issue-1996-01-02•Federal Register final rules — 1996-01-02
Federal Register final rules — 1996-01-02
issue-1996-01-02Federal Register final rules — 1996-01-02Regulation
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. 95-31573 Special Conditions; Fairchild Aircraft Incorporated Model SA227- CC and SA227-DC (C-26B) Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1-3]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31573]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 23
[Docket No. 130CE, Special Condition 23-CE-85]
Special Conditions; Fairchild Aircraft Incorporated Model SA227-
CC and SA227-DC (C-26B) Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Fairchild Aircraft
Incorporated Model SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B) airplanes modified by
Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. These airplanes will have novel
and unusual design features when compared to the state of technology
envisaged in the applicable airworthiness standards. These novel and
unusual design features include the installation of electronic displays
for which the applicable regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate airworthiness standards for the protection of these systems
from the effects of high intensity radiated fields (HIRF). These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to the airworthiness standards applicable to these
airplanes.
DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is January 2,
1996. Comments must be received on or before February 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, ACE-7,
Attention: Rules Docket Clerk, Docket No. 130CE, Room 1558, 601 East
12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. All comments must be marked:
Docket No. 130CE. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket
weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ervin Dvorak, Aerospace Engineer, Standards Office (ACE-110), Small
Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone (816) 426-6941.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves
requirements affecting flight safety, and, thus, was not preceded by
notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on
these special conditions.
Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the
regulatory docket and special conditions number and be submitted in
duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received
on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the
Administrator. These special conditions may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available in
[[Page 2]]
the rules docket for examination by interested parties, both before and
after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments, submitted in response to this
request, must include a self-addressed and stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 130CE.'' The
postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Background
On November 13, 1995, Rockwell Collins, 400 Collins Road NE, Cedar
Rapids, Iowa 52498, made an application to the FAA for a supplemental
type certificate (STC) for the Fairchild Aircraft Incorporated Model
SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B) airplanes. The proposed modification
incorporates a novel or unusual design feature, such as digital
avionics consisting of an electronic flight instrument system (EFIS),
that is vulnerable to HIRF external to the airplane.
Type Certification Basis
The type certification basis for the Fairchild Aircraft
Incorporated Model SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B) Airplanes is given in
Type Certification Data Sheet No. A18SW, FAR 23 through Amendment 23-34
plus Amendment 23-39; equivalent safety finding per FAA letter dated
September 20, 1990: FAR Part 36, SFAR through Amendment 5, plus the
following: Secs. 23.1309, 23.1311, and 23.1321 of Amendment 23-41 and
Sec. 23.1322 of Amendment 23-43; exemptions, if any; and the special
conditions adopted by this rulemaking action.
Discussion
The FAA may issue and amend special conditions, as necessary, as
part of the type certification basis if the Administrator finds that
the airworthiness standards, designated according to Sec. 21.101(b), do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards because of novel
or unusual design features of an airplane. Special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec. 21.16 to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established in the regulations. Special
conditions are normally issued according to Sec. 11.49, after public
notice, as required by Secs. 11.28 and 11.29(b), effective October 14,
1980, and become a part of the type certification basis in accordance
with Sec. 21.101(b)(2).
Rockwell Collins, plans to incorporate certain novel and unusual
design features into an airplane for which the airworthiness standards
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for protection
from the effects of HIRF. These features include electronic systems,
which are susceptible to the HIRF environment, that were not envisaged
by the existing regulations for this type of airplane.
Protection of Systems From High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF)
Recent advances in technology have given rise to the application in
aircraft designs of advanced electrical and electronic systems that
perform functions required for continued safe flight and landing. Due
to the use of sensitive solid state advanced components in analog and
digital electronics circuits, these advanced systems are readily
responsive to the transient effects of induced electrical current and
voltage caused by the HIRF. The HIRF can degrade electronic systems
performance by damaging components or upsetting system functions.
Furthermore, the HIRF environment has undergone a transformation
that was not foreseen when the current requirements were developed.
Higher energy levels are radiated from transmitters that are used for
radar, radio, and television. Also, the number of transmitters has
increased significantly. There is also uncertainty concerning the
effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling to
cockpit-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is
undefined.
The combined effect of the technological advances in airplane
design and the changing environment has resulted in an increased level
of vulnerability of electrical and electronic systems required for the
continued safe flight and landing of the airplane. Effective measures
against the effects of exposure to HIRF must be provided by the design
and installation of these systems. The accepted maximum energy levels
in which civilian airplane system installations must be capable of
operating safely are based on surveys and analysis of existing radio
frequency emitters. These special conditions require that the airplane
be evaluated under these energy levels for the protection of the
electronic system and its associated wiring harness. These external
threat levels, which are lower than previous required values, are
believed to represent the worst case to which an airplane would be
exposed in the operating environment.
These special conditions require qualification of systems that
perform critical functions, as installed in aircraft, to the defined
HIRF environment in paragraph 1 or, as an option to a fixed value using
laboratory tests, in paragraph 2, as follows:
(1) The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and
operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic
systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when
the aircraft is exposed to the HIRF environment defined below:
Field Strength Volts/Meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Peak Average
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-100 KHz............................................ 50 50
100-500............................................... 60 60
500-2000.............................................. 70 70
2-30 MHz.............................................. 200 200
30-70................................................. 30 30
70-100................................................ 30 30
100-200............................................... 150 33
200-400............................................... 70 70
400-700............................................... 4020 935
700-1000.............................................. 1700 170
1-2 GHz............................................... 5000 990
2-4................................................... 6680 840
4-6................................................... 6850 310
6-8................................................... 3600 670
8-12.................................................. 3500 1270
12-18................................................. 3500 360
18-40................................................. 2100 750
------------------------------------------------------------------------
or,
(2) The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis
that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical
functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter, peak
electrical field strength, from 10 KHz to 18 GHz. When using this test
to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for
signal attenuation due to installation.
A preliminary hazard analysis must be performed by the applicant,
for approval by the FAA, to identify electrical and/or electronic
systems that perform critical functions. The term ``critical'' means
those functions whose failure would contribute to, or cause, a failure
condition that would prevent the continued safe flight and landing of
the airplane. The systems identified by the hazard analysis that
perform critical functions are candidates for the application of HIRF
requirements. A system may perform both critical and non-critical
functions. Primary electronic flight display systems, and their
associated components, perform critical functions such as attitude,
altitude, and airspeed indication. The HIRF requirements apply only to
critical functions.
[[Page 3]]
Compliance with HIRF requirements may be demonstrated by tests,
analysis, models, similarity with existing systems, or any combination
of these. Service experience alone is not acceptable since normal
flight operations may not include an exposure to the HIRF environment.
Reliance on a system with similar design features for redundancy as a
means of protection against the effects of external HIRF is generally
insufficient since all elements of a redundant system are likely to be
exposed to the fields concurrently.
Conclusion
In view of the design features discussed for the Fairchild Aircraft
Incorporated Model SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B) Airplanes, the
following special conditions are issued. This action is not a rule of
general applicability and affects only those applicants who apply to
the FAA for approval of these features on these airplanes.
The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the
notice and public comment procedure in several prior rulemaking
actions. For example, the Dornier 228-200 (53 FR 14782, April 26,
1988), the Cessna Model 525 (56 FR 49396, September 30, 1991), and the
Beech models 200, A200, and B200 airplanes (57 FR 1220, January 13,
1992). It is unlikely that additional public comment would result in
any significant change from those special conditions already issued and
commented on. For these reasons, and because a delay would
significantly affect the applicant's installation of the system and
certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has
determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and
impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special
conditions without notice. Therefore, these special conditions are
being made effective upon publication in the Federal Register. However,
as previously indicated, interested persons are invited to comment on
these special conditions if they so desire.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols
Citation
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704; 14
CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.28 and 11.49.
Adoption of Special Conditions
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the modified Fairchild Aircraft
Incorporated Model SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B) Airplanes:
1. Protection of Electrical and Electronic Systems from High
Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system that performs critical
functions must be designed and installed to ensure that the operations,
and operational capabilities of these systems to perform critical
functions, are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to
high intensity radiated electromagnetic fields external to the
airplane.
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following
definition applies: Critical Functions: Functions whose failure would
contribute to, or cause, a failure condition that would prevent the
continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on December 21, 1995.
Henry A. Armstrong
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 95-31573 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31572 Establishment of Class E Airspace; Shell Lake, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3-4]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31572]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-11]
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Shell Lake, WI
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace to accommodate a Very
High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) and Distance Measuring
Equipment (DME) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) for
runway 32 at Shell Lake Municipal Airport; Shell Lake, WI. Controlled
airspace extending upward from 700 to 1200 feet above ground level
(AGL) is needed for aircraft executing the approach. The intended
effect of this action is to provide adequate controlled airspace for
aircraft executing the SIAP.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, February 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eleanor J. Williams, Air Traffic Division, System Management Branch,
AGL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des
Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone (708) 294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On August 4, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Shell Lake Municipal Airport, Shell Lake, WI (60 FR 39894). The
proposal was to add controlled airspace extending upward from 700 to
1200 feet AGL for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
designations for airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) establishes Class E airspace at Shell Lake Municipal
Airport, Shell Lake, WI. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700
to 1200 feet AGL is needed for aircraft executing the approach. The
area will be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts thereby
enabling pilots to circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR
procedures.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
[[Page 4]]
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6005 The class E airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
AGL WI E5 Shell Lake, WI [New]
Shell Lake Municipal Airport, WI
(Lat. 45 deg.43'53'' N, long. 91 deg.55'14'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Shell Lake Municipal Airport and
within 2.7 miles either side of the 143-degree bearing from the
airport extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 7.4 miles southeast of
the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on December 6, 1995.
Jeffrey L. Griffith
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
FR Doc. 95-31572 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31571 Expansion of Restricted Area R-2917, De Funiak Springs, FL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4-5]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31571]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 73
[Airspace Docket No. 93-ASO-8]
Expansion of Restricted Area R-2917, De Funiak Springs, FL
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action expands the lateral and vertical dimensions of
Restricted Area R-2917, De Funiak Springs, FL, to increase the size of
the special use airspace around an existing Space Detection and
Tracking Radar (FPS-85) system located at that site. A revision to U.S.
Air Force safety regulations increased the size of special use airspace
required around such installations to lessen any potential hazard to
aircraft which are carrying electroexplosive devices.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, February 29, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Military Operations
Program Office, Office of Air Traffic System Management, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone: (202) 267-9361.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 3, 1993, the FAA proposed to increase the lateral and
vertical dimensions of R-2917 from a circular area with a 1.25-statute-
mile radius, extending from the surface to 5,000 feet mean sea level,
to a 2.5-nautical-mile radius circle, extending to, but not including
Flight Level 230 (58 FR 63908).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Except for
editorial changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in the
notice. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Section 73.29 of part 73 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations was republished in FAA Order 7400.8C dated June 29, 1995.
The Rule
This amendment to part 73 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 73) increases the lateral and vertical dimensions of
Restricted Area R-2917, De Funiak Springs, FL, in order to expand the
special use airspace around an FPS-85 radar facility. The amendment
increases the size of R-2917 to a 2.5-nautical-mile radius circle, and
raises the designated altitude to, but not including, Flight Level 230.
The Radio Frequency (RF) energy transmitted by the FPS-85 radar
potentially could ignite electroexplosive devices that may be carried
on board certain aircraft. There has been no increase in the power
output or change to the emission pattern of the radar. This expansion
is necessary because the U.S. Air Force has adopted revised safety
criteria which better define the limits of the RF emission pattern of
the FPS-85 radar. The expanded R-2917 remains totally within the
confines of another existing restricted area, R-2914A, which extends
from the surface to unlimited altitude, with a ``continuous'' time of
designation. Consequently, since the affected area remains continuously
designated restricted airspace, there will be no impact on
nonparticipating aircraft operations as a result of this expansion.
This amendment replaces a temporary flight restriction which was
implemented as an interim safety measure at the site. This amendment
also changes the title of the using agency to ``U.S. Air Force,
Commander, U.S. Space Command, Peterson AFB, CO,'' and adds a
controlling agency for R-2917, with the title ``U.S. Air Force, Eglin
Approach Control.''
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Environmental Review
The U.S. Air Force completed an Environmental Impact Analysis of
the proposed expansion action in accordance with Air Force Regulations,
and applicable Federal Laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. The Air
Force has determined that the action qualified for categorical
exclusion 2R under Air Force Regulations: ``Continuation of actions, if
there is not substantial, adverse change from previously existing
conditions.''
Because the expansion action is a minor adjustment to the internal
boundaries of overlapping restricted areas, which does not change the
outer limits of the restricted airspace as a whole, and the changes in
the title of the using agency and addition of a controlling agency do
not have potential environmental consequences, the FAA has determined
that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion as a minor
adjustment to a special-use airspace action under Paragraph 3(c) of
Appendix 3 of FAA Order 1050.1D, ``Policies and Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts'' and the regulations implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 40 CFR part 1500. A
documented categorical exclusion has been prepared by the FAA and
placed in the Docket for the Final Rule.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73
Airspace, Navigation (air).
[[Page 5]]
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 73.29 [Amended]
R-2917 De Funiak Springs, FL [Revised]
Boundaries. A circle with a 2.5 NM radius centered at:
Lat. 30 deg.32'55'' N., long. 86 deg.12'52'' W.
Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including FL 230.
Time of designation. Continuous.
Controlling agency. U.S. Air Force, Eglin Approach Control.
Using agency. U.S. Air Force, Commander, U.S. Space Command,
Peterson AFB, CO.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 21, 1995.
Harold W. Becker,
Manager, Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical Information Division.
[FR Doc. 95-31571 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31556 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals; Menadione Nicotinamide Bisulfite
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5-6]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31556]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 573
[Docket No. 94F-0283]
Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals;
Menadione Nicotinamide Bisulfite
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of menadione
nicotinamide bisulfite as a nutritional supplement for the prevention
of vitamin K deficiency and as a source of supplemental niacin in
chicken and turkey feed when used at a rate not to exceed 2 grams per
ton (g/t) of complete feed. This action is in response to a food
additive petition filed by Vanetta (U.S.A.) Inc.
DATES: Effective January 2, 1996; written objections and request for
hearing by February 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon A. Benz, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-226), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1729.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of August 15, 1994 (59 FR 41769), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 2228) had been filed by Vanetta (U.S.A.) Inc.,
1770 East Market St., York, PA 17402. The petition proposed to amend
the food additives regulations in 21 CFR part 573 to provide for the
safe use of menadione nicotinamide bisulfite as a nutritional
supplement for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency in chickens and
turkeys and as a source of supplemental niacin in chicken and turkey
diets to be used at a level not to exceed 2 g/t of complete feed.
The notice of filing provided for a 75-day comment period. No
comments were received.
FDA has evaluated the data and information in the petition and
other relevant material. FDA concludes that the proposed use of the
additive in chicken and turkey diets, not to exceed
2 g/t of complete feed, is safe. Therefore, the food additive
regulations in part 573 are amended to add new Sec. 573.625 to reflect
this approved use.
