issue-1996-05-14•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-14
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-14
issue-1996-05-14Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-14Proposed 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. 96-12081 Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Protein Derived From Ruminants Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24253-24256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12081]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 589
[Docket No. 96N-0135]
RIN 0910-AA91
Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed; Protein
Derived From Ruminants Prohibited in Ruminant Feed
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is soliciting comments
on the issue of using protein derived from ruminants (e.g., cattle,
sheep, goats, mule deer, and elk) in ruminant feed. Animal feed
containing protein derived from ruminants may contain the disease agent
that causes transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) in animals.
Epidemiological evidence gathered in the United Kingdom (U.K.) suggests
a link between an outbreak of ruminant TSE, specifically bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and feeding animals protein derived
from ruminants. In addition information from the U.K. also suggests
that exposure to BSE may explain some of the recent cases of variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (v-CJD) in the U.K. This action is being
taken to protect the health of animals and to reduce any risk which
might be faced by humans. FDA is requesting scientific and economic
information and other comments relating to the prohibition of ruminant
protein in ruminant feed.
DATES: Written comments by June 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Graber, Center For Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-220), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1724.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of August 29, 1994 (59 FR 44584) FDA
issued a proposed rule declaring that specified offal from adult (more
than 12 months of age) sheep and goats is not generally recognized as
safe for use in ruminant feed and is an unapproved food additive when
added to ruminant feed. The proposed rule defined ``specified offal''
as any tissue from the brain, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsil,
lymph nodes, or intestines of sheep or goats, or any processed product
that is reasonably expected to contain specified offal. Processed
products that may contain specified offal include, but are not limited
to, meat meal, meat and bone meal, animal byproduct meal, meat
byproducts, glandular meal, and cooked bone meal. Accordingly, in the
absence of an approved food additive regulation or investigational
exemption, the use in ruminant feed of ingredients containing specified
offal from adult sheep or goats would cause the feeds to be considered
adulterated within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the act). FDA proposed the action because the specified offal may
contain the agent that causes scrapie, a TSE of sheep and goats. Since
the proposal was issued, the agency has been evaluating the comments
submitted on the proposal, monitoring the scientific advances made in
understanding the interrelationships among the animal TSE's, and
participating in a number of national and international task force/
symposia to better understand the BSE epidemic. The actions that would
have been prohibited in the proposed rule are considered in this
advance notice of proposed rulemaking. If it is determined that some
action is necessary, the agency believes issuing an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) will hasten that process.
In the U. K., scrapie has been epidemiologically associated with
the occurrence of BSE, another form of TSE. The initial cases of BSE
may have been the result of feeding supplements to cattle that were
contaminated with prions from scrapie-infected sheep offal. Prions are
highly resistant to procedures that modify or destroy nucleic acids.
(Refs. 1 and 2). Prions are believed by many scientists to be the
agents responsible for TSE's, and they appear to be modified forms of
normal proteins.
BSE has been diagnosed in over 155,600 head of cattle from almost
33,000 herds in the U.K. No cases of BSE have been diagnosed in the
United States. BSE is postulated to have been spread in the U.K. among
cattle by the feeding of processed ruminant protein to cattle. A July
1988 U.K. ban on this feeding practice has resulted in a steady
reduction in the number of cases of BSE detected in cattle, with the
new cases occurring mainly in animals born before the ban was fully
implemented.
Ten cases of CJD have been identified in the U.K. in recent months
with a new neuropathological profile. Other consistent features that
are unusual include the young age of the cases (16 to 39 years old at
onset of clinical signs), clinical findings, and the absence of the
electroencephalogram features typical for CJD. Similar cases have not
been identified in other countries in the European surveillance system.
These 10 cases appear to represent a new variant of CJD (v-CJD), which
may be unique to the U.K. The appearance of these 10 cases of v-CJD
raises the possibility that they are causally linked to BSE. Although
this may be the most plausible explanation for these cases, a link with
BSE cannot be confirmed on the basis of this evidence alone. (Ref. 3).
Sporadic occurrences of spongiform encephalopathy in humans are known
to occur at a rate of 1 to 2 per million population worldwide. A group
of international experts convened in April 1996 by the World Health
Organization concluded that there is no definite link between BSE and
v-CJD, but that circumstantial evidence suggests exposure to BSE may be
the most likely explanation. Among other recommendations, the group
recommended that all countries should
[[Page 24254]]
ban the use of ruminant tissues in ruminant feed (Ref. 4).
II. Issues for Comment
No cases of BSE have been diagnosed in the United States. Despite
the fact that there is no problem with BSE in the United States, the
agency believes it would be prudent to solicit information and receive
comments on this issue. Therefore, the agency is assessing whether to
provide that protein derived from ruminants is not generally recognized
as safe for use as a ruminant feed or prior sanctioned for such and is
a food additive subject to section 409 of the act (21 U.S.C. 348).
Absent a determination that it is safe for use as a food additive under
section 409 of the act, the use in ruminant feed of ingredients
containing protein derived from ruminants would cause the feed to be
adulterated. Ruminant-derived protein could be defined as any feed
ingredient that is reasonably expected to contain proteinaceous
material that derives from ruminant species. Processed feed ingredients
that may contain ruminant-derived protein include, but are not limited
to, products meeting the following animal feed definitions: animal
byproduct meal, blood meal, cooked bone meal, glandular meal, meat and
bone meal, meat byproducts, and meat meal. The agency is prepared to
consider the exclusion of specific ruminant products from the
prohibition, such as milk products, blood products, fetal bovine serum,
and gelatin based on appropriate and adequate scientific information
which demonstrates no infectivity.
In addition, the agency is considering labeling requirements for
ruminant-derived proteins for enforcement purposes.
III. Agency Request for Information
FDA is soliciting comments on all aspects of this ANPRM, and
specifically requests comments on the following issues:
1. The occurrence in the United States of TSE's in animals.
2. Scientific information on how TSE's occur and are spread among
animals and among humans and what vectors might be involved.
3. Scientific information on the ecology of TSE agents, and the
epidemiology, etiology, and pathogenesis of TSE diseases.
4. Scientific information supporting the exclusion of any ruminant-
derived proteins from the proposed prohibition.
5. Establishment of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
(HACCP) for the rearing of ruminants, and rendering or other processing
of ruminant derived feed ingredients, that may reduce the need to
prohibit the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants.
6. Details of rendering or processing practices that may inactivate
the TSE agents and information and evidence which shows that these
practices are effective.
7. Data on the amount of material affected by this ruminant protein
to ruminant feed prohibition, specifically: (a) The total volume of the
processed feed ingredients that may contain ruminant-derived protein
which were produced in the United States in recent years, (b) details
of the total volume used for each of these ingredients in the rations
of the various animals in the United States, (c) information on the
percentage of the diet each ingredient
[[Page 24255]]
typically comprises for each species and what percentage of the total
volume is fed to each species, and (d) other information.
8. Economic and environmental adverse consequences or benefits
resulting from a ruminant protein to ruminant feed prohibition on: (a)
The farmer/producer, (b) the slaughter operation, (c) the rendering
industry, (d) the public, (e) the feed manufacturer, (f) other parties
that may be affected.
9. Potential mitigating factors that would lessen the economic and
environmental impact of the prohibition, specifically: (a)
Identification of nonfeed uses of products containing ruminant-derived
protein, (b) development of rendering or processing processes that
would allow the safe feed use of a portion of the prohibited feed
ingredient, (c) alternate disposal methods, and (d) other mitigating
factors.
10. Descriptive and incremental cost data for incremental tasks
required by the proposed change with respect to person-hours, type of
labor (professional, technical, and clerical), type of equipment to be
purchased, disposal costs, capital expenditures, loss of current
markets, expansion of alternative markets, etc.
11. Estimates of the average total cost of compliance (including
any expected reporting and recordkeeping costs) for both large and
small businesses in each affected industry segment. Descriptions and
numbers of small businesses affected in each sector.
12. Information which identifies and explains effective alternative
policy actions which would minimize any negative economic effects on
small businesses and the affected industry as a whole.
13. Estimates of the level of compliance with the voluntary ban on
feeding ruminant protein to ruminants announced by the livestock
industry on March 29, 1996.
14. Information on restrictions placed upon beef or sheep imports
by foreign countries that would directly affect U.S. beef or sheep
producers.
15. Identification of potential analytical methods that may be used
in detecting ruminant proteins in feed.
16. Labeling requirements (i.e., declaring the source of the animal
protein; a prohibition of use statement).
17. Development of antemortem tests to accurately determine if an
animal has a TSE.
18. Alternate actions the agency could take to prevent the spread
of TSE's among ruminants.
IV. Comments
Interested persons may, on or before June 13, 1996, submit to the
Dockets Management Branch (address above), written comments regarding
this ANPRM. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that
individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday.
This ANPRM is issued under sections 201, 402, 409, and 701 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, and 371)
and under the authority of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[[Page 24256]]
VI. References
The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. Prusiner, S. B. , ``Novel Proteinaceous Infectious Particles
Cause Scrapie,'' Science, 216:136-144, 1982.
2. Stahl, N. and S. B. Prusiner, ``Prions and Prion Proteins,''
FASEB Journal, 5:2799-2807, 1991.
3. Will, R. G. et al., ``A New Variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob
Disease in the UK,'' Lancet, 347, 921-925, 1996.
4. WHO press release, April 3, 1996, ``International Experts
Propose Measures to Limit Spread of BSE and Reduce Possible Human
Risk from Disease.''
Dated: May 8, 1996.
David A. Kessler,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 96-12081 Filed 5-9-96; 2:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12076 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Extension of Public Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24261-24262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12076]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5504-7]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Extension of Public Comment Period
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of intent for partial deletion of the RSR Corporation
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List; notice of extension
of the public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As requested by some members of the public, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is extending the public
comment period on the intent to delete the residential portions of the
RSR Corporation Superfund Site (RSR Site) known as Operable Unit (OU)
Nos. 1 and 2 from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL
constitutes Appendix B to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
EPA bases its proposal to delete OU Nos. 1 and 2 on the
determination by EPA and the State of Texas, through the
[[Page 24262]]
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), that all
appropriate actions under CERCLA have been implemented to protect human
health, welfare and the environment at OU Nos.1 and 2.
This partial deletion pertains only to OU Nos. 1 and 2 of the RSR
Site and does not include OU Nos. 3, 4 and 5. OU Nos. 3, 4 and 5 will
remain on the NPL, and response activities will continue at those OUs.
DATES: The EPA is extending the public comment period and will accept
comments concerning its proposal for partial deletion for an additional
thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Federal
Register and a newspaper of record.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Ms. Olivia Rodriguez Balandran
Community Relations Coordinator U.S. EPA, Region 6 (6SF-P) 1445 Ross
Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 1-800-533-3508 or (214) 665-6484.
Information Repositories
Comprehensive information on the RSR Site as well as information
specific to this proposed partial deletion is available for review at
EPA's Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas. The Administrative Records for
OU Nos. 1 and 2 and the Deletion Docket for this partial deletion are
maintained at the following RSR Site document/information repositories:
U.S. EPA, Region 6 Library, 12th Floor (6MD-II) 1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 (214) 665-6424 or 665-6427 hours of operation:
M-F 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Dallas Public Library, 2332 Singleton Blvd., Dallas, Texas 75212, (214)
670-6445, hours of operation: M and W 10 a.m.-6 p.m. T and Th 10 a.m.-8
p.m. Sat 10 a.m.-5 p.m.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12118 North IH 35,
Technical Park Center, Room 190, Building D, Austin, Texas 78753, (512)
239-2920, hours of operation: M-F 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carlos A. Sanchez, Project
Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 6 (6SF-AT), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733, (214) 665-8507.
