cargo areas must never rise above 90
deg.F (32.2 deg.C) when dogs or cats are present. The cargo areas must
be pressurized when the primary conveyance used for air transportation
is not on the ground, unless flying under 8,000 ft. Dogs and cats must
have adequate air for breathing at all times when being transported.
(e) During surface transportation, the ambient temperature within
any animal cargo space containing live dogs or cats must never rise
above 90 deg.F (32.2 deg.C). Moreover, auxiliary ventilation, such as
fans, blowers, or air conditioning, must be used when the ambient
temperature within the animal cargo space reaches 85 deg.F (29.5
deg.C). The ambient temperature must not exceed 85 deg.F (29.5 deg.C)
for more than 4 consecutive hours, nor fall below 45 deg.F (7.2
deg.C) for more than four consecutive hours.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 3.18, paragraph (d) would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 3.18 Terminal facilities.
* * * * *
(d) Temperature. The ambient temperature in an animal holding area
containing live dogs or cats must not fall below 45 deg.F (7.2 deg.C)
or rise above 85 deg.F (29.5 deg.C) for more than 4 consecutive hours
at any time dogs or cats are present. The ambient temperature in the
animal holding area must never rise above 90 deg.F (32.2 deg.C) when
dogs or cats are present.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of June 1996.
Terry L. Medley
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16871 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16870 Importation of Fruits and Vegetables
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34379-34385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16870]
========================================================================
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. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34379]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 300 and 319
[Docket No. 95-098-1]
Importation of Fruits and Vegetables
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow a number of previously prohibited
fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States from
certain parts of the world. All of the fruits and vegetables, as a
condition of entry, would be subject to inspection, disinfection, or
both, at the port of first arrival as may be required by a U.S.
Department of Agriculture inspector. In addition, some of the fruits
and vegetables would be required to undergo prescribed treatments for
injurious plant pests as a condition of entry, or to meet other special
conditions. The removal of these prohibitions would provide the United
States with additional kinds and sources of fruits and vegetables while
continuing to provide protection against the introduction and
dissemination of injurious plant pests by imported fruits and
vegetables.
DATES: For comments on all portions of this proposed rule except the
rule's information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, consideration will be given
only to comments received on or before August 1, 1996. For comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements of this proposed rule,
consideration will be given only to comments received on or before
September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 95-098-1, 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. 95-098-1. 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: Mr. Peter Grosser, Senior Operations
Officer, Port Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 139,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8 (referred to below
as ``the regulations'') prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits
and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world
to prevent the introduction and dissemination of fruit flies and other
injurious plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within
and throughout the United States.
We are proposing to amend the regulations to allow additional
fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States from
certain parts of the world under specified conditions. The importation
of these fruits and vegetables has been prohibited because of the risk
that the fruits and vegetables could introduce fruit flies or other
injurious plant pests into the United States. We are proposing to allow
these importations at the request of various importers and foreign
ministries of agriculture, and after conducting pest risk analyses
1 that indicate the fruits or vegetables can be imported under
certain conditions without significant pest risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on these pest risk analyses and any other pest
risk analysis referred to in this document may be obtained by
writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the fruits and vegetables included in this document would be
subject to the requirements in Sec. 319.56-6 of the regulations.
Section 319.56-6 provides, among other things, that all imported fruits
and vegetables, as a condition of entry, shall be subject to
inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first arrival, as may
be required by a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector to
detect and eliminate plant pests. Section 319.56-6 also provides that
any shipment of fruits and vegetables may be refused entry if the
shipment is infested with fruit flies or other injurious plant pests
and an inspector determines that it cannot be cleaned by disinfection
or treatment.
Some of the fruits and vegetables proposed for importation would be
required to undergo prescribed treatments for injurious plant pests as
a condition of entry, or to meet other special conditions. The proposed
conditions of entry, which are discussed in greater detail below,
appear adequate to prevent the introduction and dissemination of fruit
flies and other injurious plant pests by the importation of fruits and
vegetables from certain foreign countries and localities into the
United States.
Subject to Inspection and Treatment Upon Arrival
We are proposing to allow the following fruit and vegetables to be
imported into the United States from the country or locality indicated
in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6 and all other applicable requirements
of the regulations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina......................... Basil............... Ocimum spp.......... Above ground parts.
Korea............................. Angelica............ Aralia elata........ Edible shoot.
Morocco........................... Strawberry.......... Fragaria spp........ Fruit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34380]]
Pest risk analyses conducted by the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) have shown that the fruit and vegetables
listed above are not attacked by fruit flies or other injurious plant
pests, either because they are not hosts to the pests or because the
pests are not present in the country or locality of origin. In
addition, we have determined that any other injurious plant pests that
might be carried by any of the listed fruit or vegetables would be
readily detectable by a USDA inspector. Therefore, the provisions in
Sec. 319.56-6 concerning inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port
of first arrival, appear adequate to prevent the introduction into the
United States of fruit flies or other injurious plant pests by the
importation of these fruits and vegetables.
Subject to Inspection and Treatment Upon Arrival; Additional
Conditions
We would allow the following fruits and vegetables to be imported
into the United States from the country indicated subject to the
prescribed conditions and in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6 and all
other applicable requirements of the regulations:
Babaco from Chile
We are proposing to allow babaco (fruit, Carica x heilborni var.
pentagona) from Chile to be imported into the United States if the
fruit is grown in one of the designated districts of Chile that has
been determined to be free of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly). The
babaco would have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the Chilean Department of Agriculture stating that the fruit
originated in a Medfly-free province. Currently, all of the provinces
of Chile except the provinces of Arica, Iquique, and Parinacota have
been determined to be free of Medfly. This determination is based on a
national Medfly trapping program that has been conducted in Chile for
more than 10 years with the cooperation and monitoring of APHIS.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Details on APHIS-monitored trapping programs in Chile are
available from Operational Support, IS, APHIS, Suite 5A03, 4700
River Road Unit 67, Riverdale, MD 20737-1233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest risk analyses conducted by APHIS have determined that any
other injurious plant pests that might be carried by the babaco would
be readily detectable by a USDA inspector. As noted, the babaco would
be subject to inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first
arrival, in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.
Clementine, Grapefruit, Lemon, Minneola, Navel Orange, Satsuma, and
Valencia Orange from South Africa
We are proposing to allow clementine, grapefruit, lemon, minneola,
navel orange, satsuma, and valencia orange (fruit, Citrus spp.) to be
imported into the United States from South Africa under certain
conditions designed to prevent the introduction of Medfly and other
injurious plant pests into the United States.
First, we would require that the citrus be grown in, packed in, and
shipped from the Western Cape Province of South Africa. We are
proposing this requirement because scientific studies and surveys
3 conducted by the South African Department of Agriculture have
demonstrated that this area is free from citrus blackspot, unlike other
citrus-producing areas in South Africa. Further, we believe that both
natural and regulatory barriers are in place that will help ensure that
the Western Cape Province will remain free of citrus blackspot. The
Western Cape Province's nearest citrus-producing neighbor, the Gamtoos
River Valley, has, to date, had no findings or reports of citrus
blackspot, and the citrus-producing areas in South Africa that are
infested with citrus blackspot are separated from the Western Cape
Province by mountain ranges, semi-desert areas, or long distances.
Additionally, the South African government has in place regulations
that prohibit the movement of nursery trees from the northern citrus-
production area of South Africa into the Western Cape Province, and the
South African government carefully monitors and regularly inspects
citrus fruit for citrus blackspot in the growing areas and
packinghouses of the Western Cape Province.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Information on these studies and surveys may be obtained by
writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As such, we are also proposing that each shipment of citrus fruit
intended for importation into the United States would have to be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the South African
Ministry of Agriculture stating that the citrus fruit was grown in,
packed in, and shipped from the Western Cape Province of South Africa.
This requirement would ensure that only citrus fruit from areas of
South Africa free of citrus blackspot would be imported into the United
States.
Finally, we would require that the citrus fruit be cold treated for
false codling moth and fruit flies of the genus Ceritatis, including
Medfly, and Pterandrus in accordance with the Plant Protection and
Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual, which has been incorporated by
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations at 7 CFR 300.1. The
prescribed cold treatment would be conducted as follows:
22 days at -0.55 deg.C (31 deg.F) or below.
We believe that the proposed conditions described above, as well as
all other applicable requirements in Sec. 319.56-6, would be adequate
to prevent the introduction of Medfly and other plant pests into the
United States on citrus fruit imported from South Africa.
Treatment Required
Additionally, we are proposing to allow the fruits and vegetables
listed below to be imported into the United States, or specified parts
of the United States, only if they have been treated in accordance with
the PPQ Treatment Manual. These fruits and vegetables are attacked by
injurious plant pests, as specified below, in their country or locality
of origin. Visual inspection cannot be relied upon to detect these
insects. However, the fruits and vegetables can be treated to destroy
the injurious plant pests.
We would revise the PPQ Treatment Manual to show that treatments
are required as follows for the fruits and vegetables listed below:
Common name, botanical name, and
Country plant part(s)
Honduras.......................... Hyancinth bean, Lablab purpureus,
pod or shelled
Methyl Bromide fumigation for Cydia
fabivora, Epinotia aporema, and
Maruca testulalis would be
required; fumigation would be
conducted as follows:
With methyl bromide in a 15-inch
vacuum:
8 g/m3 (\1/2\ lb/1000 ft3) for 1\1/
2\ hours at 37 deg.C (90 deg.F)
or above; or
16 g/m3 (1 lb/1000 ft3) for 1\1/2\
hours at 26.5-31.5 deg.C (80-89
deg.F); or
24 g/m3 (1\1/2\ lbs/1000 ft3) for
1\1/2\ hours at 21-26 deg.C (70-79
deg.F); or
32 g/m3 (2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 1\1/2\
hours at 15.5-20.5 deg.C (60-69
deg.F); or
40 g/m3 (2\1/2\ lbs/1000 ft3) for
1\1/2\ hours at 10-15 deg.C (50-59
deg.F); or
48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 1\1/2\
hours at 4.5-9.5 deg.C (40-49
deg.F).
Alternative treatment:
With methyl bromide at NAP--chamber
or tarpaulin:
[[Page 34381]]
24 g/m3 (1\1/2\ lbs/1000 ft3) for 2
hours at 26.5 deg.C (80 deg.F) or
above, with minimum gas
concentrations of:
19 g (19 oz) at \1/2\ hour after
fumigation begins.
14 g (14 oz) at 2 hours after
fumigation begins; or
32 g/m3 (2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours
at 21-26 deg.C (70-79 deg.F),
with minimum gas concentrations of:
26 g (26 oz) at \1/2\ hour after
fumigation begins.
19 g (19 oz) at 2 hours after
fumigation begins; or
40 g/m3 (2\1/2\ lbs/1000 ft3) for 2
hours at 15.5-20.5 deg.C (60-69
deg.F), with minimum gas
concentrations of:
32 g (32 oz) at \1/2\ hour after
fumigation begins.
24 g (24 oz) at 2 hours after
fumigation begins; or
48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours
at 10-15 deg.C (50-59 deg.F),
with minimum gas concentrations of:
38 g (38 oz) at \1/2\ hour after
fumigation begins.
29 g (29 oz) at 2 hours after
fumigation begins.
Yard long bean, Vigna unguiculata
subsp. sesquipedalis, pod or
shelled.
Methyl bromide fumigation for Cydia
fabivora, Epinotia aporema, and
Maruca testulalis as set forth
above for hyacinth bean from
Honduras.
Nicaragua......................... Broad bean, Vicia faba, pod or
shelled.
Methyl bromide fumigation for Cydia
fabivora, Epinotia aporema, and
Maruca testulalis as set forth
above for hyacinth bean from
Honduras.
Green bean, Phaseolus spp., pod or
shelled.
Methyl bromide fumigation for Cydia
fabivora, Epinotia aporema, and
Maruca testulalis as set forth
above for hyacinth bean from
Honduras.
Mung bean, Vigna radiata, pod or
shelled.
Methyl bromide fumigation for Cydia
fabivora, Epinotia aporema, and
Maruca testulalis as set forth
above for hyacinth bean from
Honduras.
The treatments described above have been determined to be effective
against the specified insects. This determination is based on research
evaluated and approved by the Department. A bibliography and additional
information on this research may be obtained from APHIS by writing to
the Oxford Plant Protection Center, 901 Hillsboro St., Oxford, NC
27555.
Pest risk analyses conducted by APHIS have determined that any
other injurious plant pests that might be carried by the fruits and
vegetables listed above would be readily detectable by a USDA
inspector. As noted, the fruits and vegetables would be subject to
inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first arrival, in
accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.
Use of Methyl Bromide
Methyl bromide is currently in widespread use as a fumigant. It is
prescribed as a treatment for hyacinth beans and yard long beans from
Honduras and broad beans, green beans, and mung beans from Nicaragua.
The environmental effects of using methyl bromide, however, are being
scrutinized by international, Federal, and State agencies. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), based on its evaluation of data
concerning the ozone depletion potential of methyl bromide, published a
notice of final rulemaking in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993
(58 FR 65018-65082). That rulemaking freezes methyl bromide production
in the United States at 1991 levels and requires the phasing out of
domestic use of methyl bromide by the year 2001. APHIS is studying the
effectiveness and environmental acceptability of alternative treatments
to prepare for the eventual unavailability of methyl bromide
fumigation. Our current proposal assumes the continued availability of
methyl bromide for use as a fumigant for at least the next few years.
Proposal of Expansion of Medfly-Free Area in Belize
We are proposing to recognize the northern portion of the district
of Stann Creek in Belize as free from Medfly and to allow papaya to be
imported into the United States from this area without treatment for
Medfly.
Belize has conducted a national Medfly trapping program for more
than 6 years with the cooperation and monitoring of APHIS.4 An
intensive, ongoing trapping program, combined with an aggressive
eradication campaign including intensified trapping, ground spraying
with malathion bait, and fruit stripping, in the district of Stann
Creek has established that the northern portion of that district
qualifies as a Medfly-free area. The area of the Stann Creek district
that would not be included in the proposed Medfly-free zone is the
Placencia Peninsula area because this area has ports of entry that
receive cargo and travellers from Honduras and is therefore subject to
occasional Medfly introductions. The exact boundaries of the excluded
area are as follows: Beginning at the southernmost point of the
Placencia Peninsula; then north along the coast of the Caribbean Sea to
Riversdale Road; then west along Riversdale Road to Southern Highway;
then south along the Southern Highway to Independence Road; then east
along Independence Road to Big Creek Port; then east, on an imaginary
line, from Big Creek Port across the Placencia Lagoon to the point of
beginning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Details on APHIS-monitored trapping programs in Belize are
available from Operational Support, IS, APHIS, Suite 5A03, 4700
River Road Unit 67, Riverdale, MD 20737-1233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we are proposing to allow papaya to be imported from the
Medfly-free area of the Stann Creek district without treatment for
Medfly if the papaya is accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the Belizean Department of Agriculture stating that the fruit
originated in the Medfly-free area of the Stann Creek district. As is
routine, APHIS would continue to be directly involved in the monitoring
of Belize's national Medfly trapping program in order to assist the
district of Stann Creek in maintaining Medfly-free status. Currently,
papaya from the Cayo, Corozal, and Orange Walk districts of Belize may
be imported into the United States without treatment for Medfly if the
papaya is accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the
Belizean Department of Agriculture stating that the fruit originated in
those Medfly-free districts. Papaya grown in Belize outside the Medfly-
free areas may also be imported into the United States, provided the
fruit is treated for Medfly in accordance with the PPQ Treatment
Manual.
Like all other papaya imported into the United States from Belize,
papaya grown in the Medfly-free area of the Stann Creek district would
be prohibited entry into Hawaii--where most domestically grown papayas
are produced--as a precaution against the possible introduction of
papaya fruit fly (Toxotrypana curvicauda). Accordingly, the cartons in
which the papaya are packed would have to be stamped ``Not for
importation into or distribution in HI.''
Pest risk analyses conducted by APHIS have determined that any
other injurious plant pests that might be carried by the papaya would
be readily detectable by a USDA inspector. As noted, the papaya would
be subject to inspection, disinfection, or both, at the
[[Page 34382]]
port of first arrival, in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.
Miscellaneous
We are also proposing to make minor editorial changes to the table
in Sec. 319.56-2t for clarity and consistency. Our amendments would
involve removing the common name ``Yam bean'' and replacing it with
``Jicama'' and, for importations of tarragon from Guatemala and Panama,
removing the plant part description ``Leaf and stem'' and replacing it
with ``Above ground parts.'' We believe that these amendments will
clarify the regulations by keeping the common names in the table up-to-
date and by keeping the plant part descriptions uniform.
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.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
impact of this proposed rule on small entities. However, we do not
currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis
of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we
are inviting comments on potential effects. In particular, we are
interested in determining the number and kind of small entities that
may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed
rule.
Under the Plant Quarantine Act and the Federal Plant Pest Act (7
U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167), the Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to regulate the importation of fruits and vegetables to
prevent the introduction of injurious plant pests.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the
importation of fruits and vegetables by allowing a number of previously
prohibited fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States
from certain foreign countries and localities under specified
conditions. The importation of these fruits and vegetables has been
prohibited because of the risk that they could have introduced
injurious plant pests into the United States.
Our proposal is based on pest risk assessments that were conducted
by APHIS at the request of various importers and foreign ministries of
agriculture. The pest risk assessments indicate that the fruits or
vegetables listed in this proposed rule could, under certain
conditions, be imported into the United States without significant pest
risk. All of the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry, would
be subject to inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first
arrival as may be required by a USDA inspector. In addition, some of
the fruits and vegetables would be required to undergo mandatory
treatment for injurious plant pests as a condition of entry, or to meet
other special conditions. This action would provide the United States
with additional kinds and sources of fruits and vegetables while
continuing to provide protection against the introduction into the
United States of injurious plant pests by imported fruits and
vegetables.
Basil from Argentina
From 1990 to 1994, the value of U.S. basil imports averaged $3.3
million annually. This average includes import values for 1994 when,
due to a record import volume of 3,220 metric tons, U.S. basil imports
amounted to $4.6 million. No information is available on U.S. basil
production.
It is estimated that Argentina produces about 1,500 metric tons of
basil annually. If commercial conditions are favorable, basil exports
to the United States could, over time, reach 200 metric tons a year.
This amount is only about 6 percent of current U.S. basil imports and,
therefore, is not expected to have a significant effect on the U.S.
basil market.
Babaco from Chile
Chile produced 334 metric tons of babaco from 1994 to 1995. Of this
amount, only 6.9 metric tons were exported, and all exported babaco
went to Argentina. There is no data available on production or
importation of babaco by the United States. We do not expect that
babaco imported from Chile would have a significant impact on U.S.
producers or other small entities.
Hyacinth Bean and Yard Long Bean from Honduras
No information is available on potential U.S. imports of hyacinth
bean or yard long bean from Honduras or on U.S. production of these
commodities.
Angelica From Korea
Korea produces about 1,300 metric tons of angelica a year. Of this
amount, only 10 kilograms were exported in 1994 and 14 kilograms in
1995. Given the negligible quantities exported in the last 2 years, it
is anticipated that very little angelica will be imported into the
United States from Korea. Therefore, no significant impact on U.S.
entities is expected.
Strawberry From Morocco
In 1994, total U.S. strawberry production was 737,580 metric tons.
That year, the United States exported 57,332 metric tons of fresh
strawberries and 28,637 metric tons of frozen strawberries and imported
19,843 metric tons of fresh strawberries and 25,050 metric tons of
frozen strawberries. Therefore, in 1994, U.S. exports of fresh
strawberries surpassed U.S. imports of fresh strawberries by nearly
three times, while frozen strawberry exports and imports were more
balanced.
Morocco produced about 35,000 metric tons of strawberries in the
1994-95 season. During that season, Morocco exported about 9,000 metric
tons of fresh strawberries and 11,000 metric tons of frozen
strawberries.
Future U.S. strawberry imports from Morocco are estimated at 160
metric tons of strawberries per year. As these estimated strawberry
imports from Morocco constitute less than .02 percent of U.S.
strawberry production, they are not expected to have a significant
impact on U.S. entities, large or small.
Broad Bean, Green Bean, and Mung Bean from Nicaragua
In 1994, total U.S. green bean production was 916,750 metric tons.
Of this amount, 20,324 metric tons, or 2.2 percent of total production,
was exported. In 1994, green bean imports amounted to 11,230 metric
tons.
U.S. production data is not available for broad bean and mung bean.
However, in 1994, the United States exported 389 metric tons of dried
broad bean and 2,134 metric tons of dried mung bean. U.S. imports of
these commodities in 1994 totaled 610 metric tons of dried broad bean
and 7,178 metric tons of dried mung bean.
No information is available on potential imports of green bean,
broad bean, and mung bean from Nicaragua. Given the sizable quantity of
green beans produced in the United States and given the import levels
for broad bean and mung bean, potential import of these commodities
from Nicaragua is not expected to have a significant impact on U.S.
producers or other small entities.
Clementine, Grapefruit, Lemon, Minneola, Navel Orange, Satsuma, and
Valencia Orange From South Africa
In the 1994-95 season, the total value of the U.S. citrus crop was
$2.25 billion. The 1994-95 value of U.S.-produced navel oranges (early
and midseason) was $836 million, valencia oranges $727
[[Page 34383]]
million, grapefruit $301 million, and lemon $265 million. Production
value is not available for clementine, satsuma, and minneola.
In 1994, the United States exported fresh citrus and citrus
products valued at more than $650 million and imported fresh citrus and
citrus products valued at about $70 million. By weight, about 50
percent of 1994 fresh citrus exports were oranges and tangerines, about
40 percent grapefruit, and about 10 percent lemons and limes.
South Africa exports about two-thirds of its citrus crop. The 1996
projected exports of citrus from the Western Cape Province of South
Africa to the United States include 10,500 metric tons of navel
oranges; 12,750 metric tons of valencia oranges; 8,000 metric tons of
clementines; 75 metric tons of grapefruit; 3,000 metric tons of lemons;
1,000 metric tons of satsuma; and 900 metric tons of minneola. These
projections amount to only a fraction of one percent of U.S. production
of citrus.
Additionally, as South Africa exports most of its fresh citrus and
citrus products during the summer months, South African citrus would
not compete with the late fall, winter, and early spring citrus
production season in the United States.
Therefore, due to summer arrival of citrus from South Africa, the
relatively negligible quantity of citrus expected to be imported into
the United States from South Africa, and the fact that U.S. citrus
exports are more than nine times greater than U.S. citrus imports, we
expect that South African citrus exports to the United States would not
have a significant impact on U.S. producers, exporters, or importers of
citrus. Citrus importers in the United States could benefit from the
increased availability of citrus fruit, especially navel oranges,
during the time of year when U.S. production is at its lowest.
The alternative to this proposed rule was to make no changes in the
regulations. After consideration, we rejected this alternative because
there is no biological reason to prohibit the importation into the
United States of the fruits and vegetables listed in this document.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule would allow certain fruits and vegetables to be
imported into the United States from certain parts of the world. If
this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations
regarding the importation of fruits and vegetables under this rule
would be preempted while the fruits and vegetables are in foreign
commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported for
immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and would
remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The
question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be
addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no
retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not
require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in
court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 95-098-1.
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 95-098-1,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River
Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer,
OIRM, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20250. Comments on the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule are due 60
days from the proposed rule's date of publication in the Federal
Register. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if
OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would allow a number of previously prohibited
fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States from
certain parts of the world. In order for some of these fruits and
vegetables to be safely imported into the United States, we would
require the use of a phytosanitary certificate, issued by plant health
officials of the exporting country, stating that the fruits or
vegetables originated in an area free of certain plant pests. This
requirement would help ensure that only fruits and vegetables that do
not present an unacceptable risk of introducing injurious plant pests
into the United States would be imported into the United States.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. We need this outside input to help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 1.31 hours per response.
Respondents: Foreign plant health officials.
Estimated number of respondents: 300.
Estimated number of responses per respondent: 1.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 393 hours.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from:
Clearance Officer, OIRM, USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence
Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 300
Incorporation by reference, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine.