In accordance with Sec. 571.1(h) (21 CFR 571.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Veterinary Medicine by appointment with the information
contact person listed above. As provided in 21 CFR 571.1(h), the agency
will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for
public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before February 1, 1996, file with the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each
objection shall be separately numbered, and each numbered objection
shall specify with particularity the provisions of the regulation to
which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each
numbered objection on which a hearing is requested shall specifically
so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection
shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection.
Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested shall include
a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information
intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that
a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis
for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to
a hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 573
Animal feeds, Food additives.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 573 is
amended as follows:
PART 573--FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FEED AND DRINKING WATER OF
ANIMALS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 573 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348).
2. New Sec. 573.625 is added to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 573.625 Menadione nicotinamide bisulfite.
The food additive may be safely used as follows:
(a) Product. The additive is 1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-2-methyl-1,4-dioxo-
2-naphthalene sulfonic acid with 3-pyridine carboxylic acid amine (CAS
No. 73581-79-0).
(b) Conditions of use. As a nutritional supplement in chicken and
turkey feeds for both the prevention of vitamin K deficiency and as a
source of supplemental niacin.
(c) Limitations. Not to exceed 2 grams per ton of complete feed. To
assure safe use, the label and labeling shall bear adequate directions
for use.
[[Page 6]]
Dated: December 22, 1995.
Stephen F. Sundlof,
Director, Center for Veterinary Madicine.
[FR Doc. 95-31556 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31544 Amendment of FIRMR Provisions To Ensure Currency and Relevancy
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9-17]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31544]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10]]
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Parts 201-1, 201-2, 201-3, 201-4, 201-6, 201-7, 201-17, 201-
18, 201-20, 201-21, 201-22, 201-24 and 201-39
[FIRMR Amendment 7]
RIN 3090-AF31
Amendment of FIRMR Provisions To Ensure Currency and Relevancy
AGENCY: Information Technology Service, GSA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends selected Federal Information Resources
Management Regulation (FIRMR) provisions to ensure the currency and
relevancy of the FIRMR. It is issued in accordance with Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, which requires agencies to periodically
review their significant regulations to determine whether they should
be modified or eliminated.
This rule makes a number of changes to the FIRMR. Among the more
significant changes, are the following: add, change, or remove FIRMR
definitions and acronyms including redefining ``outdated equipment'' to
mean Federal information processing equipment over six years old that
is no longer in current production; revise provisions pertaining to
accessibility by individuals with disabilities to implement the new
focus in the Rehabilitation Act Amendment of 1992 on information rather
than equipment; permit agency heads to grant exceptions to the
mandatory use of a Federal Standard (FED-STD) after notification to
GSA; clarify the intent of the FIRMR requirement for agencies to
conduct requirements analyses ``commensurate with the size and
complexity of the need''; allow agencies to substitute similar
documentation prepared in response to programmatic needs for
requirements analyses; establish a threshold below which agencies do
not have to prepare a requirements analysis or analysis of
alternatives; clarify that agencies need only perform an analysis of
alternatives for those alternatives most feasible to implement; raise
the threshold from $50,000 to $1,000,000 for doing an analysis of
alternatives limited to demonstrating that the benefits of the
acquisition will outweigh the costs; specify ratification procedures
when a delegation of procurement authority (DPA) is required from GSA
but has not been obtained; remove the reporting requirements to GSA for
listening-in to or recording telephone conversations and toll-free
telephone service; clarify procedures for economical capability and
performance validation; revise the scope of obsolescence reviews to
include equipment that may be obsolescing; expand the exception from
$300,000 to $1,000,000 for award based on lowest offered purchase
price; clarify that agencies must submit post delegation information to
GSA for specific acquisition delegations; clarify procedures for
evaluating outdated and obsolete information technology; and remove an
antiquated clause concerning warranty exclusion and limitation of
damages.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective February 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Steele, GSA, Center for
Information Technology Policy and Regulations Management (KAR), 18th &
F Streets, NW., Room 3224, Washington, DC 20405, telephone FTS/
Commercial (202) 501-3194 (v) or (202) 501-0657 (tdd).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (1) This amendment incorporates provisions
of two notices of proposed rulemaking (NPR's) published in the Federal
Register (FR) on December 6, 1994 and January 10, 1995. The December 6,
1994, FR notice proposed various changes to several sections of the
FIRMR. The January 10, 1995, FR notice, erroneously published as an
amendment to Part 39 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, provided
clarification regarding ratification procedures for contracts that
required a delegation of procurement authority (DPA) from GSA when the
DPA had not been obtained initially. The following summarizes the
changes being made as a result of these notices:
(a) Sections 201-1.003(a), 201-3.000, 201-3.001(a), 201-3.101, 201-
3.201(d), 201-3.3 and the title to part 201-3 are amended to
discontinue the opportunity for agencies to establish supplements to
the FIRMR as part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). GSA has
determined that agencies have not issued such regulations in the CFR
since the establishment of the FIRMR, and that the provisions are
therefore unnecessary.
(b) Section 201-1.003 paragraph (d) is amended by deleting
responsibilities of the Archivist of the United States. It is the
intent of the FIRMR to only implement GSA's authorities and
responsibilities. Including the Archivist's responsibilities in the
FIRMR is, therefore, unnecessary.
(c) Section 201-2.001 paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) are removed.
The original text was taken from the Paperwork Reduction Act. However,
not all provisions were excerpted. This resulted in some confusion.
Accordingly, the text is being removed so that agencies will refer to
the Paperwork Reduction Act to learn the specific responsibilities of
the designated senior official.
(d) Section 201-2.001 paragraph (b) is amended by removing the last
sentence which pertained to agencies not subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This information is adequately covered in Sec. 201-
2.002.
(e) Section 201-2.002 is amended by changing the sequence of
paragraphs (a) through (c). The revised sequence more accurately aligns
the responsibilities of the agency designated senior official (DSO).
(f) Section 201-3 discusses the organization of the FIRMR, how it
is supplemented with other guidance issuances, and its relationship to
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Section 201-3.001 is amended
to remove unnecessary details which pertain to circumstances giving
rise to interim rules. This information is more appropriately discussed
in Sec. 201-3.203. Section 201-3.203 paragraph (c) replaces the term
``temporary change'' with the words ``interim rule'' to standardize
terminology pertaining to revising the FIRMR. Also removed for brevity
is a redundant sentence that lists the various types of guidance
material already described. For consistency, the enumeration of the
types of guidance issuances contained in the FIRMR (Sec. 201-
3.001(b)(1) through (3)) is changed to small roman numerals.
(g) Section 201-3.001 paragraph (b)(i) is amended to reflect the
current availability of the FIRMR on CD-ROM.
(h) Section 201-3.204 paragraph (a) is amended to update the phone
number for the Government Printing Office (GPO) Bookstore.
(i) In sections 201-4.001 and 201-39.201, the definition for
outdated FIP equipment is revised to shorten the period for determining
when FIP equipment is outdated. The FIRMR defines outdated FIP
equipment as any FIP equipment over eight years old, based on the
initial commercial installation date of that model of equipment, and
that is no longer in current production. This definition has been in
existence since 1986 when the product cycle of computer equipment was
four years. Since that time, the product life cycle has decreased to
about three years, and industry spokesmen state that this figure is
decreasing even more. When microcomputers are upgraded, the
[[Page 11]]
product cycle may be even less since typically they are upgraded by
replacing internal components. The ``chip'' life cycle for these
components is generally 18 to 24 months. Additionally, after five years
most computer equipment has little or no market value. In recognition
of these facts, the definition for outdated equipment is being revised
to shorten the time interval from eight to six years after the first
commercial installation at which point equipment no longer produced is
considered to be outdated.
(j) Section 201-4.001 is amended by adding a new definition for
``Records management.'' The FIRMR discusses records management in
subpart 201-9.1, but has never included a definition. The definition
added is the same as contained in OMB Circular A-130. Also, the
existing definitions of ``application software'' and ``common-use
software'' are designated as subcategories (a) and (b) respectively of
the larger term, ``Software'' for consistency of format.
(k) Section 201-4.002 is revised to include the following new
acronyms: CBD, FED-STD, FSTS, GAO, GSBCA, IRPMR, MOL, OAC, and POTS.
These acronyms were used in the FIRMR index, but previously were not
defined.
(l) Section 201-4.003, Applicable OMB Circulars, is being added. In
order to avoid future changes to FIRMR text caused by revisions of OMB
Circular titles, this new section is added to include the current
titles of all OMB Circulars referenced in the FIRMR.
(m) Section 201-6.001 is revised to add a new item (a)(5) to more
closely reflect the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, as well
as address matters raised in OMB Circular A-130. These include
improving service delivery, dissemination of information, increasing
productivity, improving the quality of decision making, reducing fraud
and waste, and reducing the information collection burden on the
public. Section 201-6.001 is also revised to redesignate the previous
item (5) as new item (6).
(n) A series of revisions are being made due to Public Law 102-569
(dated October 29, 1992), which amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
by broadening the scope of accessibility for individuals with
disabilities. These revisions capture more thoroughly the intent of
Pub. L. 102-569. The previous version of the Rehabilitation Act only
required that GSA ensure those with disabilities can access
``electronic office equipment.'' The revised statute recognizes that
while equipment accessibility is important, that alone is not
sufficient because an agency's applications software and user
interfaces can impede the functional use of a computer if they do not
have features permitting use by individuals with disabilities. The
revised statutory provision emphasizes that all individuals must be
able to use technology to accomplish the same end objectives.
A new paragraph 201-6.002(g) is added to include as a predominant
consideration in the management and use of information and records, the
importance of ensuring that individuals with disabilities can produce
information and data, and have access to information and data,
comparable to the information and data, and access, respectively, of
others. Section 201-6.002 is also revised to redesignate the previous
item (g) as new item (h).
In addition to the insertion of 201-6.002(g), discussed above,
other provisions of the FIRMR pertaining to accessibility by
individuals with disabilities are being revised to incorporate the
statutory intent of Pub. L. 102-569. These other FIRMR provisions are:
--201-17.001(j)--Predominant Considerations in the Management and Use
of Federal Information Processing (FIP) Resources;
--201-18.001(e), which generally describes the Federal Government's
statutory responsibility to foster accessibility for individuals with
disabilities;
--201-18.002(c), which pertains to adoption of accessibility guidelines
in agency IRM plans; and
--201-20.103-7(a), which requires agencies to incorporate accessibility
requirements in their acquisitions of FIP resources.
(o) Section 201-7.001 paragraph (b) is revised to delete a
reference to canceled OMB Circular A-3.
(p) Section 201-7.002 paragraph (c) is revised to clarify when
information needs are determined. The existing text suggested that
information needs were to be determined before conducting a
requirements analysis. The revised text reflects that determining
information needs and analyzing requirements are frequently concurrent
activities.
(q) Section 201-9.202-1 paragraph (b)(9) is revised to update the
current mailing address for the Supply Management Division.
(r) The existing text in paragraph 201-20.001(d) referenced the
specific subjects of requirements analysis and analysis of alternatives
in the GSA Acquisition Guide series. The reference to the guide series
is unnecessary and is being deleted.
(s) Subpart 201-20.1 is revised to clarify GSA's intent regarding
the preparation of requirements analyses. Currently, the FIRMR requires
agencies to document their requirements for FIP resources ``by
conducting a requirements analysis commensurate with the size and
complexity of the need.'' Some agencies have questioned the necessity
of conducting a requirements analysis and preparing the required
documentation when a similar document has already been prepared in
conformance with agency programmatic needs. The FIRMR is being revised
to allow agencies to use such similar documents if they address the
basic information required in a requirements analysis.
Other agencies have misinterpreted the intent of the phrase
``commensurate with the size and complexity of the need,'' and, in some
cases, are over documenting requirements for small dollar acquisitions.
These small dollar acquisitions are usually for commercial items
readily available in the competitive marketplace. FAR planning
provisions and agencies' internal procurement procedures provide
sufficient information for requirements to justify small dollar value
acquisitions. To ensure more expeditious and efficient acquisitions,
this rule establishes a threshold for when agencies must conduct
requirements analyses and analyses of alternatives. Sections 201-20.102
and 201-20.202 are revised to eliminate the requirement to perform
requirements analyses and analyses of alternatives for acquisitions of
FIP resources when the total estimated system life costs of the FIP
resources are less than $500,000. Agencies may establish internal
documentation procedures when the acquisitions involve FIP resources
valued at less than $500,000. However, agencies are encouraged to keep
such documentation requirements to a minimum.
Additionally, Sec. 201-20.103 is revised to require that agencies
only consider the factors in this section if it is appropriate to do
so. This allows agencies to exercise discretion regarding whether or
not to include the factors in their requirements analyses.
(t) Subpart 201-20.2 requires agencies to perform an analysis of
alternatives based on the requirements analysis to determine the most
advantageous alternative that will meet their needs. Like the
requirements analysis, the analysis of alternatives must be
``commensurate with the size and complexity of the agency's need''. As
indicated in paragraph 201-20.203-1(a)(1), GSA's intention was that
agencies only include in the analysis of alternatives those
alternatives that are
[[Page 12]]
truly feasible to implement. It has come to our attention, however,
that some agencies are analyzing all alternatives, whether or not they
are feasible in the specific circumstance. This unnecessarily
complicates and lengthens the acquisition process. Accordingly, section
201-20.202, which states the FIRMR policy on performing analyses of
alternatives, is being revised to emphasize that agencies should limit
the number of alternatives analyzed to those that are most feasible to
implement. Other changes are also being made to this subpart. Section
201-20.203-2 is being revised to increase from $50,000 to $1,000,000
the threshold for performing a more detailed analysis of alternatives.
Accordingly, agencies must perform an analysis including use of the
present value of money if the estimated amount of their proposed
acquisition is more than $1,000,000 or an analysis that demonstrates
that the benefits of the acquisition will outweigh the costs if the
acquisition is less than $1,000,000. This change will help to
streamline the acquisition process by reducing documentation
requirements for a greater number of smaller acquisitions.
Additionally, paragraph 201-20.203-2(c) is being revised to delete
the title of OMB Circular A-94 and to move it to the new section 201-
4.003.
(u) Section 201-20.303 paragraph (d)(2) is revised to permit agency
heads to grant exceptions to FED-STDS provided GSA is notified at least
30 days prior to any granting of an exception to a FED-STD, e.g., in a
solicitation. This change empowers agencies to accomplish their
missions more effectively.
