Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
13,233 words·~60 min read·
/register/2006/02/22/06-1652A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23948; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-246-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A319-100 and A320-200 Series Airplanes; and A320-111 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for certain Airbus Model A319-100 and A320-200 series airplanes; and A320-111 airplanes. This proposed AD would require modifying the wiring to the fuel pump control of the center fuel tank. This proposed AD results from reports that the low-pressure warning for the fuel pumps of the center fuel tank has come on in flight. We are proposing this AD to ensure that the fuel pumps do not run while dry, which could result in a potential ignition source inside the center fuel tank which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD. • DOT Docket Web site: Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590. • Fax:
(202)493-2251. • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, for service information identified in this proposed AD. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone
(425)227-2141; fax
(425)227-1149. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “FAA-2006-23948; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-246-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Management Facility office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a regulation titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (67 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, this rule included Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88,” Amendment 21-78, and subsequent Amendments 21-82 and 21-83). Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design ( *i.e.,* type certificate
(TC)and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety standards. As explained in the preamble to the rule, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as a result of these reviews. In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: single failures, single failures in combination with another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action. The Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA)has issued a regulation that is similar to SFAR 88. (The JAA is an associated body of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC)representing the civil aviation regulatory authorities of a number of European States who have agreed to co-operate in developing and implementing common safety regulatory standards and procedures.) Under this regulation, the JAA stated that all members of the ECAC that hold type certificates for transport category airplanes are required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. We have determined that the actions identified in this AD are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The Direction Ge ne rale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A319-100 and A320-200 series airplanes; and A320-111 airplanes. The DGAC advises that operators have reported that the low-pressure warning for the fuel pumps of the center fuel tank has come on in flight. The probable cause is re-wetting of the low-level sensors for the center tank pumps when the airplane is maneuvered, and when the altitude changes. The warning also may come on when the airplane experiences turbulence. This condition, if not corrected, could cause the fuel pumps to run while dry, which could result in a potential ignition source inside the center fuel tank which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Relevant Service Information Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-28-1059, Revision 06, dated June 29, 2000. The service bulletin describes procedures for modifying the wiring to the fuel pump control of the center fuel tank to “latch” the pumps off when the low-level sensor has been dry for 5 minutes. The modification also includes installing two-pole relays to release the “latch” when the refuel door is opened or when switching from “Auto” to “Manual” mode for center pump operation. Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition. The DGAC mandated the service information and issued French airworthiness directive F-2005-173, dated October 26, 2005, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. We have examined the DGAC's findings, evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously. Difference Between French Airworthiness Directive and This Proposed AD The applicability of French airworthiness directive F-2005-173 excludes airplanes on which Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1059 was accomplished in service. However, we have not excluded those airplanes from the applicability of this proposed AD; rather, this proposed AD includes a requirement to accomplish the actions specified in that service bulletin. This requirement would ensure that the actions specified in the service bulletin and required by this proposed AD are accomplished on all affected airplanes. Operators must continue to operate the airplane in the configuration required by this proposed AD unless an alternative method of compliance is approved. Costs of Compliance This proposed AD would affect about 119 airplanes of U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 17 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $65 per work hour. There is no cost for parts. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is $131,495, or $1,105 per airplane. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Airbus** : Docket No. FAA-2006-23948; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-246-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 24, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; and Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; certificated in any category; that have received Airbus Modification 20024 in production (installation of a center tank), except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 24373 has been accomplished. Unsafe Condition
(d)This AD results from reports that the low-pressure warning for the fuel pumps of the center fuel tank has come on in flight. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the fuel pumps do not run while dry, which could result in a potential ignition source inside the center fuel tank which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been done. Modification
(f)Within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the wiring to the fuel pump control of the center fuel tank by doing all actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1059, Revision 06, dated June 29, 2000. Credit for Previous Revisions of Service Bulletin
(g)Modifications done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(f)of this AD. Table 1.—Previous Revisions of Service Bulletin Airbus service bulletin Revision level Date A320-28-1059 04 February 4, 1999. A320-28-1059 05 March 12, 1999. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (h)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)Before using any AMOC approved in accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify the appropriate principal inspector in the FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding District Office. Related Information
(i)French airworthiness directive F-2005-173, dated October 26, 2005, also addresses the subject of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2006. Kalene C. Yanamura, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-2453 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. 2001-NE-01-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation (Formerly Allison Engine Company) 501-D Series Turboprop Engines AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD)for Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison Engine Company)