7 CFR Part 319
Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Incorporation by
reference, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 300 and 319 are proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 300--INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
1. The authority citation for part 300 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150ee, 154, 161, 162, and 167; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.2(c).
2. In Sec. 300.1, paragraph (a), the introductory text would be
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 300.1 Materials incorporated by reference; availability.
(a) Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. The Plant
Protection
[[Page 34384]]
and Quarantine Treatment Manual, which was reprinted November 30, 1992,
and includes all revisions through ____________________, has been
approved for incorporation by reference in 7 CFR chapter III by the
Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
* * * * *
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
3. The authority citation for part 319 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and
2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
4. A new Sec. 319.56-2q would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-2q Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of citrus from South Africa.
Clementine (Citrus reticulata), grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), lemon
(Citrus limon), minneola (C. paradisi x C. reticulata), navel orange
(Citrus sinensis), satsuma (Citrus reticulata), and valencia orange
(Citrus sinensis) may be imported into the United States from the
Western Cape Province of South Africa only under the following
conditions:
(a) The citrus fruit must be grown in, packed in, and shipped from
the Western Cape Province of South Africa.
(b) The citrus fruit must be cold treated for false codling moth
and fruit flies of the genus Ceritatis and Pterandrus in accordance
with the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, which is
incorporated by reference at Sec. 300.1 of this chapter.
(1) If the cold treatment is to be conducted in the United States,
entry of the citrus fruit into the United States is limited to ports
listed in Sec. 319.56-2d(b)(1).
(2) If the cold treatment is conducted in South Africa or in
transit to the United States, entry of the citrus into the United
States may be made through any U.S. port.
(c) Each shipment of citrus fruit must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the South African Ministry of
Agriculture stating that the conditions of paragraph (a) of this
section have been met.
5. In Sec. 319.56-2t, the table would be amended as follows:
a. In the entries for Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Philippines, under
the heading Common name, by removing the words ``Yam bean'' from each
entry and adding the word ``Jicama'' in their places.
b. In the entries for Guatemala and Panama, the entry for Tarragon
would be amended in the fourth column, under the heading Plant part(s),
by removing the words ``Leaf and stem'' and adding the words ``Above
ground parts'' in their place.
c. In the entry for Belize, the entry for Papaya, by revising the
text under the heading Plant part(s) to read as set forth below.
d. By adding, in alphabetical order, entries for Basil from
Argentina, Babaco from Chile, Angelica from Korea, and Strawberry from
Morocco to read as set forth below.
Sec. 319.56-2t Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina
* * * * * *
*
Basil.................... Ocimum spp....................... Above ground parts.
* * * * * *
*
Belize
* * * * * *
*
Papaya................... Carica papaya.................... Fruit (Must be
accompanied by a
phytosanitary cer
tificate issued by the
Belizean depart ment
of agriculture stating
that the fruit
originated in the
district of Cayo,
Corozal, or Orange
Walk, or in any
portion of the
district of Stann
Creek except the area
bounded as follows:
Beginning at the
southernmost point of
the Placencia
Peninsula; then north
along the coast of the
Caribbean Sea to
Riversdale Rd.; then
west along Riversdale
Rd. to Southern Hwy.;
then south along the
Southern Hwy. to
Independence Rd.; then
east along
Independence Rd. to
Big Creek Port; then
east, on an imaginary
line, from Big Creek
Port across the
Placencia Lagoon to
the point of
beginning. Papayas
from other areas of
Belize enterable only
with treatment--see
Sec. 319.56-2x). Pro
hibited entry into
Hawaii due to the
papaya fruit fly,
Toxotrypana
curvicauda. Cartons in
which fruit is packed
must be stamped ``Not
for importation into
or distribution within
HI.''
* * * * * *
*
Chile.................... Babaco................... Carica x heilborni var. pentagona Fruit. (From Medfly-
free areas--see Sec.
319.56-2j. Fruit must
be accompanied by a
phytosanitary
certificate issued by
the Chilean department
of agriculture stating
that the fruit
originated in a Medfly-
free province.)
* * * * * *
*
Korea.................... Angelica................. Aralia elata..................... Edible shoot.
* * * * * *
*
Morocco.................. Strawberry............... Fragaria spp..................... Fruit.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. In Sec. 319.56-2x, paragraph (a), the table would be amended as
follows:
a. In the entry for Belize, the entry for Papaya, by revising the
text under the heading Plant part(s) to read as set forth below.
[[Page 34385]]
b. By adding, in alphabetical order, entries for Hyacinth bean and
Yard long bean from Honduras and Broad bean, Green bean, and Mung bean
from Nicaragua to read as set forth below.
Sec. 319.56-2x Administrative instructions; conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables for which treatment is required.
(a) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/ locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
Belize................... Papaya................... Carica papaya.................... Fruit (Treatment for
Medfly not required
for fruit grown in the
districts of Cayo,
Corozal, and Orange
Walk, or in any
portion of the
district of Stann
Creek except the area
bounded as follows:
Beginning at the
southernmost point of
the Placencia
Peninsula; then north
along the coast of the
Caribbean Sea to
Riversdale Rd.; then
west along Riversdale
Rd. to Southern Hwy.;
then south along the
Southern Hwy. to
Independence Rd.; then
east along
Independence Rd. to
Big Creek Port; then
east, on an imaginary
line, from Big Creek
Port across the
Placencia Lagoon to
the point of
beginning--see Sec.
319.59-2t.) Papayas
prohibited entry into
Hawaii due to the
papaya fruit fly,
Toxotrypana
curvicauda. Cartons in
which fruit is packed
must be stamped ``Not
for importation into
or distribution within
HI.''
* * * * * *
*
Honduras................. Hyacinth bean............ Lablab purpureus................. Pod or shelled.
Yard long bean........... Vigna unguiculata, subsp. Pod or shelled.
sesquipedalis.
* * * * * *
*
Nicaragua................ Broad bean............... Vicia faba....................... Pod or shelled.
Green bean............... Phaseolus spp.................... Pod or shelled.
Mung bean................ Vigna radiata.................... Pod or shelled.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of June 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16870 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16839 Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Order; Continuance Referendum
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34385-34386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR PART 1240
[FV-96-707]
Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Order;
Continuance Referendum
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Referendum order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document gives notice that a referendum will be conducted
to determine whether the continuance of the Honey Research, Promotion,
and Consumer Information Order is favored by a majority of the
producers, producer-packers, and importers voting in the referendum.
This action establishes the voting period, representative period,
method of voting, and agents.
DATES: The referendum will be conducted by mail ballot from August 1
through August 30, 1996. The representative period for establishing
voter eligibility shall be the period from January 1, 1994, through
December 31, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer
Information Order may be obtained from: Referendum Agent, Research and
Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box
96456, Room 2535-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Schultz, Research and
Promotion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, Room 2535-S,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456. Telephone (202) 720-5976.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A referendum will be conducted among
eligible honey producers, producer-packers, and importers to determine
whether the continuance of the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer
Information Order (Order) [7 CFR 1240] is favored by persons voting in
the referendum. The Order is authorized under the Honey Research,
Promotion, and Consumer Information Act, as amended (act) [7 U.S.C.
4601-4612].
The representative period for establishing voter eligibility for
the referendum shall be the period from January 1, 1994, through
December 31, 1995. Persons who are producers, producers and handlers,
or importers of honey or honey products at the time of the referendum
and during the representative period are eligible to vote. Persons who
have received an exemption from assessment for the entire representive
period are ineligible to vote. The referendum shall be conducted by
mail ballot from August 1 through 30, 1996.
Section 13(b)(1) of the act provides that 5 years from the date on
which the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) issues an order
authorizing the collection of assessments, and every 5 years
thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum to determine if
honey producers and importers favor the termination or suspension of
the Order. On July 21, 1986, the Secretary issued the Order, and the
first continuance referendum was conducted in August 1991. Therefore,
this order is issued pursuant to the Act's requirements and gives
producers and importers a second opportunity to vote on whether the
program will continue.
Section 13(d) also provides that the Secretary shall suspend or
terminate the Order if termination or suspension is favored by a
majority of the producers and importers voting in the referendum and
that the producers and importers comprising this majority produce or
[[Page 34386]]
import more than 50 percent of the volume of honey produced or imported
by those voting in the referendum.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [Pub. L.
104-13], the referendum ballot has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and has been assigned OMB number 0581-0093.
It is estimated that there are 8,300 producers, 510 producer-packers,
and 350 importers who will be eligible to vote in the referendum. It
will take an average of 15 minutes for each voter to read the voting
instructions and complete the referendum ballot.
Referendum Order
It is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted among eligible
producers, producer-packers, and importers to determine whether they
favor the continuance of the Order. The representative period for
establishing voter eligibility for the referendum shall be the period
from January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1995. A referendum shall be
conducted by mail ballot from August 1 through 30, 1996.
Section 13(d)(1) of the act provides that the Secretary shall
conduct a referendum to determine if honey producers and importers
favor the termination or suspension of the Order. Therefore, voters
will vote on whether the program will continue. Section 13(d) also
provides that the Secretary shall suspend or terminate the Order if
termination or suspension is favored by a majority of the producers and
importers voting in the referendum and that the producers and importers
comprising this majority produce or import more than 50 percent of the
volume of honey produced or imported by those voting in the referendum.
Richard Schultz and Martha B. Ransom, Research and Promotion
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service,
P.O. Box 96456, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20090-6456,
are designated as the referendum agents of the Secretary to conduct
this referendum. The Procedure for the Conduct of Referenda in
Connection with the Honey Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information
Order [7 CFR 1240.200-1240.207] shall be used to conduct the
referendum.
Ballots to be cast in the referendum, and any related material
relevant to the referendum, will be mailed by the referendum agents to
all known producers, producer-packers, and importers. Persons who have
produced, produced and handled, or imported honey or honey products
during the representative period are eligible to vote. Persons who have
received an exemption from assessment for the entire representative
period are ineligible to vote. Any eligible producer, producer-packer,
or importer who does not receive a ballot and related material should
immediately contact the referendum agents.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1240
Advertising, Agricultural research, Honey, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4601-4612.
Dated: June 26, 1996.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-16839 Filed 6-27-96; 2:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16819 Cable Television Service; List of Major Television Markets
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34408-34409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16819]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 96-139; DA 96-1012]
Cable Television Service; List of Major Television Markets
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission, through this action, invites comments on its
proposal to amend its rules regarding the listing of major television
markets, to change the designation of the Houston television market to
include the communities of Baytown, Galveston, Alvin, Rosenberg, Katy
and Conroe, Texas. This action is taken at the request of Pray, Inc.,
licensee of television station KRTW(TV), Channel 57 (presently KVVV),
Baytown, Texas and it is taken to test the proposal for market
hyphenation through the record established based on comments filed by
interested parties.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 26, 1996 and reply comments
are due on or before September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Stallings, Cable Services
Bureau, (202) 418-7200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CS Docket 96-139, adopted June 21, 1996
and released June 24, 1996.
The full text of this decision is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room
239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20554, and may be purchased
from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Service, (202) 857-3800, 1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20554.
Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. The Commission, in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed
by the petitioner, proposed to amend Section 76.51 of the Rules to add
the communities of Baytown, Galveston, Alvin, Rosenberg, Katy and
Conroe to the Houston television market.
2. In evaluating past requests for hyphenation of a market, the
Commission has considered the following factors as relevant to its
examination: (1) the distance between the existing designated
communities and the community proposed to be added to the designation;
(2) whether cable carriage, if afforded to the subject station, would
extend to areas beyond its Grade B signal coverage area; (3) the
presence of a clear showing of a particularized need by the station
requesting the change of market designation; and (4) an indication of
benefit to the public from the proposed change. Each of these factors
helps the Commission to evaluate individual market conditions
consistent ``with the underlying competitive purpose of the market
hyphenation rule to delineate areas where stations can and do, both
actually and logically, compete.''
3. Based on the facts presented, the Commission believes that a
sufficient case for redesignation of the subject market has been set
forth so that this proposal should be tested through the rule making
process, including the comments of interested parties. It appears from
the information before the Commission that the television stations
licensed to Houston, Baytown, Galveston, Alvin, Rosenberg, Katy and
Conroe, Texas do compete throughout much of the proposed combined
market area, and that sufficient evidence has been presented tending to
demonstrate commonality between the proposed communities to be added to
the market designation and the market as a whole that ``hyphenation''
of the market should be proposed. Moreover, the petitioners' proposal
appears to be consistent with the Commission's policies regarding
redesignation of a hyphenated television market. Accordingly, comment
is requested on the proposed addition of Baytown, Galveston, Alvin,
Rosenberg, Katy and Conroe to the Houston, Texas television market.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
4. The Commission certifies that the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 does not apply to this rulemaking proceeding because if the
proposed rule amendment is promulgated, there will not be a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities, as
defined by Section 601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A few
cable television system operators will be affected by the proposed rule
amendment. The Secretary shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the certification, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with
paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Public Law No. 96-
354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. (1981).
Ex Parte
5. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, provided they are
disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. See generally 47 CFR
Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203 and 1.1206(a).
Comment Dates
6. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and
1.419 of the Commission's Rules, interested parties may file comments
on or before August 26, 1996 and reply comments on or before September
16, 1996. All relevant and timely comments will be considered before
final action is taken in this proceeding. To file formally in this
proceeding, participants must file an original and four copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If participants want
each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an
original plus nine copies must be filed. Comments and reply comments
should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, 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, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
7. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated by Section
0.321 of the Commission's Rules.
[[Page 34409]]
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William H. Johnson,
Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-16819 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16817 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34409-34410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16817]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 76
[CS Docket No. 96-133, FCC 96-265]
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for
the Delivery of Video Programming
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is required to report annually to Congress on
the status of competition in the market for the delivery of video
programming pursuant to Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended. On June 12, 1996, the Commission adopted a Notice of
Inquiry to solicit information from the public for use in preparing the
competition report that is to be submitted to Congress in December
1996. The Notice of Inquiry will provide parties with an opportunity to
submit comments and information to be used in conjunction with publicly
available information and filings submitted in relevant Commission
proceedings to assess the extent of competition in the market for the
delivery of video programming.
DATES: Comments are due by July 19, 1996, and reply comments are due by
August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Glauberman, Cable Services
Bureau, (202) 418-7200, or Jeffrey Lanning, Office of the General
Counsel, (202) 418-1880.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Inquiry in CS Docket No. 96-133, FCC 96-265, adopted June 12,
1996, and released June 13, 1996. The complete text of this Notice of
Inquiry 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 (202)
857-3800, 1900 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20054.
Synopsis of the Notice of Inquiry
1. Section 628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(``Communications Act''), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 548(g), requires the
Commission to deliver an annual report to Congress on the status of
competition in the market for the delivery of video programming. The
Commission submitted its first two reports to Congress in September
1994 and December 1995, respectively.
2. The Notice of Inquiry (``NOI'' ) is designed to solicit comments
and information that the Commission can use to prepare its 1996
Competition Report. Specifically, the NOI requests information on the
cable industry, existing and potential competitors to cable systems,
barriers to entry by new competitors, technological advances and the
effects of the 1996 Act on competition in the market for the delivery
of video programming. The Commission expects to use the information
that is submitted by commenters to supplement publicly available
information and relevant comments that have been filed in other
Commission proceedings. The NOI highlights a wide range of competitive
issues, and offers parties an opportunity to submit comments on these
issues, as well as any other information they believe is relevant to an
evaluation of competition in the market for the delivery of video
programming.
3. The NOI begins with an overview of the 1996 Act, including a
summary of the provisions that may promote competition among
multichannel video programming distributors (``MVPDs''). These
provisions include: (1) repeal of the cable-telco cross-ownership ban;
(2) creation of the open video system (``OVS'') option for local
exchange carrier (``LEC'') entry into the market for the delivery of
video programming; (3) deregulation of small cable systems; (4)
expansion of the definition of effective competition; and (5)
elimination under a number of circumstances of the uniform cable
service rate structure requirement for similarly situated subscribers.
4. The NOI then seeks information and comment on the status of the
different MVPDs that serve subscribers in the market for the delivery
of video programming and the changes that have occurred in the past
year. The MVPDs include cable television (including overbuilds),
multipoint multichannel distribution service (``MMDS'' or ``wireless
cable''), direct broadcast satellites (``DBS'') and home satellite
dishes (``HSDs''), and satellite master antenna television (``SMATV'')
systems. The Commission also seeks information on potential rivals for
incumbent cable systems, such as open video systems built by LECs.
5. The NOI asks a variety of questions concerning each of these
video service providers and solicits information regarding barriers to
entry and the nature of the services they provide. The NOI also
indicates that the Commission intends to examine the effects on
competition of broadcast television service, video cassette recorders
(``VCRs'') and interactive video and data services (``IVDS'').
6. The Commission observes that there are technological advances
that may affect the structure of the market for the delivery of video
programming. In this regard, the NOI solicits information on digital
compression, hybridization of different transmission media, and
developments in set-top boxes and switched digital services.
7. In the NOI, the Commission requests comment on the structure of
the market for the delivery of video programming and the effect of this
structure on competition. The Commission expects to explore the status
of horizontal concentration and vertical integration in the cable
television industry and to analyze the market structure conditions that
may affect competition in the market for the delivery of video
programming. Information is requested also to help the Commission
evaluate the effects on competition of the Commission's program access,
program carriage, channel occupancy, and leased commercial access
rules.
8. The NOI also requests comment on the current effects of actual
or potential competition in local markets where consumers have, or soon
will have, a choice between MVPDs. The Commission further requests
information on any existing or potential impediments to entry into the
market for the delivery of video programming. Finally, comment is
sought on the outlook for competition in the future.
Administrative Matters
Ex Parte
9. There are no ex parte or disclosure requirements applicable to
this proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR Sec. 1.1204(a)(4).
Comment Dates
10. Pursuant to 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 July 19, 1996, and
reply comments on or before
[[Page 34410]]
August 19, 1996. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must
file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments and
supporting comments. If participants want each Commissioner to receive
a personal copy of their comments, an original plus ten 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, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554.
Ordering Clauses
11. This Notice of Inquiry is issued pursuant to authority
contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 403 and 628(g) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 76
Cable television.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16817 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16766 Radio Broadcasting Services; Kansas City, MO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16766]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-134; RM-8817]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Kansas City, MO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by TV-32,
Inc. requesting the substitution of UHF Channel 29 for UHF Channel 32
at Kansas City, Missouri, and modification of the construction permit
for Station KCWB to specify operation on Channel 29. The coordinates
for Channel 29 at Kansas City are 39-05-01 and 94-30-57. We shall
propose to modify the construction permit for Station KCWB and will not
accept competing expressions of interest for the use of the channel. To
accommodate the allotment of Channel 29 at Kansas City, we shall also
propose to change the reference site coordinates for vacant Channel *22
at St. Joseph, Missouri, from 39-46-00 and 94-50-18 to 39-54-40 and 94-
50-18.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 12, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Meredith S. Senter, Jr.,
Renee L. Roland, Leventhal, Senter & Lerman, 2000 K. Street, NW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20006-1809.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-134, adopted June 14, 1996,
and released June 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-16766 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16765 Radio Broadcasting Services; Mena, AR
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34406-34407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16765]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-135; RM-8825]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Mena, AR
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed by Wendell Harlan requesting the
[[Page 34407]]
allotment of Channel 287C3 to Mena, Arkansas, as that community's third
local FM transmission service. Coordinates used for Channel 287C3 at
Mena, Arkansas, are 34-38-46 and 94-16-53.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 12, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner, as follows: Wendell Harlan, 3906 Hwy 375
West, P.O. Box 1426, Mena, AR 71953.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-135, adopted June 14,
1996, and released June 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-16765 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16764 Radio Broadcasting Services; Mililani Town, HI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16764]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No.96-136; RM-8816]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Mililani Town, HI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed by James Boersema seeking the allotment of UHF television Channel
60 to Mililani Town, Hawaii, as that locality's first local television
service. Coordinates for this proposal are 21-27-29 North Latitude and
158-01-04 West Longitude. Although the Commission has imposed a freeze
on TV allotments in certain metropolitan areas pending the outcome of
an inquiry into the uses of advanced television systems (ATV) in
broadcasting, this proposal is not affected thereby.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 12, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner, as follows: James Boersema, 733 Bishop
Street, #170-460, Honolulu, HI 96813.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-136, adopted June 14,
1996, and released June 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-16764 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16763 Radio Broadcasting Services; Shell Knob, MO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34407-34408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16763]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No.96-138, RM-8822]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Shell Knob, MO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Galen
Gilbert proposing the allotment of Channel 249A at Shell Knob,
Missouri, as that community's first local service. The coordinates for
Channel 249A are 36-42-51 and 93-34-36. There is a site restriction
10.5 kilometers northeast of the community. Petitioner has been
requested to provide information demonstrating that Shell Knob
qualifies as a community for allotment purposes. Since Shell Knob is
located inside the Mark Twain National Forest, petitioner has also been
requested to provide information showing a site is available that will
provide city grade coverage to the community.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 12, 1996, and reply
comments on or before August 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: William J. Pennington, III,
Post Office Box 1447, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29465.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.96-138, adopted June 14, 1996,
and released June 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors,
[[Page 34408]]
International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-16763 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16760 Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of 1996 Telecommunications Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34405-34406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16760]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of 1996
Telecommunications Act
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Public Notice extends an additional Comment opportunity in
CC Docket 96-98 in order to allow parties to that proceeding to comment
on a staff-prepared working copy of an industry demand and supply
simulation model. The model, using publicly-available, industry-wide
information, allows users to simulate the relative impact of particular
changes in the industry.
DATES: Comments are due on or before July 8, 1996. (No reply comments
allowed).
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Beers at (202) 418-0952.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[DA 96-1030; IAD 96-176]
[[Page 34406]]
Supplemental Comment Period Extended for Local Competition Proceeding,
CC Docket 96-98
Released June 25, 1996.
1. On June 17, 1996, the FCC's Industry Analysis Division, Common
Carrier Bureau, and the Competition Division, Office of General
Counsel, released a staff model of the telecommunications industry
which allows model users to calculate a variety of outputs from nearly
200 specifications (News Release, ``FCC Staff Releases Working Copy of
an Industry Demand & Supply Simulation Model,'' released June 17,
1996.) The staff model allows the user to specify growth rates, pricing
trends, demand elasticities and cost relationships to simulate effects
in traditional industry segments. The staff model, using publicly-
available, industry-wide information, allows the user to simulate the
relative impact of particular changes in the industry. On June 20,
1996, the Common Carrier Bureau, on delegated authority, issued a
Public Notice that announced that a copy of the staff model had been
placed in the public file in CC Docket No. 96-98, Implementation of the
Local Competition Provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Parties were requested to file Comments on the staff model in that
proceeding no later than Monday, July 1, 1996. (Public Notice,
``Supplemental Comment Period Designated for Local Competition
Proceeding, CC Docket 96-98,'' DA 96-1007, released June 20, 1996.) (61
FR 32766, June 25, 1996).
2. On June 21, 1996, Cox Communications, Inc. (``Cox'') filed a
Motion for Extension of Time seeking an extension, to July 8, 1996, to
file its supplemental comments about the staff model.1 In its
petition, Cox argues, inter alia, that the comment period is
insufficient to give parties a meaningful opportunity to analyze and
comment on the staff model.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Motion for Extension of Time of Cox Communications, Inc.
(``Cox Petition''), CC Docket No. 96-98 (filed June 21, 1996). On
June 24, 1996, Cox supplemented its petition with an Attachment to
the original motion. See Affidavit of Joshua E. Fine In Support of
Cox Communications, Inc. Motion for Extension of Time (filed June
24, 1996).
\2\ Cox Petition, 2-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Commission faces severe time constraints, imposed by Section
251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251,
to resolve the interconnection proceeding within the timeframe
prescribed. Nevertheless, in order to afford commenters in CC Docket
No. 96-98 as much opportunity as possible to analyze and utilize the
staff model, a limited extension of the supplemental comment period is
authorized. Parties who wish to comment on the model, use the model,
create variations of the model, or file models of their own, in that
proceeding are requested to file Comments no later than Monday, July 8,
1996. As stated in the June 20 Public Notice, there will be no Reply
Comment filing opportunity.