Supplementary Information: This partial deletion of the RSR site is
proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and the Notice of Policy
Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities
List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995).
The proposal for partial deletion pertains to OU No. 1, which
includes all privately owned residential properties and residential
high risk areas, such as schools and day care centers, located in the
RSR site. In addition, this proposal for partial deletion pertains to
OU No. 2, which includes the public residential housing area located in
RSR Site that is currently owned by the Dallas Housing Authority (DHA).
EPA has issued no further action Records of Decision (RODs) for OU Nos.
1 and 2.
EPA, with concurrence from the State of Texas, has determined that
all appropriate CERCLA response actions have been completed at OU Nos.
1 and 2 and protection of human health and the environment has been
achieved in these areas. Therefore, EPA makes this proposal to delete
only OU Nos. 1 and 2 of the RSR Corporation Superfund Site from the
NPL.
Dated: May 7, 1996.
Approved By:
Myron O. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6.
[FR Doc. 96-12076 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12057 Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Inspection, Certification, and Standards)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24247-24249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12057]
========================================================================
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. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 24247]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR PART 51
[Docket Number FV-95-306]
Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Inspection,
Certification, and Standards)
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document would revise the regulations governing
inspection and certification for fresh fruits, vegetables and other
products by increasing the fees charged for the inspection of these
products at destination markets. These revisions are necessary in order
to recover, as nearly as practicable, the costs of performing
inspection services at destination markets under the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946.
DATES: Comments must be postmarked or courier dated on or before July
15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent in duplicate to the
Office of the Branch Chief, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Room 2049 South Building, Washington, DC
20090-6456. Comments should note the date and page number of this issue
of the Federal Register and will be made available for public
inspection in the office of the Branch Chief during regular business
hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Huttenlocker, at the above
address or call, (202) 720-0297.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule has been determined to be
not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866, and therefore
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive
effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which
must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), has certified that this
action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, (5 U.S.C.
601). The proposed rule reflects certain fee increases needed to
recover the costs of inspection services rendered in accordance with
the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) of 1946.
The AMA authorizes official inspection, grading, and certification
on a user-fee basis, of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other products
such as raw nuts, Christmas trees, and flowers. The AMA provides that
reasonable fees be collected from the user of the program services to
cover, as nearly as practicable, the costs of services rendered. This
proposal would amend the schedule for fees and charges for inspection
services rendered to the fresh fruit and vegetable industry to reflect
the costs currently associated with the program.
AMS regularly reviews these programs to determine if fees are
adequate. Employee salaries and benefits are major program costs that
account for approximately 86 percent of the total operating budget. A
general and locality salary increase for Federal employees, ranging
from 3.09 to 6.25 percent depending on locality, effective January
1995, has materially affected program costs. Another general and
locality salary increase, ranging from 2.39 to 2.87 percent depending
upon locality (amounting to approximately $253,000), was effective
January 1996; further standardization program costs must be paid for by
user fees.
While a concerted effort to cut costs resulted in overhead savings
of $350,000 in FY 95 over FY 94, the last fee increase of June 1994 did
not result in collection of enough revenue to cover all these increases
and still maintain an adequate reserve balance (four months of costs)
called for by Agency policy (AMS Directive 407.1) and prudent financial
management. Currently the Fresh Products Branch (FPB) trust fund
reserve balance for the market program is approximately $1 mil. under
the desired level of $3.9 mil. Further action is necessary to meet
rising costs and maintain adequate reserve balances. This action will
assist in moving the FPB trust fund toward a more adequate level and
will result in an estimated $614,000 in additional revenues. Projected
FY96 revenues for market inspection are $12.555 mil with costs
projected at $11.594 mil and a reserve of $3.093.
Based on the Agency's analysis of increased costs since 1994, AMS
proposes to increase the fees for destination market inspection
services. The following table compares current fees and charges with
proposed fees and charges for fresh fruit and vegetable inspection as
found in 7 CFR 51.38. Unless otherwise provided for by regulation or
written agreement between the applicant and the Administrator, the
charges in the schedule of fees as found in Sec. 51.38 are:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Current Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality and condition inspections of one to
four products each in quantities of 51 or
more packages and unloaded from the same
land or air conveyance:
Over a half carlot equivalent of each $74.............................. $78.
product.
Half carlot equivalent or less of each $62.............................. $65.
product.
For each additional lot of the same $12.............................. $13.
product.
Condition inspections of one to four
products each in quantities of 51 or more
packages and unloaded from the same land
or air conveyance:
Over a half carlot equivalent of each $62.............................. $65.
product.
[[Page 24248]]
Half carlot equivalent or less of each $57.............................. $60.
product.
For each additional lot of the same $12.............................. $13.
product.
Inspections of five or more products each
in quantities of 51 or more packages and
unloaded from the same land or air
conveyance:
For the first five products............ $264............................. $277.
For each additional product............ $37.............................. $39.
For each additional lot of any of the $12.............................. $13.
same product.
Inspections of products each in quantities
of 50 or less packages unloaded from the
same land or air conveyance:
For each product....................... $37.............................. $39.
For each additional lot of any of the $12.............................. $13.
same product.
Dock-side inspections of an individual
product unloaded directly from the same
ship:
For each package weighing less than 15 1 cent........................... No change.
pounds.
For each package weighing 15 to 29 2 cents.......................... No change.
pounds.
For each package weighing 30 or more 3 cents.......................... No change.
pounds.
For each additional lot of any of the $12.............................. $13.
same product.
Minimum charge per individual product...... $74.............................. $78.
Inspections performed for other purposes $37 per hour..................... $39 per hour.
during the grader's regularly scheduled
work week.
Overtime or holiday premium rate for all $18.50 per hour.................. $19.50 per hour.
inspections performed outside the
hourgrader's regularly scheduled work week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 51
Agricultural commodities, Food grades and standards, Fruits, Nuts,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Trees, Vegetables.
PART 51--[AMENDED]
For reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 51 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Part 51 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.
2. Section 51.38 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 51.38 Basis for fees and rates.
(a) When performing inspections of product unloaded directly from
land or air transportation, the charges shall be determined on the
following basis:
(1) For products in quantities of 51 or more packages:
(i) Quality and condition inspection of 1 to 4 products unloaded
from the same conveyance:
(A) $78 for over a half carlot equivalent of an individual product.
(B) $65 for a half carlot equivalent or less of an individual
product.
(C) $13 for each additional lot of the same product.
(ii) Condition only inspection of 1 to 4 products unloaded from the
same conveyance:
(A) $65 for over a half carlot equivalent of an individual product.
(B) $60 for a half carlot equivalent or less of an individual
product.
(C) $13 for each additional lot of the same product.
(iii) Quality and condition inspection and/or condition only
inspection of 5 or more products unloaded from the same conveyance:
(A) $277 for the first 5 products.
(B) $39 for each additional product.
(C) $13 for each additional lot of any of the same product.
(2) For quality and condition inspection and/or condition only
inspection of products in quantities of 50 or less packages unloaded
from the same conveyance:
(i) $39 for each individual product.
(ii) $13 for each additional lot of any of the same product.
(b) When performing inspections of palletized products unloaded
directly from sea transportation or when palletized product is first
offered for inspection before being transported from the dock-side
facility, charges shall be determined on the following basis:
(1) For each package inspected according to the following rates:
(i) 1 cent per package weighing less than 15 pounds;
(ii) 2 cents per package weighing 15 to 29 pounds; and
(iii) 3 cents per package weighing 30 or more pounds.
(2) $13 for each additional lot of any of the same product.
(3) A minimum charge of $78 for each product inspected.
(c) When performing inspections of products from sea containers
unloaded directly from sea transportation or when palletized products
unloaded directly from sea transportation are not offered for
inspection at dockside, the car-lot fees in Sec. 51.38(a) shall apply.
(d) When performing inspections for Government agencies, or for
purposes other than those prescribed in the preceding paragraphs,
including weight-only and freezing-only inspections, fees for
inspection shall be based on the time consumed by the grader in
connection with such inspections, computed at a rate of $39 an hour:
Provided, That:
(1) Charges for time shall be rounded to the nearest half hour;
(2) The minimum fee shall be two hours for weight-only inspections,
and one- half hour for other inspections;
(3) When weight certification is provided in addition to quality
and/or condition inspection, a one-hour charge shall be added to the
carlot fee.
(4) When inspections are performed to certify product compliance
for Defense Personnel Support Centers, the daily or weekly charge shall
be determined by multiplying the total hours consumed to conduct
inspections by the hourly rate. The daily or weekly charge shall be
prorated among applicants by multiplying the daily or weekly charge by
the percentage of product passed and/or failed for each applicant
during that day or week. Waiting time and overtime charges shall be
charged directly to the applicant responsible for their incurrence.
(e) When performing inspections at the request of the applicant
during periods which are outside the graders regularly scheduled work
week, a charge for overtime or holiday work shall be made at the rate
of $19.50 per hour or portion thereof in addition to the carlot
equivalent fee, package charge, or hourly charge specified in this
subpart. Overtime or holiday charges for time shall be rounded to the
nearest half hour.
(f) When an inspection is delayed because product is not available
or readily accessible, a charge for waiting time shall be made at the
prevailing hourly rate in addition to the carlot equivalent fee,
package charge, or hourly charge specified in this subpart. Waiting
time shall be rounded to the nearest half hour.
[[Page 24249]]
Dated: May 8, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12057 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12046 Radio Broadcasting Services; Ely, Hermantown and Pine City, MN
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12046]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-105; RM-8793]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Ely, Hermantown and Pine City, MN
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Harbor
Broadcasting, Inc. requesting the substitution of Channel 221C3 for
Channel 221A at Hermantown, Minnesota, and modification of its
construction permit for Channel 221A to specify operation on Channel
221C3. The coordinates for Channel 221C3 are 46-49-30 and 92-17-00. To
accommodate the upgrade at Hermantown, we shall also propose to
substitute Channel 233A for Channel 221A at Ely, Minnesota, and modify
the license for Station WELY-FM accordingly at coordinates 47-53-40 and
91-51-50 and substitute Channel 265A for Channel 221A at Pine City,
Minnesota, and modify the license for Station WCMP-FM at coordinates
45-54-07 and 92-57-25. Since the communities of Ely, Hermantown and
Pine City are all located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S-
Canadian border, Canadian concurrence will be requested for these
allotments. We shall propose to modify the construction permit for
Channel 221A at Hermantown, Minnesota, in accordance with Section
1.420(g) of the Commission's Rules and will not accept competing
expressions of interest for the use of the channel or require
petitioner to demonstrate the availaility of an additional equivalent
class channel for use by such parties.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 28, 1996, and reply
comments on or before July 13, 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: Timothy E. Welch, Hill &
Welch, 1330 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 113, Washington, DC 20036.
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. 96-105, adopted April 22, 1996,
and released May 7, 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.