(RRC)501-D series turboprop engines. That AD currently requires removal from service of certain turbine rotor components at reduced life limits. This proposed AD would require the same actions but adds two new life limits. This proposed AD results from RRC reevaluating and revising component life limits for 501-D22 series turboprop engines. We are proposing this AD to prevent uncontained turbine rotor failure resulting in an in-flight engine shutdown and possible damage to the airplane. DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by April 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this proposed AD: • By mail: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NE-01-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. • By fax:
(781)238-7055. • By e-mail: *9-ane-adcomment@faa.gov.* You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD from Rolls-Royce Corporation, P.O. Box 420, Indianapolis, IN 46206-0420; telephone
(317)230-6400; fax
(317)230-4243. You may examine the AD docket at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Downs, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone
(847)294-7870; fax
(847)294-7834. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2001-NE-01-AD” in the subject line of your comments. If you want us to acknowledge receipt of your mailed comments, send us a self-addressed, stamped postcard with the docket number written on it; we will date-stamp your postcard and mail it back to you. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. If a person contacts us verbally, and that contact relates to a substantive part of this proposed AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD in light of those comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD Docket (including any comments and service information), by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. See ADDRESSES for the location. Discussion On March 25, 2003, we issued AD 2003-07-02, Amendment 39-13098 (68 FR 15937, April 2, 2003). That AD requires removing from service certain turbine rotor components at reduced life limits. That AD resulted from RRC updating material properties and recalculating component life limits. That condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained turbine rotor failure resulting in an in-flight engine shutdown and possible damage to the airplane. Actions Since AD 2003-07-02 Was Issued Since we issued AD 2003-07-02, RRC reevaluated turbine wheel assembly and turbine wheel spacer assembly life limits for 501-D series turboprop engines. RRC changed certain life limits for the 501-D22 series turboprop engines because of recent improvements in how low-cycle-fatigue life is determined. RRC similarly reduced the life limit of 2nd-3rd-stage spacer assemblies, part numbers (P/Ns) 23033464 and 6842683, installed on 501-D22 series turboprop engines. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require the same actions specified in AD 2003-07-02, but for 501-D22 series turboprop engines, it would add a life limit of 5,200 cycles-in-service for 2nd-3rd-stage spacer assemblies, P/Ns 23033464 and 6842683. Costs of Compliance We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 684 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. The proposed action does not impose any additional labor costs if performed at the time of scheduled engine overhaul. Required parts would cost about $45,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $30,780,000. Special Flight Permits Paragraph Removed Paragraph
(f)of the current AD, AD 2003-07-02, contains a paragraph pertaining to special flight permits. Even though this proposed AD does not contain a similar paragraph, we have made no changes with regard to the use of special flight permits to operate the airplane to a repair facility to do the work required by this proposed AD. In July 2002, we published a new Part 39 that contains a general authority regarding special flight permits and airworthiness directives; *see* Docket No. FAA-2004-8460, Amendment 39-9474 (69 FR 47998, July 22, 2002). Thus, when we now supersede ADs we will not include a specific paragraph on special flight permits unless we want to limit the use of that general authority granted in section 39.23. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this proposal and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “AD Docket No. 2001-NE-01-AD” in your request. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13098 (68 FR 15937, April 2, 2003) and by adding a new airworthiness directive to read as follows: **Rolls-Royce Corporation** : Docket No. 2001-NE-01-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD)action by April 24, 2006. Affected ADs
(b)This AD supersedes AD 2003-07-02, Amendment 39-13098. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison Engine Company)
(RRC)501-D series turboprop engines. These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Lockheed 188 series and 382 series turboprop airplanes, Airbus 377SG5-F (Super Guppy) airplanes, and Convair Models 340 and 440 airplanes which have RRC 501-D series turboprop engines installed under Supplemental Type Certificate No. SE1161EA. These latter models are commonly referred to as Convair 580/580A or 5800 models.
(d)This AD results from RRC reevaluating and revising component life limits for 501-D22 series turboprop engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained turbine rotor failure resulting in an in-flight engine shutdown and possible damage to the airplane. Compliance
(e)You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the actions have already been done. 501-D13 Series Engines
(f)For 501-D13 series engines, remove turbine wheels and spacers from service as specified in the following Table 1: Table 1.—501-D13 Series Life Limits Part name Part number Life limit for wheels that have complied with commercial overhaul information letter
(COIL)401, dated May 1978 Life limit for wheels that have not complied with COIL 401, dated May 1978
(1)Second-stage turbine wheel assembly 6847142 and 6876892 Remove from service before or upon accumulating 16,000 cycles-in-service
(CIS)Remove from service before or upon accumulating 12,000 CIS.
(2)Third-stage turbine wheel assembly 6845883 and 6849743 Remove from service before or upon accumulating 13,000 CIS Remove from service before or upon accumulating 10,000 CIS.
(3)Fourth-stage turbine wheel assembly 6876468 Remove from service before or upon accumulating 24,000 CIS Remove from service before or upon accumulating 18,000 CIS. 501-D22 Series Engines
(g)For 501-D22 series engines, remove turbine wheels and spacers from service as specified in the following Table 2: Table 2.—501-D22 Series Life Limits Part name Part number Remove from service
(1)Third-stage turbine wheel assembly 6855083 Before or upon accumulating 10,000 cycles-in-service (CIS).
(2)1st-2nd-stage spacer assembly 6844632, 23033463, 23064854, and 23064858 Before or upon accumulating 4,700 CIS.
(3)1st-2nd-stage spacer assembly 23056966
(i)Before or upon accumulating 8,000 CIS.
(ii)If the 1st-2nd-stage spacer assembly passes the hardness criteria in RRC Commercial Engine Bulletin CEB-A-72-1135, then before or upon accumulating 10,000 CIS.
(4)2nd-3rd-stage spacer assembly 23033456 Before or upon accumulating 4,200 CIS.
(5)2nd-3rd-stage spacer assembly 23033464 and 6842683 Before or upon accumulating 5,200 CIS.
(6)3rd-4th-stage spacer assembly 6844794 prior to revision letter “R” Before or upon accumulating 5,100 CIS. Alternative Methods of Compliance
(h)The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Related Information
(i)Information on 501-D13 series engine turbine life limits can be found in RRC Commercial Service Letter
(CSL)No. CSL-120, Revision No. 52, dated July 22, 2002.