4. Copies of the model may be purchased by calling International
Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS) at (202) 857-3800. The model also
can be downloaded from the Common Carrier Bureau's home page on the
World Wide Web. The home page can be accessed directly (http://
www.fcc.gov/ccb.html) or through a direct link from the main FCC home
page (http://www.fcc.gov). The model also can be downloaded from the
FCC-State Link computer bulletin board at (202) 418-0241 [BBS file
name: MODELV30.ZIP].
For further information, contact Thomas J. Beers at (202) 418-0952
(e-mail: [email protected]). For further information about the model,
contact Jim Lande at (202) 418-0498 (e-mail: [email protected]) or Doron
Fertig at (202) 418-1869 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16760 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16758 Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16758]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
29 CFR Chapter XIV
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA)
AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
ACTION: Sixth Meeting of Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EEOC announces the dates of the sixth meeting of the
``Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Regulatory Guidance on
Unsupervised Waivers of Rights and Claims under the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act'' (the Committee). A Notice of Intent to form the
Committee was published in the Federal Register on August 31, 1995, 60
FR 45388, and a Notice of Establishment of the Committee was published
in the Federal Register on October 20, 1995, 60 FR 54207.
DATES: The sixth meeting will be held on July 23-24, 1996, beginning at
10:00 a.m. on July 23. It is anticipated that the meeting will last for
two days. The session of July 24, 1996 will commence at 9:00 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the EEOC Headquarters, 1801 L
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph N. Cleary, Paul E. Boymel, or
John K. Light, ADEA Division, Office of Legal Counsel, EEOC, 1801 L
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20507, (202) 663-4692.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All Committee meetings, including the
meeting of July 23-24, will be open to the public. Any member of the
public may submit written comments for the Committee's consideration,
and may be permitted to speak at the meeting if time permits. In
addition, all Committee documents and minutes will be available for
public inspection in EEOC's Library (6th floor of the EEOC
Headquarters).
Persons who need assistance to review the comments will be provided
with appropriate aids such as readers or print magnifiers. To schedule
an appointment call (202) 663-4630 (voice), (202) 663-4630 (TDD).
Copies of this notice are available in the following alternate formats:
large print, braille, electronic file on computer disk, and audio tape.
Copies may be obtained from the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
by calling (202) 663-4395 (voice), (202) 663-4399 (TDD).
Purpose of Meeting/Summary of Agenda
At the meeting, the Committee will continue to discuss the
unsupervised waiver legal issues that will be considered by the
Committee in drafting a recommended notice of proposed rulemaking for
EEOC approval.
Dated: June 25, 1996
Frances M. Hart,
Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-16758 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-06-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16744 Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 1997
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34614-34662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16744]
[[Page 34613]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Health and Human Services
_______________________________________________________________________
Health Care Financing Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
42 CFR Parts 410 and 415
Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee
Schedule for Calendar Year 1997; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34614]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
42 CFR Parts 405, 410, and 415
[BPD-852-P]
RIN 0938-AH40
Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the
Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 1997
AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule discusses several policy changes affecting
Medicare payment for physician services including payment for
diagnostic services and transportation in connection with furnishing
diagnostic tests. The proposed rule also discusses comprehensive
locality changes and changes in the procedure status codes for a
variety of services.
DATES: Comments will be considered if we receive them at the
appropriate address, as provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on
September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (1 original and 3 copies) to the
following address: Health Care Financing Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services, Attention: BPD-852-P, P.O. Box 26688,
Baltimore, MD 21207-0488.
If you prefer, you may deliver your written comments (1 original
and 3 copies) to one of the following addresses:
Room 309-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20201, or
Room C5-09-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
Because of staffing and resource limitations, we cannot accept
comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission. In commenting, please refer
to file code BPD-852-P. Comments received timely will be available for
public inspection as they are received, generally beginning
approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, in Room 309-G of
the Department's offices at 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
(phone: (202) 690-7890).
For comments that relate to information collection requirements,
mail a copy of the comments to: Allison Herron Eydt, HCFA Desk Officer,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20530.
Copies: To order copies of the Federal Register containing this
document, send your request to: New Orders, Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Specify the date
of the issue requested and enclose a check or money order payable to
the Superintendent of Documents, or enclose your Visa or Master Card
number and expiration date. Credit card orders can also be placed by
calling the order desk at (202) 512-1800 or by faxing to (202) 512-
2250. The cost for each copy is $8. As an alternative, you can view and
photocopy the Federal Register document at most libraries designated as
Federal Depository Libraries and at many other public and academic
libraries throughout the country that receive the Federal Register.
This Federal Register document is also available from the Federal
Register online database through GPO Access, a service of the U.S.
Government Printing Office. Free public access is available on a Wide
Area Information Server (WAIS) through the Internet and via
asynchronous dial-in. Internet users can access the database by using
the World Wide Web; the Superintendent of Documents home page address
is http://www.access.gpo.gov/su__docs/, by using local WAIS client
software, or by telnet to swais.access.gpo.gov, then login as guest (no
password required). Dial-in users should use communications software
and modem to call (202) 512-1661; type swais, then login as guest (no
password required). For general information about GPO Access, contact
the GPO Access User Support Team by sending Internet e-mail to
[email protected]; by faxing to (202) 512-1262; or by calling
(202) 512-1530 between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shana Olshan, (410) 786-5714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To assist readers in referencing sections
contained in this preamble, we are providing the following table of
contents. Some of the issues discussed in this preamble affect the
payment policies but do not require changes to the regulations in the
Code of Federal Regulations.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Legislative History
B. Published Changes to the Fee Schedule
II. Specific Proposals for Calendar Year 1997
A. Payment Area (Locality) and Corresponding Geographic Practice
Cost Index Changes
1. Background
2. Locality Study
3. Nonselected Options
4. Proposal
a. Proposed Variant of Option 1 (Option 1i, 5-Percent Threshold)
b. Proposed Option 1i, 5-Percent Threshold, with Subcounty
Payment Area Restructuring
c. Effects of Proposed Option 1i, 5-Percent Threshold, with
Subcounty FSA Restructuring
B. Special Rules for the Payment of Diagnostic Tests, Including
Diagnostic Radiologic Procedures
1. Background
2. Proposal
3. Chiropractor Exception
4. Non-Physician Practitioners
C. Transportation in Connection with Furnishing Diagnostic Tests
D. Bundled Services
1. Hot or Cold Packs
2. Dermatology Procedures
a. Bundling of Repair Codes into Excision Codes
b. Skin Lesion Destruction Codes
E. Change in Coverage Status for Screening and Obsolete
Procedures
1. Vital Capacity Testing
2. Certain Cardiovascular Procedures
F. Payments for Supervising Physicians in Teaching Settings
1. Definition of Approved Graduate Medical Education Programs
2. Evaluation and Management Services Furnished in Certain
Settings
G. Change in Global Periods for Four Percutaneous Biliary
Procedures
III. Collection of Information Requirements
IV. Response to Comments
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
B. Payment Area (Locality) and Corresponding Geographic Practice
Cost Index Changes
C. Special Rules for the Payment of Diagnostic Tests, Including
Diagnostic Radiologic Procedures
D. Transportation in Connection with Furnishing Diagnostic Tests
E. Bundled Services
1. Hot or Cold Packs
2. Dermatology Procedures
a. Bundling of Repair Codes into Excision Codes
b. Skin Lesion Destruction Codes
F. Change in Coverage Status for Screening and Obsolete
Procedures
1. Vital Capacity Testing
2. Certain Cardiovascular Procedures
G. Payments for Supervising Physicians in Teaching Settings
H. Change in Global Periods for Four Percutaneous Biliary
Procedures
I. Rural Hospital Impact Statement
Addendum A--1996 Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAFs) by Medicare
Payment Locality/Locality Part for January 1, 1996 Localities and
Proposed Option, Fee Schedule Areas (FSAs), in Descending Order of
Difference
Addendum B--Medicare Fee Schedule Areas (Localities) and 1996
Geographic
[[Page 34615]]
Adjustment Factors (GAFs), Current and Proposed Option by State and
County/County Part
In addition, because of the many organizations and terms to which
we refer by acronym in this final rule, we are listing these acronyms
and their corresponding terms in alphabetical order below:
AMA American Medical Association
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPT [Physicians'] Current Procedural
Terminology [4th Edition, 1996,
copyrighted by the American Medical
Association]
CY Calendar year
EKG Electrocardiogram
FSA Fee Schedule Area
FY Fiscal year
GAF Geographic adjustment factor
GPCI Geographic practice cost index
HCFA Health Care Financing Administration
HCPAC Health Care Professional Advisory
Council
HCPCS HCFA Common Procedure Coding System
HHS [Department of] Health and Human
Services
MEI Medicare Economic Index
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
OBRA Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PMSA Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area
RVU Relative Value Unit
TC Technical Component
I. Background
A. Legislative History
The Medicare program was established in 1965 by the addition of
title XVIII to the Social Security Act (the Act). Since January 1,
1992, Medicare pays for physician services under section 1848 of the
Act, ``Payment for Physicians' Services.'' This section contains three
major elements: (1) A fee schedule for the payment of physician
services; (2) a Medicare volume performance standard for the rates of
increase in Medicare expenditures for physician services; and (3)
limits on the amounts that nonparticipating physicians can charge
beneficiaries. The Act requires that payments under the fee schedule be
based on national uniform relative value units (RVUs) based on the
resources used in furnishing a service. Section 1848(c) of the Act
requires that national RVUs be established for physician work, practice
expense, and malpractice expense.
Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Act provides that adjustments
in RVUs because of changes resulting from a review of those RVUs may
not cause total physician fee schedule payments to differ by more than
$20 million from what they would have been had the adjustments not been
made. If this tolerance is exceeded, we must make adjustments to the
conversion factors to preserve budget neutrality.
B. Published Changes to the Fee Schedule
We published a final rule on November 25, 1991 (56 FR 59502) to
implement section 1848 of the Act by establishing a fee schedule for
physician services furnished on or after January 1, 1992. In the
November 1991 final rule (56 FR 59511), we stated our intention to
update RVUs for new and revised codes in the American Medical
Association's (AMA's) Physicians' Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)
through an ``interim RVU'' process every year. The updates to the RVUs
and fee schedule policies follow:
November 25, 1992, as a final notice with comment period
on new and revised RVUs only (57 FR 55914).
December 2, 1993, as a final rule with comment period (58
FR 63626) to revise the refinement process used to establish physician
work RVUs and to revise payment policies for specific physician
services and supplies. (We solicited comments on new and revised RVUs
only.)
December 8, 1994, as a final rule with comment period (59
FR 63410) to revise the geographic adjustment factor (GAF) values, fee
schedule payment areas, and payment policies for specific physician
services. The final rule also discussed the process for periodic review
and adjustment of RVUs not less frequently than every 5 years as
required by section 1848(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Act.
December 8, 1995, as a final rule with comment period (60
FR 63124) to revise various policies affecting payment for physician
services including Medicare payment for physician services in teaching
settings, the RVUs for certain existing procedure codes, and to
establish interim RVUs for new and revised procedure codes. The rule
also included the final revised 1996 geographic practice cost indices.
This proposed rule would affect the regulations set forth at 42 CFR
part 405, which encompasses regulations on Federal health insurance for
the aged and disabled; part 410, which consists of regulations on
supplementary medical insurance benefits and part 415, which contains
regulations on services of physicians in provider settings, supervising
physicians in teaching settings, and residents in certain settings.
II. Specific Proposals for Calendar Year 1997
A. Payment Area (Locality) and Corresponding Geographic Practice Cost
Index Changes
1. Background
From the inception of Medicare in 1966 until 1992, Medicare
payments for physicians' services were made under the reasonable charge
system. Under the reasonable charge system, Medicare payment localities
for physicians' services were set by local Medicare carriers based on
their knowledge of local physician charging patterns. As such, payment
areas have had no consistent geographic basis. In general, localities
tended to be geographic or political subdivisions such as States,
counties, or cities, or designations such as urban and rural. Most of
the localities changed little between 1966 and 1992. There were about
240 localities, including 16 States with statewide localities, under
the reasonable charge system.
Section 1848 of the Act replaced the reasonable charge system of
paying for physician services under section 1842(b) of the Act, with
the physician fee schedule effective January 1, 1992. Section
1848(j)(2) of the Act defines a physician fee schedule payment area as
the locality existing under section 1842(b) of the Act for purposes of
computing payment amounts for physician services. Section 1848 did not,
however, delete section 1842 of the Act, which gives the Secretary the
authority to set localities. We believe the Congress enacted section
1848(j)(2) to allow us to retain existing localities to facilitate the
statutory transition to the physician fee schedule, but not to preclude
us from making locality changes if warranted. All locality changes are
now made by HCFA through the rulemaking process. Medicare carriers are
not allowed to set or revise physician fee schedule payment localities.
In the June 5, 1991 proposed rule for the physician fee schedule
(56 FR 25832), we acknowledged the lack of consistency among localities
and the significant demographic and economic changes that had occurred
since localities were originally established. We also stated that we
planned no large-scale locality changes until we evaluated the various
studies on localities being done within HCFA and by outside groups such
as the Physician Payment Review Commission and until after the
statutory transition from the reasonable charge system to the fee
schedule was completed in 1996. We
[[Page 34616]]
stated that until we decide on ultimate large-scale changes, the only
locality changes we would consider would be requests for converting
individual States with multiple localities to a single statewide
locality if ``* * * overwhelming support from the physician community
for the changes can be demonstrated.'' This position was repeated in
the November 1991 final rule on the physician fee schedule (56 FR
59514). This willingness to consider applications from physicians in a
State for conversion to a statewide locality, if overwhelming support
on the part of winning and losing physicians has been demonstrated,
reflects our belief that statewide localities generally are preferable
to the present Medicare localities because they simplify program
administration and encourage physicians to practice in rural areas by
reducing urban/rural payment differentials.
We received inquiries from a number of State medical societies
concerning conversions to a statewide payment area. Under the law,
payments vary among physician fee schedule areas only to the extent
that resource costs vary as measured by the Geographic Practice Cost
Index (GPCI). The GPCI is an index developed to measure resource cost
differences among areas in the three components of the physician fee
schedule--physician work, practice expenses, and malpractice expenses.
Area geographic adjustment factors (GAFs) are weighted composites of
the area GPCIs and are useful in comparing overall resource cost and
payment level differences among areas. (A comprehensive explanation of
the GPCIs and GAFs can be found in the June 24, 1994 proposed rule (59
FR 32756)).
We explained to the States inquiring about conversions to a
statewide payment area that these conversions involve taking a weighted
average of the existing locality GPCIs to form a new statewide GPCI.
This means that there may be ``losing'' (usually urban) areas, as well
as ``winning'' (usually rural) areas within a State if a conversion is
made. We further informed the States that a simple resolution passed by
the State medical society is not sufficient proof of overwhelming
support among both rural and urban physicians for the change. To assist
States in deciding whether to convert to a statewide payment area, we
published an informational list of projected statewide GPCIs in the
June 1991 proposed rule (56 FR 25972). A slightly revised list of
projected statewide GPCIs was published in the December 1993 final rule
(58 FR 63638). The revisions were made to ensure that any change to a
statewide payment area would be done on a budget-neutral basis. That
is, that the same amount of payments would be made within a State after
the conversion to a statewide payment area as would have been made had
the conversion not been made. A comprehensive revision of all GPCIs was
made in 1995. A list of revised projected statewide GPCIs was published
at Addendum E of the June 1994 proposed rule (59 FR 32789).
In most cases, States have been unable to generate the support of
the losing physicians for the change. However, three States--Minnesota,
Nebraska, and Oklahoma--were converted to statewide payment areas in
1992. (These conversions were announced in the November 1991 final rule
(56 FR 59514).) Two additional States--North Carolina and Ohio--were
converted to statewide payment areas in 1994. (These conversions were
announced in the December 1993 final rule (58 FR 63638).) Iowa was
converted to a statewide payment area in 1995. (This conversion was
announced in the December 1994 final rule (59 FR 63416).) There are
currently 210 payment areas under the physician fee schedule: 22 States
with single payment areas; the District of Columbia (with surrounding
Maryland and Virginia suburbs), Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are
3 more single payment areas; and 28 multiple-locality States containing
185 payment areas. Table 1 summarizes existing physician fee schedule
payment areas.
Table 1.--1996 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Payment Localities by
State and Other
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Localities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single locality States:
Alaska.................................................... 1
Arkansas.................................................. 1
Colorado.................................................. 1
Delaware.................................................. 1
Hawaii/Guam............................................... 1
Iowa...................................................... 1
Minnesota................................................. 1
Montana................................................... 1
Nebraska.................................................. 1
New Hampshire............................................. 1
New Mexico................................................ 1
North Carolina............................................ 1
North Dakota.............................................. 1
Ohio...................................................... 1
Oklahoma.................................................. 1
Rhode Island.............................................. 1
South Carolina............................................ 1
South Dakota.............................................. 1
Tennessee................................................. 1
Utah...................................................... 1
Vermont................................................... 1
Wyoming................................................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 States............................................... 22
Other:
Wash. D.C................................................. 1
Puerto Rico............................................... 1
Virgin Islands............................................ 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Other................................................. 3
Multiple locality States:
Alabama..................................................... 6
Arizona..................................................... 6
California.................................................. 28
Connecticut................................................. 4
Florida..................................................... 4
Georgia..................................................... 4
Idaho....................................................... 2
Illinois.................................................... 16
Indiana..................................................... 3
Kansas...................................................... 3
Kentucky.................................................... 3
Louisiana................................................... 8
Maine....................................................... 3
*Maryland................................................... 3
Massachusetts............................................... 2
Michigan.................................................... 2
Mississippi................................................. 2
Missouri.................................................... 7
Nevada...................................................... 4
New Jersey.................................................. 3
New York.................................................... 8
Oregon...................................................... 5
Pennsylvania................................................ 4
Texas....................................................... 32
*Virginia................................................... 4
Washington.................................................. 3
West Virginia............................................... 5
Wisconsin................................................... 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 States............................................... 185
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1996 Physician Fee Schedule Payment Localities=210.
*The Maryland and Virginia localities do not include the parts of
Maryland (Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties) and Virginia
(Fairfax and Arlington Counties and the city of Alexandria) included
in the Washington, D.C. locality.
2. Locality Study
There are numerous possibilities for realigning payment localities.
After considerable internal discussion, we narrowed the possibilities
to four general options. A major goal in selecting these options is to
continue to reduce the number of areas, leading to greater simplicity,
understandability, ease of administration, reduction in urban/rural
payment differences, reduction in payment differences among adjacent
areas, and stability of payment updates resulting from the periodic
GPCI revisions. Larger payment areas would mean larger data samples
thereby leading to less volatile changes in the statutory periodic GPCI
revisions. We contracted with Health Economics
[[Page 34617]]
Research, Inc. to conduct an analysis of these options. The four
general fee schedule area (FSA) options are briefly summarized as
follows:
Option 1: Use current localities as building blocks. The
22 States currently with single localities would remain statewide FSAs.
Statewide FSAs would be created in the 28 remaining States, except for
current localities whose GAF exceeds the State GAF by a specified
percentage threshold (for example, 5 percent).
Option 2: Use metropolitan areas (Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSAs), Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs), and New
England County Metropolitan Areas) as building blocks. The 22 States
currently with single localities would remain statewide FSAs. Statewide
FSAs would be created in the 28 remaining States, except for
metropolitan areas whose GAF exceeds the State GAF by a specified
percentage threshold.
Option 3: Use metropolitan areas as building blocks. The
22 States currently with single localities would remain statewide FSAs.
Each of the 28 remaining States would be divided into 2 to 5 FSAs based
on metropolitan area population size: greater than 3 million; 1 to 3
million; .25 to 1 million; less than .25 million; nonmetropolitan.
Option 4: Use metropolitan areas as building blocks.
Designate five nationwide FSAs based on metropolitan area population
size: greater than 3 million; 1 to 3 million; .25 to 1 million; less
than .25 million; nonmetropolitan.
We also asked Health Economics Research, Inc. for any suggestions
for variations on these options that might improve them. We
specifically requested that it recommend restructuring FSAs in the 11
States that have subcounty localities. These subcounty configurations,
usually cities or zip codes, create unnecessary complexity and
administrative burden.
Health Economics Research, Inc. issued its final report to us on
November 1, 1995. The report consists of three volumes and can be
obtained by requesting the following titles from the National Technical
Information Service by calling 1-800-553-NTIS, or (703) 487-4650 in
Springfield, Virginia:
``Assessment and Redesign of Medicare Fee Schedule Areas
(Localities),'' Volume I: Text, NTIS PB96-118815.
``Assessment and Redesign of Medicare Fee Schedule Areas
(Localities),'' Volume II: Appendix Tables, NTIS PB96-118823.
``Assessment and Redesign of Medicare Fee Schedule Areas
(Localities),'' Volume III: Maps. NTIS PB96-118187.
3. Nonselected Options
While we began with four basic options, numerous variations are
possible merely depending on which threshold GAF difference is
selected. For example, Option 1 is based on the difference between the
existing FSA GAF and the State GAF. Many variants on this option are
available merely depending upon what threshold GAF difference between
the FSAs and the State is selected, for example, 1 percent, 3 percent,
5 percent, 10 percent. Likewise, Option 2 produces many variations
depending on the selected threshold GAF difference between the
metropolitan area GAF and the State GAF. The major goal of revising
FSAs is to simplify the payment areas and reduce payment differences
among geographic areas while maintaining accuracy in tracking input
price differences among areas. All options involve a certain trade-off
between simplicity and understandability and accuracy of tracking of
input prices. Many of the variations will produce a similar number of
FSAs, but some do so at the expense of producing undesirable payment
differences at boundaries or inaccuracies in tracking input prices.
After careful examination of all options and their variants, we
believe that a variant of Option 1 is clearly the best choice. Before
discussing, in depth, our reasons for selecting this option, the
following is a brief discussion of why we eliminated Options 2, 3, and
4, in order of the least promising option. A more detailed discussion
of these options with tables and maps can be found in the Health
Economics Research, Inc. report.
Option 4 is the least promising approach to constructing FSAs.
While it has the smallest number of FSAs, five nationwide, it is
unacceptably inaccurate in tracking input price differences and creates
too many large and inappropriate GAF differences across FSA boundaries.
Grouping all metropolitan areas of the same size into a single
category, regardless of geographic location, would substantially
underpay some areas while overpaying others.
For example, the following large metropolitan areas would be
substantially underpaid under Option 4 (Option 4 GAF/actual GAF is
indicated in parenthesis): San Francisco (1.024/1.141); New York City
(1.102/1.176); Nassau-Suffolk, New York (1.024/1.199); and Miami
(1.024/1.116). Conversely, the following large cites would be overpaid
under Option 4: Houston (1.102/1.030); Chicago (1.102/1.061); and
Philadelphia (1.102/1.066). In addition to these inaccuracies, Option 4
creates some severe boundary problems. For example, the Houston-
Galveston, Texas difference under Option 4 is 1.102 versus 0.937, a
nearly 20 percentage point difference, versus an actual area GAF cost
difference of 1.030 versus 1.001. Other examples may be found in the
tables and maps in the Health Economics Research, Inc. report. In
short, State-specific and metropolitan-area-specific factors, which
Option 4 ignores, appear to be important influences on input prices.
These factors are not captured by nationwide average inputs based on
population size. While New York and Houston are in the same
metropolitan area size classification of greater than 3 million, they
have less in common with each other in terms of practice costs than
they do with neighboring metropolitan areas of smaller size.
Option 3, we believe, is also unpromising. It creates the largest
number of FSAs of any option and is geographically more complex than
either Option 1 or Option 2. This option suffers from inadequate
tracking of input price variations and inappropriate differences across
boundaries, which are caused, as in Option 4, by grouping metropolitan
areas by population class. Under this option, within a State, a
metropolitan area's costliness is assumed to be dependent only on its
population. This is not always an accurate assumption. A small
metropolitan area that is a component of a major metropolitan region
(for example, a PMSA) may have much higher input prices than a small
freestanding metropolitan area surrounded by nonmetropolitan counties.