Andrew J. Rhodes,
Acting Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-12046 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12044 Radio Broadcasting Services; Hopkinsville, KY
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24262-24263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12044]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24263]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-106; RM-8797]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Hopkinsville, KY
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by
Rockin' C Broadcasting proposing the allotment of Channel 248A at
Hopkinsville, Kentucky, as the community's third local commercial FM
transmission service. Channel 248A can be allotted to Hopkinsville in
compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation
requirements with a site restriction of 10 kilometers (6.3 miles) south
to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed site of Station WHRZ(FM),
Channel 249A, Providence, Kentucky. The coordinates for Channel 248A at
Hopkinsville are North Latitude 36-46-18 and West Longitude 87-28-28.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 1, 1996 and reply
comments on or before July 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Carol
B. Ingram, President, Rockin' C Broadcasting, 212 Turtle Creek Drive,
Batesville, Mississippi 38606 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-106, adopted April 29,
1996, and released May 8, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Andrew J. Rhodes,
Acting Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-12044 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12034 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24263-24265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12034]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 88-06, Notice 25]
RIN 2127-AE49
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection--
Light Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition from Toyota Motor Corporate
Services of North America (``Toyota'') for reconsideration of the
agency's final rule that extended Safety Standard 214's dynamic side
impact testing requirements to light trucks, multipurpose passenger
vehicles and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000
(lb) or less. Toyota requested that instead of using GVWR as the
attribute for identifying vehicles to be excluded from the new
requirements, NHTSA should exclude vehicles based on the height of
their seating reference point. The agency is denying the petition
because NHTSA believes Toyota's approach would exclude some vehicles
that are and should remain subject to the dynamic side impact
requirements.
[[Page 24264]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For nonlegal issues: Dr. William Fan,
Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-14, telephone (202) 366-4922.
For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20,
(202) 366-2992. Both may be reached at the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 28, 1995, NHTSA amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 214, ``Side Impact Protection'' (49 CFR Sec. 571.214), to
extend the standard's dynamic testing requirements to light trucks,
multipurpose passenger vehicles (hereinafter referred to as ``MPVs''),
and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 lb or less. (This group of vehicles is
hereinafter referred to as ``LTVs''). The rule resulted from a
rulemaking on LTV side impact safety that the agency was required to
commence pursuant to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 (sections
2500-2509 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(``ISTEA'')).
Under the rule, an LTV must provide protection to an occupant's
thoracic and pelvic regions, as measured by the accelerations
registered on an instrumented side impact dummy (SID), in a full-scale
crash test. In the test, the LTV (known as the ``target'' LTV) is
struck in the side by a moving deformable barrier (MDB) simulating a
passenger car. The SID is instrumented to measure accelerations in the
ribs and spine and in the pelvic cavity. The values measured in the
ribs and spine are used in determining the ``Thoracic Trauma Index
(TTI(d)),'' an injury criterion that measures the risk of thoracic
injury of an occupant in a side impact. The value measured in the
pelvic cavity assesses the potential risk for pelvic injury. To meet
Standard 214's side impact protection requirements, the TTI(d) and
pelvis measurements must not exceed specified maximum values. For the
thorax, TTI(d) must not exceed 85 g, and for the pelvis, peak lateral
acceleration must not exceed 130 g's.
The rule extended to LTVs virtually all of the dynamic side impact
provisions of Standard 214 that currently apply to passenger cars. LTVs
will be dynamically tested with the same MDB used to test passenger
cars to the side impact requirements of Standard 214, under the same
test conditions and procedures. (One minor variation relates to the
procedure for specifying where on the target LTV the MDB must first
contact in the dynamic test. See 60 FR at 38758-38759.) The
instrumented SIDs used in the passenger car test will be used to test
LTVs, and used in the same manner, placed in the front and rear seats
on the side of the vehicle struck by the MDB. Performance criteria for
the TTI(d) and pelvic acceleration measured by the SID are the same as
those specified for passenger cars, with one exception. Two-door LTVs
have an 85 g limit for the TTI(d), while two-door passenger cars have a
90 g limit.
NHTSA determined that the passenger car provisions are appropriate
for LTVs because both passenger cars and LTVs are driven in the same
environment and thus have the same exposure to striking vehicles.
However, NHTSA acknowledged that the extension of the passenger car
requirements resulted in few estimated benefits since all current LTVs
already meet the requirements. Nevertheless, the agency decided that
the extension was warranted given that increasing numbers of LTVs are
used as passenger vehicles and that the percentage of LTVs is likely to
increase significantly in the future. Further, information indicates
that small LTVs, which are potentially vulnerable in side crashes, will
comprise much of the LTV fleet by the year 2000. The extension will
prevent any future LTV from providing side impact safety performance
that is inferior to that of passenger cars.
The decision to specify the barrier currently specified for
passenger cars led the agency in turn to limit the extension of the
rule to LTVs, thus excluding multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks
and buses with a GVWR over 6,000 lb. This limit was adopted because the
barrier simulates side crashes in which occupants of the vehicles with
higher GVWRs would be relatively unlikely to suffer death or serious
injury. NHTSA also believed inclusion of vehicles with GVWRs over 6,000
lb would not result in any safety improvements since those vehicles
would likely meet the adopted dynamic requirements without any
modification. In the interest of avoiding unnecessarily requiring that
those vehicles be certified to the dynamic side impact protection
requirements, NHTSA did not extend the rule to larger vehicles. (60 FR
at 38756.)
Petition for Reconsideration
Using a similar rationale of avoiding unnecessary regulatory and
compliance test burdens and costs, Toyota petitioned to exclude LTVs
``whose seating reference points (SgRP) are 700 mm or greater.'' (The
agency assumes this refers to the SgRP for the driver's position,
although the petitioner did not specify the position.) Toyota believed
that those vehicles will meet the new requirements without any problem
because, according to the petitioner, the MDB will not impact the
dummies' rib cage, where accelerometers are positioned. Toyota stated
that ``NHTSA's own data indicates that the highest seating reference
point of those vehicles (which did not meet the passenger car standard)
was 655 mm.'' The petitioner said that it conducted tests of five of
its current models. According to Toyota, all five passed the injury
criteria. The only model that had a ``marginal'' TTI(d), as compared to
the prescribed limit, was the vehicle that had an H-point height of
less than 700 mm.
Agency Decision
The agency is denying Toyota's petition because NHTSA believes
Toyota's approach would exclude some vehicles that are and should
remain subject to the dynamic side impact requirements. The agency
believes Toyota might not be correct in suggesting that all vehicles
with a SgRP height of 700 mm or greater would readily pass the
standard.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NHTSA notes that while Toyota used SgRP in its petition, the
agency used the H-point in assessing the merits of Toyota's request.
``SgRP'' is defined in 49 CFR Sec. 571.3 as ``the unique design H-
point as defined in [the Society of Automotive Engineers] SAE J1100
(June 1984),'' and which also conforms to other factors. ``H-point''
is defined in 571.3 as the hinged hip point described in SAE
Recommended Practice J826. For the purposes of this action, these
two terms are essentially the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that during the development of the final rule
extending Standard 214's dynamic requirements to LTVs, NHTSA considered
excluding vehicles with an H-point height of 685 mm, which is
approximately the height suggested by Toyota. After analyzing available
data, the agency decided against this approach. Adjusted test data from
a multiple linear regression model (developed during the 214 rulemaking
to study the effects of barrier weight and height on SID responses)
indicated that some LTVs whose H-point heights are greater than 700 mm
might not be able to pass the new dynamic side impact requirements.
(See pages IV-2, 3 and 4 of the agency's Preliminary Economic
Assessment, June 1994, for the rulemaking proposal for the July 1995
rule. Docket 88-06-N23-001.) NHTSA tested seven LTVs that had an H-
point height of 27 inches (686 mm) or greater, impacting them with
barriers that were heavier and higher than the adopted one. Applying
the regression model to
[[Page 24265]]
these cases enabled NHTSA to estimate the TTI(d) and pelvic
acceleration values that would have been obtained for the vehicles had
they been tested with the barrier adopted by the final rule. The
analysis indicates that, contrary to Toyota's assertion about
widespread compliance of vehicles with SgRP are 700 mm or greater,
three of the seven vehicles (`93 Plymouth Voyager, `89 Ford Ranger XLT,
`89 Suzuki Sidekick) may require modifications to ensure compliance
with the TTI(d) and pelvic g limits.
NHTSA also does not agree with Toyota's assertion that vehicles
whose SgRP point is higher than 700 mm would necessarily pass Standard
214 due to the position of the SID's lower rib relative to the MDB in
the crash test. The lower rib acceleration is not the only response
used to determine the compliance of the vehicle. Accelerations of the
upper spine, upper rib and pelvis also play an important role in
determining compliance. Toyota did not address the effect that SgRP
height might have on responses of those components. Further, the
relative height between the MDB and the SgRP of the target vehicle is
one of many factors that affect the vehicle performance during a side
impact crash test. The vehicle weight, clearance between the side
interior and the SID, side structure and/or padding properties are all
important factors that could affect whether small LTVs, in particular,
pass the performance criteria. Toyota did not address those factors
either.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA denies Toyota's petition for
reconsideration.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: May 8, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-12034 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12033 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24265-24267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12033]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 96-46; Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AF91
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Seat Belt Assembly
Anchorages
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a petition from Volvo, this notice proposes to
require manufacturers to certify the anchorages of a voluntarily
installed Type 2 safety belt (lap/shoulder belt) to the anchorage
requirements for a mandatorily installed Type 2 safety belt. Currently,
if only a Type 1 safety belt (lap belt) is required for a particular
seating position, a manufacturer must certify the anchorage(s) for the
belt(s) it installs at that position to the anchorage requirements for
a Type 1 belt, even if the manufacturer installs a Type 2 safety belt
at that location.
DATES: Comments must be received by July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The following persons at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590:
For non-legal issues: Clarke B. Harper, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards, NPS-11, telephone (202) 366-2264, facsimile (202) 366-4329,
electronic mail ``[email protected]''.
For legal issues: Mary Versailles, Office of the Chief Counsel,
NCC-20, telephone (202) 366-2992, facsimile (202) 366-3820, electronic
mail ``[email protected]''.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210,``Seat Belt
Anchorages,'' requires the anchorages for mandatorily installed Type 2
safety belts to withstand the simultaneous application of a 3,000-pound
load applied to the lap belt anchorages and a separate 3,000-pound load
to the shoulder belt anchorages. When only a Type 1 safety belt is
required, Standard No. 210 requires the anchorages for the lap belt to
withstand a 5,000-pound load. If a manufacturer voluntarily installs a
Type 2 safety belt at a seating position for which only a Type 1 safety
belt is required, the lap belt portion is required to withstand a
5,000-pound load. but the shoulder belt portion is subject to no
requirement.
Currently, manufacturers need only install a Type 1 safety belt at
the following seating positions:
The passenger seats in school buses with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less;
All seats in vehicles, except passenger seats in buses,
including school buses, with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds; and,
All seats, except forward-facing outboard seats, in all
other vehicles.
Volvo's Petition
On May 18, 1995, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. (Volvo)
petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 210. Volvo stated that it
subjects the anchorages of its voluntarily installed Type 2 safety
belts to two different tests. Pursuant to Standard No. 210, it tests
the anchorages of the lap belt portion of those belts for compliance
with the anchorage requirements for a Type 1 safety belt. In addition,
for quality control purposes, it tests the anchorages of its
voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts for compliance with the
requirements for the anchorages of mandatorily installed Type 2 safety
belts. To reduce the amount of testing, Volvo requests that the
Standard be amended to give manufacturers a choice of certifying the
anchorages of a voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belt either to the
requirements for a Type 1 safety belt anchorage or to the requirements
for a Type 2 safety belt anchorage. The adoption of its request would
allow Volvo to cease the separate testing of the lap belt portion of
its voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts.