(j)Information on 501-D22 series engine turbine life limits can be found in RRC CSL No. CSL-1001, Revision No. 20, dated April 5, 2005. Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 14, 2006. Ann C. Mollica, Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-2454 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [CGD13-06-006] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Hoquiam River, WA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily modify the drawbridge operation regulations for the Simpson Avenue Bridge across the Hoquiam River, mile 0.5, at Hoquiam, Washington. The proposed temporary change will enable the bridge owner to delay openings of the bridge from May 1, 2006, through June 1, 2007. This will facilitate major structural and mechanical rehabilitation of the bascule bridge. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before March 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpw), 13th Coast Guard District, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174-1067 where the public docket for this rulemaking is maintained. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Waterways Management Branch between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section,
(206)220-7282. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD13-06-006], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Aids to Navigation and Waterways Management Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the **Federal Register** . Background and Purpose The proposed temporary rule would enable the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), the owner of the bridge, to rehabilitate the structure and manage interruptions to this refurbishment caused by draw openings. The 2-hour notice requirement proposed as a temporary requirement from May 1, 2006, to June 1, 2007, would enable the work to proceed while still providing operational capability. Between January 2, 2007, and March 31, 2007, there is also proposed an 8-week period in which 24 hours notice would be required. The start and end dates are not yet known for this 8-week portion of the project. The 8-week period of 24-hour notice will be considered for approval and rulemaking via a separate temporary deviation. The work includes mechanical and electrical control system improvements, refurbishment of the center lock system, and the replacement of drive motors, the control building and maintenance access platforms. The eight weeks of testing the new control system will necessitate the 24-hour notice for openings. The Simpson Avenue Bridge in the closed position provides 36 feet of vertical clearance above high water elevation 11.2 feet (datum mean lower low water 0.0). Drawbridge openings are not frequent at this location. The openings are mostly for recreational and commercial fishing vessels, rarely for sailboats and tugs. The draw opened for vessels 144 times in 2004 for an average of almost 3 openings per week and 131 times in 2005 for a lesser weekly average. Discussion of Proposed Rule The operating regulations currently in effect for the Simpson Avenue Bridge are found at 33 CFR 117.1047. The regulations require at least one hour notice at all times for draw openings. One-hour notice is insufficient time for WSDOT and its contractors to restore the bridge to operational condition and to clear equipment from moving parts as needed to open the span. As few vessels require openings, the increased notice of two hours proposed would not seem an unreasonable burden to vessel operators. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary. With regards to the proposed temporary changes, we reached this conclusion based on the fact that most vessels will be able to plan transits in advance and being locally based will soon adjust to the temporary change. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. For the same reasons enumerated above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, at
(206)220-7282. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated this as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.* , specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e) of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. There are no expected environmental consequences of the proposed action that would require further analysis and documentation. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. Regulations For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to temporarily amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. From May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2007, amend § 117.1047 by suspending paragraph
(c)and adding paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 117.1047 Hoquiam River.
(e)From May 1, 2006 to June 1, 2007, the draw of the Simpson Avenue Bridge, mile 0.5, shall open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is given by marine radio, telephone, or other suitable means to the Washington Department of Transportation. The opening signal is two prolonged blasts followed by two short blasts. Dated: February 3, 2006. R.R. Houck, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E6-2426 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 21 RIN 2900-AL43 Administration of VA Educational Benefits—Centralized Certification AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule and promulgation of a new proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document withdraws the proposed rule, Administration of VA Educational Benefits—Centralized Certification, published in the **Federal Register** on June 30, 2003 and promulgates a new proposed rule on the same subject. The new proposed rule would amend Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)rules governing certification of enrollment in approved courses for the training of veterans and other eligible persons under education benefit programs VA administers. Under this new proposed rule, VA would permit educational institutions with multi-state campuses to submit certifications to VA from a centralized location. VA considered comments received on the previous proposed rule when drafting this new proposed rule. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before April 24, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by: mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulations Management (00REG1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to
(202)273-9026; or e-mail through *http://www.Regulations.gov.* Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AL43.” All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call
(202)273-9515 for an appointment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn M. Nelson, Education Advisor, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (225C), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, 202-273-7294. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 30, 2003, in 68 FR 38657, VA published a proposed rule that would have amended subpart D of 38 CFR part 21, regarding approval criteria for branches and extensions of educational institutions. Under the proposed rule, VA would have permitted educational institutions with multi-state campuses to submit required certifications from a centralized location. This document withdraws the proposed rule of June 30, 2003, 68 FR 38657. In its place, we are promulgating a new proposed rule concerning the same subject matter. Interested persons were given 60 days to submit comments on the initial proposed rule and VA considered those comments when drafting this new proposed rule. The differences between the now withdrawn proposed rule and the new proposed rule are explained below. In addition, this document addresses the public comments that VA received in response to the withdrawn proposed rule. I. Background Educational institutions are required, under sections 3675 and 3676, title 38, United States Code (U.S.C.), to maintain certain records in order for their courses to be approved for the training of veterans and other eligible persons under the educational assistance programs VA administers. Generally, these records contain information about students' grades and progress, prior training, charges for tuition and fees, and other administrative and policy records that show the institution satisfactorily meets all the applicable approval criteria in 38 U.S.C. 3675 and 3676. In addition, under 38 U.S.C. 3690(c) (38 U.S.C. 3034 and 10 U.S.C. 16136(b) provide the authority to apply § 3690(c) to educational assistance provided under 38 U.S.C. chapter 30 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 1606), each institution must make its records and accounts pertaining to eligible veterans and eligible persons who receive educational assistance under chapters 30, 31, 32, 35, and 36 of title 38, U.S.C. and chapter 1606 of title 10, U.S.C. available for examination by authorized representatives of the Government. Furthermore, by application of 38 U.S.C. 3684 each educational institution offering a course in which a veteran or eligible person is