Grouping these types of metropolitan areas together can lead to
inaccurate GAFs and inappropriate differences at FSA boundaries. For
example, Houston is the only Texas metropolitan area in the highest
population category of 3 million or more, and has a GAF under Option 3
of 1.030. The contiguous Galveston PMSA is in the smallest population
class of under 250,000. Its actual GAF is 1.001, but under Option 3 it
is averaged with other small Texas metropolitan areas and is assigned a
GAF of 0.926. Option 3, thus, underpays Galveston and creates a much
larger GAF difference at the Houston-Galveston boundary than is
warranted by the actual difference in input prices. Expensive Miami and
Fort Lauderdale (with GAFs of 1.116 and 1.100) are grouped with lower-
price Orlando and Tampa-St. Petersburg (with
[[Page 34618]]
GAFs of 1.008 and 0.992) under this option.
Option 2 is more promising than Options 3 and 4, but less promising
than Option 1. While producing similar types and numbers of FSAs in
some instances, depending on the threshold used, Option 1 has some
advantages over Option 2. First, Option 1 is less disruptive because it
uses existing localities as building blocks. Second, the urban payment
localities in Option 1 tend to be smaller and more focused on high-cost
urban counties and track input price variations better than the larger
metropolitan area definitions used in Option 2. The metropolitan areas
(MSAs, PMSAs, and New England County Metropolitan Statistical Areas)
used as building blocks in this option are based on commuting patterns
and are generally much larger than the current urban localities used in
Option 1. Examples are the Washington, D.C. locality versus the
Washington, D.C. PMSA; the Dallas locality versus the Dallas PMSA; the
Chicago locality versus the Chicago PMSA; and the Houston locality
versus the Houston PMSA. Input prices in the suburban counties in these
PMSAs may be significantly lower than in the urban core and more
similar to prices in other parts of the State. This may be especially
true of some rural counties on the fringes of metropolitan areas that
are categorized as part of the metropolitan area based on commuting
patterns. For example, the Washington, D.C. PMSA includes portions of
rural West Virginia. Under Option 2, this FSA would have a GAF of
1.090, compared to the actual GAF of Washington, D.C. of 1.122, and the
actual GAF of the West Virginia counties included in the Washington,
D.C. PMSA of 0.950. Input prices in the parts of rural West Virginia
included in the Washington, D.C. PMSA have little in common with input
prices in the Washington, D.C. urban core. Also, Option 2 presents
significant problems in handling metropolitan areas that cross State
boundaries.
4. Proposal
a. Proposed Variant of Option 1 (Option 1i, 5-Percent Threshold)
Under standard Option 1, the 22 States with a single FSA would
remain statewide FSAs. Option 1 then presumes for the remaining 28
States that FSAs should be statewide for each State unless a sub-State
payment locality has sufficiently higher input prices (as measured by
its GAF) than the average input prices of its State (as measured by the
State GAF) to meet a threshold difference. If the percentage difference
between the locality's GAF and the State GAF exceeds a specified
threshold, that locality would remain a distinct FSA. Otherwise, the
locality would be merged into a residual FSA for that State. If no sub-
State locality had sufficiently higher prices than the State average to
meet the threshold difference, the State would become a single
statewide locality. For example, Alabama currently has six localities.
The GAFs range from a high of 0.957 for Locality 05, Birmingham, to a
low of 0.902 for Locality 06, rest of Alabama. The State GAF is 0.932.
Using a threshold of 5 percent, Alabama becomes a statewide locality as
the Birmingham GAF exceeds the State GAF by only 2.68 percent. Using a
threshold of 2.5 percent, Birmingham would remain a distinct FSA, while
the other five localities would become one residual FSA as none of the
other current localities exceed the State GAF by 2.5 percent.
Option 1 has several advantages over Options 2, 3, and 4. By using
the current localities as building blocks, it is the most conservative
of the options, is likely to be the least disruptive to physicians, and
imposes the least administrative burden on HCFA and the Medicare
carriers. GAFs for the largest, highest priced cities and metropolitan
areas will not change under this option. Neither will the GAFs of
current single locality States change. Many smaller cities and rural
areas are combined into residual State areas, eliminating GAF
differences among these areas and, thereby, increasing payments in
rural areas and substantially reducing the number of localities. Since
these areas usually have the smallest price input differences,
combining them reduces the number of FSAs at the smallest loss in
accuracy of input price tracking. In summation, Option 1 tends to
divide States with large variation in input prices among localities
into multiple FSAs, albeit significantly fewer than now exist in these
States, while combining localities in States with little price
variation into a single statewide locality.
However, the standard version of Option 1 has two shortcomings.
First, some mid-sized metropolitan areas in large States such as
California and Texas do not remain distinct FSAs despite their
considerably higher input prices than in the rural and small city areas
of their States with which they would be combined into a single
residual area. Second, some large metropolitan areas in small States,
such as Baltimore, Maryland, do not remain distinct FSAs. This is
because the State GAF to which all locality GAFs are compared contains
the high cost area GAFs. This makes it difficult for the mid-sized
areas in large States to exceed the State GAF, even though their own
GAFs may substantially exceed the GAF of all other localities in the
residual area to which they would be assigned under Option 1. In large
States with a wide range of GAFs, the mid-sized cities and metropolitan
areas tend to be combined with the residual rest-of-State area. Their
GAFs are sharply reduced, lessening the accuracy of input price
tracking and creating large boundary differences in GAFs between large
and mid-sized cities and at rural State boundaries that are not
reflective of true input price differences.
For example, with the current payment localities, the contiguous
California counties of Los Angeles and Ventura have 1996 GAFs of 1.103
and 1.079, respectively, a 2.4 percentage point difference. Under
Option 1, with a 2.5-percent threshold, Ventura becomes part of the
residual State area. Its GAF is reduced to 1.012, while Los Angeles's
GAF remains at 1.103, a difference of 9.1 percentage points. Other
examples of this large boundary effect, all assuming a 2.5-percent
threshold, are: San Francisco versus Marin, California (1.153/1.063
currently versus 1.153/1.012 under Option 1); Dallas versus Fort Worth,
Texas (1.006/0.977 currently versus 1.006/0.934 under Option 1). In the
case of Baltimore, its GAF of 1.032 is primarily responsible for
bringing the State GAF up to 1.016. Under Option 1, with a 2.5-percent
threshold, it becomes part of a single statewide locality (excluding
Maryland counties in the Washington, D.C. locality) with a GAF of
1.016, when in reality it is much more expensive than the rest of the
State, which has a combined GAF excluding Baltimore of 0.964.
These problems are addressed in our proposed option, Option 1i, 5-
percent threshold, a variant of Option 1. In this variant, the GAF of a
locality is compared to the average GAF of lower-price localities in
the State, rather than to the statewide average. (Like standard Option
1, the 22 States currently having single statewide localities remain
statewide localities.) If this difference exceeds a percentage
threshold, 5 percent in our proposal, the locality remains a distinct
FSA. Otherwise, it becomes part of a statewide or rest-of-State
residual FSA. Specifically, a State's localities are ranked from the
highest to the lowest GAF. The GAF of the highest-price locality is
compared to the weighted average GAF of all lower-price localities. If
the percentage difference exceeds a specified threshold,
[[Page 34619]]
the highest-price locality remains a distinct FSA. If not, the State
becomes a single statewide locality. If the highest-price locality
remains a distinct FSA, the process is repeated (iterated, hence the
designation Option 1i) for the second-highest-price locality. Its GAF
is compared to the statewide average GAF excluding the two highest-
price localities. If this difference exceeds the threshold, the second-
highest-price locality remains a distinct FSA. The logic is repeated
(iterated), moving down the ranking of localities by costliness, until
the highest-price locality does not exceed the threshold and does not
remain a distinct FSA. No further comparisons are made, and the
remaining localities become a residual rest-of-State FSA. The GAF of a
locality always is compared only to the average GAF of all lower-price
localities. This ensures that the statewide or residual State FSA has
relatively homogeneous input prices.
Option 1i, thus, has all of the advantages of Option 1, while
addressing the problems inherent in Option 1: unwarranted boundary
differences and large higher-price areas not being separate FSAs in
small States. In comparison to Option 1, Option 1i breaks out more
payment areas in large States containing a wide range of GAFs by
defining more mid-sized cities/areas as distinct FSAs; it more
consistently defines homogeneous residual State FSAs; and reduces
unwarranted boundary differences.
As with Option 1 and Option 2, numerous variants of Option 1i are
possible depending on the GAF threshold difference selected. We are
proposing Option 1i with a 5-percent threshold. We believe that this
option would attain the goal of simplifying the payment areas and
reducing payment differences among areas while maintaining accuracy in
tracking input prices.
A summary measure of an FSA option's accuracy in tracking input
prices is the average percentage difference between the county GAF and
the GAF of the payment locality to which that county is assigned. These
differences are weighted by total physician services RVUs in each
county so that inaccuracies in areas where more services are provided
are emphasized. A summary measure of payment differences among adjacent
geographic areas in an FSA option is the average difference of the GAFs
between unique pairs of contiguous counties, weighted by the sum of the
RVUs of the two counties. Table 2 shows these summary measures of input
price accuracy and small area payment differences for proposed Option
1i, 5-percent threshold, compared to the current localities, statewide
localities, and the extremes of a national fee schedule (the same
payment everywhere for a specific service) and separate FSAs for all
3,223 counties.
Table 2.--Payment Accuracy and Small Area Payment Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Average
county/FSA county
Fee schedule area Number of input price boundary
FSAs difference* difference*
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National................................................................. 1 6.86 0.00
States................................................................... **53 4.06 0.73
Option 1i, 5% Threshold.................................................. 87 2.09 1.78
1996 Localities.......................................................... 210 1.67 2.30
Counties................................................................. 3223 0.00 3.18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Weighted by total physician services RVUs.
** Includes Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
Note: Input price accuracy is measured by the average absolute difference (weighted by total county RVUs)
between the county GAF and the FSA GAF. Boundary differences are measured by the average absolute difference
in county GAFs between all unique, contiguous county pairs, weighted by the sum of total RVUs of the
contiguous counties.
At one extreme is a single national FSA with no geographic
adjustments. Lack of a GAF obviously does not track input prices at
all, resulting in an average payment error of 6.86 percent, but also
avoids any payment boundary differences. At the other extreme is an FSA
for each of the 3,223 counties, which perfectly tracks county input
prices, but has the largest number of, and largest average difference
across, payment boundaries. These two extremes highlight the tradeoff
between tracking input price variations and avoiding differences among
nearby areas.
The current payment localities result in an average payment error
of 1.67 percent, with an average difference across boundaries of 2.30
percent. Our proposed Option 1i, 5-percent threshold, by itself,
without the subcounty payment restructuring discussed below, would
significantly reduce the number of payment areas from 210 to 87. It
would reduce the average county boundary difference from 2.30 percent
to 1.78 percent while increasing the average county input price error
by only 0.42 percentage points from 1.67 percent to 2.09 percent.
b. Proposed Option 1i, 5-Percent Threshold, with Subcounty Payment Area
Restructuring
We further propose to refine payment areas by combining with
proposed Option 1i, 5-percent threshold, an additional restructuring of
localities in the 11 States that currently have subcounty localities.
Three of these States--California, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania--
define subcounty localities by zip code. Eight States--Arizona,
Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York, and
Oregon employ city/town limits to define localities. The use of
subcounty localities creates unnecessary complexity and administrative
burden. One of the most compelling reasons to eliminate subcounty
payment areas from payment localities is to reduce the administrative
work required to maintain zip-code-to-locality crosswalks. Many States
employ a zip-code-to-locality crosswalk when processing claims, but the
continuous creation, deactivation, and redefinition of U.S. Postal
Codes poses a significant obstacle in the maintenance of accurate
locality definitions. Town boundaries can also be ambiguous. Since
county boundaries are unambiguous and rarely change, aggregating
subcounty parts to the county level would minimize the administrative
burden of maintaining crosswalks.
[[Page 34620]]
Another reason to eliminate subcounty localities is simplicity. By
aggregating subcounty areas to the county level, a uniform fee schedule
system with no area smaller than a county can be introduced nationwide.
Furthermore, since the input price data for GPCIs, and ultimately GAF
values, are not available at a subcounty level, the subcounty areas
provide no additional accuracy in measuring practice input price
variations. More often, subcounty localities unnecessarily complicate
the calculation of GAF values by requiring laborious tracking by zip
code of the subcounty parts. The obvious method for eliminating
subcounty localities is to expand a current locality's city/town or zip
code boundaries to the surrounding county borders. In exploring this
option, we defined ``County Equivalent Localities'' based on the
following criteria:
For a current locality that includes multiple cities/towns
in noncontiguous counties, all counties with any areas in the current
locality are incorporated into the new County Equivalent Locality
definition.
Counties currently divided between two localities are
assigned to the locality where the largest portion of physician fee
schedule services (RVUs) are provided.
The County Equivalent Option may be applied to the 11 subcounty
locality States independent of our proposed basic Option 1i, indeed
independent of any other changes in payment localities. When adopted
with our basic Option 1i, 5-percent threshold, changes are made
automatically or easily in 8 of the 11 States:
Five States--Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Mississippi,
and Nevada become statewide payment areas.
California currently has eight subcounty areas, all of
which are in Los Angeles County. These areas have the same GAF and
payment level and can be aggregated into a single FSA. (These eight
localities were kept separate from 1992 to 1995 to facilitate the
statutory fee schedule transition period.)
In New York, existing subcounty areas are included in the
residual rest-of-State area.
In Oregon, the current town-based ``Portland'' locality,
which includes parts of Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties,
can be redefined to encompass the boundaries of these three counties.
Because of their unique circumstances, we believe the remaining
three subcounty FSA States of Massachusetts, Missouri, and Pennsylvania
require simple fundamental payment area reconfigurations.
Massachusetts--Massachusetts currently has two noncontiguous
payment areas: ``Urban'' and ``Suburban.'' Under Option 1i, 5-Percent
Threshold, Massachusetts would become a single statewide locality. The
shortcoming of both the current localities and Option 1i, 5-Percent
Threshold, is that the high cost Boston area, comprised of parts of
Suffolk, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties, is not separated from lower-
cost central and western Massachusetts. The problem is caused by the
composition of the current ``Urban Massachusetts'' locality, which
groups the Worcester, Springfield, and Pittsfield areas with the
substantially higher-cost Boston area. We, therefore, propose to change
Massachusetts to two new localities: 01--Boston Metropolitan Area
(comprised of Suffolk, Norfolk, and Middlesex counties) and 02--rest of
Massachusetts.
Missouri--Missouri currently has seven noncontiguous payment areas:
Northern Kansas City; Kansas City; St. Louis/large East Cities; St
Joseph; Rural Northwest counties; small East Cities; and rest of
Missouri. Under our proposed Option 1i, 5-Percent Threshold, Missouri
would become a statewide payment area. This result would fail to
recognize the significant price differences between the Kansas City and
St. Louis metropolitan areas and the rest of the State and would result
in significant payment area input price difference tracking
inaccuracies. To correct this problem, we propose to change Missouri to
three payment areas: 01--Kansas City Metropolitan Area (Platte, Clay,
and Jackson counties); 02--St Louis Metropolitan Area (St Louis City,
St. Louis, Jefferson, and St Charles counties); and 03--rest of
Missouri (all other counties).
Pennsylvania--Pennsylvania currently has four noncontiguous payment
localities: 01--Philadelphia/Pittsburgh medical schools; 02--large
Pennsylvania Cities; 03--smaller Pennsylvania Cities; and 04--rest of
Pennsylvania. Under proposed Option 1i, 5-Percent Threshold, areas 03
and 04 are combined into a residual rest-of-State area. The problem is
that the high cost Philadelphia area is split into two areas, parts of
01 and 02, and is not clearly distinguished from the lower-cost
Pittsburgh area and the rest of area 02. The five counties comprising
the Philadelphia MSA are the most costly in Pennsylvania and clearly
belong together in a ``Philadelphia Metropolitan Area'' locality.
Allegheny County, which contains Pittsburgh and, therefore, part of
which is grouped with part of Philadelphia in locality 01, is much less
expensive than the Philadelphia area and does not belong in the same
locality, either cost-wise or geographically. Thus, we propose that
Pennsylvania be divided into two localities: 01--Philadelphia
Metropolitan Area (Montgomery, Philadelphia, Delaware, Bucks, and
Chester counties); and 02--rest of Pennsylvania (all other counties).
c. Effects of Proposed Option 1i, 5-Percent Threshold, with Subcounty
FSA Restructuring
We believe that our proposed restructuring of Medicare payment
areas meets the major goal of simplifying payment areas and reducing
payment differences among adjacent geographic areas while maintaining
accuracy in tracking input prices among areas. It significantly reduces
the number of FSAs from 210 to 89, and increases the number of
statewide payment areas from 22 to 34, thereby simplifying program
administration. It also provides a more rational and understandable
basis for localities, reduces urban/rural payment differences, and
maintains separate payment areas for relatively high-priced large and
mid-sized cities in large States. It decreases the number of payment
areas by almost 60 percent, while at the same time reducing average
county boundary payment differences, yet reduces average county input
price accuracy by only 0.42 percent.
The GPCIs, and, therefore, the GAFs, for the proposed new payment
areas would be budget neutral within each State. That is, an adjustment
would be made to them later in the year (to incorporate the most recent
data into the adjustments) to yield the same total physician fee
schedule payments within that State that would have been made had the
payment areas not been changed. We are anticipating the adjustments to
be minor. While some current individual payment areas will experience
slight increases in payments and some areas will experience slight
decreases in payments under our proposed FSA changes, the effects on
the overwhelming majority of areas will be minimal. Of the total
current areas in the 28 States currently having multiple FSAs, 82
percent change less than 3 percent, 93 percent change less than 4
percent, and 96 percent change less than 5 percent. Forty-three percent
of the areas will experience increases in payments, 33 percent will
experience decreases, and 24 percent will experience no change.
Addendum A, ``1996 Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAFs) by Medicare
Payment Locality/
[[Page 34621]]
Locality Part for January 1, 1996 Localities and Proposed Option, Fee
Schedule Areas (FSAs) in Descending Order of Difference'' shows the
effects for each of the current localities in multiple FSA States (as
previously mentioned, the 22 States currently having a single statewide
locality remain statewide localities) of our proposed locality
reconfiguration by comparing existing GAFs to the GAFs for the new
localities. Because our proposal eliminates subcounty areas, we are
also publishing Addendum B, ``Medicare Fee Schedule Areas (Localities)
and 1996 Geographic Adjustment Factors (GAFs), Current and Proposed
Option by State and County/County Part'' that shows, alphabetically by
State and county, the current locality and GAF and the proposed
locality and GAF for each county.
As can be seen from Addendum A, only four areas will lose more than
4 percent under our proposal: Pennsylvania area 01, Philadelphia/
Pittsburgh Medical Schools; Pennsylvania area 02, large Pennsylvania
Cities; Missouri area 01, St. Louis/large Eastern Cities; and
Massachusetts area 01, Urban Massachusetts. These are unique situations
and require explanation. As the asterisks on these areas indicate,
these losing areas are only part of an existing locality and are in
States in which we are recommending fundamental restructuring of FSAs
because of existing subcounty FSAs and the current combining of areas
with widely different input prices into a single area. In actuality,
only part of the existing area will lose. As Addendum A shows, the
remaining part of the area will win under our proposal. For example,
the largest projected loser, Pennsylvania area 01, is in reality only
the part of Pittsburgh that is currently included in area 01. The
Philadelphia portion of Pennsylvania area 01 is a projected winner
under our proposal. As mentioned earlier, while Pittsburgh is in
Allegheny County, which has considerably lower input prices than the
Philadelphia area, part of Pittsburgh is included with part of
Philadelphia in area 01. This has the effect of overpaying the
Pittsburgh part of area 01 and underpaying the Philadelphia part of
area 01. Our proposal remedies this situation by grouping Philadelphia
with similar priced counties in the Philadelphia MSA, while grouping
Pittsburgh with similar priced areas in the rest of Pennsylvania. This
also explains why Pennsylvania area 02 shows up as both one of the four
largest losers and as the largest winner. Under our proposal, the part
of area 02 comprised of larger cities outside of the Philadelphia MSA
is no longer included with the higher priced counties in the
Philadelphia MSA, but is included in the residual Pennsylvania FSA.
This lowers their GAFs, while increasing the GAFs of the higher priced
counties in the Philadelphia MSA that now become part of the
Philadelphia FSA.
The same logic holds true for Massachusetts and Missouri. The
losing parts of current Massachusetts locality 01 are the Worcester,
Springfield, and Pittsfield areas which, while having substantially
lower costs than Boston, are currently included in the same locality.
The winning part of Massachusetts locality 01 is the higher-cost Boston
metropolitan area. In Missouri, the losing parts of locality 01, St.
Louis/large East Cities, are the lower-cost Columbia, Springfield, and
Jefferson City areas that are currently included with higher-cost St.
Louis. The winning part of this locality is the St. Louis metropolitan
area. These four largest losing areas then result from our correcting
the current anomalous situation created by including low-cost and high-
cost areas in a single locality by reconfiguring the localities to more
accurately reflect input price variations.
We welcome comments on our proposed payment area changes. Our
proposal is based on the application of statistical criteria to
aggregate localities within a State that are not significantly
different as indicated by current GAFs. We would welcome alternative
rationale and criteria for exceptions to this statistically based
methodology. While we are open to considering exceptions to this
statistically based realignment, commenters suggesting variations on
our proposal should submit an analysis of why their variation is
preferable. For example, commenters suggesting that their particular
area, which would become part of a residual rest-of-state area under
our proposal, should be retained as a separate payment area should
submit data to show that their area costs exceed the costs of the other
areas in the residual payment area by the 5-percent threshold.
As mentioned earlier, the great majority of existing FSAs would
experience only very minor changes in payment levels under the proposed
new payment area configuration. We are concerned, however, about the
few areas estimated to experience the largest reductions in payments.
To lessen the impact on these areas, we propose phasing in the effect
of the proposed new payment areas over a 2-year period in States
containing a locality that is estimated to experience a decrease in
payments that exceeds a certain threshold. We selected a 2-year period
because when we implement the GPCI revisions required by law every 3
years, the law provides for a 2-year transition period. Revising
localities requires calculating GPCIs to correspond to the revised
localities.
A transition period, however, adds another element to the changes
to the physician fee schedule. For example, the law requires that the
conversion factor be updated each year. In addition, we annually add
new RVUs for new and revised services. In 1997, we will implement the
comprehensive changes in work RVUs required by law. In 1998, the law
requires us to implement new resource-based practice expense RVUs. In
1998 and 1999, we will implement new GPCIs as required by law. A
transition period for our locality changes would add one more payment
change to these other changes. Since most payment areas would
experience very minor changes, we believe that transitioning these
areas would unnecessarily add another change.
Since the purpose of the proposed phase-in is to limit the effect
on the areas estimated to experience the largest decrease in payments
because of our proposed payment area revisions, we propose that no area
be allowed to lose more than 4 percent in the first year. We selected
the 4-percent threshold because that is about one-half of the largest
estimated area payment decrease. The proposed payment area changes
would be fully effective in 1997 in all States not containing an area
whose payments are estimated to decrease by more than 4 percent under
our proposal. Under this phase-in, only two States, Pennsylvania and
Missouri, would be transitioned as they are the only States with areas
that would experience a decrease of more than 4 percent. In these
States, areas estimated to lose more than 4 percent would be assigned
1997 GPCIs whose values would limit the loss to 4 percent. Since the
proposed new payment area changes would be budget-neutral within a
State, all areas within a State would be subject to the 2-year phase-in
if the State contained an area whose payment level is estimated to
decrease by more than 4 percent. This means that areas estimated to
receive increases in payments in these States would receive only part
of the increase in 1997 as transitional 1997 GPCIs would be calculated
to maintain budget neutrality within the State. In 1998, all areas in
these transitioned States would be totally incorporated into their new
localities and be assigned the fully implemented new locality GPCIs. We
have designed this transition approach
[[Page 34622]]
to cushion the effect of the change for the localities that would be
experiencing the greatest losses. We invite comments on this transition
proposal and are open to suggestions about alternative transition
approaches.
Our proposal would leave 16 States with multiple payment areas. We
believe our proposal justifies multiple areas in these States because
of input price differences within these States. However, as stated
earlier in the background discussion on this issue, we are generally in
favor of statewide payment areas as they simplify program
administration and encourage physicians to practice in rural areas by
eliminating urban/rural payment differentials within the State.