(v) Section 201-20.304 paragraphs (a) and b(1) deal with capability
and performance validation. They are revised to require use of
validation techniques that are more economical to Government and
industry than use of a benchmark or an operational capability
demonstration (OCD). In the early years of computing, comprehensive
benchmarks, stress tests, and OCDs were useful for validating
reliability, performance and other requirements. In today's mature
industry, the reliability and stability of the marketplace offerings
are much higher. Also, there is substantial empirical data available
from independent sources to assist agencies in assessing how a proposed
system will perform in their environment and with their workloads. As a
result, the use of benchmarks or OCDs may not be the most advantageous
approach in many acquisitions. This is more likely to be the case for
those acquisitions that do not require customized hardware and/or
software. Agencies will now be required to select the most economical
technique available that will meet their minimum needs. Additionally,
paragraph 201-20.304(b)(2) is revised to delete the adjective
``actual'' in front of the word ``requirements''. The word ``actual''
caused some confusion about the meaning of ``When a benchmark is used
as part of performance validation, agencies shall ensure, that the FIP
software selected for benchmarks is representative of actual
requirements . . . '' In fact, agencies acquire systems to accommodate
a workload over a life cycle of some years. An agency's definition of
its requirements at the time of acquisition is its best estimate of
workload that will ultimately occur over the ensuing years.
(w) Section 201-20.305 is being amended to recognize the fact that
GSA will, at the request of an agency, grant authority to the agency to
ratify a contract awarded without the necessary specific acquisition
DPA. The amendment also clarifies that procurement actions taken prior
to contract award do not necessarily have to be repeated. It should be
noted that the agency designated officials already have the authority
to permit ratification of contracts valued at less than the agencies'
regulatory or specific agency delegation thresholds.
(x) Section 201-20.305-3 is revised to emphasize the agency
requirement for the submission of post delegation information to GSA
for specific delegations. With the increased emphasis on results
oriented performance, GSA will seek information demonstrating that
agencies are obtaining the benefits cited in their agency procurement
requests. Also, this section's reference to a specific acquisition DPA
under the Trail Boss program is being deleted. Although the Trail Boss
approach is being retained and its use encouraged, special DPAs will no
longer be required.
(y) Section 201-21.201 paragraph (b) is revised to reflect the
current name and symbol of a GSA organization.
(z) Section 201-21.301 paragraphs (a) and (d) are revised to delete
references to OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III.
(aa) Section 201-21.401 paragraph (c) is revised to remove
references to OMB Circular A-130, Appendix II, which is proposed for
revision; and to remove the title of the Circular since it appears in
the new section 201-4.003.
(bb) Section 201-21.403 is amended to change the annual report date
from November 30 to October 20 for reporting the dollar amount charged
to users for the sharing of excess FIP resources. This earlier due date
allows for more timely submission of GSA's consolidated Governmentwide
report to Congress.
(cc) Section 201-21.601(c)(3) is amended to change the reference
from 5 CFR 735.205 to 5 CFR 2635.704, to reflect a change in the
regulations covering the use of telephone calls placed over Government
provided telephone systems.
(dd) Section 201-21.603 is amended to delete the agency reporting
requirement. Agencies that listen-in or record conversations for public
safety, public service monitoring or to assist individuals with
disabilities must notify GSA in writing at least 30 days before the
operational date. This notification provision is being removed because
it places an unnecessary burden on agencies. GSA does not have any
affirmative enforcement or other function with regard to listening-in
that would make this reporting requirement necessary. Such
responsibilities rest solely with the reporting agency. Accordingly, in
line with placing authority and responsibility at the appropriate
level, this reporting requirement will be removed as will the provision
that GSA will periodically review agency listening-in activities.
(ee) Section 201-21.604, requires agencies to forward to GSA copies
of each order for toll free telephone service. Documentation submitted
is to include estimates of monthly costs and usage, and cite the
relevant statute, Executive Order, or other regulation directing the
toll free service. This provision is being removed because the use of
toll-free telephone services is sufficiently routine that close
supervision by GSA is no longer needed. Removal of this provision
reduces costly and burdensome over-regulation and places authority and
responsibility with the agency.
(ff) Section 201-22.303 is revised to expand the scope of the
subpart. Currently, this provision requires agencies to review the use
of equipment that is already outdated and to determine if continued use
is economical. This provision is revised also to expand the scope of
the review to include equipment that may be obsolescent. This change is
made to encourage agencies to ensure that their FIP equipment always
remains economical and efficient. Guidelines are provided to assist
agencies in identifying obsolescent equipment. Agencies are encouraged
to replace their obsolescent equipment if the cost of continued use
exceeds the cost of acquiring and operating newer technology.
[[Page 13]]
(gg) Section 201-39.1001-1 is amended by removing the words ``OMB
Bulletin 88-16'' in paragraph (i) and adding in their place ``OMB
Bulletin 90-08''.
(hh) Sections 201-39.1402-2 paragraph (c) and 201-39.1501-2
paragraph (c) are revised to increase the thresholds below which
certain factors need not be considered in determining the lowest bid or
total proposed cost, respectively. In determining the lowest bid in a
sealed bidding acquisition, Sec. 201-39.1402-1 requires agencies to
factor in costs pertaining to life cycle support and conversion. In
determining the total cost of a proposal in a negotiated acquisition,
Sec. 201-39.1501-1 requires agencies to factor in costs pertaining to
life cycle support and conversion. These thresholds are increased from
$300,000 to $1,000,000 in order to give agencies greater discretion in
managing their acquisitions. For the same reason, the ``per item''
thresholds are increased from $25,000 to $100,000.
(ii) Subpart 201-39.46 is amended to delete provisions that are
more adequately addressed in FAR Subpart 46. This subpart addresses
quality assurance and provides guidance limiting contractor liability
in contracts for FIP resources. Unless circumstances warrant otherwise,
contracting officers are instructed to insert a limitation of liability
clause found at Sec. 201-39.5206. FAR Subpart 46 also provides guidance
on limitation of contractor liability. The FAR's guidance is more
comprehensive and flexible than is the FIRMR's. The FAR provides
multiple contractual clauses from which a contracting officer must
choose. One clause applies to contracts for the delivery of non-high
value end items, a second to the delivery of high-value end items, and
a third to the provision of services. Contracting officers are
instructed to combine relevant parts of each clause for contracts
involving more than one of these categories. Accordingly, the FIRMR
provision and clause found at section 201-39.5202-6 are removed so that
the corresponding FAR provision will apply.
(2) This rule was submitted to, and reviewed by, the Office of
Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review. This rule will not have a significant
economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). GSA has
determined that this rule is not a significant rule for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 of October 4, 1993, because it is not likely to
result in any of the impacts noted in Executive Order 12866, affect the
rights of specified individuals, or raise issues arising from the
policies of the Administration. GSA has based all administrative
decisions underlying this rule on adequate information concerning the
need for and consequences of this rule; has determined that the
potential benefits to society from this rule outweigh the potential
costs; has maximized the net benefits; and has chosen the alternative
approach involving the least net cost to society.
List of Subjects in 41 CFR Parts 201-1, 201-2, 201-3, 201-4, 201-6,
201-7, 201-17, 201-18, 201-20, 201-21, 201-22, 201-24, and 201-39
Archives and records, Computer technology, Telecommunications,
Government procurement, Property management, Records management, and
Federal information processing resources activities.
Accordingly 41 CFR parts 201-1, 201-2, 201-3, 201-4, 201-6, 201-7,
201-17, 201-18, 201-20, 201-21, 201-22, 201-24, and 201-39 are amended
as follows:
PART 201-1--APPLICABILITY AND AUTHORITY
1. The authority citation for part 201-1 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
Sec. 201-1.003 [Amended]
2. Section 201-1.003 is amended by removing the word ``system'' in
paragraph (a) and removing paragraph (d).
PART 201-2--DESIGNATED SENIOR OFFICIALS
3. The authority citation for part 201-2 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
4. Section 201-2.001 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-2.001 General.
The PRA requires that the head of each executive agency designate a
senior official who shall report directly to the agency head. The
designated official is responsible for carrying out the IRM function
assigned to the agency by the PRA.
Sec. 201-2.002 [Amended]
5. Section 201-2.002 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a),
(b), and (c) as paragraphs (c), (a), and (b) respectively.
Sec. 201-2.003 [Amended]
6. Section 201-2.003 is amended by removing the words ``18th and F
Streets, NW.,'' in paragraph (a).
PART 201-3--THE FIRMR
7. Part 201-3 is amended by revising the heading to read as set
forth above.
8. The authority citation for part 201-3 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
9. Section 201-3.000 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-3.000 Scope of part.
This part describes the Federal Information Resources Management
Regulation.
10. Section 201-3.001 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-3.001 General.
(a) The Federal Information Resources Management Regulation (FIRMR)
is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and includes
interim rules which have the same effect as final rules.
(b) From time to time, the General Services Administration (GSA)
will issue nonregulatory publications to provide guidance and
information:
(1) FIRMR bulletins contain guidance and information on various
information resources management areas. FIRMR bulletins do not
constitute binding authority, but should be used as an aid in
understanding GSA programs and the FIRMR. FIRMR bulletins are published
in Appendix B of the looseleaf edition of the FIRMR and are available
along with the FIRMR from GPO by subscription or on GSA's CD-ROM.
(2) Handbooks and reports address specific program or technical
areas where the audience generally will be defined by the subject
matter.
(3) Appendix C of the looseleaf edition of the FIRMR contains a
listing of current bulletins, handbooks, and reports and information on
how to obtain them.
Sec. 201-3.101 [Amended]
11. Section 201-3.101, is amended by removing the word ``system''.
12. Section 201-3.201 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 201-3.201 Issuance.
* * * * *
(d) The FIRMR is issued as chapter 201 of title 41, CFR.
13. Section 201-3.203 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 201-3.203 Maintenance.
* * * * *
[[Page 14]]
(c) The Administrator of General Services may issue an interim rule
to the FIRMR when solicitation of comments is impractical due to urgent
and compelling circumstances (e.g., when a new statute must be
implemented in a relatively short period of time). However, the interim
rule will make provision for a public comment period of at least 30
days for consideration in the formulation of the final change to the
FIRMR.
Sec. 201-3.204 [Amended]
14. Section 201-3.204 is amended by removing the phone number
``275-2091'' in paragraph (a) and adding in its place ``512-0132''.
Subpart 201-3.3--[Removed and Reserved]
15. Subpart 201-3.3 is removed and reserved.
PART 201-4--DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND OMB CIRCULARS
16. The heading for part 201-4 is revised as set forth above.
17. The authority citation for Part 201-4 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
18. Section 201-4.000 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-4.000 Scope of part.
This part defines words, terms, acronyms, and OMB Circulars used in
the FIRMR.
Sec. 201-4.001 [Amended]
19. Section 201-4.001 is amended in the definition Information
resources management by adding ``(IRM)'' preceding the word ``means''.
20. Section 201-4.001 is amended by removing the word ``eight'' in
the definition Outdated FIP equipment and adding in its place ``six''.
21. Section 201-4.001 is amended by adding a new definition in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 201-4.001 Definitions.
* * * * *
Records management means the planning, controlling, directing,
organizing, training, promoting, and other managerial activities
involved with records creation, records maintenance and use, and
records disposition in order to achieve adequate and proper
documentation of the policies and transactions of the Federal
Government and effective and economical management of agency operations
(44 U.S.C. 2901(2)).
* * * * *
22. Section 201-4.001 is amended by removing the undesignated
center heading ``Software'', adding a definition for Software in its
place, designating entries Application software and Common-use software
as paragraphs (a) and (b) under the definition for Software, to read as
follows:
* * * * *
Software includes--
(a) Application software * * *
(b) Common-use software * * *
* * * * *
23. Section 201-4.002 is amended by adding in alphabetical order
new acronyms and by placing the acronyms ``GSA'' and ``GPO'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 201-4.002 Acronyms.
* * * * *
CBD means Commerce Business Daily.
* * * * *
FED-STD means Federal Telecommunications Standards.
* * * * *
FSTS means Federal Secure Telephone Service.
* * * * *
GAO means General Accounting Office.
* * * * *
GSBCA means General Services Board of Contract Appeals.
* * * * *
IRPMR means Information Resources Procurement and Management
Review.
* * * * *
MOL means Maximum Ordering Limitation.
* * * * *
OAC means Original Acquisition Cost.
* * * * *
POTS means Purchase of Telephones and Services.
* * * * *
24. Section 201-4.003 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 201-4.003 Applicable OMB Circulars.
The following applicable OMB Circulars may be obtained from the OMB
Publications office by calling (202) 395-7332:
A-11 Preparation and submission of budget estimates.
A-94 Benefit-cost analysis of Federal programs; guidelines and
discounts.
A-109 Major system acquisition.
A-127 Financial management systems.
A-130 Management of Federal information resources.
PART 201-6--PREDOMINANT CONSIDERATIONS
25. The authority citation for part 201-6 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
26. Section 201-6.001 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(5) and adding paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows:
Sec. 201-6.001 General.
(a) * * *
(3) Maximize the usefulness of information collected, maintained,
and disseminated by the Federal Government;
* * * * *
(5) Ensure that FIP resources are acquired and used by the Federal
Government in a manner which improves service delivery and program
management, increases productivity, improves the quality of
decisionmaking, reduces waste and fraud, and reduces the information
collection burden on the public; and
(6) Ensure that the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination
of information by the Federal Government is consistent with applicable
laws, regulations, and executive orders.
* * * * *
27. Section 201-6.002 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (g)
through (m) as paragraphs (h) through (n), respectively, and adding a
new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 201-6.002 Predominant considerations.
* * * * *
(g) Ensure that individuals with disabilities can produce
information and data, and have access to information and data,
comparable to the information and data, and access, respectively, of
other individuals;
* * * * *
PART 201-7--PLANNING
28. The authority citation for part 201-7 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
29. Section 201-7.001 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 201-7.001 General.
* * * * *
(b) The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) OMB Circular
No. A-11, and No. A-130, and the Computer Security Act of 1987 (Public
Law 100-235, 101 Stat. 1724 (40 U.S.C. 759 note)) require agencies to
conduct various information resources management (IRM) planning
activities. * * *
* * * * *
[[Page 15]]
30. Section 201-7.002 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 201-7.002 Policies.
* * * * *
(c) Ensure that the agency's information needs are documented on a
timely basis, for example when conducting a requirements analysis for
FIP resources.
PART 201-17--PREDOMINANT CONSIDERATIONS
31. The authority citation for part 201-17 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
32. Section 201-17.001 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read
as follows:
Sec. 201-17.001 Predominant considerations.
* * * * *
(j) Provide individuals with disabilities (employees and others who
create and/or use the agency's information and data) the ability to
produce information and data, and have access to information and data,
comparable to the information and data produced and accessed by other
individuals;
* * * * *
PART 201-18--PLANNING AND BUDGETING
33. The authority citation for part 201-18 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
34. Section 201-18.001 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read
as follows:
Sec. 201-18.001 General.
* * * * *
(e) Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendment of 1992 (Pub L.
102-569, 29 U.S.C. 794d) requires the Federal Government to adopt
guidelines for information and data accessibility designed to ensure
that individuals with disabilities can produce information and data,
and have access to information and data, comparable to information and
data, and access, respectively, of other individuals. This Act requires
that agencies comply with such guidelines. FIRMR Bulletin C-8, provides
guidance on planning for FIP resources to accommodate the needs of
individuals with disabilities.