enrolled under chapter 30, 31, 32, 35, or 36 of title 38, U.S.C., or chapter 1606 of title 10, U.S.C., must report to VA the following information: • The enrollment of each such veteran or eligible person; and • The interruption or termination of the education of each such person. The school official that prepares and submits the above required certifications to VA is known as the “Certifying Official.” Under VA's existing regulations, each educational institution (and generally each of its branches or extensions) must maintain its own administrative records for its students. In addition, a Certifying Official must be present at each location to prepare and submit the required certifications to VA. Over the years, we have referred to the branch's or extension's ability to maintain its own records and to submit its own certifications as the branch or extension having its own “administrative capability.” There are limited exceptions to the rule that each campus or extension must have its own administrative capability. One exception is permitted when the parent facility is within the same State as the branch or extension and the parent facility maintains a centralized recordkeeping system, specifies the branch location when certifying enrollments to VA, and can identify the records of students at each location. Another exception allows the State approving agency to combine the approval of the courses offered at the branch or extension with the courses offered at the parent school if the branch or extension is located within the same State and: • The course offering at the branch or extension consists of a small number of unit subjects that do not comprise a program of education or a set curriculum large enough to allow pursuit on a continuing basis; • The course offering at the branch or extension is given on a temporary basis (no more than a few cycles of training); or • The facilities at the branch or extension contain insufficient space for an administrative capability to be developed. When an educational institution's branches or extensions meet the requirements of the exceptions in the above paragraph, the Certifying Official is (or Certifying Officials are) located at the parent facility and there is no Certifying Official present at the branch or extension. II. Comments VA received comments both in favor of and against the withdrawn proposed rule. Favorable comments were submitted by: • Three representatives from private for-profit educational institutions that offer courses at multiple locations; • The Legislative Director for the National Association of Veterans Program Administrators (NAVPA) on behalf of NAVPA (NAVPA is an organization for Certifying Officials); and • A representative from a state educational institution. All five of the above individuals have experience with Certifying Official duties. VA received 24 letters against the proposed rule. One of the 24 letters was from the President of the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA) on behalf of the NASAA membership. Each state has a department or agency known as the State approving agency (SAA). Each SAA is responsible, under 38 U.S.C. 3671, for approving courses for veterans training offered in their state. In addition to the letter from the national association, 19 SAAs representing their individual states sent in letters similar to the letter from NASAA. The remaining four comments against the proposed rule were submitted by: • A former college vice president; • The President of the New Jersey Association of Veteran Program Administrators (NJAVPA) on behalf of NJAVPA (NJAVPA is an organization for Certifying Officials in New Jersey); • A veteran who is a former Certifying Official commenting from a veteran's and a Certifying Official's perspective; and • A Certifying Official from a community college that has five campuses. The comments in favor of the withdrawn proposed rule say that the change would improve service to veterans and other eligible individuals. In addition, the educational institution representatives in favor of the withdrawn proposed rule feel that centralizing their Certifying Officials would allow them to better manage their resources. The comments against the withdrawn proposed rule fell into these main categories: • Decline in service to veterans and other eligible individuals; • Adversely impacts state recordkeeping laws; • State approving agencies
(SAAs)may not be able to fulfill their contracted responsibilities; and • Lessens the approval criteria for out-of-state institutions; We address the comments, both for and against, in the following paragraphs. A. Some providing comments perceived that the proposed change would adversely impact state recordkeeping laws; that State approving agencies might not be able to fulfill their contracted responsibilities; and that the proposed rule would lessen the approval criteria for out-of-state institutions. Based on comments from the SAAs and NASAA, it was apparent that VA needed to redefine the meaning of “administrative capability.” Our proposed definition of “administrative capability” in the withdrawn proposed rule was that “administrative capability” meant the ability to: • Maintain all records and accounts that 38 CFR 21.4209 requires; • Designate and have a certifying official on site; and • Provide VA with the reports and certifications that 38 CFR 21.4203, 21.4204, 21.7252, and 21.7652 require based on source data on site, without referral to another location of an educational institution for documentation. It now is apparent that including both the recordkeeping requirement and the VA certification element in the definition of “administrative capability,” clouded our intent that (subject to the existing exceptions in § 21.4266(b) and (c)) only the certification duties could be centralized. To alleviate confusion, we are revising our previously proposed definition of “administrative capability” and also proposing a definition for the term “Certifying Official.” In this document we propose to define “administrative capability” to mean “the ability to maintain all records and accounts that § 21.4209 requires.” We propose to define the term “Certifying Official” to mean “a representative of an educational institution designated to provide VA with the reports and certifications that §§ 21.4203, 21.4204, 21.5810, 21.5812, 21.7152, and 21.7652 require.” The revision of the withdrawn proposed rule makes it clear that VA is not proposing to change the existing rules for approval of branches and extensions, other than to permit an educational institution with multi-state campuses the option of centralizing its Certifying Official function. Under this proposed rule, each branch or extension still must maintain all records that 38 CFR 21.4209 requires, unless one of the exceptions in § 21.4266(d) applies. Generally, these records contain information about students' grades and progress, prior training, charges for tuition and fees, and other administrative and policy records that show the institution satisfactorily meets all the applicable approval criteria in 38 U.S.C. 3675 and 3676. In this proposed rule, we clarify, in revised § 21.4266(e), that the State approving agency may combine the approval of courses offered by an extension of an educational institution with the approval of courses offered at the main campus (or the branch campus it is dependent on) only if the extension and the campus it is dependent on are within the same State. (The proposed rule would not change jurisdiction for approval of courses by the State approving agencies (SAAs). For example, an educational institution in New York with a branch in California must have its courses offered in New York approved by the New York SAA and the courses offered at its California branch approved by the California SAA.) The language in the withdrawn proposed rule did not clearly express that combined approvals only apply to locations within the same State. In addition, we clarify in § 21.4266(e) that (in accordance with § 21.4251) an extension of a proprietary educational institution that offers courses that do not lead to a standard college degree is still subject to the minimum period of operation requirements. The information was included because we recently learned that some individuals erroneously concluded the minimum period of operation rule did not apply when approvals were combined. In this document, we propose adding § 21.4266(f) to clearly express the existing exceptions and the proposed additional exception to the requirement that each location where a course is offered must have a Certifying Official present. In proposed § 21.4266(f)(1) and (f)(2), we show the two exceptions that are permitted under existing regulations. In proposed § 21.4266(f)(3) we show the proposed additional exception that would apply to educational institutions with multi-state campuses who choose to centralize their Certifying Official functions. An educational institution with multi-state campuses may centralize Certifying Official functions if the