Agency Proposal
While Volvo asked NHTSA to allow manufacturers an option, NHTSA is
proposing to require manufacturers that voluntarily install an integral
Type 2 safety belt to certify the anchorages of that belt to the
requirements for Type 2 safety belt anchorages.
First, there does not appear to be a reason for testing non-
dynamically tested integral Type 2 safety belt anchorages differently
based on whether the installation is mandatory or voluntary.
Second, the load applied by an occupant to the lap belt portion of
a Type 2 safety belt would be lower than the load applied by the same
occupant to a Type 1 safety belt, since part of the occupant's load
would be borne by the shoulder belt. Thus, if the load requirements for
the lap belt anchorages of a mandatory Type 2 safety belt are
appropriate to meet the need for motor vehicle safety, it appears that
the current requirements for the lap belt anchorages of a voluntarily
installed Type 2 safety belt are excessive.
Finally, in the past, NHTSA has experienced difficulties in
enforcing standards that give manufacturers the option of complying
with any one of a set of alternative requirements. Generally, NHTSA
will ask a manufacturer to specify which of the alternatives the agency
should apply in a compliance test. In some instances when agency
testing indicates that a
[[Page 24266]]
vehicle has an apparent non-compliance with the alternative specified
by the manufacturer, the manufacturer has argued that the vehicle
should nevertheless be regarded as being in compliance since it would
comply with another alternative. NHTSA has then had to incur the
expense of a second compliance test to determine whether it should
continue with enforcement proceedings. This proposal would prevent such
an enforcement problem with respect to anchorages for voluntarily
installed Type 2 safety belts.
International Harmonization
This proposal would harmonize this aspect of Standard No. 210 with
the counterpart regulation of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE
R14, ``Safety-Belt Anchorages''). ECE14 specifies two options for seats
equipped with lap and shoulder belt anchorages. The first option
consists of two tests which apparently address the possibility that
while such a seat might be initially equipped with only a Type 1 belt,
it might at some later point be equipped with a Type 2 safety belt.
Test 1 simultaneously subjects the anchorages for the lap and shoulder
belt portions to loads similar to the 3,000 pound loads in Standard No.
210. Test 2 subjects the anchorages for the lap belt portion to a load
similar to the 5,000 pound load in Standard No. 210. The second option
consists of only the first of these tests. If a Type 2 safety belt is
initially installed at the seating position, ECE R14 specifies
compliance with the second option. Under those circumstances, NHTSA's
proposal specifies essentially the same test.
Cost Savings and Safety Impacts
The adoption of this proposal could result in minor reductions in
manufacturing costs and compliance costs. If a manufacturer voluntarily
installed a Type 2 safety belt, it might decide to install lap belt
anchorages capable of withstanding a 3,000 pound load, but not the
5,000 pound load currently required. NHTSA believes that the cost
savings from such a design change would be less than $1 per vehicle. In
addition, manufacturers which currently certify the anchorages of
voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belts to the requirements of
Standard No. 210 for Type 1 safety belts and also choose to test those
anchorages to the requirements for Type 2 anchorages would save
approximately $1,400 per vehicle model as a result of not having to
conduct a test to certify to the Type 1 anchorage requirements. For
Volvo, this could result in a total annual cost savings from both
design and test changes of approximately $100,000.
Approximately 90 percent of all trucks with a GVWR of more than
10,000 pounds have Type 2 safety belts installed at the front outboard
seats, even though the minimum requirement is for a Type 1 safety belt.
For this vehicle population, the annual cost savings from design
changes could be approximately $770,000. This figure does not include
the $1,400 for each certification test. The number of voluntarily-
installed lap/shoulder belts is increasing as other manufacturers are
beginning to install lap/shoulder safety belts at seating positions
that are only required to have a lap belt.
While manufacturers might be able to install less strong lap belt
anchorages under the proposed change, NHTSA does not believe there will
be any net loss of benefits. Standard No. 210 tests the lap belt
anchorages of a voluntarily installed Type 2 safety belt as if the lap
belt were the only belt present at the seating position and by itself
would have to sustain the entire load of the occupant. However, the
proposal would require the shoulder belt anchorage to help sustain the
load. Further, lap/shoulder belts offer greater protection than lap
only belts. In the 1989 final rule requiring lap/shoulder belts at all
forward-facing outboard seating positions in passenger cars, NHTSA
estimated that rear-seat lap-only belts are 32 percent effective in
reducing the risk of death, while rear-seat lap/shoulder belts were 41
percent effective (54 FR 25275, 25276; June 14, 1989). Therefore, there
should not be any net loss of strength or benefits even if
manufacturers install less strong lap belt anchorages.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. As explained
above, this proposal could result in an annual savings of approximately
one million dollars.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The anticipated slight savings would not affect the
purchase of new vehicles by small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the
[[Page 24267]]
complete submission, including purportedly confidential business
information, should be submitted to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
street address given above, and seven copies from which the purportedly
confidential information has been deleted should be submitted to the
Docket Section. A request for confidentiality should be accompanied by
a cover letter setting forth the information specified in the agency's
confidential business information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that 49 CFR Part
571 be amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 of Title 49 would continue
to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. 571.210 would be amended by revising sections S4.2.1 and S4.2.2
to read as follows:
Sec. 571.210 Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.
* * * * *
S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.5, and except for side-facing
seats, the anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for
any of the following seat belt assemblies shall withstand a 5,000 pound
force when tested in accordance with S5.1 of this standard:
(a) Type 1 seat belt assembly; and
(b) Lap belt portion of either a Type 2 or automatic seat belt
assembly that is equipped with a detachable upper torso belt.
S4.2.2 Except as provided in S4.2.5, the anchorages, attachment
hardware, and attachment bolts for any of the following seat belt
assemblies shall withstand a 3,000 pound force applied to the lap belt
portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 3,000 pound
force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly,
when tested in accordance with S5.2 of this standard:
(a) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are installed to
comply with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208); and
(b) Type 2 and automatic seat belt assemblies that are voluntarily
installed at a seating position required to have a Type 1 seat belt
assembly by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208).
* * * * *
Issued on May 8, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-12033 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12027 Fawn Shillinglaw; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24249-24250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12027]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 72
[Docket No. PRM-72-3]
Fawn Shillinglaw; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by Fawn
Shillinglaw. The petition has been docketed by the Commission and has
been assigned Docket No. PRM-72-3. The petitioner requests that the NRC
amend its regulations which govern independent storage of spent nuclear
fuel in dry storage casks to require that the safety analysis report
for a cask design fully conforms with the associated NRC safety
evaluation report and certificate of compliance before NRC
certification of the cask design. The petitioner also requests that the
revision date and number of a safety analysis report be specified
whenever that report is referenced in documents. The petitioner
believes that her proposal would eliminate confusion among licensees,
vendors, fabricators, and others who often refer to only the safety
analysis report as the relevant document when there may be revisions
that must be included to ensure compliance with the NRC safety
evaluation report and certificate of compliance. The petitioner also
believes that the NRC must clarify the process for modification of a
safety analysis report after a cask has been certified.
DATES: Submit comments by July 29, 1996. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of
consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Docketing and Service
Branch.
Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland,
between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
For a copy of the petition, write: Division of Freedom of
Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
For information regarding electronic submission of comments, see
the language in the Supplementary Information section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555. Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a petition for
rulemaking submitted by Fawn Shillinglaw in the form of two letters
addressed to Chairman Jackson dated December 9 and December 29, 1995. A
determination by the Office of the General Counsel on March 5, 1996,
specified that the issues presented would be treated as a petition for
rulemaking. The petition was docketed as PRM-72-3 on March 14, 1996.
The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR
Part 72 entitled, ``Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage
of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.''
Specifically, the petitioner requests that 10 CFR Part 72 be
amended to require that the safety analysis report (SAR) for a spent
fuel dry storage cask design fully conforms with the associated NRC
safety evaluation report (SER) and certificate of compliance (COC)
before NRC certification of the cask design. The petitioner also
requests that 10 CFR Part 72 be amended to require that the revision
date and number of an SAR be specified whenever that report is
referenced in documents. The petitioner believes there is confusion
among licensees, vendors, fabricators, and others who often refer to
only the safety analysis report as if it is the only relevant document
when there may be revisions that must be included to prevent
discrepancies between versions of the SAR and the NRC SER and COC for a
specific cask design.
The petitioner cites the VSC-24 cask, designed by Sierra Nuclear
Corporation, as an example where revisions to the SAR occurred after
the NRC SER and COC were issued. The petitioner believes that no
procedures are currently in place to permit a cask vendor to make
changes to its SAR after issuance of the NRC SER and COC. The
petitioner also believes that this situation creates confusion and the
possibility that an SAR version is being used that directly contradicts
SER and COC requirements. The petitioner asks for an explanation of the
process that the NRC used for allowing changes to be made by the vendor
to the VSC-24 cask after NRC certification, what were those changes,
and how this was accomplished without rulemaking. The petitioner also
recommends that the NRC make cask unloading procedures publicly
available.
The NRC is soliciting public comment on the petition for rulemaking
submitted by Fawn Shillinglaw that requests the changes to the
regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 as discussed below.
Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner notes that the regulations in 10 CFR Part 72
establish requirements and criteria for the certification of spent fuel
dry storage cask designs by the NRC. The petitioner is concerned that
no process exists in the regulations for a cask vendor to make changes
to a generically approved and certified dry storage cask design. The
petitioner cites the VSC-24 cask as an example where NRC certification
was issued for a design that was modified after the actual
certification took place. The petitioner notes that NRC certified the
design for the VSC-24 cask on May 7, 1993. The vendor of the VSC-24
cask, Sierra Nuclear Corporation (Sierra), agreed to submit a revision
to its SAR (Rev. OA) for this cask in July 1993, about 3 months after
NRC certification, because changes were necessary to meet requirements
contained in the NRC SER and COC.
The petitioner states that this revision was never completed and
cites an NRC letter to Sierra dated November 28, 1994, which indicated
that the SAR still needed modification to eliminate contradictions and
differences between the VSC-24 cask SAR and the NRC SER and COC. The
petitioner cites a Sierra submittal dated June 5, 1995, as the first
instance where a revision (Rev. 0AA) appears with the necessary
changes. The petitioner also cites a letter from NRC to Sierra which
states that Revs. O and OA insert material into the SAR that NRC asked
Sierra to perform. However, the petitioner believes that the material
appears in the licensing record but not in the SAR. The petitioner
indicates that constant references to the SAR exist in various
documents but is concerned that the references do not specify the
revision number. The petitioner believes this creates confusion and the
possibility that an SAR version is being
[[Page 24250]]
used that may even contradict or differ from SER and COC requirements.
The petitioner has concluded that a final SAR for a spent fuel dry
storage cask design should be accepted which completely fulfills all
NRC SER and COC requirements before the cask is certified. The
petitioner also believes that the NRC must address how the final vendor
SAR can be modified as needed after a cask design is certified.
Currently, the only way an SAR can be amended is through rulemaking.
The petitioner has also concluded that the SAR revision number and date
should be required whenever that document is referenced to eliminate
confusion and prevent a situation where an SAR does not meet NRC SER
and COC requirements. Lastly, the petitioner is concerned that the NRC
is withholding cask unloading procedures from the public and recommends
that the NRC make these procedures publicly available. The petitioner
cites an example of a faulty dry cask at the Palisades facility where
the licensee has been waiting to have a final unloading procedure
approved by the NRC. The petitioner has concluded that dry cask storage
issues should be addressed and resolved by the NRC to set the proper
precedent for the national nuclear waste disposal program.