* * * * *
35. Section 201-18.002 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 201-18.002 Policies.
* * * * *
(c) Agencies shall adopt information and data accessibility
guidelines similar to those described in FIRMR Bulletin C-8 in their
planning process.
* * * * *
PART 201-20--ACQUISITION
36. The authority citation for part 201-20 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
Sec. 201-20.001 [Amended]
37. Section 201-20.001 is amended by removing paragraph (d).
38. Section 201-20.102 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.102 Policy.
Agencies shall establish and document requirements for FIP
resources by conducting a requirements analysis, or similar study,
commensurate with the size and complexity of the need except for those
acquisitions when the total dollar value of the FIP resources,
including all optional quantities and periods over the life of the
contract, does not exceed $500,000. A requirements analysis shall not
be performed when the value of the FIP resources does not exceed the
$500,000 threshold. An agency may follow its own internal procedure for
documenting requirements valued at less than $500,000. Agencies shall
justify all requirements for other than full and open competition in
accordance with FAR Part 6 whether or not a requirements analysis is
performed.
39. Section 201-20.103 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.103 Procedures.
Agencies shall consider the factors in Secs. 201-20.103-1 through
201-20.103-11 in establishing requirements, as applicable.
40. Section 201-20.103-7 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.103-7 Accessibility requirements for individuals with
disabilities.
(a) Agencies shall acquire FIP resources that allow individuals
with disabilities to produce information and data, and have access to
information and data, comparable to the information and data, and
access, respectively, of other individuals. Agency plans shall address
both present and future needs.
* * * * *
41. Section 201-20.202 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.202 Policy.
Using the results of the requirements analysis as the basis,
agencies shall conduct an analysis of alternatives commensurate with
the size and complexity of the requirement to identify the most
advantageous alternative to the Government. The number of alternatives
analyzed should be limited to those considered the most feasible to be
implemented. Agencies shall not conduct analyses of alternatives for
those acquisitions where the total dollar value of the FIP resources,
including all optional quantities and periods over the life of the
contract, does not exceed $500,000. Agencies shall instead follow their
own internal procedures to identify the most advantageous alternative.
42. Section 201-20.203-2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.203-2 Cost for each alternative.
(a) In the analysis of alternatives, agencies shall calculate the
total estimated cost, using the present value of money, for each of the
most feasible alternatives unless the anticipated cost of the
acquisition is $1,000,000 or less. The total estimated cost for each
alternative shall include system life cost for that alternative and any
other costs that can be identified with the alternative incurred either
before or after the system life period.
(b) When the anticipated cost of the acquisition is $1,000,000 or
less, the analysis may be limited to demonstrating that the benefits of
the acquisition will outweigh the costs.
(c) Agencies shall follow guidance in OMB Circular No. A-94, when
calculating the cost of each alternative.
43. Section 201-20.303 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.303 Standards.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Exceptions. An agency head may grant an exception to the
mandatory use of a FED-STD upon receipt of adequate documentation. If
an agency head grants an exception to the use of an individual FED-STD,
a deviation from the FIRMR is not required. However, GSA must be
notified at least 30 days prior to issuing a solicitation for which an
exception has been granted. Notification shall be sent to: General
Services Administration, Office of Technology Policy and Leadership
(KAR), 18th & F Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20405.
44. Section 201-20.304 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(1),
redesignating paragraph (b)(2) as paragraph (b)(1), revising paragraph
(a) and adding new paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.304 Capability and performance validation.
(a) Policy. When acquiring FIP resources, an agency shall use the
most
[[Page 16]]
economical technique available to provide reasonable assurance that
capability and performance requirements are met.
(b) * * *
(2) When a benchmark is used as part of performance validation,
agencies shall ensure that the FIP software selected for the benchmark
is representative of the requirements and requires the minimum amount
of reprogramming or conversion.
45. Section 201-20.305 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.305 Delegation of GSA's exclusive procurement authority.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) If an agency awards a contract that requires a DPA from GSA but
a DPA has not been obtained from GSA, the agency may request authority
from GSA's Office of Technology Policy and Leadership (KAA) to ratify
the contract in accordance with FAR 1.602-3 (48 CFR 1.602-3).
Procurement actions taken by the agency prior to receiving the
authority do not need to be repeated.
46. Section 201-20.305-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-20.305-3 Specific acquisition delegations.
(a) Agencies shall submit an agency procurement request (APR) to
GSA and receive a specific acquisition DPA if the acquisition is not
covered by a regulatory or specific agency DPA. Procedures for
requesting a DPA for a specific acquisition are provided in FIRMR
Bulletin C-5.
(b) GSA may require agencies to submit post delegation information
such as contract award, milestone schedules, contract costs, program
performance measures, and technology costs.
PART 201-21--OPERATIONS
47. The authority citation for part 201-21 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
Sec. 201-21.201 [Amended]
48. Section 201-21.201 is amended by removing the words ``Federal
Equipment Data Center (WKHE)'' in paragraph (b) and adding in their
place ``Federal Data Systems Division (WKH)''.
Sec. 201-21.301 [Amended]
49. Section 201-21.301 is amended by removing the words ``Appendix
III to'' in paragraph (a).
Sec. 201-21.303 [Amended]
50. Section 201-21.303 is amended by removing the words ``Appendix
III'' in paragraph (d).
51. Section 201-21.401 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 201-21.401 General.
* * * * *
(c) OMB Circular No. A-130, establishes Governmentwide procedures
for cost accounting and recovery for shared resources.
Sec. 201-21.403 [Amended]
52. Section 201-21.403 is amended by removing the date ``November
30'' in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) and adding in its place ``October 20''.
Sec. 201-21.601 [Amended]
53. Section 201-21.601 is amended by removing the CFR cite ``5 CFR
735.205'' in paragraph (c)(3) introductory text and adding in its place
``5 CFR 2635.704''.
54. Section 201-21.603 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2), removing paragraph (d)(3), redesignating paragraphs (d)(4) and
(d)(5) as paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4), respectively, and removing
paragraph (d)(6), to read as follows:
Sec. 201-21.603 Listening-in to or recording telephone conversations.
* * * * *
(d) Procedures. (1) Agencies that plan to listen-in to or record
telephone conversations under paragraph (c)(2), (3), or (4) of this
section shall prepare a determination of need. A determination as used
in this section means a written justification signed by the agency head
or the agency head's designee, that specifies the operational need for
listening-in to or recording telephone conversations; indicates the
specific system and location where monitoring is to be performed; lists
the number of telephones or recorders involved; and establishes
operating times and an expiration date for the monitoring.
(2) Agencies shall review, at least every 2 years, the need for
each determination authorizing listening-in or recording. Agency
documentation to continue or terminate the program shall be maintained
in agency files.
* * * * *
Sec. 201-21.604 [Removed]
55. Section 201-21.604 is removed.
PART 201-22--REVIEW AND EVALUATION
56. The authority citation for part 201-22 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
57. Section 201-22.303 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-22.303 Procedures.
(a) Agencies shall evaluate their existing outdated and/or
obsolescent FIP resources to determine whether the cost of operating
them is greater than the cost of acquiring and operating
technologically newer resources. FIRMR Bulletin C-27 provides guidance
that can be used for identifying obsolescent equipment.
(b) When the cost of operating existing outdated and/or obsolescent
FIP resources is greater than the cost of acquiring and operating
technologically newer resources, agencies shall replace the existing
less cost effective resources.
PART 201-24--GSA SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE
58. The authority citation for part 201-24 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
Sec. 201-24.001 [Amended]
59. Section 201-24.001 is amended by removing paragraph (g).
PART 201-39--ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION PROCESSING (FIP)
RESOURCES BY CONTRACTING
60. The authority citation for part 201-39 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c) and 751(f).
61. The heading of subpart 201-39.1 is amended by removing the word
``System''.
62. Section 201-39.001 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 201-39.001 General.
(a) In addition to this part 201-39, contracting officers should
review and be familiar with the policies and procedures contained in
the complete FIRMR, for example, parts 201-20 and 201-24 of this
chapter.
(b) To assist Federal agencies in preparing solicitations for FIP
resources, the General Services Administration (GSA) prepares standard
solicitations and other guidance. Federal agencies can obtain copies of
the standard solicitations by contacting: U.S. Government Printing
Office, Attn: Electronic Products, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC
20013-7082, Telephone number: (202) 512-1530, Facsimile number: (202)
512-1262. For information on obtaining acquisition guides contact the
Federal IT Reference Center at (202) 501-4860.
[[Page 17]]
Sec. 201-39.201 [Amended]
63. Section 201-39.201 is amended by removing the word ``eight'' in
the definition Outdated FIP equipment, and adding in its place the word
``six''.
Sec. 201-39.1001-1 [Amended]
64. Section 201-39.1001-1 is amended by removing the numbers ``88-
16'' in paragraph (i), and adding in their place ``90-08''.
Sec. 201-39.1402-2 [Amended]
65. Section 201-39.1402-2 is amended by removing the number
``$25,000'' in paragraph (b) and adding in its place ``$100,000'', and
also by removing the number ``$300,000'' in paragraph (c) and adding in
its place ``$1,000,000''.
Sec. 201-39.1501-2 [Amended]
66. Section 201-39.1501-2 is amended by removing the number
``$25,000'' in paragraph (b) and adding in its place ``$100,000'', and
also by removing the number ``$300,000'' in paragraph (c) and adding in
its place ``$1,000,000''.
Subpart 201-39.46--[Removed and Reserved]
67. Subpart 201-39.46 is removed and reserved.
Sec. 201-39.5202-6 [Removed and Reserved]
68. Section 201-39.5202-6 is removed and reserved.
Dated: October 27, 1995.
Roger W. Johnson,
Administrator of General Services.
[FR Doc. 95-31544 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-25-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31540 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Status Reviews of Listed Sea Turtles
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31540]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 222 and 227
[I.D. 101995A]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Status Reviews of Listed Sea
Turtles
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Department of
the Interior (collectively, the Services), announce the availability of
the status reviews of endangered and threatened sea turtles, as
required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Based upon these
reviews and any written comments received, the Services may consider
changes in the listing status for the olive ridley (Lepidochelys
olivacea) sea turtle. The status review for the green (Chelonia mydas)
sea turtle is currently under Service evaluation and is not available
with this notice. Upon completion of their evaluation, the Services
will make the green sea turtle status review available under separate
notice in the Federal Register.
DATES: February 1, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the status reviews may be submitted
to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Phil Williams, 301-713-1401, or Richard Byles, 505-248-6647.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The ESA is administered jointly by the Services. NMFS has
jurisdiction over species in the marine system while FWS has
jurisdiction elsewhere. Listed endangered and threatened species under
NMFS jurisdiction are enumerated in 50 CFR 222.23(a) and 50 CFR 227.4,
respectively. The List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List)
which contains species under the jurisdiction of both Services, is
found in 50 CFR part 17.
Pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between the two Services, the
jurisdiction over listed sea turtles is shared: FWS has responsibility
for sea turtles primarily in the terrestrial environment, while NMFS
has responsibility for sea turtles primarily in the marine environment.
Presently, all sea turtle species found in the United States are listed
as follows: Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback
(Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) are
listed as endangered; loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia
mydas), and olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) turtles are listed as
threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles in Florida
and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, and breeding populations of olive
ridleys on the Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.
Section 4(c)(2) of the ESA requires that, at least once every 5
years, a review of the species on the List be conducted to determine
whether any species should be (1) removed from the List, (2) changed in
status from an endangered species to a threatened species, or (3)
changed in status from a threatened species to an endangered species.
Criteria for determining a reclassification are found at 50 CFR
424.11(c).
The status reviews of sea turtles listed under the ESA are
available (see ADDRESSES). Based upon the status reviews, the Services
are considering the following listing change.
Olive Ridley Turtles. The western North Atlantic population would
be classified as endangered, rather than threatened. This
reclassification was first considered in a notice published on November
9, 1984 (49 FR 44775), at which time the western North Atlantic
(Surinam and adjacent areas) nesting population was reported to have
declined 80 percent since 1967. This rate of decline continues despite
over 2 decades of protection by personnel from the Surinam Nature
Protection Foundation. This area is heavily trawled for shrimp, and
trawlers have been the principal source of returned tags that had been
applied to nesting females on the local beaches. Consequently,
incidental capture in trawls is a likely cause of the progressive
depletion of this population. Pursuant to Public Law 101-162, the
importation of shrimp and shrimp products from Surinam and French
Guiana was banned in 1993 because those countries failed to demonstrate
that they had adopted a regulatory program that governed the incidental
taking of sea turtles comparable to that of the United States. During
an annual review in May 1995, shrimp imports were again embargoed from
both countries due to their lack of turtle excluder device use. The
incidental capture of turtles in trawls is a major concern in this
area.
Dated: December 22, 1995.
Ann D. Terbush,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-31540 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31529 Practices and Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31529]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 1]]
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
5 CFR Part 1201
Practices and Procedures
AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is amending its rules at 5 CFR part 1201 to update
statutory and regulatory citations for various appealable personnel
actions and to make a conforming amendment to the regulation describing
appealable reduction-in-force actions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert E. Taylor, Clerk of the Board,
202-653-7200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Merit Systems Protection Board is
amending its rules at 5 CFR part 1201 to update the citations for
various appealable actions listed at section 1201.3(a) and to make a
conforming amendment to the regulation describing appealable reduction-
in-force actions. The amendments at paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(12), and
(a)(13) reflect changes made by the Office of Personnel Management in
its regulations at 5 CFR parts 731, 353, and 330, respectively. The
amendment at paragraph (a)(8)(ii) reflects a statutory amendment to
title 38 of the United States Code. The amendment at paragraph (a)(10)
conforms the language of this regulation to that of Office of Personnel
Management regulations at 5 CFR part 351.
The Board is publishing this rule as a final rule pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 1204(h).
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1201
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Government
employees.
Accordingly, the Board amends 5 CFR part 1201 as follows:
PART 1201--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 1201 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1204, and 7701 unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 1201.3 [Amended]
2. Section 1201.3 is amended at paragraph (a)(7) by deleting
``731.508'' in the citation and by adding in its place ``731.501.''
3. Section 1201.3 is amended at paragraph (a)(8)(ii) by deleting
``38 U.S.C. 2014(b)(1)(D)'' in the citation and by adding in its place
``38 U.S.C. 4214(b)(1)(E).''
4. Section 1201.3 is amended at paragraph (a)(10) by deleting the
phrase ``reduction in grade'' and by adding in its place ``demotion.''
5. Section 1201.3 is amended at paragraph (a)(12) by deleting ``5
CFR 353.401'' in the citation and by adding in its place ``38 U.S.C.
4324, 5 CFR 353.211 and 304.''
6. Section 1201.3 is amended at paragraph (a)(13) by deleting ``5
CFR 330.202'' in the citation and by adding in its place 5 CFR
330.209.''
Dated: December 26, 1995.