institution: • Submits all required reports and certifications via electronic submission through VA's internet-based education certification application; • Shows the VA facility code for the location that has administrative capability for the location where the student is training when submitting required reports and certifications to VA; • Provides the Certifying Official full access to the administrative records and accounts that § 21.4209 requires for each student attending the location (or locations) for which the Certifying Official serves as the designated Certifying Official. The records may be originals, certified copies, or in an electronically formatted record keeping system; and • Designates an employee, at each location of the educational institution that does not have a Certifying Official present, who will serve as a point of contact for the Certifying Official, veterans and other eligible persons, VA, and the SAA. This employee must have access (other than to transmit certifications) to VA's Internet-based education certification application to provide information to VA beneficiaries, the SAA and VA. Based on the comments we received, we are proposing rules that an educational institution with multi-state campuses must follow if it chooses to centralize its Certifying Official function. These proposed rules are based on concerns of the State approving agency representatives and to ensure program integrity. The new proposed rules the affected educational institutions must follow are explained in the following paragraphs. 1. Submit all required reports and certifications via VA's Internet-based education certification application. The electronic certification application has safeguards to help prevent fraud that are not available in a paperless environment. In addition the application provides VA with a means to extract electronic reports showing all certifications for VA students submitted by an educational institution. VA can extract this information separately for each location. These reports will be helpful for compliance surveys performed by VA or the SAA. The SAAs expressed concern that their compliance review and supervisory visits would be hampered if the certification documents are maintained at a location outside of their individual states. This proposed rule requires that there must be an employee (at the location that does not have a Certifying Official present) designated to act as a point of contact for VA, the SAA, veterans, reservists, servicemembers and other eligible persons. The point of contact must have access (other than to transmit certifications) to VA's Internet-based education certification application and must allow the SAA or VA representative conducting a site visit to view any VA enrollment certification data on any VA student attending that location. (The data displayed in VA's Internet-based education certification application is not a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)approved the collection of enrollment data on VA Form 22-1999 which includes collecting the information via the Internet-based application. The OMB approval number is 2900-0073 and is valid until October 31, 2006.) 2. Show the VA facility code for the location that has administrative capability for the location where the student is training when submitting required reports and certifications to VA. This proposed rule is necessary so that VA can ensure that veterans and other eligible persons are certified properly. The facility code identifies the location that has administrative capability for the location where the student is enrolled. Administrative capability may be at the location the student is attending, or it may exist at another location of the educational institution within the same state. This code tells VA the location of the educational institution in the state where the student is enrolled, and which location of that institution has administrative capability. This will assist in extracting reports for compliance review and program integrity. In addition to program integrity, the Internet-based application uses the facility code to automatically route the electronic certifications to the VA regional processing office
(RPO)that has jurisdiction over the location where the student is training. VA also uses the facility code to extract statistical data for administrative purposes. (This is not a new collection of information. Certifying Officials show the VA facility code on all enrollment certifications and reports submitted to VA. We included this proposed rule for clarity so that educational institutions that centralize their Certifying Official functions understand they must continue to reflect the VA facility code for the location that has administrative capability for the location where the student is pursuing the course, rather than the facility code of the centralized location from where the certifications are prepared.) 3. Provide the Certifying Official full access to administrative records and accounts that 38 CFR 21.4209 requires for each location the official serves as the designated Certifying Official. This proposed rule is necessary so that the Certifying Official has proper access to report enrollment information. We clarified this requirement in this proposed rule because many readers of the withdrawn proposed rule thought the withdrawn proposed rule would give educational institutions with multi-state campuses the authority to move all administrative records from branches and extensions to one central location. While the Certifying Officials must have access to the records, it was not our intent to say all administrative records would be maintained at the national level and that the administrative records would not be available at the state level. Many states require the branches to maintain administrative records and accounts locally for state licensure requirements. If an educational institution wants to submit VA certifications from a central location, the institution must ensure the individual submitting those certifications has access to all administrative records and accounts to properly certify enrollment information for veterans and other eligible persons. B. Service to veterans and other eligible individuals. Those commenting against centralizing the Certifying Official function strongly feel that service will decline because there will not be a designated person on campus to: • Assist with the certification process; • Provide guidance on VA benefits; • Provide information on individual State veterans benefits; or • Serve as a continuing advocate for veterans' education at the facility. They are also concerned that submitting certifications to VA from a centralized national location rather than directly from the campus where the student is attending will delay reporting and ultimately delay receipt of benefits. In addition, they feel that veterans might have to incur long distance phone charges and may have trouble accessing staff in the centralized office if the veteran resides in a different time zone than the centralized office. Several individuals expressed concerns that educational institutions may choose to centralize certification duties in an effort to reduce their administrative overhead costs and subsequently not properly staff the office at the central location. Those in favor of the option of centralizing the Certifying Official function feel service to veterans will improve. In several of the branches and extensions, a Certifying Official performs other duties and does not solely concentrate on veteran's certifications. It is an ancillary duty. Those educational institutions that prefer to centralize their certifying officials state that by allowing them this option they could dedicate staff members who specialize in VA certification. Thus, their quality of service would improve. By centralizing their Certifying Official functions, those institutions feel they could better train and manage their Certifying Officials. VA currently permits educational institutions offering distance learning courses to submit certifications from a central location for all students enrolled in their distance learning programs, regardless of where the student resides. VA has not experienced major problems with educational institutions that perform certifications for their campuses in their distance learning programs. Many Certifying Officials serve as knowledgeable source persons for VA education program information and assistance. Several individuals commenting strongly feel that these services will decline if educational institutions are permitted to centralize their Certifying Official functions. It is important to note that although many Certifying Officials serve as knowledgeable source persons and veterans advocates, providing a valuable service to veterans and VA, there is no statutory provision that requires them to do so. In addition, there is no evidence to support the allegation that an educational institution that chooses to centralize its Certifying Official function would