Electronic Submission of Comments
Comments may be submitted electronically, in either ASCII text or
WordPerfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC
Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The bulletin board may be
accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of the commonly
available communications software packages, or directly via Internet.
Background documents on this rulemaking are also available for
downloading and viewing on the bulletin board.
If using a personal computer and modem, the NRC rulemaking
subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll free
number (800) 303-9672. Communication software parameters should be set
as follows: parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1).
Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation, the NRC rulemaking subsystem
can then be accessed by selecting the ``Rules Menu'' option from the
``NRC Main Menu.'' Users will find the ``FedWorld Online User's
Guides'' particularly helpful. Many NRC subsystems and data bases also
have a ``Help/Information Center'' option that is tailored to the
particular subsystem.
The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can also be accessed by a direct dial
phone number for the main FedWorld BBS, (703) 321-3339, or by using
Telnet via Internet: fedworld.gov. If using (703) 321-3339 to contact
FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld
menu by selecting the ``Regulatory, Government Administration and State
Systems,'' then selecting ``Regulatory Information Mall.'' At that
point, a menu will be displayed that has an option ``U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission'' that will take you to the NRC Online main menu.
The NRC Online area also can be accessed directly by typing ``/go nrc''
at a FedWorld command line. If you access NRC from FedWorld's main
menu, you may return to FedWorld by selecting the ``Return to
FedWorld'' option from the NRC Online Main Menu. However, if you access
NRC at FedWorld by using NRC's toll-free number, you will have full
access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the main
FedWorld system.
If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and
menus, including the Rules Menu. Although you will be able to download
documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or
upload files (comments). If you contact FedWorld using FTP, all files
can be accessed and downloaded but uploads are not allowed; all you
will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher look).
An index file listing all files within a subdirectory, with
descriptions, is available. There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP
access.
Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the World Wide Web,
like FTP, that mode only provides access for downloading files and does
not display the NRC Rules Menu.
For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis,
Systems Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555,
telephone (301) 415-5780; e-mail AXD[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of May, 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 96-12027 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12021 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24250-24253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12021]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-25-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the supersedure of an existing
airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 767
series airplanes, that currently requires inspections to detect
cracking and corrosion of the aft trunnion of the outer cylinder of the
main landing gear (MLG) and various follow-on actions. That action also
provides for the optional termination of the inspections by repairing
the outer cylinder and installing new aft trunnion bushings. That AD
was prompted by reports of failure of several MLG due to fractures of
the aft trunnion outer cylinders. The actions specified by that AD are
intended to prevent the collapse of the MLG due to stress corrosion
cracking of the aft trunnion of the outer cylinder. This proposed
action would require operators to implement the previously optional
terminating action.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-25-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James G. Rehrl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2783; fax (206) 227-1181.
[[Page 24251]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-25-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-NM-25-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On February 22, 1996, the FAA issued AD 96-03-02 R1, amendment 39-
9526 (61 FR 7694, February 29, 1996). [AD 96-03-02 R1 was issued as a
correction to AD 96-03-02, amendment 39-9497 (61 FR 3652, February 1,
1996)]. That AD is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series
airplanes, which requires various inspections to detect cracking and
corrosion of the aft trunnion and various follow-on actions. That
action was prompted by reports of failure of several main landing gears
(MLG) due to fracture of the aft trunnion outer cylinder. The
requirements of that AD are intended to prevent the collapse of the MLG
due to stress corrosion cracking of the aft trunnion of the outer
cylinder.
That AD also provided for an optional action which, if
accomplished, would constitute terminating action for the required
inspections. In the preamble of that AD, the FAA indicated that this
optional action, consisting of repair of the outer cylinder and
replacement of the existing bushings with new bushings, was considered
``interim action'' and that further rulemaking action to mandate the
repair and replacement was being considered. The FAA also indicated
that the proposed compliance time for the replacement was sufficiently
long so that notice and public comment were practicable. As a follow-on
action from that determination, the FAA is now proposing to mandate the
previously optional repair and replacement.
Explanation of Relevant Service Information
The FAA has previously reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-32A0148, dated December 21, 1995, which describes
procedures for repair of the outer cylinder and replacement of the
existing bushings of the aft trunnion and crossbolt of the MLG with new
bushings. Accomplishment of this repair and replacement eliminates the
need for certain follow-on actions that are described in Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated November 30, 1995, which was referenced in
AD 96-03-02 R1 as the appropriate source of service information.
FAA's Conclusions
The FAA has determined that accomplishment of the repair and
replacement specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0148 will
positively address the unsafe condition identified as the failure of
the MLG due to stress corrosion cracking of the aft trunnion of the
outer cylinder.
Explanation of the Proposed Rule
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would supersede AD 96-03-02 R1. It would continue to
require various inspections to detect cracking and corrosion of the aft
trunnion of the outer cylinder of the MLG, and require various follow-
on actions. The proposed AD also would require repair of the outer
cylinder and replacement of the bushings in the aft trunnion and
crossbolt of the MLG with new bushings. Accomplishment of the repair
and replacement would constitute terminating action for the
requirements of the AD.
Accomplishment of the repair and replacement also would terminate
the requirements of the following AD's:
AD 95-19-10, amendment 39-9372 (60 FR 47689, September 14,
1995), and
AD 95-20-51, amendment 39-9398 (60 FR 53109, October 12,
1995). [The comment period for AD 95-20-51 was extended by an AD action
that was issued on November 28, 1995 (60 FR 62321, December 6, 1995.)]
Differences Between the Proposed AD and Relevant Service
Information
Operators should note that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
32A0148 refers to Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 32-11-40, which,
in turn, provides instructions for plugging the aft trunnion
lubrication fitting with a rivet. This proposed AD, however, does not
require plugging that fitting to terminate the requirements of this
proposed AD, AD 95-19-10, or AD 95-20-51.
Cost Impact
There are approximately 609 Boeing Model 767 series airplanes of
the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 204
airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
The actions that are currently required by AD 96-03-02 R1, and
retained in this AD, take approximately 34 work hours per airplane to
accomplish, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on
these figures, the cost impact on U.S. operators of the actions
currently required is estimated to be $416,160, or $2,040 per airplane.
The new actions that are proposed in this AD action would take
approximately 218 work hours per airplane to accomplish, at an average
labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $9,510 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact on U.S. operators of the proposed requirements of this AD is
estimated to be $4,608,360 or $22,590 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the current or proposed
requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish
those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
[[Page 24252]]
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing amendment 39-9526 (61 FR
7694, February 29, 1996), and by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD), to read as follows:
Boeing: Docket 96-NM-25-AD. Supersedes AD 96-03-02 R1, Amendment
39-9526.
Applicability: Model 767 series airplanes having line numbers
001 through 609, on which the terminating action described in
paragraph (e) of this AD has not been accomplished; certificated in
any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (h) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent the collapse of the main landing gear (MLG) due to
stress corrosion cracking of the aft trunnion of the outer cylinder,
accomplish the following:
(a) Perform the inspections described in paragraph III,
Accomplishment Instructions, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
32A0151, dated November 30, 1995, to detect cracking and corrosion
of the aft trunnion of the outer cylinder of the MLG at the time
specified in paragraph (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of this AD, as
applicable. These inspections are to be accomplished in accordance
with Figure 1 of that alert service bulletin. Repeat these
inspections thereafter at the intervals specified in that alert
service bulletin. To determine the category in which an airplane
falls, the age of the outer cylinder of the MLG is to be calculated
as of February 16, 1996, (the effective date of AD 96-03-02 R1,
amendment 39-9526). For airplanes on which the age of the right MLG
differs from the age of the left MLG, an operator may place the
airplane into a category that is the higher (numerically) of the two
categories to ease its administrative burden, and to simplify the
recordkeeping requirements imposed by this AD. Once the category
into which an airplane falls is determined, operators must obtain
approval from the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, to move that airplane
into another category.
Note 2: The broken (dash) lines used in Figure 1 of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated November 30, 1995, denote ``go
to'' actions for findings of discrepancies detected during any of
the inspections required by this AD.
Note 3: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated
November 30, 1995, refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-
32A0148, dated December 21, 1995, for procedures to repair the outer
cylinder and replace the bushings in the outer cylinder of the MLG
with new bushings.
(1) For airplanes identified as Category 3 in paragraph I.C. of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated November 30, 1995:
Perform the initial inspections within 30 days after February 16,
1996 (the effective date of AD 96-03-02 R1, amendment 39-9526).
(2) For airplanes identified as Category 2 in paragraph I.C. of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated November 30, 1995:
Perform the initial inspections within 90 days after February 16,
1996, (the effective date of AD 96-03-02 R1, amendment 39-9526).
(3) For airplanes identified as Category 1 in paragraph I.C. of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated November 30, 1995:
Perform the initial inspections prior to the accumulation of 2\1/2\
years since the MLG outer cylinder was new or last overhauled, or
within 150 days after February 16, 1996, (the effective date of AD
96-03-02 R1, amendment 39-9526), whichever occurs later.
(b) If no cracking or corrosion is detected, accomplish the
follow-on actions described in the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
767-32A0151, November 30, 1995, at the time specified in the alert
service bulletin. These follow-on actions are to be accomplished in
accordance with that alert service bulletin.
(c) If any cracking is detected, prior to further flight,
replace the outer cylinder with a new or serviceable outer cylinder
in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated
November 30, 1995.
(d) If any corrosion is detected, accomplish the follow-on
actions at the time specified in the ``Corrosion Flowchart,'' in
Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated
November 30, 1995. The follow-on actions are to be accomplished in
accordance with that alert service bulletin.
(e) Repair the outer cylinder and replace the bushings in the
aft trunnion and crossbolt of the MLG with new bushings, in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0148, dated
December 21, 1995, at the time specified in either paragraph (e)(1)
or (e)(2), as applicable. Accomplishment of this repair and
replacement constitutes terminating action for this AD, and for the
requirements of AD 95-19-10, amendment 39-9372; and AD 95-20-51,
amendment 39-9398.
Note 4: Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0148 refers to
Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 32-11-40 for certain procedures.
Operators should note that, although the CMM specifies plugging the
aft trunnion lubrication fitting with a rivet, this AD does not
require this action to be accomplished in order to terminate the
requirements of this AD, AD 95-19-10, or AD 95-20-51. Plugging the
aft trunnion lubrication fitting with a rivet is the operator's
prerogative.
(1) For airplanes identified as Category 3 in paragraph I.C. of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated November 30, 1995:
Accomplish the repair and replacement prior to the accumulation of 5
and years since the MLG outer cylinders were new or last overhauled,
or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later.
(2) For airplanes identified as either Category 1 or Category 2
in paragraph I.C. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151,
dated November 30, 1995, accomplish the repair and replacement at
the time specified in either paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of
this AD:
(i) Prior to the accumulation of 5 and 1/2 years since the MLG
outer cylinders were new or last overhauled, or within 18 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Or,
(ii) Prior to the accumulation of 7 years since the MLG outer
cylinders were new or last overhauled, provided that accomplishment
of visual and non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections at the times
specified in Figure 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151, dated November 30, 1995, are
repeated until the repair and replacement are accomplished.
(g) Accomplishment of the inspection requirements of this AD [in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-32A0151,
[[Page 24253]]
dated November 30, 1995] is considered acceptable for compliance
with AD 95-19-10, amendment 39-9372; and AD 95-20-51, amendment 39-
9398.