Robert E. Taylor,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-31529 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31522 Removal of 72 COLREGS Text From CFR and Revision of Subchapter D Note
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8-9]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31522]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Subchapter D and Part 81
[CGD 95-053]
RIN 2115-AF16
Removal of 72 COLREGS Text From CFR and Revision of Subchapter D
Note
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In furtherance of the President's Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative by this direct final rule, the Coast Guard is removing the
text of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,
1972 (72 COLREGS) from the CFR. That text merely duplicates text found
in the United States Code. This rule also will update the note
containing a list of U.S. territories and possessions where the 72
COLREGS apply. This rulemaking represents the Coast Guard's first use
of direct final rulemaking as recommended to agencies by the National
Performance Review.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 1, 1996, unless the Coast Guard
receives written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit
adverse comments on or before March 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to the Executive Secretary, Marine
Safety Council (G-LRA/3406) (CGD 95-053), U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, or may
be delivered to room 3406 at the same address between 8 a.m. and 3
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 267-1477.
The Executive Secretary maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at room 3406, U.S. Coast Guard
Headquarters, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Schneider Appleby, Project Manager, at (202) 267-0352.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
Any comments must identify the names and address of the person
submitting the comment, specify the rulemaking docket (CGD 95-053) and
the specific section of this rule to which each comment applies, and
give the reason for each specific comment. Please submit two copies of
all comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. Persons
wanting acknowledgment of receipt of comments should enclose stamped,
self-addressed postcards or envelopes.
Regulatory Information
The Coast Guard is publishing a direct final rule, the procedures
of which are outlined in 33 CFR 1.05-55, because no adverse comments
are anticipated. If no adverse comments or any written notice of intent
to submit adverse comments are received within the specified comment
period, the rule will become effective as stated in the DATES section.
In that case, prior to the effective date, the Coast Guard will publish
a notice in the Federal Register stating that no adverse comment was
received and confirming that the rule will become
[[Page 9]]
effective as scheduled. However, if the Coast Guard receives written
adverse comment or written notice of intent to submit adverse comment,
the Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Federal Register to
announce withdrawal of all or part of the direct final rule. If adverse
comments apply to only part of this rule, and it is possible to remove
that part without defeating the purpose of the rule, the Coast Guard
may adopt as final those parts of this rule on which no adverse comment
were received. The part of the rule that is the subject of adverse
comment will be withdrawn. If the Coast Guard decides to proceed with a
rulemaking following receipt of adverse comments, a separate Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be published and a new opportunity for
comment provided.
A comment is considered ``adverse'' if the comment explains why the
rule would be inappropriate, including a challenge to the rule's
underlying premise or approach or would be ineffective or unacceptable
without a change. A comment submitted in support of a rule is not
adverse. A comment suggesting that the policy requirements of the rule
should or should not be extended to other Coast Guard programs is
outside the scope of the rule and is not adverse.
Background and Purpose
This project resulted from a review of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) required by the Presidential Regulatory Reinvention
Initiative review to rid the CFR of unnecessary regulations. This rule
will remove Appendix A or Part 81 of 33 CFR which reprints the text of
the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
(72 COLREGS) published at 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1602. The 72 COLREGS implement
the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea, 1972 which was adopted by Presidential Proclamation
in 1972. The text in the CFR which will be eliminated by this rule
exactly duplicates the text set out in the United States Code.
Therefore, the Coast Guard believes that it is both unnecessary for the
text to be reprinted in the Code of Federal Regulations. Additionally,
the practical effect of this elimination should be minimal as the text
of the 72 COLREGS is also reprinted in Commandant Instruction
(COMDTINST M16672.2B) which is available to the public through the
Government Printing Office. Since these laws are available in the
United States Code (U.S.C.) and can be acquired through the Government
Printing Office, the Coast Guard has determined that Appendix A should
be eliminated as unnecessary.
Additionally, the list of U.S. territories where the 72 COLREGS
apply, contained in the special note to Subchapter D in 33 CFR, is
being updated to remove the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
This is an administrative update being made because the Trust Territory
of the Pacific Islands is no longer a U.S. territory.
The Coast Guard is retaining in 33 CFR the interpretative rulings
regarding the 72 COLREGS as well as the demarcation lines delineating
the boundaries where the 72 COLREGS apply.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that
order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;
February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this
rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph
10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
The Coast Guard determined that a full Regulatory Evaluation was
unnecessary because this rule is simply an administrative action
eliminating unnecessary text from the CFR and will have no significant
impact on the maritime community.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider the economic impact on small entities of a
rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking is required.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
This project will not impose any cost on the marine industry.
Mariners have easy access to these laws through Coast Guard
publications which are available from the Government Printing Office as
well as through the United States Code. This change will serve an
indirect benefit to the Federal Government by saving the cost of
printing seventeen pages in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Therefore, the Coast Guard finds that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Any comments submitted in response to this finding will be evaluated
under the criteria described earlier in the preamble for comments.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection-of-information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under paragraph 2.B.2.e(34)(a) of The NEPA
Implementing Procedures, COMDTINST M16475.1B. (as revised by 59 FR
38654, July 29, 1994), this rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination''
is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 81
Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Treaties.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
33 U.S.C. 1602, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR chapter 1 and part 81 as
follows:
Subchapter D [Amended]
1. The special note at the beginning of subchapter D is amended by
removing ``The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands'' from the
listing in paragraph a.
PART 81--[AMENDED]
2. The authority for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1607; E.O. No. 11964; 44 CFR 1.46.
3. Appendix A to part 81 is removed.
Dated: December 22, 1995.
Rudy K. Peschel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Navigation Safety and
Waterway Services.
[FR Doc. 95-31522 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31517 Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Extension of Allocations to Inshore and Offshore Components; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31517]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 950905226-5282-02; I.D. 122695A]
RIN 0648-AH00
Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area;
Extension of Allocations to Inshore and Offshore Components; Correction
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Correcting amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rule (I.D.
083095A) that was published Tuesday, December 12, 1995, (60 FR 63654).
The regulation related to an extension of the allocation of pollock for
processing by the inshore and offshore components from January 1, 1996
through December 31, 1998.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ham, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Need for Publication
At 60 FR 63654, December 12, 1995, a final rule to extend the
inshore-offshore and Community Development Quota programs in the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area for 3 years, from January 1,
1996, through December 31, 1998, was published. Unintentionally, in
that final rule, a paragraph was excluded from an extension of the
expiration date and is corrected here.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 675
Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 26, 1995.
Gary Matlock,
Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
PART 675--GROUNDFISH OF THE BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS AREA
Accordingly, 50 CFR part 675 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendment:
1. The authority citation for part 675 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. Section 675.25 paragraph (b) heading is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 675.25 Observer requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Additional observer coverage requirements applicable through
December 31, 1998. * * *
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-31517 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31497 Telephone Regulations and Inmate Financial Responsibility
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 90-91]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31497]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Parts 540 and 545
[BOP-1049-I]
RIN 1120-AA39
Telephone Regulations and Inmate Financial Responsibility
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Interim Rule With Request for Comments, and Withdrawal of
Effective Date-Delayed Provisions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) is
withdrawing the provisions in its regulations relating to limitations
on telephone privileges for inmates who have refused participation in
the inmate financial responsibility program, (IFRP) which were to
become effective January 4, 1996. In addition, the Bureau is increasing
to $75.00 the amount of money to be excluded from assessment in an
inmate's financial responsibility plan. These actions are made pursuant
to the terms of a settlement approved by the District Court in a
nationwide federal prisoner class action, Washington v. Reno, Nos. 93-
217, 93-290 (E.D.KY.).
DATES: The withdrawal of 28 CFR 540.105(c) and 545.11(d)(10), and the
amendment to 28 CFR 540.100(a) is effective January 2, 1996; the
amendment to 28 CFR 545.11(b) introductory text is effective January 3,
1996. Comments on 28 CFR 545.11(b) are due on March 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, HOLC Room 754,
320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Nanovic, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, telephone (202) 514-6655.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) is
withdrawing certain provisions in its rules on telephone regulations
and on the inmate financial responsibility program (IFRP) which were
published in the Federal Register on April 4, 1994 (59 FR 15812).
In the April 4, 1994, revision of its rules on telephone
regulations and on the IFRP, the Bureau delayed the effective date for
provisions in Secs. 540.105(c) and 545.11(d)(10) which imposed
limitations on the telephone privileges of inmates refusing to
participate in the IFRP. These provisions were to become effective
January 3, 1995. Due to ongoing litigation in Washington v. Reno, the
effective date for these provisions was further delayed until January
4, 1996 (60 FR 240). In accordance with the Court-approved settlement
in Washington v. Reno, the Bureau is withdrawing these provisions and
the reference to the IFRP telephone restrictions contained in 28 CFR
540.100(a), and is publishing elsewhere in today's Federal Register a
new proposed rule to impose a different restriction on the telephone
privileges of inmates who refuse to participate in the IFRP.
In accordance with the settlement in Washington v. Reno, the Bureau
is also amending, on an interim basis with request for comments, the
provision in 28 CFR 545.11(b) which relates to the exclusion of certain
funds from an inmate's financial responsibility plan. Under this
provision, unit team staff currently exclude $50.00 per month from
assessment in developing the inmate's payment plan in the IFRP. This
provision is revised to raise the exclusion to $75.00 per month, per
the terms of the settlement in Washington v. Reno and, for
clarification purposes, the third and fourth sentences of this
paragraph are being combined into one sentence.
Because the revisions to 28 CFR 545.11(b) are made pursuant to the
court-approved settlement in Washington v. Reno, the Bureau is issuing
the revisions as an interim rule pursuant to the ``good cause''
exemption of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Interested persons may participate in
this rulemaking by submitting data, views, or arguments in writing to
the Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., HOLC Room 754,
Washington, DC 20534. Comments received on the interim rule provisions
during the comment period will be considered before final action is
taken. All comments received remain on file for public inspection at
the above address.
The Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action for the purpose of E.O. 12866, and
accordingly this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget pursuant to E.O. 12866. After review of the law and
regulations, the Director, Bureau of Prisons has certified that this
rule, for the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-
354), does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Parts 540 and 545
Prisoners.
Kathleen M. Hawk,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, pursuant to the rulemaking authority vested in the
Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director,
Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), parts 540 and 545 in subchapter C
of 28 CFR, chapter V are amended as set forth below.
SUBCHAPTER C--INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
PART 540--CONTACT WITH PERSONS IN THE COMMUNITY
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 540 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 551, 552a; 18 U.S.C. 1791, 3013, 3571,
3572, 3621, 3622, 3624, 3663, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in
part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-
5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that
date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95-0.99.
2. In Sec. 540.100, paragraph (a) is amended by revising the fifth
sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 540.100 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(a) * * * In addition to the procedures set forth in this subpart,
inmate telephone use is subject to those limitations which the Warden
determines are necessary to ensure the security or good order,
including discipline, of the institution or to protect the public. * *
*
Sec. 540.105 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 540.105, paragraph (c), which was previously to become
effective January 4, 1996, (59 FR 15824, 60 FR 240) is removed and
reserved.
PART 545--WORK AND COMPENSATION
4. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 545 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3013, 3571, 3572, 3621, 3622,
3624, 3663, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses
committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4126, 5006-5024 (Repealed
October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28
U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95-0.99.
[[Page 91]]
5. In Sec. 545.11, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is
amended by revising the dollar amount ``$50.00'' in the fifth sentence
to read ``$75.00''; by removing the third and fourth sentences; by
adding a new third sentence to read as follows; and in addition,
paragraph (d)(10), which was to become effective January 4, 1996, (59
FR 15825, 60 FR 240) is removed and reserved.
Sec. 545.11 Procedures.
* * * * *
(b) Payment. * * * In developing an inmate's financial plan, the
unit team shall exclude from its assessment $75.00 a month deposited
into the inmate's trust fund account after subtracting from the trust
fund account the inmate's IFRP minimum payment schedule for UNICOR or
non-UNICOR work assignments, set forth below in paragraph (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-31497 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31496 Administrative Remedy Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86-90]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31496]
[[Page 85]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Justice
_______________________________________________________________________
Bureau of Prisons
_______________________________________________________________________
28 CFR Parts 540, 542, and 545
Inmate Control, Custody, Care, etc.; Rules and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 2, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 86]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 542
[BOP-1014-F]
RIN 1120-AA20
Administrative Remedy Program
AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons is revising its
regulations on the Administrative Remedy Program. These regulations
describe the process through which inmates may seek formal review of
any issue related to their confinement. The changes are deemed
necessary in order to attend to increased numbers of remedy requests
occasioned by the continued growth of the inmate population. Specific
procedural changes include increases in the time limits set for inmate
filing of requests and for Bureau responses; additional specifications
for the provision of assistance to inmates; and increased access to
Administrative Remedy indexes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, HOLC Room 754,
320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Nanovic, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514-6655.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) is amending
its regulations on the Administrative Remedy Procedure for Inmates. A
proposed rule on this subject was published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 1994 (59 FR 50179). The Bureau received comment from six
individuals. In general, the comments expressed dissatisfaction in
varying degrees on the following points: informal resolution, time
limits, handling of appeals and responses by staff, and administrative
matters (such as the posting of the proposed rule at the institution).
A summary of the comments and the Bureau's responses follow.
The proposed rule had included increased time limits for submission
of an initial remedy request by an inmate (20 calendar days following
the date on which the basis for the request had occurred, rather than
the 15 calendar days then currently specified). The proposed rule also
increased the time limits for agency responses at the institution level
(20 rather than 15 calendar days) and at the Central Office level (40
rather than 30 calendar days).
There were no objections to the increased time limit for submission
of an initial remedy request by an inmate. Several commenters, however,
objected to the extension of the time limits for Bureau response,
stating these were too long, or were ``slanted completely in favor of
the BOP.''
Commenters recommended a variety of procedural changes intended to
extend the effective filing time for submission of inmate appeals by
linking the filing time to an event other than the date of the Bureau's
response. For example, commenters suggested that the filing time should
exclude any time past the date the appeal is handed over to the
institution mailroom, or the filing time for an appeal should not begin
until the inmate has actually received a Bureau response.
The Bureau believes it is not currently practicable to date stamp
outgoing mail or to verify the date inmates receive Bureau responses.
The proposed filing times include adequate adjustment for mail time.
The Bureau also believes that the extended response times for its staff
are realistic and reasonable. Good reason exists for the different
filing time limits. While the inmate is responsible for preparing his
or her individual request(s) or appeal(s), Bureau staff must prepare
responses to whatever requests or appeals have been submitted from the
inmate population. Furthermore, in those instances where staff need
more time to respond to an appeal, staff may currently claim an
extension as allowed by the regulations (see Sec. 542.14). In claiming
the extension, staff notify the inmate in writing. Increasing the
initial time limit for response should reduce the necessity for
claiming extensions. In either case, the actual time taken to respond
would likely be the same. With the increased time limit, staff would
spend less time completing the administrative paperwork necessary for
claiming extensions.
Some commenters expressed the belief that the mandatory filing of a
complaint initially at the institutional level was cumbersome and
unnecessary. One commenter recommended that an inmate be allowed to
make an appeal ``directly to the level of management that has
jurisdiction and the authority to make the decision.''