Therefore, to continue to be responsive to the physician community,
even if our proposed payment area reconfiguration is adopted, we will
continue to consider converting any of the remaining multiple payment
area States into a single statewide payment area if overwhelming
support among physicians in both winning and losing areas can be
demonstrated. This proposed policy change does not require a change to
the regulations set forth in Sec. 414.4 (``Fee schedule areas'').
B. Special Rules for the Payment of Diagnostic Tests, Including
Diagnostic Radiologic Procedures
1. Background
The payment for diagnostic procedures, including diagnostic
radiologic procedures, under the Medicare program is made under two
statutory benefits. Section 1861(s)(1) of the Act describes physician
services as part of the medical and other health services benefit. This
paragraph describes the professional component of a diagnostic test,
which is the interpretation of the test. Under the physician fee
schedule and the Medicare carrier payment systems, these services are
coded with the CPT modifier ``26.''
Payment for taking a test is made under section 1861(s)(3) of the
Act. We have termed the taking of a test the technical component of the
test, and it is indicated under the physician fee schedule with the
``TC'' modifier.
Section 2070.1 of the Medicare Carriers Manual provides that for a
diagnostic test to be covered, the service must be related to a
patient's illness or injury (or symptom or complaint) and ordered by a
physician. This instruction was intended to relate a diagnostic test to
a patient's illness or injury, symptom, or complaint. The results of
the test were to be used to treat the patient or refer him or her for
treatment. It has come to our attention from various sources, including
carrier medical directors, that, in some cases, the intent of this
instruction has been frustrated. We have heard of instances in which a
physician is employed for the sole purpose of ordering tests. This
physician has no relationship to the beneficiary, and it is highly
likely that tests by this physician would not be medically necessary.
We believe this practice generates unnecessary diagnostic tests and
places Medicare beneficiaries at needless risk both medically and
financially. We propose to further clarify this long-standing manual
instruction requirement that tests be ordered by a physician by
specifying that the physician ordering the test must be the physician
treating the patient. This proposed policy would link the ordering of
the diagnostic test to the physician who will use the test results to
treat the patient.
2. Proposal
We propose that for diagnostic tests, including diagnostic
radiologic procedures, to be covered, they must be ordered by the
physician who treats the beneficiary. The physician who treats the
beneficiary is the physician responsible for the treatment of the
patient and who orders the test or radiologic procedure to use the
results in the management of the beneficiary's specific medical
problem(s). (Physicians can order tests while they are consulting for
another physician.) We believe this requirement is fundamental for
coverage and payment of diagnostic tests and, therefore, are including
it in the regulations at Sec. 410.32 (``Diagnostic X-ray tests,
diagnostic laboratory tests, and other diagnostic tests: Conditions'').
3. Chiropractor Exception
A physician who orders the x-ray that is used by a chiropractor to
demonstrate the subluxation of the spine in a beneficiary who is
receiving manual manipulation treatments would be exempted from this
rule. Because no payment can be made for a diagnostic test ordered by a
chiropractor under Sec. 410.22(b)(2), we propose to allow payment for
the x-ray when ordered by a physician who will not be treating the
patient for subluxation of the spine. Otherwise, beneficiaries would
always have to pay out-of-pocket for these x-rays, which would
frustrate their use of the chiropractic benefit.
4. Non-Physician Practitioners
Certain non-physician practitioners who provide services that would
be physician services if furnished by a physician under a specific
enumerated benefit in the statute would be considered as the physician
treating the beneficiary for the purpose of this section. Non-physician
practitioners who meet this definition are physician assistants
(section 1861(s)(2)(K)(i) of the Act); and nurse practitioners and
clinical nurse specialists (sections 1861(s)(2)(K)(ii) and
1861(s)(2)(K)(iii) of the Act), operating within the scope of their
State licenses.
C. Transportation in Connection with Furnishing Diagnostic Tests
Section 1861(s)(3) of the Act establishes coverage for diagnostic
x-rays furnished in a place of residence used as the patient's home if
the performance of the tests meets health and safety conditions
established by the Secretary. This provision is the basis for payment
of x-ray services furnished by approved portable suppliers to
beneficiaries in their homes and in nursing facilities.
Although the Congress did not explicitly so state, we determined
that, because of the increased costs in transporting the x-ray
equipment to the beneficiary, the Congress intended that we pay an
additional amount for transportation expenses. Therefore, we
established HCFA Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes R0070 and
R0075 (for single-patient and multiple-patient trips, respectively) to
pay approved portable x-ray suppliers a transportation ``component''
when they furnish the services listed in section 2070.4.C of the
Medicare Carriers Manual.
We later added the taking of an electrocardiogram (EKG) tracing to
the list of services approved suppliers of portable x-ray services may
furnish (section 2070.4.F of the Medicare Carriers Manual) and
established HCPCS code R0076 to pay for the transportation of EKG
equipment. In the December 1995 final rule (60 FR 63149), we published
our revised policy of precluding separate payment for the
transportation of diagnostic equipment except under certain
circumstances. These circumstances include standard EKG procedures
furnished by an approved supplier of portable x-ray services or by an
independent physiological laboratory (section 2070.1.G of the Medicare
Carriers Manual) under HCPCS code R0076 in connection with the
provision of CPT codes 93000 (Electrocardiogram, complete) or 93005
(Electrocardiogram, tracing).
After further review of this policy, we have decided that the
exceptions are inconsistent with the law and legislative
[[Page 34623]]
history regarding the payment for transportation of EKG equipment.
Section 1861(s)(3) discusses only the coverage of x-rays furnished in a
beneficiary's place of residence. Because there is no mention in the
statute about the coverage of EKGs furnished in a beneficiary's place
of residence, we are returning to our original interpretation of the
law.
We propose allowing separate payment only for the transportation of
x-ray equipment furnished by approved suppliers of portable x-ray
services. As a result, we would not allow separate payment for the
transportation of EKG equipment furnished by any supplier. Therefore,
we propose to eliminate HCPCS code R0076. Payment for CPT codes 93000
and 93005 will not change, nor will the coverage of these services
change. This proposed policy change is not explicitly addressed in our
regulations.
D. Bundled Services
1. Hot or Cold Packs
The application of hot or cold packs to one or more areas is billed
using CPT code 97010. These modalities (that is, physical agents
applied to produce therapeutic change to biologic tissue) are primarily
used in conjunction with therapeutic procedures to provide analgesia,
relieve muscle spasm, or reduce inflammation and edema. Generally, hot
packs are used for subacute or chronic conditions, while cold packs are
used for acute and chronic conditions.
The results of a comprehensive analysis of Medicare claims data
indicate that CPT code 97010 is being used extensively with a wide
variety of services such as office visits and physical medicine and
rehabilitative services. Therefore, we are proposing to bundle payment
for CPT code 97010 into the payment for all other services including,
but not limited to, those with which it historically has been billed
with the greatest frequency (such as office visits and physical
therapy).
We believe that our proposal to bundle payment and, thus, to
preclude separate payment for the application of hot and cold packs is
justified for three reasons:
As a therapy, hot and cold packs are easily self-
administered. Generally, we do not cover procedures that are basically
self-administered; hot and cold packs, by their nature, do not require
the level of professional involvement as do the other physical medicine
and rehabilitation modalities.
Although we acknowledge that professional judgment is
involved in the use of hot and cold packs, much less judgment is
demanded for them than for other modalities. These packs are commonly
used in the home, and, thus, require a minimal level of professional
attention.
The application of hot and cold packs is usually a
precursor to other interventions and, as such, is appropriately used in
combination with other procedures. Our data analysis supports this
conclusion because the majority of claims for CPT code 97010 occurred
in conjunction with claims for other services performed on the same
day.
We propose to change the status indicator for CPT code 97010 to
``B'' to indicate that the service is covered under Medicare but
payment for it is bundled into the payment for other services. Separate
payment for CPT code 97010 would not be permitted under this proposed
change. This change would be implemented in a budget neutral manner
across all other procedures. Because the RVUs for this procedure would
be redistributed across all physician fee schedule services, there
would be no measurable impact. This proposed policy change is not
explicitly addressed in our regulations.
2. Dermatology Procedures
a. Bundling of Repair Codes into Excision Codes
Currently, the RVUs for the dermatology excision codes (CPT codes
11400 through 11446 and 11600 through 11646) include services described
by the s
FR Doc. 96-16744 Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 1997
imple repair codes (CPT codes 12001 through 12018). The
dermatologist can bill separately for the intermediate or complex
repair (closure) codes (CPT codes 12031 through 12057 and 13100 through
13152, respectively) in addition to the excision codes. We do not allow
separate billing for closure for any other surgical procedure. The
closure is included in the comprehensive procedure. We believe that
applying the same standard to dermatologists is appropriate.
Therefore, we propose to cease paying separately for the repair
codes when billed in conjunction with the excision codes. We are
proposing to bundle the RVUs for the intermediate and complex repair
codes (CPT codes 12031 through 12057 and CPT codes 13100 through 13152,
respectively) into both the benign and malignant skin lesion excision
codes (CPT codes 11400 through 11446 and 11600 through 11646,
respectively). Under our proposal, we would redistribute the RVUs for
the repair codes across CPT codes 11400 through 11446 and 11600 through
11646. We would base the number of RVUs for redistribution on the
frequency with which the repair codes are billed with the excision
codes.
We are not proposing to assign these repair codes a ``B'' status
indicator because we acknowledge that these codes are not used
exclusively with excision services. Instead, we would implement this
proposed policy change through our correct coding initiative. This
proposed change would standardize our policy for payment for wound
closure. This proposed policy change is not explicitly addressed in our
regulations.
b. Skin Lesion Destruction Codes
There are several CPT codes that describe the destruction of
various benign or premalignant lesions. Within this group of codes, the
reporting methods vary. Sometimes the code describes the destruction of
a single lesion but requires reporting multiple codes for the
destruction of several lesions; other times it describes destruction of
as many as 15 lesions. Thus, it is sometimes not clear how many codes
to report. The codes are specific to particular areas of the body or
particular types of lesions. Because these categories are not mutually
exclusive, the coding system provides the opportunity to report the
destruction of a given lesion in more than one way. Finally, this
complicated coding structure has produced anomalies in work relative
values. We propose to simplify the reporting of and payment for the
destruction of benign or premalignant skin lesions.
We propose to assign a ``G'' status indicator to CPT codes 11050
through 11052, 11200 and 11201, 17000 through 17105, 17110, and 17200
and 17201 to indicate that these CPT codes are not valid for Medicare
purposes and that there is another code to use for the reporting of and
payment for these services.
To report the destruction of benign and premalignant skin lesions,
we propose to create two HCPCS codes. The first code would describe the
destruction of up to and including 15 lesions. The second code would
describe destruction of each additional 10 lesions. To assign RVUs to
these codes, we propose to take a weighted average of the RVUs assigned
to CPT codes 11050 through 11052, 11200 and 11201, 17000 through 17105,
17110, and 17200 and 17201 based on the billing frequencies and the
code descriptors. This proposed policy change is not explicitly
addressed in our regulations.
[[Page 34624]]
E. Change in Coverage Status for Screening and Obsolete Procedures
1. Vital Capacity Testing
CPT code 94150 (Vital capacity, total) is a screening measure. It
is typically performed on patients who are asymptomatic. Because these
tests are performed on patients who do not have symptoms of breathing
problems, they represent preventive services that are, by statute, not
covered by Medicare. Some Medicare carriers do not cover this code at
present. However, we inadvertently failed to identify CPT code 94150 as
noncovered by Medicare on a national basis. Therefore, we propose
changing the status indicator for CPT code 94150 from ``A'' to ``N'' to
represent its noncovered status. This policy change is not specifically
addressed in our regulations. It would be reflected in the Medicare
physician fee schedule database and in Addendum B (Relative Value Units
and Related Information) of the physician fee schedule final rule,
which will be published later this year.
2. Certain Cardiovascular Procedures
In the absence of a national Medicare policy on the following CPT
codes, we currently allow our Medicare carriers discretion in deciding
whether to allow coverage for these procedures:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPT code Descriptor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
93201 Phonocardiogram with or without ECG lead; with
supervision during recording with interpretation
and report (when equipment is supplied by the
physician).
93202 Phonocardiogram * * *; tracing only, without
interpretation and report (eg, when equipment is
supplied by the hospital, clinic).
93204 Phonocardiogram * * *; interpretation and report.
93205 Phonocardiogram with ECG lead, with indirect
carotid artery and/or jugular vein tracing, and/
or apex cardiogram; with interpretation and
report).
93208 Phonocardiogram * * *; tracing only, without
interpretation and report.
93209 Phonocardiogram * * *; interpretation and report
only.
93210 Phonocardiogram intracardiac.
93220 Vectorcardiogram (VCG), with or without ECG; with
interpretation and report.
93221 Vectorcardiogram * * *; tracing only, without
interpretation and report.
93222 Vectorcardiogram * * *; interpretation and report
only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of our request for comments on the 5-year review of
physician work RVUs in the December 1994 final rule (59 FR 63453), the
American College of Cardiology commented that these 10
phonocardiography and vectorcardiography diagnostic tests are outmoded
and of little clinical value. Our review of Medicare claims data for
these tests supports this contention because the volume of claims for
these tests has declined significantly in recent years. Only 17,925
claims were submitted in calendar year 1994 for all 10 tests.
Based on the American College of Cardiology's recommendation, our
review of our recent claims history, and our consultation with other
medical specialty groups, we propose to discontinue coverage for these
10 diagnostic tests. The status indicators for these 10 procedures
would be changed from ``A'' to ``N'' to reflect their noncovered
status. This proposed policy change is not explicitly addressed in our
regulations.
F. Payments for Supervising Physicians in Teaching Settings
1. Definition of Approved Graduate Medical Education Programs
Since publication of the December 1995 final rule, we have received
questions about the difference in the definition of an approved
residency program for purposes of the teaching physician rules under
Sec. 415.152 (``Definitions'') and the definition used in the direct
medical education rules under Sec. 413.86(b) (``Direct graduate medical
education payments''). To be consistent, we propose to modify
Sec. 415.152 to match the definition of an approved graduate medical
education program in Sec. 413.86(b). We would add a reference to
programs that are recognized as an ``approved medical residency
program'' under Sec. 413.86(b). By making this change, the regulations
text would reflect a common definition of approved graduate medical
education programs for Medicare Part A and Part B. This is a technical
change and would have no effect on the implementation of our revised
policy regarding the payment for supervising physicians in teaching
settings that is effective July 1, 1996.
2. Evaluation and Management Services Furnished in Certain Settings
In the December 1995 final rule (60 FR 63135), we revised our
policy regarding the payment for supervising physicians in teaching
settings. We eliminated the attending physician criteria but clarified
the physician presence requirement for services billed to the Medicare
carrier. As part of our revised policy, we created a limited exception
for residency programs that are fundamentally incompatible with a
physical presence requirement. The exception to the physician presence
requirement is for certain evaluation and management services (CPT
codes 99201, 99202, 99203, 99211, 99212, and 99213) furnished in
certain ambulatory care centers within the context of certain types of
residency training programs. The exception is set forth in Sec. 415.174
(``Exception: Evaluation and management services furnished in certain
centers'').
As the exception currently reads, one of the criteria is that ``The
range of services furnished by residents in the center includes * * *
Comprehensive care not limited by organ system, diagnosis, or gender.''
(Sec. 415.174(a)(4)(iii)). It has come to our attention that many
obstetric and gynecological residency programs have been restructured
over the years to have a greater primary care focus. Some of these
programs that otherwise qualify for an exception might be denied
payment if the gender limitation were strictly applied.
Contrary to suggestions in correspondence we received after
publication of the final rule, it was not our intention to prevent
obstetric and gynecological residency programs or other residency
programs focusing on women's health care from qualifying for the
exception solely because of the patient's gender. Thus, we propose to
make a technical change to the regulations text to delete the reference
to gender in Sec. 415.174(a)(4)(iii) and change the text to
``Comprehensive care not limited by organ system or diagnosis.'' Of
course, such programs must satisfy the otherwise applicable criteria to
qualify for an exception.
[[Page 34625]]
G. Change in Global Periods for Four Percutaneous Biliary Procedures
The Society of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology advised
us that a 90-day global period is inappropriate for four percutaneous
biliary procedures. The four procedures are CPT codes 47490
(percutaneous cholecystectomy), 47510 (introduction of percutaneous
transhepatic catheter for biliary drainage), 47511 (introduction of
percutaneous transhepatic stent for internal and external biliary
drainage), and 47630 (biliary duct stone extraction, percutaneous via
T-tube tract, basket, or snare (for example, Burhenne technique)). The
Society believes that these four procedures should have a ``0-day''
global period. We agree with the Society's arguments that a 90-day
global period is contrary to the widespread practice conventions of
percutaneous biliary intervention and is inconsistent with other
similar interventions in the biliary tract and urinary tract.
We believe that the global periods for these four codes should be
changed. Therefore, we are proposing to change the global periods for
these services from 90 days to 0 days. To make this change, we would
reduce the work RVUs assigned to these procedures to reflect the lack
of postsurgical work in the shortened global period. We propose to
reduce the work RVUs for CPT codes 47490, 47510, 47511, and 47630 by 17
percent if we change the global periods. The 17 percent figure was
taken from the original data developed by the Harvard School of Public
Health Resource-Based Relative Value Study as the measure of the
postsurgical work associated with these codes. This proposed policy
change is not explicitly addressed in our regulations.
III. Collection of Information Requirements
This document does not impose information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
IV. Response to Comments
Because of the large number of items of correspondence we normally
receive on Federal Register documents published for comment, we are not
able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider
all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES
section of this preamble, and, if we proceed with a subsequent
document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that
document.
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
through 612), we prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis unless the
Secretary certifies that a rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, all physicians are considered to be small
entities.
We anticipate that virtually all of the approximately 500,000
physicians who furnish covered services to Medicare beneficiaries would
be affected by one or more provisions of this rule. In addition,
physicians who are paid by private insurers for non-Medicare services
would be affected to the extent that they are paid by private insurers
that choose to use the proposed RVUs.
This proposed rule is expected to have varying effects on the
distribution of Medicare physician payments and services. With few
exceptions, we expect that the impact would be limited. Although the
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we are preparing a voluntary
regulatory flexibility analysis.
Section 1848(c)(2)(B) of the Act requires that adjustments in a
year may not cause the amount of expenditures for the year to differ by
more than $20 million from the amount of expenditures that would have
been made if these adjustments had not been made. If this threshold is
exceeded, we would make adjustments to the conversion factors to
preserve budget neutrality. The proposals discussed in sections B
through H below would have no impact on total Medicare expenditures
because the effects of these changes would be neutralized in the
calculation of the conversion factors for 1997.
B. Payment Area (Locality) and Corresponding Geographic Practice Cost
Index Changes
As mentioned earlier, our proposal would reduce existing urban/
rural payment differences. Overall, urban areas would experience an
average decrease in payments of -0.14 percent, while rural areas will
experience an increase in payments of 1 percent. We analyzed the
effects of these changes on physicians by specialty. The changes are
quite small and follow the expected pattern. We estimate that overall,
physicians in family practice and general practice will experience
modest increases of about 0.3 percent in payments, while most medical
and surgical specialties will experience negligible decreases of about
-0.1 to -0.2 percent. This pattern results from the tendency of
specialists to be disproportionately concentrated in urban areas, which
are estimated to experience a slight decrease in payments under our
proposal.
The impact on beneficiaries is likewise minor. We examined the
impact by beneficiary age, gender, race, and income level. Roughly 20
percent of beneficiaries reside in areas in which payments decrease by
less than 5 percent, roughly 50 percent live in areas that experience
no change in payments, roughly 25 percent live in areas where payments
will increase by less than 5 percent, and about 2 percent live in areas
where payments would rise by 5 to 10 percent.
The distribution of beneficiaries by age and gender and of
Caucasian beneficiaries are nearly identical to this overall
distribution. Minority beneficiaries are more heavily concentrated in
areas that experience no change in payments; a lower proportion of
minority beneficiaries live in both areas experiencing a loss and areas
experiencing a gain than do Caucasian beneficiaries. For example, 14.4
percent of minority beneficiaries live in an area experiencing a loss
compared to 21 percent of all beneficiaries who live in these areas.
Beneficiaries living below poverty level are less likely than all
beneficiaries to be living in an area experiencing a payment decrease
under our proposal, 16 percent compared to 21 percent. It does not
appear that vulnerable Medicare groups--minorities, the very old, or
the poor--would suffer decreases in access resulting from our proposal.
C. Special Rules for the Payment of Diagnostic Tests, Including
Diagnostic Radiologic Procedures
Our proposal would require that, to be covered under Medicare,
diagnostic tests, including diagnostic radiologic procedures, must be
ordered by the physician who treats a beneficiary or furnishes a
consultation to the physician who treats the beneficiary. We would
allow an exception for x-rays that demonstrate subluxation of the spine
that are ordered for a chiropractor. Under Sec. 410.22(b)(2), no
payment can be made to a chiropractor who orders diagnostic tests. We
propose to allow payment for these x-rays when ordered by a physician
who will not be treating the patient for subluxation of the spine.
[[Page 34626]]
Non-physician practitioners functioning within the specific benefit
would be considered the physician treating the beneficiary for the
purpose of the proposal. Putting this requirement in regulations
(Sec. 410.31 ``Diagnostic x-ray tests, diagnostic laboratory tests, and
other diagnostic tests: Conditions'') would codify our current manual
instruction. This proposed policy may result in some program savings
due to the denial of payment for tests that may not be medically
necessary because they were ordered by a physician who was not treating
the beneficiary. However, we do not have sufficient data to furnish any
reliable estimates of savings.
D. Transportation in Connection with Furnishing Diagnostic Tests
We propose to eliminate payment for the transportation of EKG
equipment (HCPCS code R0076) by all billers. In 1994, the last year for
which we have complete data, we allowed 260,686 services and paid
$9,192,434. Therefore, were it not for our budget-neutrality
adjustment, we estimate that this proposal would result in
approximately a $9.2 million reduction in Medicare payments.
E. Bundled Services
1. Hot or Cold Packs
We propose to change the status indicator for CPT code 97010
(Application of a modality to one or more areas; hot or cold packs) to
``B'' to indicate that the service is covered under Medicare but
payment for it is bundled into payment for other services. Separate
payment for CPT code 97010 will not be permitted under this proposed
change. The annual expenditures for CPT code 97010 under our current
policy are approximately $41.2 million. Because the RVUs for this
procedure will be redistributed across all physician fee schedule
services in a budget neutral manner, there will be no measurable impact
from this proposal.
2. Dermatology Procedures
a. Bundling of Repair Codes into Excision Codes We propose to cease
paying separately for CPT codes 12031 through 12057 and 13100 through
13152 (intermediate and complex repair codes, respectively) if these
codes are billed in conjunction with CPT codes 11400 through 11446 and
11600 through 11646 (dermatology excision codes for benign and
malignant lesions, respectively). Because we would redistribute the
RVUs for the repair codes across the excision codes, there would be
little budgetary effect from this proposal.
b. Skin Lesion Destruction Codes
We propose to change the way Medicare pays for the destruction of
benign or premalignant skin lesions. Currently there are several CPT
codes that describe a variety of ways of reporting the destruction of
skin lesions. We propose to assign a ``G'' status code to CPT codes
11050 through 11052, 11200 and 11201, 17000 through 17105, 17110, and
17200 and 17201 and create two HCPCS codes to report the destruction of
skin lesions. Because we will use a weighted average of the current
RVUs assigned to the CPT codes that describe the destruction of benign
or premalignant skin lesions in valuing the two proposed codes, this
proposal would have no significant impact on Medicare expenditures.
F. Change of Coverage Status for Screening and Obsolete Procedures
1. Vital Capacity Testing
We propose changing the coverage status for vital capacity tests
(CPT code 94150) from ``active'' to ``noncovered.'' These vital
capacity tests are screening services. With limited exceptions, section
1862(a)(1)(A) of the Act precludes Medicare coverage for screening
procedures. This code is infrequently billed; in 1994 only 101,150
services were paid for CPT code 94150 for a total Medicare expenditure
of $1,077,600. We do not believe that the change in coverage status
would have a significant impact on Medicare expenditures. We would also
budget neutralize the $1 million across all fee schedule services.