(h)(1) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit
their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance
Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Seattle ACO.
Note 5: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(2) Alternative methods of compliance, approved in accordance
with AD 96-03-02, amendment 39-9497; or AD 93-03-02 R1, amendment
39-9526; are approved as alternative methods of compliance with this
AD.
(i) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12021 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11991 Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 13
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24267-24268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11991]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 641
[I.D. 050696A]
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 13
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management
plan; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management
Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for
review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Written comments are
requested from the public.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed to the Southeast Regional Office,
NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
Requests for copies of Amendment 13, which includes an
environmental assessment and a regulatory impact review, should be sent
to the Gulf of
[[Page 24268]]
Mexico Fishery Management Council, 5401 W. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite
331, Tampa, FL 33609-2486, fax: 813-225-7015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Sadler, 813-570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson Act) requires that a Council-prepared
amendment to a fishery management plan be submitted to NMFS for review
and approval, disapproval, or partial disapproval. The Magnuson Act
also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment, immediately
publish a notice announcing that the amendment is available for public
review and comment.
Amendment 13 would extend the red snapper commercial fishery trip
limit and vessel permit endorsement provisions, currently in effect
under an emergency interim rule (61 FR 7751, February 29, 1996), until
implementation of: (1) The red snapper individual transferrable quota
(ITQ) system approved under FMP Amendment 8; or (2) an alternative
system to control access to the commercial red snapper fishery. Under
Amendment 13, the trip limit and endorsement provisions would terminate
on December 31, 1997, unless replaced earlier by the ITQ system or
another controlled access program. The red snapper vessel permit
endorsement and trip limit provisions have been in effect since
December 1992. Proposed regulations to implement the measures of
Amendment 13 are scheduled for publication within 15 days.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: May 8, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11991 Filed 5-9-96; 2:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11972 Review of Injurious Wildlife Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11972]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
Review of Injurious Wildlife Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of review of regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing 50 CFR Part 16 to
determine to what extent it should be reinvented. 50 CFR Part 16
addresses the importation or shipment of injurious wildlife. Applicable
legislation will be reviewed, the process for identifying and listing
injurious wildlife will be examined, and import restrictions will be
evaluated.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed or sent by fax to the Chief, Division
of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Mail Stop 840 ARLSQ, Washington, D.C.
20240, or FAX (703) 358-2044.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Mangin, Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance at
(703) 358-1718.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 CFR Part 16 implements provisions of the
Lacey Act of 1900 (18 U.S.C. 42). The Lacey Act restricts importation
of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians that are deemed
injurious to humans, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, wildlife, or
wildlife resources of the United States. Interest has increased in
preventing the introduction of harmful nonindigenous species. As 50 CFR
is reinvented, alternatives to the current approach for implementing
the Lacey Act will be considered. Specific comments from other Federal
agencies, States, and the private sector are requested.
Dated: May 6, 1996.
Bruce Blanchard,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 96-11972 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11957 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Elimination of Nonstatutory Certifications
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11957]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Chapter 1
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Elimination of Nonstatutory
Certifications
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, in concert
with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (fAR) Council, is sponsoring a
meeting to solicit public comments on the implementation of Section
4301(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106) (the Act). The Act requires the Administrator for
Federal Procurement Policy to issue for public comment a proposal to
amend the FAR to remove certification requirements for contractors and
offerors that are not specifically imposed by statute. The Act provides
the Administrator with authority to retain, under certain
circumstances, certification requirements that are not specifically
imposed by statute. In an effort to get public input in the rulemaking
process prior to publishing a proposed rule, the FAR Council is
inviting interested parties to participate in a public meeting on
implementation of the Act.
DATES: Public Meeting: A public meeting will be conducted at the
address shown below from 1 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., eastern daylight time, on
June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Public Meeting: The location of the public meeting is the
White House Conference Center, 726 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC
20503. An interactive meeting, consisting of open discussion among the
FAR Council members, other government representatives (from the
procurement, legal, and Inspector General communities), and industry is
planned. Individuals who would like to participate or submit a formal
statement shall, by May 28, 1996, notify: Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council, Attn: Mr. Michael Mutty, PDUSD (A&T) DP (DAR), IMD
3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 2031-3062. If time
permits, formal statements will be heard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Mutty, telephone (703) 602-0131. FAX (703) 602-0350.
Dated: May 8, 1996.
Edward Loeb,
Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 96-11957 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-11852 Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24256-24261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11852]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
28 CFR Part 90
[OJP No. 1019]
RIN 1121-AA35
Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies
AGENCY: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a proposed rule for the Grants to
Encourage Arrest Policies authorized by the Violence Against Women Act,
Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
For Fiscal Year 1996, Congress has appropriated $28 million to the
United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, for
Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies. This regulation is being published
under the general statutory grant of authority to issue rules and
regulations pursuant to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968. The purpose of this regulation is to provide a general outline
of the program and its purposes as set forth in the statute.
DATES: All comments must be received by June 13, 1996. The length of
the comment period has been limited to thirty days in order to provide
States timely access to the available program funds. It would be
contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of the program.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Kathy Schwartz, Violence
Against Women Grants Office, Office of Justice Programs, Room 446, 633
Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20531.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Department of Justice Response
Center at 1-800-421-6770 or (202) 307-1480, or Catherine Pierce,
Violence Against Women Grants Office, Office of Justice Programs at
(202) 307-6026.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title IV Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies
For Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, Congress authorized a federal
discretionary grant program under Title IV of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-22, 108 Stat. 1796,
1902-55, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796hh et seq (1994)
[hereinafter the ``Act''], for States, units of local government, and
Indian tribal governments to encourage the treatment of domestic
violence as a serious violation of criminal law. The Act gives the
Attorney General and an authorized designee, in this case the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, the authority to
make grants to the above mentioned entities. Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 Sec. 805, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 3768 (1994) [hereinafter the ``Omnibus Act'']. Section 2104 of
Title IV of the Act, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796hh-3,
requires that regulations be issued specifically to implement these
policies and programs.
Statement of the Problem
In the past, police departments, and the criminal justice system as
a whole, generally treated domestic violence as a private, family
matter unlike any other violent crime. Many police departments
maintained informal non-arrest policies for domestic violence, focusing
instead on alternative responses such as family crisis intervention and
counseling for domestic abusers.1 In recent years, many
departments have implemented new policies and practices that encourage
or mandate arrest of a perpetrator of domestic violence for probable
cause or for violating a protection order.2 To ensure the
effectiveness of these new policies, some departments have created
special domestic violence units that train personnel; develop
guidelines and protocols for enforcing laws related to domestic
violence; create sophisticated tracking and communication systems;
investigate both misdemeanor and felony domestic assaults; develop
accountability measures which ensure enforcement of the law by all
officers in the department; and coordinate with other criminal justice
agencies and victim service providers. Despite these very significant
accomplishments, many more police departments require the tools and
resources necessary to implement similar innovations in their own
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Liebman, D.A., and Schwartz, J.A., Police Programs in Crisis
Intervention: A Review, (J.R. Snibbe and H.M. Snibbe eds. 1973). See
also Charles C. Thomas, The Urban Policeman in Transition: A
Psychological and Sociological Review (1973).
\2\ Garner, J., Fagan, J., and Maxwell, C., Published Findings
from the Spouse Assault Replication Program: A Critical Review,
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11[1], 3-28, 1995.
Fagan, J., The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises
and Limits, Presentation at the 1995 National Institute of Justice
Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation, January,
1996, available through the National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, 1-800-851-3420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For arrest to be an effective domestic violence intervention, it
must be part of a coordinated and integrated response to the problem on
the part of the entire criminal justice system.3 That is,
mandatory or proarrest policies will be effective only if police
departments implement clear guidelines and protocols for the arrest of
domestic violence perpetrators; if police and prosecutors alike conduct
thorough and careful investigations of domestic violence cases; if
judges impose appropriate sentences; if batterers remain in custody
after they are arrested; if probation and parole departments devise
ways to effectively supervise batterers; and if victims feel confident
that all professionals in the system are committed to their safety and
the safety of their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Hart, B.J., Coordinated Community Approaches to Domestic
Violence, presented at the Strategic Planning Workshop on Violence
Against Women sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in
Washington, D.C., March 31, 1995, available through the National
Criminal Justice Reference Service, 1-800-851-3420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policies that Mandate or Encourage Arrest
Laws and policies that encourage or mandate the arrest of a
domestic violence perpetrator based on probable cause are not new.
Currently, at least 27 States and the District of Columbia have adopted
laws that mandate or encourage arrest of a person who assaults a family
member, or of a person who violates a domestic violence protection
order.4 Federal law also requires all states honor certain
protection orders issued by other jurisdictions. Act Sec. 4022(a), 18
[[Page 24257]]
U.S.C. Sec. 2265(a). Domestic violence incidents are among the most
difficult and most sensitive calls requesting police assistance. For
this reason, many police departments with mandatory or proarrest
policies inform their officers that, when responding to a domestic
violence call, they must anticipate the unexpected, be carefully
impartial and be primarily concerned for the needs and safety of the
victim or victims. Some mandatory or proarrest policies go a step
further by directing responding officers to arrest the primary
aggressor in a domestic violence incident. These policies warn that
dual arrests may trivialize the seriousness of domestic violence and
potentially increase danger to its victims. Most importantly, arrest of
the batterer conveys a message to the victim, the family and the
community that domestic violence is a serious crime that will not be
tolerated. Mandatory or proarrest policies also offer the potential
benefit of deterring future abuse if the offender is separated from the
victim and held publicly accountable for his 5 actions. Arrest
demonstrates to the offender that he has committed a serious crime and
communicates to the victim that she does not have to endure the
offender's abuse. Moreover, arrest of the offender sends a broader
public message--that violent behavior, even between intimates, is
criminal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Layden, J., Domestic Violence, Headliners, 1994.
\5\ Men can be the victims of abuse, and women can be
perpetrators. However, the vast majority of victims of domestic
violence are women. In addition, it is much less common for men to
receive injuries as a result of their abuse and less likely for men
to become entrapped in relationships where they cannot leave for
fear of extreme bodily harm to themselves or their children. For
these reasons, victims are referred to as women and perpetrators as
men throughout these proposed regulations. See Stets, J.E. and
Straus, M.A., Gender Differences in Reporting Marital Violence and
its Medical and Psychological Consequences (Physical Violence in
American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145
Families, Straus, M.A. and Gelles, R.J. eds. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orders of Protection
An order of protection is the legal instrument many victims of
domestic violence initially seek to protect themselves from further
abuse. For protection orders to be effective, the terms of the order
must be strictly and consistently enforced, and abusers violating the
terms of the order must be punished. To ensure a consistent response,
departmental policies specifying the violations for which an abuser is
subject to arrest must be communicated clearly to police officers who
respond to domestic violence calls. Furthermore, there must be
consistent enforcement between same-State jurisdictions (e.g., county
to county or city to city) or between communities under the
jurisdiction of the same tribal government. In addition to intrastate
enforcement, States and tribal governments must also take steps to
ensure the interstate (i.e., State to State) enforcement of protection
orders as required by Section 40221(a) of the Act.
Prior to the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act, a woman
who obtained a protection order in her home state often could not use
that order as the basis for protection if she worked, traveled, or
moved to most other states. Under the Violence Against Women Act, a
victim does not have to wait for abuse to occur in the new state, nor
does she have to meet the new jurisdictional requirements. A woman may
now seek enforcement of the out-of-state order in the new state.