The Bureau believes that such amendment is not necessary. The
principle underlying the administrative remedy procedure is that the
resolution of problems can be remedied at the lowest possible level. If
informal resolution is successful, the formal administrative remedy
procedure would not be necessary. Moreover, those few issues that can
only be remedied at certain levels are permitted, per policy, to go
directly to that level. Similarly, responses to emergency appeals are
expedited. The administrative remedy procedure typically is used to
address questions regarding the application of policy to individual
inmates. Provisions for appeal help ensure consistency in application
and can also serve to measure the adequacy of policy. The primary
vehicle for inmate participation in the general formulation of Bureau
policy remains through the rulemaking process (for example, through
comment on the October 3, 1994 proposed rule).
Some commenters recommended that either a receipt for a filed
complaint be given by the correctional counselor who ``accepts'' the
complaint or that the inmate be allowed to file the initial request
with the institution's administrative remedy coordinator. These
commenters expressed the concern that extensive delays may occur before
the counselor forwards the administrative remedy to the institution's
administrative remedy coordinator. The Bureau believes that no change
is necessary, as the counselor is responsible for forwarding the
administrative remedy to the appropriate staff in a timely manner and
internal instructions to staff require that this occur ordinarily no
later than the next business day.
Two commenters objected to the form of receipt acknowledgements or
responses returned to the inmate. One of these commenters expressed
concern that because the receipt acknowledgements are not signed, these
receipts do not prove that the appeals ever left the institution. In
response, the Bureau notes that receipts from the regional and central
offices are generated electronically from those offices. Therefore, a
receipt acknowledgement indicates that the administrative remedy
reached its intended destination.
The second commenter objected to the provisions in
Sec. 542.11(a)(4) relating to the delegation of signatory authority,
which had been previously issued as an administrative amendment. This
commenter stated that, at a minimum, the regulation should require that
the name and title of the person signing the response be typed below
the signature rather than have the person sign ``for'' the official as
is the Bureau's practice in this administrative detail. The commenter
presumably believes this change is important in the pursuit of further
judicial action involving an
[[Page 87]]
inmate's complaint. The Bureau believes its standard procedures for the
exercise of delegated authority is adequate and no further amendment is
necessary in this matter.
One commenter objected to the omission of a requirement that staff
responses be in good faith, honest, and straightforward, as is required
for inmate submissions (see Sec. 542.11(b)). There is no necessity to
address this matter in these regulations because Bureau staff are
trained professionals governed by the Standards of Conduct for Bureau
employees, which are sufficient to support the integrity of staff
responses.
One commenter objected to a variety of specific administrative
procedures. Section 542.14(c)(2) states that the inmate shall place a
single complaint or a reasonable number of closely related issues on
the appropriate form. This is intended to facilitate indexing of remedy
requests and to simplify the resolution process by presenting remedy
requests as discrete matters. The commenter claimed that inmate access
to forms at one institution was limited by requiring one form to be
filled out and submitted before staff would issue another to the same
inmate. We note that this institution practice does not necessarily
limit access (i.e., it merely requires the inmate to follow through on
one complaint before starting another). Nevertheless, because the
Bureau does not wish to encourage such a perception, the Bureau is
issuing internal instructions to staff advising against such
institutional administrative practice.
This same commenter also objected to limiting the length of inmate
complaints by only allowing one additional page per form. The Bureau
believes that limiting additions to one page is useful and reasonable.
This emphasis on brevity along with the above-mentioned requirement
limiting the inmate to the presentation of a single complaint or a
reasonable number of closely related issues is intended to encourage
inmates to submit their concerns in a straightforward manner. The
commenter also objected to requirements in Sec. 542.14(c)(3) regarding
the submission of exhibits with a request. The commenter suggested that
the provision was ambiguous as to the number of required copies at
different stages of the remedy appeals process. The Bureau's procedure
is to require only one copy of an exhibit with the request. If the
inmate appeals a response, the inmate is responsible for furnishing a
copy of the exhibit with the appeal along with copies of the
previously-submitted complaints.
One commentator objected to the provision in Sec. 542.17 allowing
the administrative remedy coordinator at any level to reject a request
or appeal. This commenter, presumably focusing on an example at the
institution level, stated that only the Warden may sign responses and
consequently should be the only one to reject the request or appeal.
The Bureau wishes to note that the very purpose of Sec. 542.17 is to
provide the administrative remedy coordinator with this authority.
Paragraph (b) of this section provides the inmate with the opportunity
to correct the defects, when possible, so that the matter can be
resubmitted.
Three commenters raised questions about the lack of detail provided
in these regulations for the informal resolution of complaints. Two
commenters objected to the lack of a specified time limit for informal
resolution. One commenter recommended 48 hours as a reasonable time
period for that purpose. Another commenter stated that paperwork
associated with informal resolution at one particular institution
appeared to be duplicative of the paperwork generated for an initial
request submitted after an adverse decision on the informal resolution.
In response, the Bureau notes that by its very definition,
procedures for informal resolution should not be formalized. The
informal resolution policy is not explicitly detailed in these
regulations in order to preserve maximum flexibility for institution
staff in attempting to resolve complaints. As for the particular
informal resolution procedures at particular institutions, the Bureau
wishes to preserve the Warden's discretion in formulating these
procedures and adds language to the rule providing for the exercise of
the Warden's discretion.
In response to the concerns over the lack of a specified time limit
for informal resolution, the Bureau has revised the provisions in
Sec. 542.14(a) to include informal resolution under the deadline for
the submission of an initial filing. This is intended to encourage
quick informal resolution. Because a lengthy period of time for
attempted informal resolution constitutes a valid reason for the
granting of an extension in filing time, including informal resolution
under this deadline should not unduly impair the inmate's ability to
file the initial request in instances where the informal resolution
attempt has failed.
Two commenters raised concerns about the posting of the proposed
rule changes at one particular Bureau institution, stating that their
access to the proposed rule, and consequently their ability to timely
comment on it, were intentionally hindered. We have been assured by
institution staff that pursuant to Bureau policy, the proposed rule was
posted in the inmate law library and was also maintained by unit case
managers. Inmates at this institution were advised through postings in
their housing units that they could review the proposed rule either in
the inmate law library or through a request to the case manager. The
two commenters stated that their requests to review the proposed rule
were not answered in a timely fashion. The Bureau believes that the
institution's posting procedures do not constitute intentional
hinderance to public comment. The two requests in question came from
inmates in the same housing areas, which suggests that any problem was
of a local, not systemic, nature. In addition, the proposed rule was
also available at the institution's law library. In any event, the
Bureau has considered these comments in finalizing these regulations.
One commenter, expressing general dissatisfaction with Bureau
regulations, stated that Bureau regulations were so poorly written that
two different institutions would interpret them differently on the same
day to fit their particular desire. It is the Bureau's intent that the
Administrative Remedy Program helps to ensure the consistent
application of Bureau rules and policies by allowing for hierarchial
review of inmate complaints.
The Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action for the purpose of E.O. 12866, and
accordingly this rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. After review of the law and regulations, the Director, Bureau
of Prisons has certified that this rule, for the purpose of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 542
Prisoners.
Kathleen M. Hawk,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, pursuant to the rulemaking authority vested in the
Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director,
Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), it is proposed to amend part 542
in subchapter C of 28 CFR, chapter V as set forth below.
SUBCHAPTER C--INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
1. 28 CFR part 542 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 88]]
PART 542--ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
Subpart A--[Reserved]
Subpart B--Administrative Remedy Program
Sec.
542.10 Purpose and scope.
542.11 Responsibility.
542.12 Excluded matters.
542.13 Informal resolution.
542.14 Initial filing.
542.15 Appeals.
542.16 Assistance.
542.17 Resubmission.
542.18 Response time.
542.19 Access to indexes and responses.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042,
4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after
November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to
offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28
CFR 0.95-0.99.
Subpart A--[Reserved]
Subpart B--Administrative Remedy Program
Sec. 542.10 Purpose and scope.
The Administrative Remedy Program is a process through which
inmates may seek formal review of an issue which relates to any aspect
of their confinement, except as excluded in Sec. 542.12, if less formal
procedures have not resolved the matter. This Program applies to all
inmates confined in institutions operated by the Bureau of Prisons, to
inmates designated to contract Community Corrections Centers (CCCs)
under Bureau of Prisons' responsibility, and to former inmates for
issues that arose during their confinement, but does not apply to
inmates confined in other non-federal facilities.
Sec. 542.11 Responsibility.
(a) The Community Corrections Manager (CCM), Warden, Regional
Director, and General Counsel are responsible for the implementation
and operation of the Administrative Remedy Program at the Community
Corrections Center (CCC), institution, regional and Central Office
levels, respectively, and shall:
(1) Establish procedures for receiving, recording, reviewing,
investigating, and responding to Administrative Remedy Requests
(Requests) or Appeals (Appeals) submitted by an inmate;
(2) Acknowledge receipt of a Request or Appeal by returning a
receipt to the inmate;
(3) Conduct an investigation into each Request or Appeal;
(4) Respond to and sign all Requests or Appeals filed at their
levels. At the regional level, signatory authority may be delegated to
the Deputy Regional Director. At the Central Office level, signatory
authority may be delegated to the National Inmate Appeals
Administrator. Signatory authority extends to staff designated as
acting in the capacities specified in this Sec. 542.11, but may not be
further delegated without the written approval of the General Counsel.
(b) Inmates have the responsibility to use this Program in good
faith and in an honest and straightforward manner.
Sec. 542.12 Excluded matters.
(a) An inmate may not use this Program to submit a Request or
Appeal on behalf of another inmate. This program is intended to address
concerns that are personal to the inmate making the Request or Appeal,
but shall not prevent an inmate from obtaining assistance in preparing
a Request or Appeal, as provided in Sec. 542.16 of this part.
(b) Requests or Appeals will not be accepted under the
Administrative Remedy Program for claims for which other administrative
procedures have been established, including tort claims, Inmate
Accident Compensation claims, and Freedom of Information or Privacy Act
requests. Staff shall inform the inmate in writing of the appropriate
administrative procedure if the Request or Appeal is not acceptable
under the Administrative Remedy Program.
Sec. 542.13 Informal resolution.
(a) Informal Resolution. Except as provided in Sec. 542.13(b), an
inmate shall first present an issue of concern informally to staff, and
staff shall attempt to informally resolve the issue before an inmate
submits a Request for Administrative Remedy. Each Warden shall
establish procedures to allow for the informal resolution of inmate
complaints.
(b) Exceptions. Inmates in CCCs are not required to attempt
informal resolution. An informal resolution attempt is not required
prior to submission to the Regional or Central Office as provided for
in Sec. 542.14(d) of this part. An informal resolution attempt may be
waived in individual cases at the Warden or institution Administrative
Remedy Coordinator's discretion when the inmate demonstrates an
acceptable reason for bypassing informal resolution.
Sec. 542.14 Initial filing.
(a) Submission. The deadline for completion of informal resolution
and submission of a formal written Administrative Remedy Request, on
the appropriate form (BP-9), is 20 calendar days following the date on
which the basis for the Request occurred.
(b) Extension. Where the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for
delay, an extension in filing time may be allowed. In general, valid
reason for delay means a situation which prevented the inmate from
submitting the request within the established time frame. Valid reasons
for delay include the following: an extended period in-transit during
which the inmate was separated from documents needed to prepare the
Request or Appeal; an extended period of time during which the inmate
was physically incapable of preparing a Request or Appeal; an unusually
long period taken for informal resolution attempts; indication by an
inmate, verified by staff, that a response to the inmate's request for
copies of dispositions requested under Sec. 542.19 of this part was
delayed.
(c) Form.
(1) The inmate shall obtain the appropriate form from CCC staff or
institution staff (ordinarily, the correctional counselor).
(2) The inmate shall place a single complaint or a reasonable
number of closely related issues on the form. If the inmate includes on
a single form multiple unrelated issues, the submission shall be
rejected and returned without response, and the inmate shall be advised
to use a separate form for each unrelated issue. For DHO and UDC
appeals, each separate incident report number must be appealed on a
separate form.
(3) The inmate shall complete the form with all requested
identifying information and shall state the complaint in the space
provided on the form. If more space is needed, the inmate may use up to
one letter-size (8\1/2\'' by 11'') continuation page. The inmate must
provide an additional copy of any continuation page. The inmate must
submit one copy of supporting exhibits. Exhibits will not be returned
with the response. Because copies of exhibits must be filed for any
appeal (see Sec. 542.15(b)(3)), the inmate is encouraged to retain a
copy of all exhibits for his or her personal records.
(4) The inmate shall date and sign the Request and submit it to the
institution staff member designated to receive such Requests
(ordinarily a correctional counselor). CCC inmates may mail their
Requests to the CCM.
(d) Exceptions to Initial Filing at Institution.
(1) Sensitive Issues. If the inmate reasonably believes the issue
is sensitive and the inmate's safety or well-being would be placed in
danger if the
[[Page 89]]
Request became known at the institution, the inmate may submit the
Request directly to the appropriate Regional Director. The inmate shall
clearly mark ``Sensitive'' upon the Request and explain, in writing,
the reason for not submitting the Request at the institution. If the
Regional Administrative Remedy Coordinator agrees that the Request is
sensitive, the Request shall be accepted. Otherwise, the Request will
not be accepted, and the inmate shall be advised in writing of that
determination, without a return of the Request. The inmate may pursue
the matter by submitting an Administrative Remedy Request locally to
the Warden. The Warden shall allow a reasonable extension of time for
such a resubmission.
(2) DHO Appeals. DHO appeals shall be submitted initially to the
Regional Director for the region where the inmate is currently located.
(3) Control Unit Appeals. Appeals related to Executive Panel
Reviews of Control Unit placement shall be submitted directly to the
General Counsel.
(4) Controlled Housing Status Appeals. Appeals related to the
Regional Director's review of controlled housing status placement may
be filed directly with the General Counsel.
Sec. 542.15 Appeals.
(a) Submission. An inmate who is not satisfied with the Warden's
response may submit an Appeal on the appropriate form (BP-10) to the
appropriate Regional Director within 20 calendar days of the date the
Warden signed the response. An inmate who is not satisfied with the
Regional Director's response may submit an Appeal on the appropriate
form (BP-11) to the General Counsel within 30 calendar days of the date
the Regional Director signed the response. When the inmate demonstrates
a valid reason for delay, these time limits may be extended. Valid
reasons for delay include those situations described in Sec. 542.14(b)
of this part. Appeal to the General Counsel is the final administrative
appeal.
(b) Form.
(1) Appeals to the Regional Director shall be submitted on the form
designed for regional Appeals (BP-10) and accompanied by one complete
copy or duplicate original of the institution Request and response.
Appeals to the General Counsel shall be submitted on the form designed
for Central Office Appeals (BP-11) and accompanied by one complete copy
or duplicate original of the institution and regional filings and their
responses. Appeals shall state specifically the reason for appeal.