2. Certain Cardiovascular Procedures
We propose changing the coverage status for certain cardiovascular
procedures (CPT codes 93201, 93202, 93204, 93205, 93208, 93209, 93210,
93220, 93221, and 93222) to noncovered. Because there has been a
decline in the billing of these services in recent years and in 1994,
we only allowed a total of 17,925 services with $690,326 in allowed
charges for all 10 diagnostic tests, we do not believe that the change
in coverage status would have a significant impact on Medicare
expenditures.
G. Payments for Supervising Physicians in Teaching Settings
This proposed rule would make a technical change to Sec. 415.152
(``Definitions'') to make the definition of an approved graduate
medical education program consistent with the definition in
Sec. 413.86(b) (``Direct graduate medical education payments'').
Because this is only a technical change to standardize almost identical
definitions, it would have no budgetary impact on Medicare
expenditures.
We propose a technical change to remove the word ``gender'' from
Sec. 415.174(a)(4)(iii) (``Exception: Evaluation and management
services furnished in certain centers''). We did not include the
reference to gender with the intention of excluding obstetric and
gynecological or other women's care residency programs solely because
of patient gender. This technical change would make clear that the
exception criteria would not be applied in such a manner. Because this
technical change merely clarifies our intent with respect to a policy
that has not yet been implemented, there would be no budgetary effect.
H. Change in Global Period for Four Percutaneous Biliary Procedures
To implement our proposal to change the global periods for four
percutaneous biliary procedures (CPT codes 47490, 47510, 47511, and
47630) from 90 days to 0 days, we are proposing to reduce the work RVUs
for these procedures by 17 percent. These work RVUs will be
redistributed across all services; therefore, there is no significant
impact.
I. Rural Hospital Impact Statement
Section 1102(b) of the Act requires the Secretary to prepare a
regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on
the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This
analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act,
we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside
of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 50 beds.
This proposed rule would have little direct effect on payments to
rural hospitals since this rule would change only payments made to
physicians and certain other practitioners under Part B of the Medicare
program and would
[[Page 34627]]
make no change in payments to hospitals under Part A. We do not believe
the changes would have a major, indirect effect on rural hospitals.
Therefore, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of
the Act since we have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that
this rule would not have a significant impact on the operations of a
substantial number of small rural hospitals.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this
proposed rule was reviewed by OMB.
List of Subjects
42 CFR Part 410
Health facilities, Health professions, Kidney diseases,
Laboratories, Medicare, Rural areas, X-rays.
42 CFR Part 415
Health facilities, Health professions, Medicare, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
42 CFR chapter IV would be amended as set forth below:
PART 410--SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL INSURANCE (SMI) BENEFITS
A. Part 410 is amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 410 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh), unless otherwise indicated.
2. In Sec. 410.32 paragraphs (a) and (b) are redesignated as
paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively, and a new paragraph (a) is added
to read as follows:
Sec. 410.32 Diagnostic x-ray tests, diagnostic laboratory tests, and
other diagnostic tests: Conditions.
(a) Ordering diagnostic tests. All diagnostic x-ray tests,
diagnostic laboratory tests, and other diagnostic tests must be ordered
by the physician who treats the beneficiary, that is, the physician who
is actively furnishing a consultation or treating a beneficiary for a
specific medical problem(s) and uses the results in the management of
the beneficiary's specific medical problem(s). Physicians who order the
x-ray used by a chiropractor to demonstrate the subluxation of the
spine in a beneficiary who is receiving manual manipulation treatments
are exempted from this requirement. Non-physician practitioners
(physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical nurse
specialists) who provide services that would be physician services if
furnished by a physician and who are operating within the scope of
their statutory benefit are considered the physician treating the
beneficiary for the purpose of this section.
* * * * *
PART 415--SERVICES FURNISHED BY PHYSICIANS IN PROVIDERS,
SUPERVISING PHYSICIANS IN TEACHING SETTINGS, AND RESIDENTS IN
CERTAIN SETTINGS
B. Part 415 is amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 415 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh).
2. In Sec. 415.152 the introductory text is republished, and the
definition of ``approved graduate medical education (GME) program'' is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 415.152 Definitions.
As used in this subpart--
Approved graduate medical education (GME) program means one of the
following:
(1) A residency program approved by the Accreditation Council for
Graduate Medical Education of the American Medical Association, by the
Committee on Hospitals of the Bureau of Professional Education of the
American Osteopathic Association, by the Council on Dental Education of
the American Dental Association, or by the Council on Podiatric
Medicine Education of the American Podiatric Medical Association.
(2) A program otherwise recognized as an ``approved medical
residency program'' under Sec. 413.86(b) of this chapter.
* * * * *
Sec. 415.174 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 415.174, in paragraph (a)(4)(iii), the phrase ``system,
diagnosis, or gender'' is removed, and the phrase ``system or
diagnosis'' is added in its place.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.774,
Medicare--Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)
Dated: June 21, 1996.
Bruce C. Vladeck,
Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration.
Dated: June 21, 1996.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
[[Page 34628]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.000
[[Page 34629]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.001
[[Page 34630]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.002
[[Page 34631]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.003
[[Page 34632]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.004
[[Page 34633]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.005
[[Page 34634]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.006
[[Page 34635]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.007
[[Page 34636]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.008
[[Page 34637]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.009
[[Page 34638]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.010
[[Page 34639]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.011
[[Page 34640]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.012
[[Page 34641]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.013
[[Page 34642]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.014
[[Page 34643]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.015
[[Page 34644]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.016
[[Page 34645]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.017
[[Page 34646]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.018
[[Page 34647]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.019
[[Page 34648]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.020
[[Page 34649]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.021
[[Page 34650]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.022
[[Page 34651]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.023
[[Page 34652]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.024
[[Page 34653]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.025
[[Page 34654]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.026
[[Page 34655]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.027
[[Page 34656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.028
[[Page 34657]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.029
[[Page 34658]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.030
[[Page 34659]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.031
[[Page 34660]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.032
[[Page 34661]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.033
[[Page 34662]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY96.034
[FR Doc. 96-16744 Filed 6-27-96; 9:43 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16731 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Ketchikan, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34391-34393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16731]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AAL-4]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Ketchikan, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace at Ketchikan, AK. The
development of the Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument approach
(GPS-B) to Ketchikan International Airport, AK, and the establishment
of the Special Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Seaplane holding area at Ward
Cove have made this action necessary. The areas would be depicted on
aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations and provide Special VFR seaplane holding
at Ketchikan, AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AAL-530, Docket No. 95-AAL-4, Federal
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Alaskan Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address shown above.
[[Page 34392]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert van Haastert, System Management
Branch, AAL-538, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5863.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
AAL-4.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the System Management Branch, AAL-
530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to modify Class E airspace at
Ketchikan, AK. This action is necessary to accommodate a new GPS
instrument approach and incorporate Special VFR seaplane holding at
Ketchikan, AK. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on
North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/
1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 (58 FR 36298; July 6,
1993). The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would
be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that
these proposed regulations only involve an established body of
technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6002 The Class E airspace areas listed below are
designated as a surface area for an airport.
* * * * *
AAL AK E2 Ketchikan, AK [Revised]
Ketchikan International Airport, AK
(lat. 55 deg.21'20''N, long. 131 deg.42'49''W)
Ketchikan Localizer
(lat. 55 deg.20'51''N, long. 131 deg.42'00''W)
Within a 3-mile radius of the Ketchikan International Airport
and within 1 mile each side of the Ketchikan localizer northwest/
southeast courses extending from the 3-mile radius to 4.6 miles
northwest and 4.1 miles southeast of the airport excluding that
airspace beyond 2.5-miles beginning 1 mile east of the Ketchikan
localizer northwest course clockwise to the 350 deg. bearing from
the Ketchikan International Airport. This Class E airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Supplement Alaska (Airport/Facility
Directory).
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AAL AK E5 Ketchikan, AK [Revised]
Ketchikan International Airport, AK
(lat. 55 deg.21'20''N, long. 131 deg.42'49''W)
Annette Island VORTAC
(lat. 55 deg.03'38''N, long. 131 deg.34'42''W)
Ketchikan Localizer
(lat. 55 deg.20'51''N, long. 131 deg.42'00''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within 2.0 miles each side of the Ketchikan Localizer east course
extending from the Ketchikan Localizer to 9.0 miles southeast of the
Ketchikan International Airport and within 1.8 miles each side of the
353 deg. radial of the Annette Island VORTAC extending from 11 miles
north of the VORTAC to the Ketchikan Iocalizer east course and within
1.9 miles either side of the Ketchikan Localizer west course extending
from the localizer to 6.7 miles west of the airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 12-mile
radius of the Annette Island VORTAC and within 10 miles east of the
169 deg. bearing from the Clam Cove NDB extending to 10 miles southeast
of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from 4,700 feet MSL
within 13.2 miles east and 10.5 miles west of the 165 deg. radial of
the Annette Island VORTAC extending from the VORTAC to the U.S.-Canada
border; and that airspace extending upward from 5,200 feet MSL within
10 miles
[[Page 34393]]
either side of the 349 deg. bearing from the Clam Cove NDB extending to
50 miles north of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from
5,700 feet MSL within 15.6 miles south of the 311 deg. radial of the
Annette Island VORTAC extending from 15.8 miles west of the VORTAC to
56.8 miles west of the VORTAC and within 9 miles north and 14 miles
south of the Ketchikan Localizer west course extending from 4.3 miles
west of the airport to 42.7 miles west of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 21, 1996.
Willis C. Nelson,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-16731 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16730 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Nuiqsut, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34393-34394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16730]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AAL-10]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Nuiqsut, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Nuiqsut, AK. The
development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument approach to
RWY 4 and RWY 22 has made this action necessary. This action will
change the airport status from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR). The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts
for pilot reference. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations at Nuiqsut, AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AAL-530, Docket No. 96-AAL-10, Federal
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Alaskan Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address shown above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert van Haastert, System Management
Branch, AAL-538, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AAL-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the System Management Branch, AAL-
530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Nuiqsut, AK, due to the creation of GPS approaches to RWY 4 and RWY 22.
The status of Nuiqsut Airport will change from VFR to IFR. The
coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum
83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 (58 FR 36298; July 6, 1993).
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that these
proposed regulations only involve an established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
[[Page 34394]]
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AAL AK E5 Nuiqsut, AK [New]
Nuiqsut Airport, AK
(lat. 70 deg.12'36'' N, long. 151 deg.00'20'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Nuiqsut Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 21, 1996.
Willis C. Nelson,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-16730 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16729 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith Airport, Cordova, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34394-34395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16729]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AAL-8]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith
Airport, Cordova, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace at Merle K. (Mudhole)
Smith Airport, Cordova, AK. The development of the Required Navigation
Performance (RNP) instrument approach to Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith
Airport, Cordova, AK has made this action necessary. The area would be
depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended
effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Cordova, AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AAL-530, Docket No. 96-AAL-8, Federal
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Alaskan Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address shown above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert van Haastert, System Management
Branch, AAL-538, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5863.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AAL-8.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the System Management Branch, AAL-
530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to modify Class E airspace at
Cordova, AK. This action is necessary to accommodate a new RNP
instrument approach to Runway 9 at Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith Airport,
Cordova, AK. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on
North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/
1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 (58 FR 36298; July 6,
1993). The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would
be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that
these proposed regulations only involve an established body of
technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore --(1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
[[Page 34395]]
AAL AK E5 Cordova, AK [Revised]
Cordova, Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith Airport, AK
(lat. 60 deg.29'31'' N, long. 145 deg.28'39'' W)
Glacier River NDB
(lat. 60 deg.29'56'' N, long. 145 deg.28'28'' W)
Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith Localizer
(lat. 60 deg.29'51'' N, long. 145 deg.29'59'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Merle K. (Mudhole) Smith Airport and
within 4 miles each side of the 222 deg. bearing of the Glacier
River NDB extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 20 miles southwest
of the airport and within 4 miles each side of the 142 deg. bearing
from the NDB extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 15.6 miles
southeast of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface within 6 miles each side of the Merle
K. (Mudhole) Smith Localizer east course extending from the
localizer to 40.6 miles east of the airport and within 4 miles each
side of the 268 deg. bearing from the NDB extending from the Glacier
River NDB to 33.6 miles west of the airport and that airspace within
4 miles west and 8 miles east of the 222 deg. bearing from the NDB
extending from 10.3 miles southwest of the NDB to 26.3 miles
southwest of the NDB and within 10 miles south and 5 miles north of
the 299 deg. bearing from the Glacier River NDB extending from the
6.6-mile radius to 25 miles northwest of the airport; excluding the
airspace more than 12 miles beyond the shoreline.
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 21, 1996.
Willis C. Nelson,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-16729 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16728 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wainwright, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34395-34396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16728]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AAL-11]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Wainwright, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Wainwright, AK.
The development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument
approach to RWY 4 and RWY 22 has made this action necessary. This
action will change the airport status from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The area would be depicted on
aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended effect of this
proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations
at Wainwright, AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to:
Manager, System Management Branch, AAL-530, Docket No. 96-AAL-11,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Alaskan Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address shown above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert van Haastert, System Management
Branch, AAL-538, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AAL-11.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the System Management Branch, AAL-
530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Wainwright, AK, due to the creation of GPS approaches to RWY 4 and RWY
22. The status of Wainwright Airport will change from VFR to IFR. The
coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum
83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated
August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 (58 FR 36298; July 6, 1993).
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that these
proposed regulations only involve an established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
[[Page 34396]]
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AAL AK E5 Wainwright, AK [New]
Wainwright Airport, AK
(lat. 70 deg.16'16.72'' N, long. 159 deg.59'41.67'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.5-mile radius of the Wainwright Airport; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within 6
miles south and 4 miles north of the 247 deg. bearing from the
Wainwright airport extending from the 8.5-mile radius to 16 miles
southwest, and 6 miles north of the 068 deg. bearing extending from
the 8.5-mile radius to 16 miles east.
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 21, 1996.
Willis C. Nelson,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-16728 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16727 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Selawik, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34396-34397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16727]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AAL-12]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Selawik, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Selawik, AK. The
development of a Very High Frequency (VHF) omni-directional radio range
(VOR) and VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) instrument approaches
to RWY 3 and RWY 21 has made this action necessary. This action will
change the airport status from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR). The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts
for pilot reference. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations at Selawik, AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AAL-530, Docket No. 96-AAL-12, Federal
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Alaskan Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address shown above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert van Haastert, System Management
Branch, AAL-538, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AAL-12.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the System Management Branch, AAL-
530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Selawik, AK, due to the creation of VOR and VOR/DME approaches to RWY 3
and RWY 21. The status of Selawik Airport will change from VFR to IFR.
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American
Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot
transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C,
dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 (58 FR 36298; July 6, 1993).
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be
published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that these
proposed regulations only involve an established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
[[Page 34397]]
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AAL AK E5 Selawik, AK [New]
Selawik Airport, AK
(lat. 66 deg.36'00'' N, long. 159 deg.59'10'' W)
Selawik VOR/DME, AK
(lat. 66 deg.36'00'' N, long. 159 deg.59'30'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8-mile radius of the Selawik Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within 6 miles
north and 4 miles south of the 231 deg. radial of the Selawik VOR/
DME extending from the 8-mile radius to 16 miles southwest, and 6
miles north of the 058 deg. radial extending from the 8-mile radius
to 16 miles northeast.
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 21, 1996.
Willis C. Nelson,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-16727 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16726 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Sand Point, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34397-34398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16726]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AAL-3]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Sand Point, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace at Sand Point, AK.
The development of the Microwave Landing System (MLS) and Non-
Directional Beacon (NDB) standard instrument approach procedures to
runway (RWY) 13 and a Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument
approach to RWY 31 have made this action necessary. The area would be
depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended
effect of this proposal is to provide adequate controlled airspace for
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Sand Point, AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AAL-530, Docket No. 96-AAL-3, Federal
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Alaskan Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address shown above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert van Haastert, System Management
Branch, AAL-538, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5863.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AAL-3.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the System Management Branch, AAL-
530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to modify Class E airspace at
Sand Point, AK. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on
North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/
1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 (58 FR 36298; July 6,
1993). The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would
be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that
these proposed regulations only involve an established body of
technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034); February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
[[Page 34398]]
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or -
----more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AAL AK E5 Sand Point, AK [Revised]
Sand Point Airport, AK
(lat. 55 deg.18'55''N, long. 160 deg.31'13''W)
Borland NDB/DME
(lat. 55 deg.18'56''N, long. 160 deg.31'06''W)
Sand Point MLS
(lat. 55 deg.18'47.4''N, long 160 deg.31'10.1''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Sand Point Airport and within 3
miles each side of the 175 deg. bearing of the Borland NDB/DME
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 13.9 miles south of the
airport and within 5.8 miles either side of the 326 azimuth from the
Sand Point MLS extending from the 6.4 mile radius to 17 miles
northwest of the airport; and that airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface within 4 miles west and 14 miles east
of the 175 deg. bearing from the Borland NDB/DME extending from the
NDB/DME to 22 miles south of the NDB/DME and within 9 miles west and
7 miles east of the 330 deg. bearing from the Borland NDB/DME
extending from the NDB/DME to 23 miles north of the NDB/DME.
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 17, 1996.
Willis C. Nelson,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-16726 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16725 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Buckland, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34398-34399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16725]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AAL-5]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Buckland, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Buckland, AK. The
development of a Global Positioning System (GPS) instrument approach to
RWY 10 has made this action necessary. This action will change the
airport status from Visual Flight Rules (VFR) to Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR). The area would be depicted on aeronautical charts for
pilot reference. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for IFR operations at Buckland, AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AAL-530, Docket No. 96-AAL-5, Federal
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Alaskan Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address shown above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert van Haastert, System Management
Branch, AAL-538, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5902.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AAL-5.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the System Management Branch, Air Traffic Division,
Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK, both before and after the closing date for comments. A
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the System Management Branch, AAL-
530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Buckland, AK. The status of Buckland Airport will change from VFR to
IFR. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200
foot transition areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 (58 FR 36298; July 6,
1993). The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would
be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has determined that
these proposed regulations only involve an established body of
technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034); February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant
[[Page 34399]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AAL AK E5 Buckland, AK [New]
Buckland Airport, AK
(lat. 65 deg.58'40''N, long. 161 deg.07'44''W)
Buckland NDB
(lat. 65 deg.58'45''N, long. 161 deg.08'56''W)
Kotzebue VOR/DME
(lat. 66 deg.53'09''N, long. 162 deg.32'24''W)
Selawik VOR/DME
(lat. 66 deg.36'00''N, long. 159 deg.59'50''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Buckland Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within 6 miles
southwest and 4 miles northeast of the 303 deg. bearing of the
Buckland NDB extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 21 miles
northwest, and 4 miles eitherside of the Kotzebue VOR/DME 115 deg.
radial from the VOR/DME to 10.5 miles northwest on the 303 deg.
bearing from the Buckland NDB, and 4 miles eitherside of the Selawik
VOR/DME 190 deg. radial from the VOR/DME to 10.5 miles northwest on
the 303 deg. bearing from the Buckland NDB.
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 17, 1996.
Willis C. Nelson
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-16725 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16678 Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34410-34413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16678]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. PS-94; Notice 5]
RIN 2137-AB38
Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA); Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to Form a Negotiated Rulemaking
Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: RSPA proposes to establish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee
under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1992 to develop a recommended rule on the
qualification of personnel performing certain safety- related functions
for pipelines subject to 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195. The Committee will
adopt its recommendations through a negotiation process. The Committee
will be composed of persons who represent the interests affected by the
rule, such as gas pipeline operators, hazardous liquid and carbon
dioxide pipeline operators, members of state and federal governments,
and persons from the public sector. The purpose of this NOI is to
invite interested parties to submit comments on the issues to be
discussed and the interests and organizations to be considered for
representation on the Committee.
DATES: RSPA must receive written comments and requests for
representation or membership by August 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in duplicate to the
RSPA Dockets Office, attention Verdell Simpkins, Room 8421, Nassif
building, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366-2036, or
Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366-0918, regarding the subject matter of this
NOI; or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-4453, for copies of this NOI or
other material in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
An NPRM titled ``Qualification of Pipeline Personnel'' was
published on August 3, 1994 (Docket No. PS-94; 59 FR 39506). The NPRM
proposed qualification standards for personnel who perform, or
supervise persons performing, regulated operation, maintenance, and
emergency-response functions. The purpose of the NPRM was to improve
pipeline safety by requiring operators to assure the competency of
affected personnel through training, testing, and periodic refresher
training.
Written comments to the NPRM.
RSPA received 131 comments to the docket that expressed a wide
variety of interests and concerns. Commenters stated that the NPRM was
too prescriptive and that the many references to training requirements
should be modified to place the focus of the NPRM on actual
qualification, not the methods of achieving it. Most commenters
asserted that the NPRM should have proposed a more general approach of
broad requirements for persons performing ``safety related'' functions.
Following review of the extensive comments to the NPRM, RSPA decided
that a regulatory process other than traditional rulemaking would
better address the issues surrounding operator qualifications.
Advisory Committees
The Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee
(THLPSSC) were established by statute to evaluate proposed pipeline
safety regulations. The committees are required to report on the
technical feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of the
proposals.
Following consideration of the issues of this proposed rulemaking,
both the TPSSC and THLPSSC expressed their disapproval of the NPRM.
Instead the Committees presented several motions calling for amendments
to the proposal. Those motions generally reflected written comments
submitted to the Qualification of Pipeline Personnel proposed
rulemaking.
Petition for Withdrawal
On December 1, 1995, the American Gas Association (AGA), the
American Public Gas Association (APGA), and the Southern Gas
Association (SGA) filed a petition for withdrawal of the August 3,
1994, NPRM and offered an alternative proposal.
Notice of withdrawal of NPRM
Along with this NOI, RSPA is publishing elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register a document withdrawing the NPRM in Docket No. PS-
94. RSPA briefly indicated the negotiated rulemaking process was an
alternative method of rulemaking for use in this regulatory action.
RSPA contends that a negotiated rulemaking process will provide the
appropriate level of communication among interested parties that is
needed to resolve the controversies surrounding the qualification
issues.
II. Regulatory Negotiation
It can be difficult for an agency to craft effective regulatory
solutions to certain problems. In the typical rulemaking process, the
participants often develop adversarial relationships that prevent
effective communication and creative solutions. The exchange of ideas
that may lead to solutions acceptable to all interested groups often
does not occur in the traditional notice and comment system. As the
Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) noted in its
Recommendation 82-4:
Experience indicates that if the parties in interest were to
work together to negotiate the text of a proposed rule, they might
be able in some circumstances to identify the major issues, gauge
their importance to the respective parties, identify the information
and data necessary to resolve the issues, and develop a rule that is
acceptable to the respective interests, all within the contours of
the substantive statute.
[[Page 34411]]
47 FR 30708; June 18, 1982.
The thrust of this recommendation is that representatives of
affected interests should be assembled to discuss the issue or hazard
and all potential solutions, reach consensus, and prepare a proposed
rule for consideration by the agency. After public comment on any
proposal issued by the agency, the group would reconvene to review the
comments and make recommendations for a final rule. This inclusive
process is intended to make the rule more acceptable to all affected
interests and prevent the need for petitions for reconsideration and
litigation that often follow promulgation of a final rule.
The movement toward negotiated rulemaking gained impetus with
enactment of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 561 et
seq. More recently, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12866 (EO)
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), which states the need to reform the
current regulatory process into one that is effective, consistent, and
understandable. The objectives of the EO are:
To reaffirm the primacy of Federal agencies in the regulatory
decision-making process; to restore the integrity and legitimacy of
regulatory review and oversight; and to make the process more
accessible and open to the public.
Id. Section 6(a) of the EO charges government agencies with providing
the public meaningful participation in the regulatory process:
In particular, before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking,
each agency should, where appropriate, seek the involvement of those
who are intended to benefit from and those expected to be burdened
by any regulation . . . Each agency is also directed to explore and,
where appropriate, use consensual mechanisms for developing
regulations, including negotiated rulemaking.