Although there is no universal approach to effective implementation
of the full faith and credit provisions of the Act, State and tribal
law enforcement agencies, courts, prosecutors, non-profit, non-
governmental victim services agencies and private attorneys are
encouraged to collaborate on efforts and strategies for bolstering and
implementing enforcement of out-of-state protective orders. The state
administrative office of the court and state law enforcement agencies,
in consultation with victim advocates, should devise and publicize
widely a state plan for according full faith and credit to protection
orders.
Centralized Communication, Information and Tracking Systems
Regardless of whether there is a particular jurisdictional domestic
violence arrest policy in place, police must have probable cause to
make an arrest. Police often are dispatched, however, without any
information regarding the domestic violence or criminal history of the
people involved in an altercation. The officers frequently do not know
if there is an outstanding order of protection against the offender,
whether the offender has previously been arrested for assaulting the
victim, or if charges are pending against the perpetrator for prior
alleged domestic violence. Knowledge of this information clearly would
help guide the discretion of an officer who is trying to determine
whether to make an arrest, and help him or her ensure the safety of the
victim and other family members.
Beyond providing information about the criminal history of the
perpetrator, responding officers also would benefit greatly from
communication and tracking systems that could inform them about the
frequency of past calls to the same location, prior weapons use, the
presence of children at the residence and past need for medical
emergency services. These advanced information systems also could
provide a description of the alleged perpetrator and places he
historically has frequented if the offender is not found at the scene.
Just as police officers need more information to respond
effectively, so do prosecutors, judges and other criminal justice
professionals. Access to centralized information on prior incidents or
convictions, prior issuance of protection orders, other matters
involving the same family pending before the court, and the
availability of community resources and services for the victim would
be extremely beneficial to prosecutors seeking convictions, to judges
who must impose a sentence and to probation and parole officials
responsible for providing community supervision. Interstate and
intrastate communication and tracking systems for use by police
officers and criminal justice professionals throughout a state or
region of the country also would contribute to enhancing the safety of
victims.
The Role of Prosecutors, Judges, Victim Advocates and Other Criminal
Justice Professionals
If arrest policies are to be effective, pre-trial service agents,
prosecutors, judges, probation officers, and parole officers need to
respond with effective supervision and prosecution strategies, safety
plans for victims, and appropriate sentences for offenders. In
addition, prosecutors, judges and other criminal justice professionals
need tools and resources to respond to domestic violence as a serious
crime. For example, in those jurisdictions where mandatory or proarrest
policies have been instituted, individual prosecutors may be
overwhelmed with domestic violence cases, resulting in a severe lack of
resources and time needed to prosecute each case effectively. To help
alleviate the backlog of domestic violence cases, many prosecutors have
begun to work with victim advocates during both the pending prosecution
and the sentencing phase of a case. In many jurisdictions, victim
advocates are critical to domestic violence prosecution. In addition to
being effective legal advocates, victim advocates assist in safety
planning with the victim, providing the court with information needed
to determine risk assessment and proposed conditions of probation or
parole for the offender.
Prosecutors, judges, victim advocates and other criminal justice
professionals need specialized education and training on the phenomenon
of domestic
[[Page 24258]]
violence and information on community resources available to assist the
victim and respond appropriately to the batterer. Prosecutors need to
understand the psychology of domestic violence victims (e.g., why they
may be reluctant to prosecute and the risks to their safety if they
decide to prosecute). Judges need to craft effective protection orders
and they need the information and skills necessary to tailor the
sentence to the individual perpetrator (e.g., ordering protective
conditions for victim safety, incarceration, community service,
restitution, intensive probation or parole, batterer intervention
services, drug and alcohol treatment, or all of the above, as
appropriate). Victim advocates and all criminal justice professionals
need to work together to explore and develop coordinated approaches to
reduce and prevent domestic violence.
Conclusion
While strong, clear arrest policies are needed to guide the actions
of police officers, the rest of the criminal justice system also must
be directed to respond similarly in ways that will break the cycle of
violence. Without aggressive, system-wide coordination, arrest alone
will not stop domestic violence. Most importantly, as a jurisdiction
assesses its response to domestic violence, prioritizing victim safety
within the policies and practices of the entire criminal justice system
is essential. In conclusion:
Police departments need to develop clear policies and
procedures mandating or encouraging arrest for perpetrators of domestic
violence and for the violation of protection orders.
Police officers need specialized training on domestic
violence, on implementing departmental arrest policies and related
federal, state and local law.
Police departments need resources to develop guidelines
for arrest and investigation of domestic violence, specialized training
programs, special investigation or detective units, and procedures to
ensure coordination with other parts of the criminal justice system.
Police departments need the resources to develop advanced
communication, information and tracking systems to enable them to
respond more effectively to domestic violence incidents and prevent
future incidents that could result in aggravated assault and homicide.
Jurisdictions need to develop methods and technologies
that will promote improved communication and coordination between law
enforcement, prosecution, the judiciary and other parts of the criminal
justice and social service systems to improve the entire system's
response to domestic violence. In addition, jurisdictions need to
develop centralized, automated information systems that will track the
domestic violence history of involved parties, including outstanding
orders of protection, previous arrests and pending charges against
perpetrators.
Police and prosecutors need the tools and resources to
investigate domestic violence cases aggressively and thoroughly.
Specialized education and training programs for
prosecutors, judges, victim advocates and other criminal justice
professionals need to be developed or replicated and adapted from
existing curricula.
Procedures to expedite requests for protection orders need
to be developed by police departments, prosecution units, and the
courts.
Judges need to convey clearly to batterers the gravity of
their offenses by imposing appropriate sentences.
Probation and parole departments need to establish
protocols and procedures for the intensive supervision of batterers.
Victims and their children need access to a full range of
services including legal advocacy and assistance in planning for their
long and short-term safety.
Research needs to be conducted to assess the effectiveness
of arrest and other legal sanctions for domestic violence in
communities that have adopted a system-wide, coordinated response to
domestic violence.
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994
The Violence Against Women Act reflects a firm commitment towards
working to change the criminal justice system's response to violence
that occurs when any woman is threatened or assaulted by someone with
whom she has or has had an intimate relationship, with whom she was
previously acquainted, or who is a stranger. By committing significant
Federal resources and attention to restructuring and strengthening the
criminal justice response to women who have been, or potentially could
be, victimized by violence, the safety of all women can be more
effectively ensured.
Fiscal Year 1996 Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies
For FY 1996, Congress has appropriated $28 million to the United
States Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs for Grants to
Encourage Arrest Policies. Additionally, Part U of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 authorizes $33 million for FY 1997 and $59 million
for FY 1998. States, Indian tribal governments, and units of local
government are eligible to receive grants subject to the requirements
of the statute and these regulations, as well as assurances and
certifications specified in the final program guidelines and
application materials that will be available in early FY 1996.
Section 2101 of the Violence Against Women Act, codified as amended
at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796hh (1994), enumerates the following six purposes
for which Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies may be used:
(1) To implement mandatory arrest or proarrest programs and
policies in police departments, including mandatory arrest programs and
policies for protection order violations;
(2) To develop policies and training programs in police departments
to improve tracking of cases involving domestic violence;
(3) To centralize and coordinate police enforcement, prosecution,
or judicial responsibility for domestic violence cases in groups or
units of police officers, prosecutors, or judges;
(4) To coordinate computer tracking systems to ensure communication
between police, prosecutors, and both criminal and family courts;
(5) To strengthen legal advocacy service programs for victims of
domestic violence; and
(6) To educate judges in criminal and other courts about domestic
violence and improve judicial handling of such cases.
A Coordinated and Integrated Approach to the Problem
By definition, a coordinated and integrated approach suggests a
partnership among law enforcement, prosecution, the courts, victim
advocates and service providers. The goal of this Program is to treat
domestic violence as a serious violation of the criminal law. A
consistent criminal justice system response to domestic violence
requires that professionals in the various components of the system
have a shared vision that prioritizes the safety and well-being of the
victim. The creation and implementation of that vision necessitates
collaboration among police, prosecutors, the courts, and victim service
providers. Thus, the Program requires that jurisdictions incorporate
the experience of nonprofit, nongovernmental domestic violence service
providers into the project planning and implementation process as well
as police, prosecutors, and the
[[Page 24259]]
courts. Examples of innovative approaches include:
Creating centralized units of police officers,
prosecutors, judges and probation and parole officers to investigate
and handle domestic violence cases.
Implementing and testing the effectiveness of domestic
violence arrest policies for violations of protection orders in the
context of a coordinated criminal justice and community response to
domestic violence that assigns priority to the safety of the victim and
holds the offender accountable for his violent actions.
Delivering comprehensive training programs for the police,
prosecutors, probation and parole officers and the judiciary that
address the technical issues associated with policies that encourage or
mandate arrest for domestic violence; address the phenomenon of
domestic violence; stress collaboration and shared responsibility for
ensuring the safety of the victim; seek to change attitudes that have
traditionally prevented professionals in the criminal justice system
from responding to domestic violence as a serious violation of criminal
law; and provide information on improved methods for tracking domestic
violence cases.
Developing information systems, automated registries,
education and training programs and technical assistance efforts that
facilitate enforcement of protection orders within a single
jurisdiction; within a single State; and from State to State.
Linking automated information and tracking systems to
enhance communication among police, prosecutors, and criminal and
family courts to ensure that all of the system components have access
to consistent and complete information about an individual's domestic
violence history.
Establishing and expanding advocacy services for domestic
violence victims from the time an abuse report is filed through the
post-sentencing of the offender, including any time during which the
offender is subject to probation or parole supervision.
Eligibility Requirements
To be eligible to receive grants under this Program, States, Indian
tribal governments, and units of local government must certify that
their laws or official policies (1) Encourage or mandate arrest of
domestic violence offenders based on probable cause that an offense has
been committed and (2) encourage or mandate arrest of domestic violence
offenders who violate the terms of a valid outstanding protection
order. Omnibus Act Sec. 2101(c)(2), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796hh(c)(2) (1994).
Eligible applicants also must demonstrate that their laws, policies, or
practices and their training programs discourage dual arrests of an
offender and victim. Omnibus Act Sec. 2101(c)(2), 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 3796hh(c)(2) (1994).
In addition, States, Indian tribal governments, and units of local
governments seeking grant funds through this Program must certify that
their laws, policies, or practices prohibit the issuance of mutual
restraining orders of protection, except in cases in which both spouses
file a claim and the court makes detailed findings of fact indicating
that both spouses acted primarily as aggressors and that neither spouse
acted primarily in self-defense. Omnibus Act Sec. 2101(c)(3), 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 3796hh(c)(3) (1994).
Eligible applicants also must certify that their laws, policies, or
practices do not require, in connection with the prosecution of any
misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, that the victim bear
the costs associated with the filing of criminal charges or the service
of such charges on an abuser, or costs associated with the issuance or
service of a warrant, protection order, or witness subpoena. Omnibus
Act Sec. 2101(c)(4), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796hh(c)(4) (1994).
If the laws, policies, or practices required by Section 2101(c) of
the Violence Against Women Act are not currently in place, States,
Indian tribal governments, and local units of government must provide
assurances that they will be in compliance with these requirements by
the date on which the next session of the State or Indian Tribal
legislature ends, or September 13, 1996, whichever is later. Omnibus
Act Sec. 2102(a)(1) (A)-(B), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3796hh-1(a)(1) (A)-(B)
(1994).