(2) An inmate may not raise in an Appeal issues not raised in the
lower level filings. An inmate may not combine Appeals of separate
lower level responses (different case numbers) into a single Appeal.
(3) An inmate shall complete the appropriate form with all
requested identifying information and shall state the reasons for the
Appeal in the space provided on the form. If more space is needed, the
inmate may use up to one letter-size (8\1/2\'' x 11'') continuation
page. The inmate shall provide two additional copies of any
continuation page and exhibits with the regional Appeal, and three
additional copies with an Appeal to the Central Office (the inmate is
also to provide copies of exhibits used at the prior level(s) of
appeal). The inmate shall date and sign the Appeal and mail it to the
appropriate Regional Director, if a Regional Appeal, or to the National
Inmate Appeals Administrator, Office of General Counsel, if a Central
Office Appeal (see 28 CFR part 503 for addresses of the Central Office
and Regional Offices).
Sec. 542.16 Assistance.
(a) An inmate may obtain assistance from another inmate or from
institution staff in preparing a Request or an Appeal. An inmate may
also obtain assistance from outside sources, such as family members or
attorneys. However, no person may submit a Request or Appeal on the
inmate's behalf, and obtaining assistance will not be considered a
valid reason for exceeding a time limit for submission unless the delay
was caused by staff.
(b) Wardens shall ensure that assistance is available for inmates
who are illiterate, disabled, or who are not functionally literate in
English. Such assistance includes provision of reasonable accommodation
in order for an inmate with a disability to prepare and process a
Request or an Appeal.
Sec. 542.17 Resubmission.
(a) Rejections. The Coordinator at any level (CCM, institution,
region, Central Office) may reject and return to the inmate without
response a Request or an Appeal that is written by an inmate in a
manner that is obscene or abusive, or does not meet any other
requirement of this part.
(b) Notice. When a submission is rejected, the inmate shall be
provided a written notice, signed by the Administrative Remedy
Coordinator, explaining the reason for rejection. If the defect on
which the rejection is based is correctable, the notice shall inform
the inmate of a reasonable time extension within which to correct the
defect and resubmit the Request or Appeal.
(c) Appeal of Rejections. When a Request or Appeal is rejected and
the inmate is not given an opportunity to correct the defect and
resubmit, the inmate may appeal the rejection, including a rejection on
the basis of an exception as described in Sec. 542.14(d), to the next
appeal level. The Coordinator at that level may affirm the rejection,
may direct that the submission be accepted at the lower level (either
upon the inmate's resubmission or direct return to that lower level),
or may accept the submission for filing. The inmate shall be informed
of the decision by delivery of either a receipt or rejection notice.
Sec. 542.18 Response time.
If accepted, a Request or Appeal is considered filed on the date it
is logged into the Administrative Remedy Index as received. Once filed,
response shall be made by the Warden or CCM within 20 calendar days; by
the Regional Director within 30 calendar days; and by the General
Counsel within 40 calendar days. If the Request is determined to be of
an emergency nature which threatens the inmate's immediate health or
welfare, the Warden shall respond not later than the third calendar day
after filing. If the time period for response to a Request or Appeal is
insufficient to make an appropriate decision, the time for response may
be extended once by 20 days at the institution level, 30 days at the
regional level, or 20 days at the Central Office level. Staff shall
inform the inmate of this extension in writing. Staff shall respond in
writing to all filed Requests or Appeals. If the inmate does not
receive a response within the time allotted for reply, including
extension, the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a
denial at that level.
Sec. 542.19 Access to indexes and responses.
Inmates and members of the public may request access to
Administrative Remedy indexes and responses, for which inmate names and
Register Numbers have been removed, as indicated below. Each
institution shall make available its index, and the indexes of its
regional office and the Central Office. Each regional office shall make
available its index, the indexes of all institutions in its region, and
the index of the Central Office. The Central Office shall make
available its index and the indexes of all institutions and regional
offices. Responses may be
[[Page 90]]
requested from the location where they are maintained and must be
identified by Remedy ID number as indicated on an index. Copies of
indexes or responses may be inspected during regular office hours at
the locations indicated above, or may be purchased in accordance with
the regular fees established for copies furnished under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
[FR Doc. 95-31496 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31459 Cash Reporting by Court Clerks
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6-8]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31459]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Parts 1 and 602
[TD 8652]
RIN 1545-AT06
Cash Reporting by Court Clerks
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations concerning the
information reporting requirements of Federal and State court clerks
upon receipt of more than $10,000 in cash as bail for any individual
charged with a specified criminal offense. The final regulations
reflect changes to the law made by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, and affect court clerks who receive more than
$10,000 in cash as bail.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are effective February 13, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susie K. Bird, (202) 622-4960 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information contained in these final regulations
has been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget
in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) under
control number 1545-1449. Responses to this collection of information
are required to implement the statutory requirements of section
6050I(g).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of
information displays a valid control number.
The time estimates for the reporting requirements contained in this
regulation are reflected in the burden estimates for Form 8300.
Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and
suggestions for reducing this burden should be sent to the Internal
Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, T:FP, Washington,
DC 20224, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk
Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.
Books and records relating to this collection of information must
be retained as long as their contents may become material in the
administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and
tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Background
This document provides final Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR parts 1
and 602) under section 6050I(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(Code). This provision was added by section 20415 of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the Act) (Public Law 103-322).
On December 15, 1994, the IRS published in the Federal Register
temporary regulations (TD 8572, 59 FR 64572) with a cross-reference to
a notice of proposed rulemaking (IA-57-94, 59 FR 64635).
Written comments responding to the notice were received. No public
hearing was requested or held. After consideration of all comments, the
proposed regulations are adopted as revised by this Treasury decision,
and the corresponding temporary regulations are removed.
Explanation of Revisions and Summary of Comments
Under the temporary and proposed regulations, reporting may be
required when more than $10,000 in cash is received as bail by a clerk
of a Federal or State court. The temporary and proposed regulations
provide that a clerk is the clerk's office or the office, department,
division, branch, or unit of the court that is authorized to receive
bail. One commentator suggested that the regulations clarify whether
reporting under section 6050I(g) is required by a clerk if an entity
that is not a part of the court receives bail. In some jurisdictions,
for example, a sheriff receives bail. The final regulations provide
that if someone other than a clerk receives bail on behalf of a clerk,
the clerk is treated as receiving the bail. Thus, the clerk must make
the return of information if the other requirements of section 6050I(g)
are satisfied.
Under the temporary and proposed regulations, a statement must be
sent to each payor of bail reporting certain information, including the
``aggregate amount of reportable cash received during the calendar year
by the clerk who made the information return required by [section
6050I(g)] in all cash transactions relating to the payor of bail.'' The
temporary and proposed regulations reflect the statutory requirement in
section 6050I(g)(5)(B) that clerks provide the aggregate amount of
reportable cash. A commentator asked whether separately reported
amounts satisfy this aggregate amount requirement. The final
regulations clarify that the aggregate amount requirement can be
satisfied either by sending a single written statement with an
aggregate amount listed or by furnishing a copy of each Form 8300
relating to that payor of bail.
In addition, the final regulations clarify that, if multiple
payments are made to satisfy bail reportable under this section and the
initial payment does not exceed $10,000, the initial payment and
subsequent payments must be aggregated and the information return
required by section 6050I(g) must be filed by the 15th day after
receipt of the payment that causes the aggregate amount to exceed
$10,000. However, payments made to satisfy separate bail requirements
are not required to be aggregated.
Special Analyses
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a
significant regulatory action as defined in EO 12866. Therefore, a
regulatory assessment is not required. It has also been determined that
section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5)
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply to
these regulations, and, therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code,
the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was
submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on their impact on small businesses.
Drafting Information
The principal author of these regulations is Susie K. Bird, Office
of Assistant Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting). However, other
personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their
development.
List of Subjects
26 CFR Part 1
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 CFR Part 602
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 7]]
Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1 and 602 are amended as follows:
PART 1--INCOME TAXES
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by
removing the entry for Sec. 1.6050I-2T and adding an entry in numerical
order to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 1.6050I-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6050I. * * *
Secs. 1.6050I-0T and 1.6050I-2T [Removed]
Par. 2. Sections 1.6050I-0T and 1.6050I-2T are removed.
Par. 3. Sections 1.6050I-0 and 1.6050I-2 are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.6050I-0 Table of contents.
This section lists the major captions that appear in Secs. 1.6050I-
1 and 1.6050I-2.
Sec. 1.6050I-1 Returns relating to cash in excess of $10,000
received in a trade or business.
(a) Reporting requirement.
(1) In general.
(2) Cash received for the account of another.
(3) Cash received by agents.
(i) General rule.
(ii) Exception.
(iii) Example.
(b) Multiple payments.
(1) Initial payment in excess of $10,000.
(2) Initial payment of $10,000 or less.
(3) Subsequent payments.
(4) Example.
(c) Meaning of terms.
(1) Cash.
(i) Amounts received prior to February 3, 1992.
(ii) Amounts received on or after February 3, 1992.
(iii) Designated reporting transaction.
(iv) Exception for certain loans.
(v) Exception for certain installment sales.
(vi) Exception for certain down payment plans.
(vii) Examples.
(2) Consumer durable.
(3) Collectible.
(4) Travel or entertainment activity.
(5) Retail sale.
(6) Trade or business.
(7) Transaction.
(8) Recipient.
(d) Exceptions to the reporting requirements of section 6050I.
(1) Receipt of cash by certain financial institutions.
(2) Receipt of cash by certain casinos having gross annual
gaming revenue in excess of $1,000,000.
(i) In general.
(ii) Casinos exempt under 31 CFR 103.45(c).
(iii) Reporting of cash received in a nongaming business.
(iv) Example.
(3) Receipt of cash not in the course of the recipient's trade
or business.
(4) Receipt is made with respect to a foreign cash transaction.
(i) In general.
(ii) Example.
(e) Time, manner, and form of reporting.
(1) Time of reporting.
(2) Form of reporting.
(3) Manner of reporting.
(i) Where to file.
(ii) Verification.
(iii) Retention of returns.
(f) Requirement of furnishing statements.
(1) In general.
(2) Form of statement.
(3) When statement is to be furnished.
(g) Cross-reference to penalty provisions.
(1) Failure to file correct information return.
(2) Failure to furnish correct statement.
(3) Criminal penalties.
Sec. 1.6050I-2 Returns relating to cash in excess of $10,000
received as bail by court clerks.
(a) Reporting requirement.
(b) Meaning of terms.
(c) Time, form, and manner of reporting.
(1) Time of reporting.
(i) In general.
(ii) Multiple payments.
(2) Form of reporting.
(3) Manner of reporting.
(i) Where to file.
(ii) Verification of identity.
(d) Requirement to furnish statements.
(1) Information to Federal prosecutors.
(i) In general.
(ii) Form of statement.
(2) Information to payors of bail.
(i) In general.
(ii) Form of statement.
(iii) Aggregate amount.
(e) Cross-reference to penalty provisions.
(f) Effective date.
Sec. 1.6050I-2 Returns relating to cash in excess of $10,000 received
as bail by court clerks.
(a) Reporting requirement. Any clerk of a Federal or State court
who receives more than $10,000 in cash as bail for any individual
charged with a specified criminal offense must make a return of
information with respect to that cash receipt. For purposes of this
section, a clerk is the clerk's office or the office, department,
division, branch, or unit of the court that is authorized to receive
bail. If someone other than a clerk receives bail on behalf of a clerk,
the clerk is treated as receiving the bail for purposes of this
paragraph (a).
(b) Meaning of terms. The following definitions apply for purposes
of this section--
Cash means--
(1) The coin and currency of the United States, or of any other
country, that circulate in and are customarily used and accepted as
money in the country in which issued; and
(2) A cashier's check (by whatever name called, including
treasurer's check and bank check), bank draft, traveler's check, or
money order having a face amount of not more than $10,000.
Specified criminal offense means--
(1) A Federal criminal offense involving a controlled substance (as
defined in section 802 of title 21 of the United States Code), provided
the offense is described in Part D of Subchapter I or Subchapter II of
title 21 of the United States Code;
(2) Racketeering (as defined in section 1951, 1952, or 1955 of
title 18 of the United States Code);
(3) Money laundering (as defined in section 1956 or 1957 of title
18 of the United States Code); and
(4) Any State criminal offense substantially similar to an offense
described in this paragraph (b).
(c) Time, form, and manner of reporting--(1) Time of reporting--(i)
In general. The information return required by this section must be
filed with the Internal Revenue Service by the 15th day after the date
the cash bail is received.
(ii) Multiple payments. If multiple payments are made to satisfy
bail reportable under this section and the initial payment does not
exceed $10,000, the initial payment and subsequent payments must be
aggregated and the information return required by this section must be
filed with the Internal Revenue Service by the 15th day after receipt
of the payment that causes the aggregate amount to exceed $10,000.
However, if payments are made to satisfy separate bail requirements, no
aggregation is required. Thus, if in Month 1 a clerk receives $6,000 in
bail for an individual charged with a specified criminal offense and
later, in Month 2, receives $7,000 in bail for that same individual
charged with another specified criminal offense, no aggregation is
required.
(2) Form of reporting. The return of information required by
paragraph (a) of this section must be made on Form 8300 and must
contain the following information--
(i) The name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN) of
the individual charged with the specified criminal offense;
(ii) The name, address, and TIN of each person posting the bail
(payor of bail), other than a person posting bail who is licensed as a
bail bondsman in the jurisdiction in which the bail is received;
(iii) The amount of cash received;
(iv) The date the cash was received; and
[[Page 8]]
(v) Any other information required by Form 8300 or its
instructions.
(3) Manner of reporting--(i) Where to file. Returns required by
this section must be filed with the Internal Revenue Service office
designated in the instructions for Form 8300. A copy of the information
return required to be filed under this section must be retained for
five years from the date of filing.
(ii) Verification of identity. A clerk required to make an
information return under this section must, in accordance with
Sec. 1.6050I-1(e)(3)(ii), verify the identity of each payor of bail
listed in the return.
(d) Requirement to furnish statements--(1) Information to Federal
prosecutors--(i) In general. A clerk required to make an information
return under this section must furnish a written statement to the
United States Attorney for the jurisdiction in which the individual
charged with the specified crime resides and the United States Attorney
for the jurisdiction in which the specified criminal offense occurred
(applicable United States Attorney(s)). The written statement must be
filed with the applicable United States Attorney(s) by the 15th day
after the date the cash bail is received.
(ii) Form of statement. The written statement must include the
information required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The
requirement of this paragraph (d)(1)(ii) will be satisfied if the clerk
provides to the applicable United States Attorney(s) a copy of the Form
8300 that is filed with the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to this
section.
(2) Information to payors of bail--(i) In general. A clerk required
to make an information return under this section must furnish a written
statement to each payor of bail whose name is set forth in a return
required by this section. A statement required under this paragraph
(d)(2) must be furnished to a payor of bail on or before January 31 of
the year following the calendar year in which the cash is received. A
statement will be considered furnished to a payor of bail if it is
mailed to the payor's last known address.