Id. at 51740.
Negotiated rulemakings have been used successfully by the
Department of Transportation, including the Federal Aviation
Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration have successfully used the process.
RSPA now intends to use this process for the first time, and does
so with enthusiasm and high expectations. RSPA welcomes the opportunity
to work with those who will be affected directly by a personnel
qualification rule, and is confident that the agency and its partners
will benefit from the process by creating an effective and reasonable
regulation.
Section 563(a) of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act and recommends that
an agency consider whether:
(1) There is a need for the rule;
(2) There is a limited number of identifiable interests;
(3) These interests can be adequately represented by persons
willing to negotiate in good faith to reach a consensus;
(4) There is a reasonable likelihood that the committee will
reach consensus within a fixed period of time;
(5) The negotiated rulemaking procedure will not unreasonably
delay the notice of proposed rulemaking;
(6) The agency has adequate resources and is willing to commit
such resources to the process; and
(7) The agency is committed to use the result of the negotiation
in formulating a proposed rule if at all possible.
RSPA believes that these criteria have been met with respect to
pipeline safety issues.
RSPA would charter a negotiated rulemaking committee (Committee)
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 USCS App. 1, and
would be represented on the Committee to take an active part in the
negotiations. However, pursuant to section 566(c) of the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act, the person(s) designated to represent RSPA would not
facilitate or otherwise chair the proceedings. RSPA is committed to
this process and is quite optimistic that it will result in the
issuance of an NPRM and final rule that will be acceptable to the
members of the Committee. Because of the mandate to issue a rule on
this subject, RSPA is prepared to go forward with an NPRM that is not
the product of the negotiations in the unlikely event the negotiation
fails.
III. Procedures and Guidelines
The following proposed procedures and guidelines would apply to
this process, subject to appropriate changes made as a result of
comments on this Notice or as determined to be necessary during the
negotiating process.
(A) Facilitator: RSPA is considering persons to serve as
facilitator for the negotiating group. This individual will chair the
negotiations, may offer alternative suggestions toward the desired
consensus, will help participants define and reach consensus, and will
determine the feasibility of negotiating particular issues. The
facilitator may ask members to submit additional information or to
reconsider their position. RSPA has contacted mediation organizations
for candidates.
(B) Feasibility: RSPA has examined the issues and interests
involved to determine whether it is possible to reach agreement on: (a)
individuals to represent those interests; (b) the preliminary scope of
the issues to be addressed; and (c) a schedule for developing a notice
of proposed rulemaking. On the basis of the history of this issue and
our preliminary inquiry, RSPA believes that regulatory negotiation can
be successful in developing a workable proposal for a notice of
proposed rulemaking and a final rule, and that the potential
participants listed below would adequately represent the affected
interests.
(C) Requests for Representation: The following have been
tentatively identified as representing interests that are likely to be
significantly affected by the rule:
(1) Small pipeline operators;
(2) Large pipeline operators;
(3) State pipeline safety representatives;
(4) Representatives of other interested Federal agencies;
(5) Public environmental organizations;
(6) Other interested public organizations;
(7) Representatives of labor unions; and
(8) RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety.
RSPA proposes that persons or organizations selected by the various
interests be named to the Committee. The following organizations have
been tentatively identified as organizations that would serve on the
committee:
(1) American Gas Association;
(2) American Petroleum Institute;
(3) Interstate Natural Gas Association of America;
(4) American Public Gas Association;
(5) National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives;
(6) National Association of State Fire Marshals;
(7) Midwest Gas Association (a training organization);
(8) Environmental Defense Fund; and
(9) RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety.
Each organization would send a representative to serve on the
committee. RSPA will consider applications for representation from any
interests not appropriately represented by those named in this list.
Please identify such interests if they exist.
Each application for membership or nomination to the Committee
should include: (i) the name of the applicant or nominee and the
interests such person would represent; (ii) evidence that the applicant
or nominee is authorized to represent parties related to the interests
the person proposes to represent; (iii) a written commitment that the
applicant
[[Page 34412]]
or nominee would participate in good faith; and (iv) the reasons
representatives identified in the Notice do not accurately portray the
interests affected by the rule. If an additional person or interest
requests membership or representation on the Committee, RSPA shall
determine (i) whether that interest will be substantially affected by
the rule, (ii) if such interest would be adequately represented by an
individual already on the Committee, and (iii) whether the requester
should be added to the group or whether interests can be consolidated
to provide adequate representation. Please note that each individual or
organization affected by a final rule need not have its own
representative on the Committee. Rather, each interest must be
adequately represented, and the Committee should be fairly balanced.
Individuals who are not part of the Committee may attend sessions and
confer with or provide their views to Committee members.
(D) Good Faith: Participants must be committed to negotiate in good
faith. Therefore, it is important that senior individuals within each
interest group be designated to represent that interest. No individual
will be required to ``bind'' the interests he or she represents, but
the individual should be at a high enough level to represent the
interest with confidence. For this process to be successful, the
interests represented should be willing to accept the final Committee
product.
(E) Notice of Intent to Establish Advisory Committee and Request
for Comment: In accordance with the requirements of FACA, an agency of
the federal government cannot establish or utilize a group of people in
the interest of obtaining consensus advice or recommendations unless
that group is chartered as a Federal advisory committee. It is the
purpose of this NOI to indicate our intent to create a Federal advisory
committee, to identify the issues involved in the rulemaking, to
identify the interests affected by the rulemaking, to identify
potential participants who will adequately represent those interests,
and to ask for comment on the use of regulatory negotiation and on the
identification of the issues, interests, procedures, and participants.
The first meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 28, 1996.
(F) Final Notification: After evaluating comments received as a
result of this NOI, RSPA will issue a final document announcing the
establishment of the Federal advisory committee, unless it determines
that such action is inappropriate in light of comments received, and
the composition of the Committee. After the Committee is chartered the
negotiations would begin.
(G) Administrative Support and Meetings: Staff support would be
provided by RSPA and meetings would take place in Washington, D. C.,
unless agreed otherwise by the Committee.
(H) Tentative Schedule: If the Committee is established and
selected, RSPA will publish a schedule for the first meeting in the
Federal Register. The first meeting will focus on procedural matters,
including dates, times, and locations of future meetings. Notice of
subsequent meetings would also be published in the Federal Register.
RSPA expects the Committee to reach consensus and prepare a report
recommending a proposed rule within eight months of the first meeting.
However, if unforeseen delays occur, the Administrator may agree to an
extension of time if the consensus of the Committee is that additional
time will result in agreement. The process may end earlier if the
facilitator so recommends.
(I) Committee Procedures: Under the general guidance of the
facilitator, and subject to legal requirements, the Committee would
establish detailed procedures for the meetings.
(J) Record of Meetings: In accordance with FACA's requirements,
RSPA would keep a record of all Committee meetings. This record would
be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking. Meetings of the
Committee would generally be open to the public.
(K) Consensus: The goal of the negotiating process is consensus.
RSPA proposes that the Committee would develop its own definition of
consensus, which may include unanimity, a simple majority, or
substantial agreement such that no member will disapprove the final
recommendation of the Committee. However, if the Committee does not
develop its own definition, consensus shall be unanimous concurrence.
(L) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: The Committee's first objective
is to prepare a report containing a notice of proposed rulemaking,
preamble, and economic evaluation. If consensus is not obtained on some
issues, the report should identify the areas of agreement and
disagreement, and explanations for any disagreement. It is expected
that participants will address cost/benefit, paperwork reduction, and
regulatory flexibility requirements. RSPA would prepare an economic
assessment if appropriate.
RSPA would accept the Committee proposal unless it is inconsistent
with statutory authority of the agency or other legal requirements or
does not, in the agency's view, adequately address the subject matter.
In that event, the preamble to the NPRM would explain the reasons for
its decision.
(M) Key Issues for Negotiation: RSPA has reviewed written comments,
petitions, and pipeline operating practices, and has engaged in
extensive dialogue on the issue of qualification of pipeline personnel.
Based on this information and rulemaking requirements, RSPA has
tentatively identified major issues that should be considered in this
negotiated rulemaking. Issues related to operator qualification not
specifically listed in this Notice may be addressed as they arise in
the course of the negotiation. Comments are invited concerning the
appropriateness of these issues for consideration and whether other
issues should be added:
(1) Covered functions. What is the definition of a covered
function? What areas of an operator's pipeline system be covered by
this rule? Should these be the specific duties named in the NPRM, or
should a more general approach be implemented to describe what
functions will be covered?
(2) Level of proficiency. What level of skill must be obtained to
achieve qualification? How will this be measured in evaluating an
employee's qualification?
(3) Supervisory persons. What is the definition of a supervisory
position? What criteria must be maintained to allow one to
``supervise'' unqualified personnel performing covered functions?
(5) Personnel to be qualified. Which employees should be subject to
this rule? How should contractor personnel qualification be addressed?
How will small gas operators and master meter systems be required to
comply?
(6) Instructors. Who will be responsible for qualifying unqualified
personnel? Who will designate these individuals? What skill level will
be appropriate for one to serve as an instructor?
(7) Employee evaluation. What criteria will be observed in
evaluating qualification? Who will conduct this evaluation? How will
previous training, testing, work experience, and other methods of
qualification be addressed?
(8) Elements of qualification. What methods would be appropriate in
order to make one qualified? Should these methods be specifically
addressed, or should the operator have discretion in choosing how their
personnel may become qualified?
(9) Maintaining qualification. How can operators ensure that
employees performing covered functions maintain
[[Page 34413]]
the proper amount of skill to be considered qualified? Are
``refresher'' courses needed?
(10) Competency reviews. In the event an incident or accident is
attributed to error, how will the operator reevaluate and monitor an
individual's qualification? How long should such a competency review
take?
(11) Recordkeeping. How will qualification records be maintained?
What sorts of qualification schedules (i.e.--training/testing results)
must be maintained?
(12) Compliance dates. What time frame would be required for
implementation of an operator's qualification program? When would
personnel evaluation take place? Should time frames be consistent
between large and small pipeline operators?
IV. Public Participation
RSPA invites comments on all issues, procedures, guidelines,
interests, and suggested participants embodied in this NOI.
Issued in Washington, D.C. June 26, 1996.
Kelley S. Coyner,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-16678 Filed 7-01-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16677 Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34413-34414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16677]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
[Docket No. PS-94; Notice 4]
RIN 2137-AB38
Qualification of Pipeline Personnel
AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA); Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document is to inform the public that RSPA is withdrawing
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in Docket No. PS-94 titled
``Qualification of Pipeline Personnel.'' RSPA is required by
Congressional mandate to establish requirements on the qualification of
personnel conducting certain tasks on a pipeline facility. The NPRM has
been subject to considerable scrutiny from many commenters. However,
RSPA believes that an alternative method of rulemaking can provide a
better forum to establish communications between the interested parties
and that a consensus may be achieved on a new rule on the qualification
of pipeline personnel. RSPA is publishing elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register a document titled ``Notice of Intent to Form a
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee'' that will provide a complete
description of the regulatory alternative.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert C. Garnett, (202) 366-2036, or
Eben M. Wyman, (202) 366-0918, regarding the subject matter of this
document; or the Dockets Unit, (202) 366-4453, for copies of this
document or other material in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A NPRM titled ``Qualification of Pipeline
Personnel'' was published on August 3, 1994 (Docket No. PS-94, Notice
2; 59 FR 39506). The NPRM proposed qualification standards for pipeline
personnel who perform, or supervise persons performing, regulated
operation, maintenance, and emergency-response functions. The intended
effect of the NPRM was to improve pipeline safety by requiring
operators to assure the competency of affected personnel through
training, testing, and periodic refresher training. Following extensive
interaction with the interested parties, this Notice withdraws that
proposal from Docket No. PS-94. In light of the many concerns expressed
by these parties, RSPA believes that an alternative to traditional
rulemaking would be affective to reach consensus on an personnel
qualifications rule. RSPA is planning to form a committee that will
represent all affected parties to negotiate the many aspects of this
issue, and to achieve consensus on a new NPRM to be published in the
Federal Register. The following discussion of the written comments to
the previous NPRM should be helpful in understanding the reasons for
this withdrawal.
Discussion of Comments to NPRM and Development of Rules
RSPA received 131 comments to Docket No. PS-94, which expressed a
wide variety of interests and concerns. Comments were received from 111
pipeline companies, 8 pipeline-related associations, 4 state and
federal agencies, and 8 other interested parties. The following
provides a summary of the commenters' issues.
Definitions
Comments were received on certain definitions in the NPRM. The
definitions of ``qualified administratively'' and ``supervisory
persons'' needed clarification, according to many commenters.
Commenters alleged that the ``qualified administratively'' provisions
would be redundant, because qualification in any manner would be
sufficient, as long as the person was found proficient in performing a
covered job function or supervised by a qualified person. Also,
commenters noted that the word ``supervisor'' might be inappropriate
because the term can be indicative of a number of positions, including
those located away from a job site. These commenters thought the term
``supervisor'' should be deleted and alternate terms, such as
``qualified employee,'' ``lead person,'' or another term should be used
to describe someone who directly oversees personnel performing job
functions covered in the NPRM.
Personnel to be Qualified
A number of commenters expressed concern about those who would be
subject to this rule. The role of a persons' educational background and
work experience in determining qualification was also addressed.
Concern was also expressed over whether small gas systems operated by
mobile home parks should be subject to a qualification rule. Also, the
question of how the proposed rule would cover contractor personnel was
the subject of many comments. Most commenters argued that contractors
should be held accountable for their own qualification and
recordkeeping, because it would be overly burdensome to require
pipeline operators to maintain qualification records for contractor
personnel. RSPA never proposed to require operators to be responsible
for qualifying contractor personnel, only to ensure that they are in
fact qualified. This issue is a prime example of why RSPA believes an
alternative rulemaking method would provide a better channel of
communication to resolve the controversy surrounding this regulatory
initiative.
Evaluation and Scheduling
Another major issue was the evaluation of personnel and how past
experience, education, and other factors would be considered in
assessing qualification. Many comments stressed that the operator or
the operator's designee would know the capabilities of their personnel
and therefore be in the best position to evaluate and to ensure their
qualification. RSPA believes the NPRM's intent was not far from this
view, and that, with open communication, consensus can be reached among
interested parties.
Qualification Training
The NPRM listed training that would be required if an employee was
found to be not qualified. This issue generated many written comments.
The commenters alleged that the language in
[[Page 34414]]
this section was too prescriptive. Rather than list training
requirements, many commenters asserted that RSPA should broaden the
scope of the NPRM to cover safety related tasks and allow the operator
to decide what those tasks are, who is presently qualified to perform
them, and how other persons should obtain that qualification.
Qualification Testing
The comments on this issue were generally consistent with those on
training. Specifically, commenters said the situations in which testing
is needed to qualify a person and the methods of qualification should
be left to the operator's discretion.
Refresher Training/Competency Reviews
RSPA received many comments calling for either revision or deletion
of these sections. Commenters stated that requirements for refresher
training would be unnecessary and overly burdensome, because many day-
to-day tasks would not require a ``refresher'' in order to be safely
performed. Moreover, they said the proposed requirement for a
competency review was too prescriptive, and that the language in the
NPRM did not indicate the scope of competency reviews. RSPA believes
that the scope and methods of review, after an incident occurs due to
performance of covered functions, can be properly addressed in an
alternative rulemaking process.
Other Issues
Commenters expressed their views on other aspects of the NPRM, such
as the proposed recordkeeping requirements. The concept of operator
discretion was again the focus of these comments. Commenters felt that
as long as proper records are kept and made available upon request, the
methods of recordkeeping should be left to those that keep the records.
In addition, many commenters suggested that RSPA lengthen the dates for
compliance with the NPRM. Finally, a large number of commenters said
the costs to comply with the NPRM would far exceed the benefits of the
proposal. This was one of the most prevalent comments received.
Negotiated Rulemaking
As previously stated, RSPA is publishing elsewhere in this issue of
the Federal Register a document titled Notice of Intent to form a
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee to conduct a negotiated rulemaking as
an alternative to the traditional rulemaking process for this
regulatory action. RSPA believes these issues can be expeditiously
resolved in a negotiated setting.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 1996.
Richard B. Felder,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-16677 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16041 Special Education
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34399-34400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16041]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 45
RIN 1076-AD16
Special Education
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Indian Affairs is proposing the elimination of
regulations governing special education to streamline the regulatory
process and enhance the planning and coordination of existing
regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Ken Whitehorn, Office of Indian Education
Programs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C
Street, NW., MS-MIB 3512, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may be hand
delivered to the same address from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Comments will
be available for inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m., Monday through Friday beginning approximately July 16, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Whitehorn, Office of Indian
Education Programs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, (202) 208-6675.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Office of Indian Education programs is proposing to eliminate
25 CFR Part 45, Special Education, because the information contained in
this part is already included in Chapter III of 34 CFR, Parts 300-399,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education. The Office of Indian Education programs has entered into an
agreement with the Department of Education to use 34 CFR Parts 300-399,
as the standards for its special education programs.
Supplementary Information
The authority to issue rules and regulations is vested in the
Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and sections 463 and 465 of
the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9.
Publication of the proposed rule by the Department of the Interior
(Department) provides the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Interested persons may submit written comments
regarding the proposed rule to the location identified in the
``addresses'' section of this document.
Executive Order 12988
The Department has determined that this rule meets the applicable
standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 and does not require review by the Office of Management and
Budget.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Executive Order 12630
The Department has determined that this rule does not have
``significant takings'' implications. This rule does not pertain to
``taking'' of private property interests, nor does it impact private
property.
Executive Order 12612
The Department has determined that this rule does not have
significant federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-
tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights and
responsibilities of states.
NEPA Statement
The Department has determined that this rule does not constitute a
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment and that no detailed statement is required pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
This rule imposes no unfunded mandates on any governmental or
private entity and is in compliance with the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Act of 1995.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule contains no information collection requirement the
elimination of which would require notification to the Office of
Management and Budget.
Drafting Information
The primary author of this document is Glenn Allison, Office of
Indian Education Programs, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 45
Indians--education.
Under the authority of Executive Order 12866 and for the reasons
stated above, Part 45 is proposed to be removed.
[[Page 34400]]
Dated: June 6, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-16041 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-16037 Issuance of Patents in Fee, Certificates of Competency, Removal of Restrictions, and Sale of Certain Indian Lands
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34400-34405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16037]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
25 CFR Part 152
RIN 1076-AD42
Issuance of Patents in Fee, Certificates of Competency, Removal
of Restrictions, and Sale of Certain Indian Lands
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this proposed rule making action is to revise
the Issuance of Patents in Fee, Certificates of Competency, Removal of
Restrictions, and Sale of Certain Indian Lands regulations. This rule
was identified for reinvention under the National Performance Review.
It is written in plain English to make the rule easier to read and
understand for Indian landowners and Bureau realty staff.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand carry your comments to Terrance L. Virden,
Acting Director, Office of Trust Responsibilities, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., MS 4513 MIB,
Washington, D.C. 20240. Comments may be hand delivered from 9:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or sent by facsimile to Facsimile
No. (202) 219-1065.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alice Harwood, Acting Chief, Division of Real Estates Services, Office
of Trust Responsibilities, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
Interior, 1849 C Street, N.W., MS 4513 MIB, Washington, D.C. 20240,
Telephone No. (202) 208-7737.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary author of this document is Pearl
Kennedy, Realty Specialist, Division of Real Estate Services, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. The proposed rule has been
rewritten to facilitate its use by the general public and the
individual Indians affected by the rule. Sections that no longer apply
have been deleted and sections added for clarification. No substantive
revisions are proposed in this rule.
The authority to issue rules and regulations is vested in the
Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301 and sections 463 and 465 of
the Revised Statutes, 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9, and delegated to the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.
Publication of the proposed rule by the Department of the Interior
(Department) provides the public an opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Interested persons may submit written comments
regarding the proposed rule to the location identified in the
``addresses'' section of this document.
The Department has determined that this rule:
does not have significant federalism effects.
is not a major rule under E.O. 12866 and will not require
a review by the Office of Management and Budget.
will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.) because this rule applies only to Indian
applicants.
does not have significant takings implications under E.O.
12630.
does not have significant effects on the economy, nor will
it result in increases in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local governments, agencies, or
geographical regions.
does not have any adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the export/import
market.
is categorically excluded from the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 because it is of an administrative, technical, and
procedural nature. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor
an environmental impact statement is warranted.
does not impose any unfunded mandates on any governmental
or private entity and is in compliance with the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
is exempt by OMB from the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and does not require a review
by the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in Part 152
Indians--lands.
For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to revise Part
152 to Title 25 Chapter 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set
forth below.
PART 152--ISSUANCE OF PATENTS IN FEE, CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY,
REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS, AND SALE OF CERTAIN INDIAN LANDS
Sec.
152.1 What are the definitions of the terms used in this part?
Issuing Patents in Fee, Certificates of Competency, or Orders Removing
Restrictions
152.2 Who can apply for a patent in fee?
152.3 How do I apply for a patent in fee?
152.4 What happens when I apply for a patent in fee?
152.5 Will patents in fee be issued to non-Indians and Indians with
whom a special relationship does not exist?
152.6 Who can apply for a certificate of competency?
152.7 What happens when I apply for a certificate of competency?
152.8 Can certain Osage Indian adults apply for a certificate of
competency?
152.9 Who can apply for an order removing restrictions?
152.10 How do I apply for an order removing restrictions?
152.11 What happens when I apply for an order removing
restrictions?
Order Removing Restrictions for Members of the Five Civilized Tribes
152.12 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, how do I
apply for removal of restrictions under authority other than section
2(a) of the Act of August 11, 1955?
152.13 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, what happens
when I apply for removal of restrictions under section 2(a) of the
Act of August 11, 1955?
152.14 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, can the
restrictions be removed from my land without an application?
152.15 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, what happens
when a removal of restrictions is issued to me without an
application?
152.16 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, what is the
effect of an order removing restrictions from my land under the Act
of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 666)?
Sales, Exchanges, and Conveyances of Trust or Restricted Lands
152.17 Can I sell, exchange, or otherwise convey my Indian land?
152.18 Can a natural guardian or person designated by the Secretary
sell my Indian land?
152.19 Can fiduciaries sell my Indian land?
152.20 Can the Secretary sell land owned by more than one person?
152.21 Can a tribe sell or exchange tribal land?
152.22 Is the Secretary's approval necessary to convey individual-
owned trust or restricted lands or lands owned by a tribe?
[[Page 34401]]
152.23 Where do I file an application for sale, exchange, or gift?
152.24 Is an appraisal necessary?
152.25 Can I negotiate a sale, gift, or exchange of my trust or
restricted lands?
152.26 How is my land advertised for sale?
152.27 What procedures are followed for an advertised sale?
152.28 What happens after the bid closing?
152.29 Can the Secretary reject bids or disapprove a sale?
152.30 Can employees of Indian Affairs bid?
152.31 Who pays for the cost of conveyance and fees?
152.32 Who pays irrigation fees and payments?
Partitions in Kind of Inherited Allotments
152.33 Can I partition my Indian lands?
Mortgages and Deeds of Trust To Secure Loans to Indians
152.34 Can I mortgage my land?
152.35 Can I make a sale on a deferred payment plan?
Denials Of Applications
152.36 When does the Secretary deny approval of my application?
152.37 Am I notified of a denial?
Receiving Information
152.38 Who can receive information regarding status of applications
for patents in fee, certificates of competency, or orders removing
restrictions of trust or restricted Indians lands?
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301. Interpret or apply sec. 7, 32 Stat.
275; 34 Stat. 1018; sec. 1, 35 Stat. 444; sec. 1 and 2, 36 Stat.
855, as amended, 856, as amended; sec. 17, 39 Stat. 127; 40 Stat.
579; 62 Stat. 236; sec. 2, 40 Stat. 606; 68 Stat. 358; 69 Stat. 666;
25 U.S.C. 355, 372, 373, 378, 379, 404, 405, 483, unless otherwise
noted.
Cross-Reference: See part 159 and part 160 in this chapter for
further regulations regarding sale of irrigable lands.
Sec. 152.1 What are the definitions of the terms used in this part?
Agency means an Indian agency or other field unit of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs having trust or restricted Indian land under its
immediate jurisdiction.