stop providing quality service to its veteran customers. The majority of educational institutions that have multi-state campuses are not public institutions. The majority of veterans, servicemembers, reservists, and other eligible persons entitled to VA educational assistance attend public educational institutions. (For example, during fiscal year 2003, 81% of individuals in receipt of Montgomery GI Bill educational assistance attended public educational institutions.) A private educational institution that is not concerned with assisting veterans and other eligible persons, and providing good customer service, risks losing those students as customers. Some providing comments perceive that only a local Certifying Official would have access to information about State benefits for veterans, servicemembers or other eligible individuals. While it may require some effort to obtain this information, a centralized office can obtain all the information about State benefits from the Internet. Most financial aid offices provide information about the types of funding available for those seeking financial aid. The educational institutions that have expressed an interest in centralizing their Certifying Official function already have a central financial aid office. Although several individuals commented that nothing replaces “face-to-face” contact, and veterans will lose that benefit if a Certifying Official is not present on each campus, there are also individuals who prefer to conduct their business via email or telephone rather than in person. One SAA official commented that she has seen service decline within her State at some campuses when certification was centralized into one location. (Centralized certification within a State is permitted under existing regulations in certain instances.) She felt the decline was due to the physical separation and that the physical separation resulted in a disconnect between the veteran and the certification process. VA concedes that in some instances the service may decline, but it also may improve. Even under existing regulations, a veteran might receive better service from one campus Certifying Official than he/she would receive from the Certifying Official at another branch of the educational institution. However, VA cannot assume that all service would improve or all service would decline if centralized certification were permitted for educational institutions that have campuses in more than one state. The school representatives interested in centralizing their Certifying Official functions stated, in their official comments on the withdrawn proposed rule, that they would still provide face-to-face representation at all their locations. It is only the individuals who certify and submit reports that they wish to centrally locate. One school representative stated it would be similar to the way they centrally administer Federal financial aid. The central location processes the paperwork and the local campus counsels the students and provides general information about aid that is available. In this proposed rule, we added a proposed requirement that there must be a designated point-of-contact at each location that does not have a Certifying Official present who will be available for VA, the Certifying Official, the SAA, and the student. C. Several SAAs and NASAA suggested having a requirement that each educational institution that centralizes its Certifying Official function, must: • Have a knowledgeable point-of-contact for student, VA, and SAA contact purposes at each approved location without a Certifying Official present; • Grant access to all student records, including VA certification documents, to the point-of-contact; • Maintain a list of everyone who has applied for, received, or expresses a formal interest in using GI Bill benefits; • Submit certifications to the VA Regional Processing Office that has jurisdiction of the State or territory in which the student is enrolled; • Maintain adequate toll free numbers or lines for use by students with the capability to measure missed calls; • Maintain adequate full-time campus personnel at the location the Certifying Official is present to ensure: ○ That certifications and changes are timely submitted ○ Student progress is monitored ○ Course-to-program applicability is monitored; and ○ Calls from veterans and SAAs are answered timely In addition, the SAA's suggested that VA: • Permit centralized certification on a test basis; • Establish a minimum ratio of veteran students to campus personnel; • Establish a maximum timeframe to submit enrollment certifications (recommended a two-week timeframe); and • Conduct an annual survey the first five years after the final rule permitting centralized certification to measure customer satisfaction with respect to centralized certification. Several of the suggestions would require VA to impose more rules on educational institutions that choose to centralize their Certifying Official functions than on those educational institutions that choose not to centralize. We do not believe, however, that it would be equitable for VA to require that only educational institutions that choose to centralize their Certifying Official functions would be subject to employee/veteran ratios, timeframe measurements, mandatory telephone line requirements; and maintenance of lists of persons interested in GI Bill benefits. VA does not see a need to regulate these matters. When problems arise with the certification process, VA's Education Liaison Representatives (ELR), the SAA official, the Certifying Official, and the educational institution work together to resolve the issues. In those instances where liaison assistance and/or training assistance do not resolve the issues, the approval is withdrawn. Educational institutions, whether opting to centralize their Certifying Official functions or not, will continue to submit enrollment information to the VA regional processing office
(RPO)that has jurisdiction over the campus that has administrative capability for the location where the student is enrolled. This will be controlled automatically in VA's internet-based education certification application by routing certifications to the RPO by the VA facility code identifier. VA is exploring expanding our annual customer satisfaction survey of education assistance recipients to include questions that cover the certification process for new and continuing students. In this document we propose a rule, for those educational institutions opting to centralize their Certifying Official functions, that they must designate a point-of-contact at each branch or extension location that does not have a Certifying Official present. This was suggested by the SAAs. This will ensure veterans and other eligible persons know who will assist them as well as provide VA and the SAAs a point-of-contact for compliance reviews. VA also received a comment expressing concern that veterans would not be able to receive an advance payment if educational institutions centralize the Certifying Official function. We do not find that this would occur. An advance payment is a payment that equals the monthly amount of educational assistance due for the month in which the course begins and the following month. The check is made out to the student and is mailed to the school in advance of the start of the term. Students will still be able to receive an advance payment at the location that has administrative capability for the location where they are training. VA determines where to send the payment by using the VA facility code as an identifier. Less than 10% of students receive advance payments. Most students prefer VA to send payments electronically to their individual bank accounts. The SAAs expressed concerns that permitting educational institutions to centralize their Certifying Official functions may lead to incidents of fraud, waste, and abuse. VA carefully considered these concerns. By adding the proposed rule that those who centralize must use VA's Internet-based education certification application, VA can monitor certification submissions for each location by reports extracted from the application. VA can provide SAAs with listings of students enrolled and certified for the location that the SAA is visiting to assist in the review. In addition, the SAA may view individual enrollment records in VA's Internet-based education certification application during a supervisory visit at a location that does not have a Certifying Official present. The designated point of contact will have access to the Internet-based education certification application and allow the SAA to view enrollment data stored in the application. The ability to review the enrollments will also help VA employees who conduct compliance reviews to ensure veterans and other eligible persons are properly certified. In addition to the reports, the existing provisions in 38 CFR 21.4210 permit VA to suspend or discontinue payments of educational assistance to all veterans, servicemembers, reservists, and other eligible