For the purposes of this Program, a jurisdiction need not have pre-
existing policies encouraging or mandating arrest to meet the
eligibility requirements listed above. However, a State, Indian tribal
government, or unit of local government must specify the policy that it
intends to enact by the statutory deadline in its application for
funding through this Program.
Award Priority
The Office of Justice Programs is required by the Violence Against
Women Act to give priority to applicants that (1) Do not currently
provide for centralized handling of cases involving domestic violence
by police, prosecutors, and courts; and (2) demonstrate a commitment to
strong enforcement of laws, and prosecution of cases, involving
domestic violence. Omnibus Act Sec. 2102(b) (1)-(2), 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 3796hh-1(b) (1)-(2) (1994). Commitment may be demonstrated in a
number of ways including: clear communication from top departmental
management that domestic violence prevention is a priority; strict
enforcement of arrest policies; innovative approaches to officer
supervision in domestic violence matters; acknowledgment of officers
who consistently enforce domestic violence arrest policies and
sanctions for those who do not; education and training for all officers
and supervisors on enforcement of domestic violence arrest policies and
the phenomenon of domestic violence; and creation of special units to
investigate and monitor spousal and partner abuse cases.
Technical Assistance and Training/Evaluation
The Office of Justice Programs intends to assist States, Indian
tribal governments, and units of local government in meeting the
Program goal of treating domestic violence as a serious violation of
criminal law. The Office of Justice Programs therefore hopes to set
aside a small portion of the funds provided through this Program to
provide specialized training and technical assistance to help grant
recipients develop and implement effective arrest policies in the
context of an integrated and coordinated criminal justice and community
response to domestic violence.
In addition, the National Institute of Justice will conduct
evaluations and studies of projects funded through this Program. Past
research on the effectiveness of arrest policies for domestic violence
has focused primarily on the police response and has not measured the
response of victim service agencies and other parts of the criminal
justice system, including pretrial services agencies, prosecution
units, the courts, probation and parole. Additional research is needed
to assess the effectiveness of arrest and other legal sanctions for
domestic violence in communities that have adopted a system-wide,
coordinated response to domestic violence. The Office of Justice
Programs hopes to set aside a small portion of the overall funds
authorized for the Program for this purpose. Recipients of funds for
this Program must agree to cooperate with such federally-sponsored
research and evaluation studies of their projects. In addition, grant
recipients are required to report to the Attorney General on the
effectiveness of their project(s). Omnibus Act Sec. 2103, 42 U.S.C.
[[Page 24260]]
Sec. 3796hh-2 (1994). Recipients therefore are strongly encouraged to
develop a local evaluation strategy to assess the impact and
effectiveness of their programs. Applicants should consider entering
into partnerships with research organizations that are submitting
simultaneous grant applications to the National Institute of Justice
for this purpose.
Request for Comments
The Office of Justice Programs seeks to fulfill Congressional
intent by soliciting, encouraging and incorporating comments on all
aspects of this program while ensuring that the statutory limitations
are applied appropriately to all recipients. Comments are welcome on a
broad range of issues, including but not limited to:
(1) Other priority areas that should be considered for funding in
addition to the statutory award priorities identified in Section 90.66
of Subpart D;
(2) The special needs of Indian tribal governments, underserved
populations and rural communities in implementing this Program;
(3) Effective strategies to ensure that local jurisdictions, States
and tribal governments will accord full faith and credit to all valid
protection orders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2265; and
(4) Methods and approaches for conducting research on the
effectiveness of arrest and other legal sanctions for domestic violence
in communities that have adopted a system-wide coordinated response to
the problem.
Administrative Requirements
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, Sec. 1(b), Principles of Regulation. This rule
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
Sec. 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and, accordingly, this rule
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs,
in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, codified at 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 605(b), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it,
certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 90
Grant Programs, Judicial Administration.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 28, Chapter 1, Part
90 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 90--VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
1. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3711 et seq (1994).
2. A new Subpart D, consisting of Secs. 90.60-90.67 is proposed to
be added to read as follows:
Subpart D--Arrest Policies in Domestic Violence Cases
Sec.
90.60 Scope
90.61 Definitions
90.62 Purposes
90.63 Eligibility
90.64 Application Content
90.65 Evaluation
90.66 Review of Applications
90.67 Grantee Reporting
Sec. 90.60 Scope.
This subpart sets forth the statutory framework of the Violence
Against Women Act's sections seeking to encourage States, Indian tribal
governments, and units of local government to treat domestic violence
as a serious violation of criminal law.
Sec. 90.61 Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply.
(a) Domestic violence includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of
violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, a
person with whom the victim shares a child in common, a person who is
cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, a person
similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or
family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or any
other adult person against a victim who is protected from that person's
acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the eligible State,
Indian tribal government, or unit of local government that receives a
grant under this subchapter.
(b) Protection order includes any injunction issued for the purpose
of preventing violent or threatening acts of domestic violence,
including temporary and final orders issued by civil or criminal courts
(other than support or child custody orders or provisions) whether
obtained by filing an independent action or as a pendente lite order in
another proceeding.
Sec. 90.62 Purposes.
The purposes of this program are:
(a) To implement mandatory arrest or proarrest programs and
policies in police departments, including mandatory arrest programs and
policies for protection order violations;
(b) To develop policies and training programs in police departments
to improve tracking of cases involving domestic violence;
(c) To centralize and coordinate police enforcement, prosecution,
or judicial responsibility for domestic violence cases in groups or
units of police officers, prosecutors, or judges;
(d) To coordinate computer tracking systems to ensure communication
between police, prosecutors, and both criminal and family courts;
(e) To strengthen legal advocacy service programs for victims of
domestic violence; and
(f) To educate judges in criminal and other courts about domestic
violence and improve judicial handling of such cases.
Sec. 90.63 Eligibility.
(a) Eligible grantees are States, Indian tribal governments, or
units of local government that:
(1) Certify that their laws or official policies--
(i) Encourage or mandate the arrest of domestic violence offenders
based on probable cause that an offense has been committed; and
(ii) Encourage or mandate the arrest of domestic violence offenders
who violate the terms of a valid and outstanding protection order;
(2) Demonstrate that their laws, policies, or practices and their
training programs discourage dual arrests of offender and victim;
(3) Certify that their laws, policies, or practices prohibit
issuance of mutual restraining orders of protection except in cases
where both spouses file a claim and the court makes detailed findings
of fact indicating that both spouses acted primarily as aggressors and
that neither spouse acted primarily in self-defense; and
(4) Certify that their laws, policies, or practices do not require,
in connection with the prosecution of any misdemeanor or felony
domestic violence offense, that the abused bear the costs associated
with filing criminal charges or the service of such charges on an
abuser, or that the abused bear the costs associated with the issuance
or service of a warrant, protection order, or witness subpoena.
(b) If these laws, policies, or practices are not currently in
place, States, Indian tribal governments, and local units of government
must provide assurances that they will be in compliance with these
requirements by the date on which the next session of the State or
Indian
[[Page 24261]]
Tribal legislature ends, or September 13, 1996, whichever is later.
Omnibus Act Sec. 2102(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 3796hh--1(a)(1).
(c) For the purposes of this Program, a jurisdiction need not have
pre-existing policies encouraging or mandating arrest to meet the
eligibility requirements listed in this section. However, a State,
Indian tribal government, or unit of local government must specify the
policy that it intends to enact by the statutory deadline in its
application for funding through this Program.
Sec. 90.64 Application content.
(a) Format. Applications from States, Indian tribal governments and
units of local government must be submitted on Standard Form 424,
Application for Federal Assistance, at a time designated by the Office
of Justice Programs. The Violence Against Women Grants Office of the
Office of Justice Programs will develop and disseminate to States,
Indian tribal governments, local governments and other interested
parties a complete Application Kit which will include a Standard Form
424, a list of assurances to which applicants must agree, and
additional guidance on how to prepare and submit an application for
grants under this Subpart. To receive a complete Application Kit,
please contact: The Violence Against Women Grants Office, Office of
Justice Programs, Room 444, 633 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20531. Telephone: (202) 307-6026.
(b) Programs. Applications must set forth programs and projects
that meet the purposes and criteria of the Grants to Encourage Arrest
program set out in Sec. Sec. 90.62 and 90.63 of this part.
(c) Requirements. Applicants in their applications shall, at a
minimum:
(1) Describe plans to further the purposes stated in Sec. 90.62 of
this part;
(2) Identify the agency or office or groups of agencies or offices
responsible for carrying out the program; and
(3) Include documentation from nonprofit, private sexual assault
and domestic violence programs demonstrating their participation in
developing the application, and explain how these groups will be
involved in the development and implementation of the project.
(d) Certifications. (1) As required by Section 2101(c) of the
Omnibus Act, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 3796hh-1(a), each State,
Indian tribal government or unit of local government must certify in
its application that it has met the eligibility requirements set out in
Sec. 90.63 of this subpart.
(2) Each State, Indian tribal government or unit of local
government must certify that all the information contained in the
application is correct. All submissions will be treated as a material
representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed, and any
false or incomplete representation may result in suspension or
termination of funding, recovery of funds provided, and civil and/or
criminal sanctions.
Sec. 90.65 Evaluation.
The National Institute of Justice will conduct evaluations and
studies of programs funded through this Program. The Office of Justice
Programs hopes to set aside a small portion of the overall funds
authorized for the Program for this purpose. Recipients of funds must
agree to cooperate with such federally-sponsored research and
evaluation studies of their projects. In addition, grant recipients are
required to report to the Attorney General on the effectiveness of
their project(s). Omnibus Act Sec. 2103, 42 U.S.C. 3796hh-2. Recipients
of program funds are strongly encouraged to develop a local evaluation
strategy to assess the impact and effectiveness of their programs.
Applicants should consider entering into partnerships with research
organizations that are submitting simultaneous grant applications to
the National Institute of Justice for this purpose.
Sec. 90.66 Review of Applications.
(a) Review criteria. (1) The provisions of Part U of the Omnibus
Act and of the regulations in this subpart provide the basis for review
and approval or disapproval of applications and amendments in whole or
in part. Priority will be given to applicants that
(i) Do not currently provide for centralized handling of cases
involving domestic violence by police, prosecutors, and courts; and
(ii) Demonstrate a commitment to strong enforcement of laws, and
prosecution of cases, involving domestic violence. Omnibus Act
Sec. 2102(b)(1)-(2), 42 U.S.C. 3796hh-1(b)(1)-(2) (1994).
(2) Commitment may be demonstrated in a number of ways including:
clear communication from top departmental management that domestic
violence prevention is a priority; strict enforcement of arrest
policies; innovative approaches to officer supervision in domestic
violence matters; acknowledgment of officers who consistently enforce
domestic violence arrest policies and sanctions for those who do not;
education and training for all officers and supervisors on enforcement
of domestic violence arrest policies and the phenomenon of domestic
violence; and creation of special units to investigate and monitor
spousal and partner abuse cases.
(b) Intergovernmental review. This program is covered by Executive
Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) and
implementing regulations at 28 CFR part 30. A copy of the application
submitted to the Office of Justice Programs should also be submitted at
the same time to the State's Single Point of Contact, if there is a
Single Point of Contact.
Sec. 90.67 Grantee reporting.
Each grantee receiving funds under this subpart shall submit a
report to the Attorney General evaluating the effectiveness of projects
developed with funds provided under this subpart and containing such
additional material as the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of
Justice Programs may prescribe.
Laurie Robinson,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-11852 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.