(ii) Form of statement. The statement required by this paragraph
(d)(2) need not follow any particular format, but must contain the
following information--
(A) The name and address of the clerk's office making the return;
(B) The aggregate amount of reportable cash received during the
calendar year by the clerk who made the information return required by
this section in all cash transactions relating to the payor of bail;
and
(C) A legend stating that the information contained in the
statement has been reported to the Internal Revenue Service and the
applicable United States Attorney(s).
(iii) Aggregate amount. The requirement of furnishing the aggregate
amount in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section will be satisfied if
the clerk provides to the payor of bail either a single written
statement listing the aggregate amount, or a copy of each Form 8300
relating to that payor of bail.
(e) Cross-reference to penalty provisions. See sections 6721
through 6724 for penalties relating to the failure to comply with the
provisions of this section.
(f) Effective date. This section applies to cash received by court
clerks on or after February 13, 1995.
PART 602--OMB CONTROL NUMBERS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Par. 4. The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
Sec. 602.101 [Amended]
Par. 5. In Sec. 602.101, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the
entry ``1.6050I-2T'' from the table and adding the entry ``1.6050I-2
......1545-1449'' in numerical order in the table.
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Approved: December 12, 1995.
Leslie Samuels,
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-31459 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-31410 Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 1996 Red Snapper Season
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17-20]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31410]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 641
[Docket No. 951221305-5305-01; I.D. 112995A]
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 1996 Red Snapper Season
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Emergency interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this emergency interim rule at the request of the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
[[Page 18]]
(Council) to delay the opening of the commercial fishery for red
snapper until February 1, 1996; to establish a commercial quota for red
snapper of 1.00 million lb (0.45 million kg) for the period February 1
through March 31, 1996, with a closure of the commercial fishery during
that period when the commercial quota is reached; and to continue the
red snapper endorsement regime through March 31, 1996. This rule is
intended to avoid a derby style fishery of very short duration, which
could result in a quota overrun for the overfished red snapper resource
and in negative social and economic impacts on fishery participants.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 29, 1995 through March 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of documents supporting this action, including an
environmental assessment, may be obtained from Robert Sadler, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg,
FL 33702.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Sadler or Michael Justen, 813-
570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the
Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 641 under
the authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson Act).
Delayed Opening of the Commercial Red Snapper Fishery
The 1995 red snapper commercial fishery was closed April 15, 1995,
and will remain closed through December 31, 1995. Without further
action, the commercial fishery would reopen on January 1, 1996.
However, at the September 1995 Council meeting, commercial fishermen
testified that they are dependent upon income from red snapper harvest
during the Lenten season, which begins in February. Based upon this
testimony, the Council requested emergency action to delay the
reopening until February 1 to increase the chances of the fishery being
open during the Lenten season, when higher prices and more favorable
fishing weather (compared to January) are expected.
Interim Commercial Quota for Red Snapper
The Council requested an interim commercial quota of 1.00 million
lb (0.45 million kg) for the period February 1, 1996, through March 31,
1996, based upon input from the public, to provide income to industry
before the individual transferable quota (ITQ) system, which was
approved under Amendment 8 to the FMP, is implemented on April 1, 1996.
If the interim quota is not made available before the ITQ system is
implemented, the fishery would remain closed for almost 12 months
(April 15, 1995, through March 31, 1996). The Council believes that a
closure of this duration would result in adverse social and economic
impacts to those who depend on red snapper harvest, particularly during
the Lenten season.
The Council requested that, when the interim quota is taken or
projected to be taken, the fishery be closed until it is reopened under
the ITQ system on April 1, 1996. If implementation of the ITQ system is
substantially delayed (2 months or more), the Council intends that the
balance of the 1996 commercial quota be taken under the endorsement
provisions and permit moratorium.
Continue the Red Snapper Endorsement Regime
Management measures in effect for 1995 limit landings of red
snapper to 2,000 lb (907 kg) per trip or day for vessels with red
snapper endorsements on their reef fish permits. Other permitted
vessels are limited to 200 lb (91 kg) per trip or day. The Council
requested that these provisions be continued as part of the emergency
action, to spread out harvest over a longer period of time and avoid
the negative social and economic impacts that would otherwise result
from a derby fishery of very short duration. Monitoring of landings
under these conditions would be difficult, increasing the likelihood
that the quota would be exceeded. The Council is concerned that this
could adversely impact stock recovery. Accordingly, by January 20,
1996, NMFS intends to reissue the red snapper endorsements that were in
effect on December 31, 1995. Reissued endorsements will be effective
for February and March 1996.
Permit Moratorium
The Council requested that the current moratorium on the issuance
of new reef fish permits be continued during the effectiveness of this
emergency interim rule. However, because a new permit moratorium under
Amendment 11 to the FMP will become effective January 1, 1996, there is
no need to extend the current moratorium by this emergency rule.
Compliance With NMFS Guidelines for Emergency Rules
The Council and NMFS have concluded that the present situation
constitutes an emergency, which is properly addressed by this emergency
interim rule, and that the situation meets NMFS's policy guidelines for
the use of emergency rules, published on January 6, 1992 (57 FR 375).
The situation (1) results from recent, unforeseen events or recently
discovered circumstances; (2) presents a serious management problem;
and (3) realizes immediate benefits from the emergency interim rule
that outweigh the value of prior notice, opportunity for public
comment, and deliberative consideration expected under the normal
rulemaking process.
Recent, Unforeseen Events or Recently Discovered Circumstances
The Council requested that this action be implemented by emergency
rule because of several unforeseen events and unresolved circumstances
that disrupted planning of the 1996 fishing season. The first is the
unanticipated and unavoidable delays that have adversely affected
implementation of the ITQ system under Amendment 8, which was designed
to achieve more orderly prosecution of the fishery. The Southeast
Regional Office estimates that the appeals process and issuance of
shares and coupons cannot be completed before April 1, 1996.
Consequently, implementation of the ITQ system will be delayed until
that date. The extent of this delay, which was not known nor formally
communicated to the Council until its September 1995 meeting, disrupted
the Council's plans regarding optimal timing of the opening of the 1996
season under controlled harvest conditions.
The Council, in developing this proposed course of action at the
September 1995 meeting, also faced a major management problem in that
it did not know if the moratoriums or delays in implementing ITQ
systems being considered by Congress would be enacted or whether such
action would adversely affect Amendment 8. If the Council had decided
at that time to delay action until this issue was resolved, it would
not have had sufficient time to implement an alternative system before
unrestricted harvest by fishermen aboard permitted reef fish vessels
would begin on January 1, 1996.
Finally, the NMFS red snapper stock assessment was not available
until the Council's November 1995 meeting, thereby preventing any
possible
[[Page 19]]
framework implementation of the delayed season by the start of the
fishing year. The endorsement provisions were implemented as part of
the FMP. Continuation of the endorsement provisions, therefore,
requires emergency action, or an additional FMP amendment.
Given all of these circumstances, emergency action is the only
option for optimizing the timing of the season opening.
Serious Conservation or Management Problems in the Fishery--
Appropriateness of Emergency Action
The Council, prior to its September 1995 meeting, announced the
1996 season as an agenda item for Council action. The general public
and, in particular, commercial red snapper fishermen, were actively
involved in the deliberative process of forming the Council request.
The fishermen endorsed the action to avoid a derby fishery in January
when prices are lower and unfavorable weather in the Gulf of Mexico is
more prevalent compared to the Lenten season, which begins in February.
The Council believes that this emergency interim rule is necessary to
avoid adverse social and economic impacts and conservation problems
that could affect stock recovery. The red snapper endorsement system,
which includes vessel trip limits, terminates on December 31, 1995.
Without this action, when the commercial red snapper fishery opens,
permitted vessels will have no restrictions on landing levels. The
Council believes that this would result in a derby fishery of very
short duration. Monitoring of landings under these conditions would be
difficult, increasing the likelihood that the quota would be exceeded.
The Council is concerned that this would adversely impact stock
recovery. In addition, fishermen would suffer significant economic
losses due to lower season ex-vessel prices as demonstrated in previous
fishing years. Vessel safety would also be jeopardized by the
competitive pressure to maximize harvest rates despite marginal weather
conditions that are typical in January.
To avoid these problems, this emergency interim rule delays the
season until a more appropriate time, continues the trip limits to
constrain vessel landings to the total allowable catch, provides for
better prices, and optimizes yield in the fishery. The immediate
benefits of the emergency interim rule greatly outweigh the value of
prior notice and opportunity for public comment which would occur under
normal rulemaking.
NMFS concurs with the Council's findings about the emergency and
the need for immediate regulatory action. Accordingly, NMFS issues this
emergency interim rule, effective initially for 90 days, as authorized
by section 305(c) of the Magnuson Act. By agreement between NMFS and
the Council, this emergency interim rule may be extended for an
additional period of 90 days.
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has
determined that this rule is necessary to respond to an emergency
situation and is consistent with the Magnuson Act and other applicable
law.
The AA finds that failure to implement the actions requested by the
Council would result in economic hardships, would encourage fishing
operations during marginal weather conditions, and the resulting rapid
rate of harvest could contribute to overfishing of red snapper. The
foregoing constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide
prior notice and the opportunity for public comment, pursuant to
authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), as such procedures would be
contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the need to implement these
measures in a timely manner to address the economic and social
emergencies constitutes good cause under authority contained in 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to establish an effective date less than 30 days after
date of publication.
This emergency interim rule has been determined to be not
significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
This emergency interim rule is exempt from the procedures of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act because the rule is issued without prior
notice and opportunity for public comment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 641
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 21, 1995.
Nancy Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 641 is amended
as follows:
PART 641--REEF FISH FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
1. The authority citation for part 641 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 641.7, paragraphs (nn) through (qq) are added to read as
follows:
Sec. 641.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(nn) During a closure of the commercial fishery for red snapper--
(1) Exceed the bag and possession limits for red snapper; or
(2) Purchase, barter, trade, or sell red snapper, or attempt to
purchase, barter, trade, or sell red snapper--as specified in
Sec. 641.31(c).
(oo) Exceed the vessel trip or landing limits for red snapper, as
specified in Sec. 641.32(a) and (b).
(pp) Transfer a red snapper at sea, as specified in Sec. 641.32(c).
(qq) Purchase, barter, trade, or sell, or attempt to purchase,
barter, trade, or sell, a red snapper possessed or landed in excess of
a trip or landing limit, as specified in Sec. 641.32(d).
3. Sections 641.31 through 641.34 are added to read as follows:
Sec. 641.31 Red snapper commercial closures and quota.
Other provisions of this part 641 notwithstanding, the following
provisions apply:
(a) The commercial fishery for red snapper is closed from January
1, 1996, through January 31, 1996.
(b) Persons who are fishing under a commercial reef fish permit
issued under Sec. 641.4, provided they are not subject to the bag
limits specified in Sec. 641.24, are subject to a quota of 1.00 million
lb (0.45 million kg) for the period February 1, 1996, through March 31,
1996. When this quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, the
Assistant Administrator will file a notification to that effect with
the Office of the Federal Register. On and after the effective date of
such notification, through March 31, 1996, the commercial fishery for
red snapper is closed.
(c) During a closure of the commercial fishery for red snapper
under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, red snapper harvested from
or possessed in the EEZ, and each vessel for which a currently valid
commercial reef fish permit has been issued under Sec. 641.4, are
subject to the following:
(1) The bag and possession limits, as specified in
Sec. 641.24(b)(1) and (c); and
(2) The prohibition of purchase, barter, trade, or sale of red
snapper taken under the bag limit, or attempted purchase, barter,
trade, or sale of such red snapper, as specified in Sec. 641.28(a).
This prohibition does not apply to trade in red snapper taken under the
commercial quota that were harvested, landed, and bartered, traded, or
sold prior to the closure.
Sec. 641.32 Red snapper trip limits.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a vessel
that has on
[[Page 20]]
board a valid commercial reef fish permit may not possess on any trip
or land in any day red snapper in excess of 200 lb (91 kg), whole or
eviscerated.
(b) A vessel that has on board a valid commercial reef fish permit
and a valid red snapper endorsement may not possess on any trip or land
in any day red snapper in excess of 2,000 lb (907 kg), whole or
eviscerated.
(c) A red snapper may not be transferred at sea from one vessel to
another.
(d) No person may purchase, barter, trade, or sell, or attempt to
purchase, barter, trade, or sell, a red snapper possessed or landed in
excess of the trip or landing limits specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section.
Sec. 641.33 Red snapper endorsement.
(a) As a prerequisite for exemption from the trip limit for red
snapper specified in Sec. 641.32(a), a vessel for which a commercial
reef fish permit has been issued under Sec. 641.4 must have a red
snapper endorsement on such permit and such permit and endorsement must
be aboard the vessel.
(b) A red snapper endorsement is invalid upon sale of the vessel;
however, an owner of a vessel with a commercial reef fish permit may
transfer the red snapper endorsement to another vessel with a
commercial reef fish permit owned by the same entity by returning the
existing endorsement with an application for an endorsement for the
replacement vessel.
(c) The provisions of paragraph (b) of this section
notwithstanding, special provisions apply in the event of the
disability or death of the owner of a vessel with a red snapper
endorsement or the disability or death of an operator whose presence on
board the vessel is a condition for the validity of a red snapper
endorsement.
(1) In the event that a vessel with a red snapper endorsement has a
change of ownership that is directly related to the disability or death
of the owner, the Regional Director may issue a red snapper
endorsement, temporarily or permanently, with the commercial reef fish
permit that is issued for the vessel under the new owner. Such new
owner will be the person specified by the owner or his/her legal
guardian, in the case of a disabled owner, or by the will or executor/
administrator of the estate, in the case of a deceased owner. (Change
of ownership of a vessel with a commercial reef fish permit upon
disability or death of an owner is considered a purchase of a permitted
vessel and Sec. 641.4(m)(3) applies regarding a commercial reef fish
permit for the vessel under the new owner.)
(2) In the event of the disability or death of an operator whose
presence aboard a vessel is a condition for the validity of a red
snapper endorsement, the Regional Director may revise and reissue an
endorsement, temporarily or permanently, to the permitted vessel. Such
revised endorsement will contain the name of a substitute operator
specified by the operator or his/her legal guardian, in the case of a
disabled operator, or by the will or executor/administrator of the
estate, in the case of a deceased operator. As was the case with the
replaced endorsement, the presence of the substitute operator aboard
and in charge of the vessel is a condition for the validity of the
revised endorsement. Such revised endorsement will be reissued only
with the concurrence of the vessel owner.
Sec. 641.34 Condition of a permit.
As a condition of a commercial reef fish permit issued under
Sec. 641.4, without regard to where red snapper are harvested or
possessed, a vessel with such permit--
(a) May not exceed the appropriate vessel trip or landing limit for
red snapper, as specified in Sec. 641.32(a) and (b); and
(b) May not transfer a red snapper at sea, as specified in
Sec. 641.32(c).
[FR Doc. 95-31410 Filed 12-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.