persons and to disapprove further enrollments or reenrollments if evidence supports a substantial pattern of veterans, servicemembers, reservists, or other eligible persons who are receiving educational assistance to which they are not entitled because the educational institution offering the course has violated recordkeeping or reporting requirements. If VA obtained evidence of substantial violations of recordkeeping or reporting, VA could suspend and discontinue payments to students at all locations served by the centralized Certifying Official (or Officials). The rules in § 21.4210 provide VA enough latitude, if there were substantial problems, that offering centralized certification on a test basis is not necessary. Some SAAs are concerned that, without a Certifying Official present at each location, reductions and terminations will not be reported timely and thus more overpayments will occur. Whether the Certifying Officials are centralized or not, they each must follow the same reporting and certification regulations. VA will not lessen those requirements just because an educational institution decided to centralize. Again, VA can suspend or discontinue payment of educational assistance to all VA students enrolled at all locations for violations of reporting and certification regulations. Additionally, the student is still responsible to report his or her enrollment changes directly to VA. Students in receipt of benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill—Active Duty and the Montgomery GI Bill—Selected Reserve programs must verify their enrollment monthly. The student is required to report changes in enrollment as part of the verification. VA does not make payment under these two programs until the student's verification is received. It is important to note that the proposed rule only would permit, not require, educational institutions with multi-state campuses to centralize their Certifying Official functions. Under existing rules, educational institutions with campuses within the same State (and who have a centralized recordkeeping system) may centralize their Certifying Official functions. Many educational institutions will have no interest in changing the way they currently do business, especially those locations that have many veterans, servicemembers, or reservists enrolled. This proposed rule provides more flexibility to an educational institution that has many campuses, and that may not have significant veteran enrollment. Paperwork Reduction Act This document contains a provision in proposed 38 CFR 21.4266(f)(3)(i) that would require an educational institution to submit required certifications electronically using VA's Internet-based education certification application if the institution chooses to centralize its Certifying Official function. The proposed requirement is a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that would need approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, under section 3507(d) of the Act, VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for review. OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. VA has approval to collect the information either by paper or electronically under OMB Control No. 2900-0073 (Enrollment Certification). Under the existing approval, educational institutions choose whether to submit their certifications by paper or electronically. The proposed requirement in 38 CFR 21.4266(f)(3) would require electronic submission by those educational institutions centralizing their Certifying Official functions and would require revision to the existing approval. The existing OMB approval expires October 31, 2006. In a separate document VA is requesting an extension of approval. That document will be published in the **Federal Register** in the near future and will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the collection. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Order classifies a rule as a significant regulatory action requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency, materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues. VA has examined the economic, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule and has concluded that it is a significant regulatory action because it raises novel policy issues. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
(VA)hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The proposed rule will affect only those educational institutions that choose to centralize their Certifying Official functions. Centralizing certifying functions would be at the option of the educational institution should they desire to consolidate their certifying functions. Some educational institutions with multi-state campuses requested VA expand current regulations to permit them to centralize their Certifying Official functions. Those education institutions believe centralizing their functions will allow them to better manage and allocate their resources. Existing VA regulations do not permit educational institutions with multi-state campuses to centralize their Certifying Official functions. The economic effect on small entitles would essentially entail a cost savings associated with the consolidation of certifying functions. By centralizing the functions, the institutions desiring this option say they could dedicate less full-time employees to the centralizing duties and at the same time have those employees specialize. According to the staff members of educational institutions interested in centralizing, their training costs would be reduced by having a centralized staff dedicated to VA certification and serving veterans. The option in this proposed rule that would liberalize current regulations to permit centralizing the certification functions would not impact a substantial number of small entities. Of the 6,900 post secondary educational institutions approved by Department of Education for Title IV funds, only 3 of those institutions commented on the previous proposed rule that would have permitted centralized certification. Less than 10 educational institutions have expressed interest in centralized certification, but those that have are very interested in the proposed change that would allow them the option. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule, therefore, is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this proposed rule are 64.117, Survivors and Dependents Educational Assistance; 64.120, Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance; and 64.124, All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance. This proposed rule also affects the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve program. There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve program. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21 Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights, Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflicts of interests, Defense Department, Education, Employment, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Loan programs-education, Loan programs-veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation. Approved: September 30, 2005. Gordon H. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set out above, 38 CFR part 21 (subpart D) is proposed to be amended as follows. PART 21—VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION Subpart D—Administration of Educational Assistance Programs 1. The authority citation for part 21, subpart D, continues to read as follows: Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2141 note, ch. 1606; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, unless otherwise noted. 2. Section 21.4266 is revised to read as follows: § 21.4266 Approval of courses at a branch campus or extension.
(a)*Definitions.* The following definitions apply to the terms used in this section.
(1)*Administrative capability.* The term *administrative capability* means the ability to maintain all records and accounts that § 21.4209 requires.
(2)*Certifying Official.* *Certifying Official* means a representative of an educational institution designated to provide VA with the reports and certifications that §§ 21.4203, 21.4204, 21.5810, 21.5812, 21.7152, and 21.7652 require.
(3)*Main campus.* The term *main campus* means the location where the primary teaching facilities of an educational institution are located. If an educational institution has only one teaching location, that location is its main campus. If it is unclear which of the educational institution's teaching facilities is primary, the main campus is the location of the primary office of its Chief Executive Officer.
(4)*Branch campus.* The term *branch campus* means a location of an educational institution that:
(i)Is geographically apart from and operationally independent of the main campus of the educational institution;
(ii)Has its own faculty, administration and supervisory organization; and
(iii)Offers courses in education programs leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized education credential.