Competent means that you posses sufficient ability, knowledge,
experience, and judgment to manage your business affairs, including the
administration,use, investment, and disposition of any property you own
and the income or proceeds derived from the property, with a reasonable
degree of prudence and wisdom to prevent the loss of such property or
benefits. (Act of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 666)).
Fiduciary means a person acting primarily for another's benefit
such as a trustee, guardian, or conservator.
I and my mean the Indian applicant.
Patent in fee means an instrument of conveyance issued by the
government to transfer the title of trust, or any interest in trust
land, to a non-Indian or Indian determined to be competent. A patent in
fee removes all restrictions against alienation of all restriction
property and terminates the trust responsibility of the Secretary of
the Interior for the land.
Restricted land means land or any interest therein, the title to
which is held by an individual Indian, subject to Federal restrictions
against alienation or encumbrance.
Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or authorized
representative acting under delegated authority.
Tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, pueblo, community,
corporation, rancheria, colony, or other group of Indians.
Trust land means land or any interest therein held in trust by the
United States for an individual Indian or tribe.
We means the Secretary of the Interior or authorized representative
acting under delegated authority.
You means the Indian applicant.
Your refers to the Indian applicant.
Issuing Patents in Fee, Certificates of Competency, or Orders
Removing Restrictions
Sec. 152.2 Who can apply for a patent in fee?
Indians 21 years of age or over. The written application must be in
a form approved by the Secretary and filed with the agency having
immediate jurisdiction over the land.
Sec. 152.3 How do I apply for a patent in fee?
You must complete and submit a written application in the form
approved by the Secretary and file it with the agency superintendent
having immediate jurisdiction over the land.
Sec. 152.4 What happens when I apply for a patent in fee?
(a) If we determine that your are competent, we will issue you a
fee patent and give you an inventory of your estate. (Acts of Feb. 8,
1887 (24 Stat. 388), as amended (25 U.S.C. 349); June 25, 1910 (36
Stat. 855), as amended (25 U.S.C. 372); and May 14, 1948 (62 Stat. 236;
25 U.S.C. 483); and other authorizing acts.)
(b) If we deny your application, we will tell you why in a letter.
You have the right to appeal the decision under 25 CFR part 2.
(c) White Earth Reservation: We will issue a patent in fee to any
adult Indian of mixed-blood owning land within the White Earth
Reservation in the State of Minnesota. When you apply, we do not
consider your competency (Act of March 1, 1907 (34 Stat. 1015)).
(d) Fort Peck Reservation: Interests in oil and gas underlying
certain allotments on the Fort Peck Reservation were granted to certain
Indians to be held in trust for them. Provisions were made to issue
patents in fee for such oil and gas or patents in fee for land in
certain circumstances (Act of June 30, 1954 (68 Stat. 358)).
(1) Title to the entire interest in the oil and gas, underlying a
parcel of land within the Fort Peck Reservation, was conveyed by the
act in fee simple status to Indian grantees who received a patent or
patent in fee before June 30, 1954.
(2) We will convey by patent, without application, unrestricted fee
simple title to the entire interest in oil and gas granted by this act
to Indians to whom a fee patent has been issued at any time for any
land within the Fort Peck Reservation or who have been determined to be
competent.
(3) When we determine that the entire interest in a tract of land
on the Fort Peck Reservation is owned by a competent Indian grantee of
oil and gas under the act, we will issue fee patents to them, covering
all interests in the land, without application.
Sec. 152.5 Will patents in fee be issued to non-Indians and Indians
with whom a special relationship does not exist?
We will issue a patent in fee to any non-Indian, or Indian to whom
the United States owes no trust responsibility, without application,
whenever we determine that trust land, or any interest in trust land,
has been acquired through inheritance or devise.
Sec. 152.6 Who can apply for a certificate of competency?
Indians 21 years old or over, except certain adult members of the
Osage Indian Tribe as provided in Sec. 152.8, who hold land or an
interest in land under a restricted fee patent. The written application
must be in a form approved by the Secretary and filed with the agency
having immediate jurisdiction over the land.
Sec. 152.7 What happens when I apply for a certificate of competency?
(a) If we determine that you are competent, we will approve your
application, and a certificate of competency will be issued. The
delivery of the certificate will have the effect of removing the
restrictions from the described land. (Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat.
855), as amended (25 U.S.C. 372)).
(b) If we deny your request, we will tell you why in a letter. You
have the right to appeal this action under part 2 of this chapter.
[[Page 34402]]
Sec. 152.8 Can certain Osage Indian adults apply for a certificate of
competency?
Adult members of the Osage Indian Tribe of one-half or more Indian
blood may apply for a certificate of competency. Applications must be
in the form approved by the Secretary. If the Secretary determines that
you are competent, a certificate of competency will be issued removing
restrictions against alienation on all restricted property and
terminating the United States trust responsibility on all restricted
property. Your Osage headright interest remains under the trust
responsibility of the United States. For regulations pertaining to the
issuance of certificates of competency to adult Osage Indians of less
than one-half Indian blood, see part 154 of this chapter.
Sec. 152.9 Who can apply for an order removing restrictions?
(a) You can apply for an order removing restrictions if you are:
(1) An Indian not under legal disability under the laws of the
State where you reside or where the land is located; or
(2) A court-appointed guardian or conservator of any Indian.
(b) If you are a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, see
Sec. 152.13.
Sec. 152.10 How do I apply for an order removing restrictions?
(a) You must send a written application, in the form approved by
the Secretary, telling why you need the removal of restrictions, to the
agency having immediate jurisdiction over the lands.
(b) If you are a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, see
Sec. 152.12
Sec. 152.11 What happens when I apply for an order removing
restrictions?
(a) If we determines that you are competent or that a removal of
restrictions is in your best interest, we will approve your application
and issue an order removing restrictions from the described lands.
(b) If you are a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, see
Sec. 152.13.
(c) If we deny the application, we will tell you why in a letter.
You have the right to appeal this action under part 2 of this chapter.
Order Removing Restrictions for Members of the Five Civilized
Tribes
Sec. 152.12 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, how do I
apply for removal of restrictions under authority other than section
2(a) of the Act of August 11, 1955?
When you ask us to remove restrictions on your restricted lands
under authority other than section 2(a) of the Act of August 11, 1955
(69 Stat. 666), you may not include lands, or interest in lands,
acquired by inheritance or devise. You can apply in either of the two
following ways:
(a) If you apply for an unconditional removal, we will grant the
removal if we determine that you are competent.
(b) If you apply for a conditional removal, we will grant the
removal. The conditional order will be effective only and
simultaneously with the execution of a deed by you and upon completion
of an advertised or negotiated sale acceptable to us.
Sec. 152.13 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, what
happens when I apply for removal of restrictions under section 2(a) of
the Act of August 11, 1955?
(a) If we determine that you are competent, we will issue an order
removing restrictions having the effect stated in Sec. 152.16.
(b) If your application is rejected, this action is not subject to
administrative appeal.
(c) If the Secretary rejects, or takes no action within 90 days of
the application date, you may apply to the State district court in the
county in which you reside. If that State district court issues an
order, it will have the effect stated in Sec. 152.16.
Sec. 152.14 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, can the
restrictions be removed from my land without an application?
(a) Yes. When you are determined to be competent, section 2(b) of
the Act of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 666), authorizes the removal of
restrictions on property belonging to members of the Five Civilized
Tribes. The Secretary will issue an order removing restrictions without
an application. We will tell you in a letter that we intend to issue an
order removing restrictions 30 days after the date of the letter.
(b) This decision may be appealed under part 2 of this chapter
within the 30 days.
(c) All administrative appeals will postpone the issuance of this
order.
(d) An order removing restrictions will be issued when:
(1) The decision is not appealed within 30 days after the date of
the notice;
(2) Any dismissal of an appeal is not appealed within the
prescribed time limit; or
(3) The final appeal is dismissed.
Sec. 152.15 If I am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, what
happens when a removal of restrictions is issued to me without an
application?
When an order removing restrictions is issued, under Sec. 152.14:
(a) A copy of the order will be delivered to you, or any person
acting on your behalf, and the Board of County Commissioners for the
county in which you reside.
(b) Under the terms the Act of August 11,1955 (69 Stat. 66), the
Secretary will tell you and the Board of County Commissioners in a
letter that you and/or the Board have the right to appeal within six
months of the date of this letter. The appeal must be to the State
district court for the district in which you reside. The appeal will
stay the effective date of the order until such proceedings are
concluded. If the State district court dismisses the appeal, the order
will become effective six months after the date of the letter. The
effect of the order is described in Sec. 152.16.
Sec. 152.16 IfI am a member of the Five Civilized Tribes, what is the
effect of an order removing restrictions from my land under the Act of
August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 666)?
(a) The effective date will remove all jurisdiction and supervision
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
(b) Full ownership and control of money and property will be given
to you, and the Secretary will issue title documents if necessary.
(c) The Secretary may make provisions to insure repayment of money
lent to you by the Federal Government or by an Indian tribe.
(d) The interest of any lessee or permittee in any lease, contract,
or permit that is outstanding when an order becomes effective will be
preserved.
Sales, Exchanges, and Conveyances of Trust or Restricted Lands
Sec. 152.17 Can I sell, exchange, or otherwise convey my Indian land?
Trust or restricted lands acquired by allotment, devise,
inheritance, purchase, exchange, or gift may be sold, exchanged, and
conveyed by you with the approval of the Secretary or by the Secretary
with your consent under the Acts of May 27, 1902 (32 Stat. 275; 25
U.S.C. 379); May 17, 1906 (34 Stat. 197), as amended August 2, 1956 (70
Stat. 954; 48 U.S.C. 357); March 1, 1907 (34 Stat. 1018; 25 U.S.C.
405); May 29, 1908 (35 Stat. 444; 25 U.S.C. 404); June 25, 1910 (36
Stat. 855; 25 U.S.C. 372), as amended May 25, 1926 (44 Stat. 629; 48
U.S.C. 355a-355d); June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; U.S.C. 464); and May
14, 1948
[[Page 34403]]
(62 Stat. 236; 25 U.S.C. 483); and other authorizing acts.
Sec. 152.18 Can a natural guardian or person designated by the
Secretary sell my Indian land?
(a) Under the Act of May 29, 1908 (35 Stat. 444; 25 U.S.C. 404), we
may sell trust or restricted land belonging to:
(1) A minor, with the consent of the natural guardian of the minor;
(2) Indian orphans without a natural guardian; and
(3) Indians who are non compos mentis or otherwise under legal
disability.
(b) The authority contained in the Act of May 29, 1908 is not
applicable to lands in Oklahoma, Minnesota, and South Dakota, nor to
lands authorized to be sold by the Act of May 14, 1948 (62 Stat. 236;
25 U.S.C. 483).
Sec. 152.19 Can fiduciaries sell my Indian land?
With our approval or consent, guardians, conservators, or other
fiduciaries appointed by State courts, or by tribal courts operating
under approved constitutions or law and order codes, may convey trust
or restricted land belonging to Indians who are minors, no compos
mentis, or otherwise under legal disability. This section is subject to
the exceptions contained in 25 U.S.C. 954(b).
Sec. 152.20 Can the Secretary sell land owned by more than one
person?
Under the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 855), as amended (25
U.S.C. 372), lands or all interests in land may be sold if the
Secretary determines that one or more of the heirs who have inherited
trust land are incapable of managing their own affairs. This authority
does not apply to lands authorized to be sold under the Act of May 14,
1948 (62 Stat. 236; 25 U.S.C. 483).
Sec. 152.21 Can a tribe sell or exchange tribal land?
Certain tribal land may be sold or exchanged under the Acts of
February 14, 1920 (41 Stat. 415; 25 U.S.C. 294); June 18, 1934 (48
Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 464); August 10, 1939 (53 Stat. 1351; 25 U.S.C.
463(e)); July 1, 1948 (62 Stat. 1214); June 4, 1953 (67 Stat 41; 25
U.S.C. 293(a)); July 28, 1955 (69 Stat. 392), as amended August 31,
1964 (78 Stat. 747; 25 U.S.C. 608-608c); June 18, 1956 (70 Stat. 290;
25 U.S.C. 403a-2); July 24, 1956 (70 Stat. 626); May 19, 1958 (72 Stat.
121; 25 U.S.C. 463, Note); September 2, 1958 (72 Stat. 1762); April 4,
1960 (74 Stat. 13); April 29, 1960) 74 Stat. 85); December 11, 1963 (77
Stat. 349); August 11, 1964 (78 Stat. 389); January 12, 1983 (96 Stat.
2517, 25 U.S.C. 2201), and under other authorizing acts. Except as
otherwise provided by law, the regulations in this part 152 apply to
sale or exchanges of tribal land.
Sec. 152.22 Is the Secretary's approval necessary to convey
individual-owned trust or restricted lands or lands owned by a tribe?
(a) Individual lands. Yes, except inherited lands of the Five
Civilized Tribes, see Sec. 152.12. Influencing an Indian to execute an
instrument purporting to convey any interest in trust land, or the
offering of any instrument for record is prohibited, and criminal
penalties may be incurred. (See 25 U.S.C. 202 and 348.)
(b) Tribal lands. Yes, except where acts of Congress authorize
sales without approval. (See 25 U.S.C. 177.)
Sec. 152.23 Where do I file an application for sale, exchange, or
gift?
Applications must be filed in a form approved by the Secretary with
the agency having immediate jurisdiction over the land. Applications
may be approved if the transaction appears to be in the long-range best
interest of the owner or owners, or under conditions in Sec. 152.25(d).
Sec. 152.24 Is an appraisal necessary?
Yes. Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, we must do an
appraisal to determine the fair market value before making or approving
a sale, exchange, or other transfer of title of trust or restricted
land.
Sec. 152.25 Can I negotiate a sale, gift, or exchange of my trust or
restricted lands?
Sales, exchanges, and gifts specifically described in paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), and (d) of this section may be negotiated; all other
sales must be by advertised sale, or as determined by the Secretary.
With the approval of the Secretary:
(a) Consideration not less than the appraised fair market value.
You may negotiate and sell trust or restricted land for not less than
the appraised fair market value when:
(1) The sale is to the United States, States, or political
subdivisions, or sale for a public purpose.
(2) The sale is to the tribe or another Indian; or
(3) The Secretary determines it is impractical to advertise.
(b) Exchange at appraised fair market value. You may exchange trust
or restricted land in combination with other things of value. The value
you receive in the exchange must be substantially equal to the
appraised fair market value of the consideration given by you.
(c) Sale to co-owners. You may negotiate and sell trust or
restricted land to a co-owner. The consideration may be less than the
appraised fair market value, if we determine there is a special
relationship between the co-owners or special circumstances exist.
(d) Gifts and conveyances for less than the appraised fair market
value. You may convey trust or restricted land for less than the
appraised fair market value or for no consideration, when:
(1) The prospective grantee is your spouse, brother, sister, lineal
ancestor of Indian blood, or lineal descendant;
(2) Some other special relationship exists between you and grantee;
or
(3) The Secretary determines that special circumstances exist that
warrant the approval of the conveyance.
Sec. 152.26 How is my land advertised for sale?
(a) Once your application is approved, a notice of sale will be
published not less than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the sale. A
shorter period may be authorized by the Secretary.
(b) The notice of sale will include:
(1) Terms, conditions, place, date, hour, and methods of sale,
including explanation of auction procedures set out in
Sec. 152.27(b)(2);
(2) Where and how bids must be submitted;
(3) A warning to all bidders against violation of 18 U.S.C. 1860
prohibiting unlawful combination or intimidation of bidders or
potential bidders; and
(4) Description of tracts, all reservations to which title will be
subject, any restrictions and encumbrances of record with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, and any other information that may improve sale
prospects.
Sec. 152.27 What procedures are followed for an advertised sale?
(a) Advertised sales are by sealed bids except as provided in this
paragraph:
(1) Bids, along with a certified check, cashier's check, money
order, or U.S. Treasury check, payable to the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
for not less than 10 percent of the amount of the bid, must be enclosed
in a sealed envelope marked as prescribed in the notice of sale. A cash
deposit may be submitted in lieu of these negotiable instruments at the
bidder's risk. Tribes submitting bids under this paragraph may
guarantee the required 10 percent deposit by an appropriate resolution.
(2) The sealed envelopes containing the bids will be publicly
opened at
[[Page 34404]]
the time fixed for sale. The bids will be announced and appropriately
recorded.
(b) when the Secretary recognizes that a tribe or a tribal member
has a valid interest in acquiring the trust or restricted lands offered
for sale, the following apply:
(1) With the consent of the owner and when the notice of sale so
states, the tribe or tribal members have the right to meet the high
bid.
(2) An oral auction may be held following the bid opening if:
(i) The tribe is not the highest bidder;
(ii) One or more acceptable sealed bids are received; or
(iii) When so stated in the notice of sale.
(c) Bidding in the auction will be limited to the tribe and to
those who submitted sealed bids at 75 percent or more of the appraised
value of the land being auctioned. At the conclusion of the auction,
the highest bidder must increase his deposit to not less than 10
percent of his auction bid.
Sec. 152.28 What happens after the bid closing?
(a) The apparent highest acceptable bid will be publicly announced.
The deposits submitted by unsuccessful bidders will be returned
immediately. The apparent successful bidder's deposit will be held in a
special account.
(b) If the highest bid received is less than the appraised fair
market value of the land, the Secretary, with the consent of the owner,
may accept that bid if:
(1) The amount approximates said appraised fair market value; and
(2) The amount is the highest price that may be realized.
(c) The Secretary will notify the apparent successful bidder that
the remainder of the purchase price must be submitted within 30 days.
(1) The Secretary may extend the time for payment of the balance
due upon showing of cause.
(2) If the balance due is not paid within the time allowed, the bid
will be rejected, and the apparent successful bidder's 10 percent
deposit will be forfeited to the landowner.
(d) The issuance of the patent or delivery of a deed to the
purchaser will not be authorized until the balance of the purchase
price has been paid. The fee patent may be ordered in cases where the
purchaser is obtaining a loan from an agency of the Federal Government,
and that agency has given the Secretary a commitment that the balance
due will be paid when the fee patent is issued.
Sec. 152.29 Can the Secretary reject bids or disapprove a sale?
Yes. The Secretary reserves the right to reject any and all bids
before or after the award or prior to the issuance of a patent or
delivery of a deed, when it has been determined the rejection is in the
best interests of the Indian owner.
Sec. 152.30 Can employees of Indian Affairs bid?
No. No person employed in Indian Affairs will directly or
indirectly bid, make, or prepare any bid, or assist any bidder in
preparing his bid. Sales between Indians, either of whom is an employee
of the U.S. Government, are governed by the provisions of part 140 of
this chapter (see 25 U.S.C. 68 and 441).
Sec. 152.31 Who pays for the cost of conveyance and fees?
(a) Under the Act of February 14, 1920 (41 Stat. 415), as amended
by the Act of March 1, 1933 (47 Stat. 1417; 25 U.S.C. 413), the
Secretary may collect from a purchaser reasonable fees for work
performed or expense incurred in the transaction. The amount collected
will be deposited to the credit of the United States as general fund
receipts, except as stated in paragraph (b) of the section.
(1) The amount of the fee will be $22.50 for each transaction.
(2) We may waive or reduce the fee to a lesser amount if justified.
(b) Subject to our approval, an alternate schedule of fees may be
established if the cost of the work performed or expenses incurred are
to be paid with tribal funds. Part of the fees may be credited to the
tribe if appropriate.
(c) The collection of cost from the tribe may be waived if the
tribe is the purchaser.
Sec. 152.32 Who pays irrigation fees and payments?
Under the Act of July 1, 1932 (47 Stat. 564; 25 U.S.C. 386a),
collection of all construction costs against any Indian-owned lands
within Indian irrigation projects is deferred as long as Indian title
has not been extinguished. This statute applies only where the land is
owned by Indians either in trust or restricted status.
(a) Any person, whether Indian or non-Indian, acquiring Indian
lands that are a part of an Indian Irrigation project must enter into
an agreement to:
(1) Pay the pro rata share of the construction of the project
chargeable to the land;
(2) Pay all construction costs that accrue in the future; and
(3) Pay all future charges assessable to the land which are based
on the annual cost of operation and maintenance of the irrigation
system.
(b) Any operation and maintenance charges that are delinquent when
Indian land is sold will be deducted from the proceeds of sale unless
other acceptable arrangements are made to provide for the payment prior
to the approval of the sale.
(c) A lien clause covering all unpaid irrigation construction
costs, past and future, will be inserted in the patent or other
instrument of conveyance issued to all purchasers of restricted or
trust lands that are under an Indian irrigation project.
Partitions in Kind of Inherited Allotments
Sec. 152.33 Can I partition my Indian lands?
(a) Land may be partitioned without an application if we find that
any one or more inherited trust allotments are capable of partition in
kind to the advantage of the heirs regardless of their competency.
Patents in fee will be issued to the competent heirs for the lands set
apart to them. The trust period will terminate in accordance with the
terms of the original patent or order of extension of the trust period
set out in the patent. (Act of May 18, 1916, (39 Stat. 127; 25 U.S.C.
378)). The authority contained in the Act of May 18, 1916, does not
apply to lands authorized to be sold by the Act of May 14, 1948, nor to
land held in restricted fee status.
(b) Heirs of a deceased allottee may submit a written application
on an approved form for a partition of their trust or restricted land.
If we approve the partition, new patents or deeds will be issued to the
heirs for the portions set aside to them. If title to the allotment is
held as restricted fee, a partition may be accomplished by the heirs
executing approved deeds to the other heirs for their respective
portions.
Mortgages and Deeds of Trust To Secure Loans to Indians
Sec. 152.34 Can I mortgage my land?
Yes. With the Secretary's approval, you may execute a mortgage or
deed of trust to your land. The Secretary will secure appraisal
information prior to approval of the mortgage or deed of trust. Such
lands will be subject to foreclosure or sale, according to the terms of
the mortgage or deed of trust, and in accordance with the laws of the
State in which the lands are located. For the purpose of foreclosure or
sale proceedings under this section, you will be regarded as vested
with unrestricted fee simple title to the lands (Act of March 29, 1956)
(70 Stat. 62; 25 U.S.C. 483a).
[[Page 34405]]
Sec. 152.35 Can I make a sale on a deferred payment plan?
Yes, when you and purchaser desire. The terms will be set out in a
memorandum of sale which constitutes a contract for payment in full and
delivery of title. The executed deed will be held by the superintendent
to be delivered only upon full compliance with the terms of sale.
Request for fee patent will be made only upon full compliance with the
terms of the sale. As required by the Act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat.
855), as amended (25 U.S.C. 372); the terms of the sale will require
the purchaser to pay not less than 10 percent of the purchase price in
advance. Terms for the payment of the remaining installment, plus
interest, must be acceptable to the Secretary and the Indian owner. If
the purchaser defaults on any deferred payment plan in the first or
subsequent payments, all payments, including interest, previously made
will be forfeited to the Indian owner.
Denials of Applications
Sec. 152.36 When does the Secretary deny approval of my application?
The Secretary denies any request under this part if a determination
shows that it will adversely affect the best interest of other Indians,
or the tribe.
Sec. 152.37 Am I notified of a denial?
Yes, the Secretary makes denials in a written letter. You have the
right to appeal the decision under part 2 of this chapter.
Receiving Information
Sec. 152.38 Who receives information regarding status of applications
for patents in fee, certificates of competency, or orders removing
restrictions of trust or restricted Indian lands?
(a) The status of applications by Indians for patents in fee,
certificates of competency, or orders removing restrictions must be
disclosed to:
(1) Employees of the Department of the Interior whose duties
require that the information be disclosed to them;
(2) The applicant or his attorney, upon request;
(3) Members of Congress on behalf of the applicant; and
(4) Owners of trust or restricted land whose property would be
affected by the termination of trust or restricted status of the land
covered by the application.
(b) All other persons, upon request and only after a patent in fee,
certificate of competency, or an order removing restrictions has been
issued, according to the following timeframes:
(1) 15 days after the fee patent has been issued by the Bureau of
Land Management;
(2) 15 days after issuance of a certificate of competency or order
removing restrictions; or
(3) After the application has been rejected, and you have been
notified.
Dated: June 10, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-16037 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.