(5)*Extension.* The term extension means a location of an educational institution that is geographically apart from and is operationally dependent on the main campus or a branch campus of the educational institution. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3675, 3676, 3684)
(b)*State approving agency jurisdiction.*
(1)The State approving agency for the State where a residence course is being taught has jurisdiction over approval of that course for VA education benefit purposes.
(2)The fact that the location where the educational institution is offering the course may be temporary will not serve to change jurisdictional authority.
(3)The fact that the main campus of the educational institution may be located in another State from that in which the course is being taught will not serve to change jurisdictional authority. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3672)
(c)*Approving a course offered by a branch campus or an extension of an educational institution.* Before approving a course or a program of education offered at a branch campus or an extension of an educational institution, the State approving agency must ensure that:
(1)Except as provided in paragraph
(d)of this section, each location where the course or program is offered has administrative capability; and
(2)Except as provided in paragraph
(f)of this section, each location where the course or program is offered has a Certifying Official on site. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3672)
(d)*Exceptions to the requirement that administrative capability exist at each location.*
(1)A State approving agency may approve a course or program offered by a branch campus that does not have its own administrative capability if:
(i)The main campus of the educational institution within the same State maintains a centralized recordkeeping system that includes all records and accounts that § 21.4209 requires for each student attending the branch campus without administrative capability. These records may be originals, certified copies, or in an electronically formatted recordkeeping system; and
(ii)The main campus can identify the records of students at the branch campus for which it maintains centralized records.
(2)The State approving agency may approve a course or program offered by an extension that does not have its own administrative capability if:
(i)The extension and the main campus or branch campus it is dependent on are located within the same State;
(ii)The main campus or branch campus the extension is dependent on has administrative capability for the extension; and
(iii)The State approving agency combines the approval of the course(s) offered by the extension with the approval of the courses offered by the main campus or branch campus the extension is dependent on.
(e)*Combined approval.* The State approving agency may combine the approval of courses offered by an extension of an educational institution with the approval of the main campus or the branch campus that the extension is dependent on, if the extension is within the same State as the campus it is dependent on. Combining the approval of courses offered by an extension, with the approval of courses offered by the main campus or branch campus the extension is dependent on, does not negate the minimum period of operation requirements in § 21.4251 for courses that do not lead to a standard college degree offered by an extension of a proprietary educational institution. The State approving agency will list the extension and courses approved on the notice of approval sent to the educational institution pursuant to § 21.4258 of this part.
(f)*Exceptions to the requirement that each location where the course or program is offered must have a Certifying Official on site.* Exceptions to the requirement in paragraph
(c)of this section, that each location with an approved course or program of education must have a Certifying Official on site, will be permitted for:
(1)Extensions of an educational institution when the State approving agency combines the approval of the courses offered by the extension with a branch campus or main campus. (See paragraph
(e)of this section.)
(2)Educational institutions with more than one campus within the same State if the main campus:
(i)Maintains a centralized recordkeeping system. (See paragraph (d)(1) of this section.);
(ii)Has administrative capability for the branch campus (or branch campuses) within the same State; and
(iii)Centralizes its Certifying Official function at the main campus.
(3)Educational institutions with multi-state campuses when an educational institution wants to centralize its Certifying Official function into one or more locations if:
(i)The educational institution submits all required reports and certifications that §§ 21.4203, 21.4204, 21.5810, 21.5812, 21.7152, and 21.7652 require via electronic submission through VA's internet-based education certification application;
(ii)The educational institution designates an employee, at each teaching location of the educational institution that does not have a Certifying Official present, to serve as a point-of-contact for veterans, servicemembers, reservists, or other eligible persons; the Certifying Official(s); the State approving agency of jurisdiction; and VA. The designated employee must have access (other than to transmit certifications) to VA's internet-based education certification application to provide certification information to veterans, servicemembers, reservists, or other eligible persons, State approving agency representatives, and VA representatives;
(iii)Each Certifying Official uses the VA facility code for the location that has administrative capability for the teaching location where the student is training when submitting required reports and certifications to VA; and
(iv)Each Certifying Official has full access to the administrative records and accounts that § 21.4209 requires for each student attending the teaching location(s) for which the Certifying Official has been designated responsibility. These records may be originals, certified copies, or in an electronically formatted recordkeeping system. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3672) [FR Doc. 06-1652 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 27
Traces to 27 documents
CFR
- Issue of type certificate: import products.§ 21.29
- May I address the unsafe condition in a way other than that set out in the airworthiness directive?§ 39.19
- Hoquiam River.§ 117.1047
- Delegation of rulemaking authority.§ 1.05-1
- Examination of records.§ 21.4209
- Reports---requirements.§ 21.4203
- Suspension and discontinuance of educational assistance payments, and of enrollments or reenrollments for pursuit of approved courses.§ 21.4210
- Approval of courses at a branch campus or extension.§ 21.4266
register
U.S. Code
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Establishment, functions, and activities§ 272
- Regulations for drawbridges§ 499
- Approval of accredited courses§ 3675
- Overcharges by educational institutions; discontinuance of allowances; examination of records; false or misleading statements§ 3690
- Program administration§ 3034
- Administration of program§ 16136
- Reports by veterans, eligible persons, and institutions; reporting fee§ 3684
- Designation§ 3671
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- Educational assistance program: establishment§ 2141
- Rules and regulations§ 501
- Approval of courses§ 3672
11 references not yet in our index
- 14 CFR 39
- 33 CFR 117
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-121
- 44 USC 3501-3520
- 2 USC 1531-1538
- 42 USC 4321-4370f
- Pub. L. 102-587
- 106 Stat. 5039
- 38 CFR 21
- 44 USC 3501-3521
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
Cite14 CFR 39
Cite33 CFR 117
Cite5 USC 601-612
Cites 38 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources