76260 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

reference the ‘‘Tokeland Cow Dip Pit

CERCLA Site’’ and EPA Docket No.

CERCLA–10–97–0043 and should be

addressed to Ms. Shillcutt at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Byrne, Assistant Regional

Counsel, EPA Region 10, Office of

Regional Counsel, 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington 98101, telephone

number (206) 553–0050.

Dated: November 21, 2000.

Charles E. Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 00–30909 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Executive Office of the President;

Federal Policy on Research

Misconduct; Preamble for Research

Misconduct Policy

AGENCY: Office of Science and

Technology Policy.

ACTION: Notification of Final Policy.

SUMMARY: The Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) published a

request for public comment on a

proposed Federal research misconduct

policy in the October 14, 1999 Federal

Register (pp. 55722–55725). OSTP

received 237 sets of comments before

the public comment period closed on

December 13, 1999. After consideration

of the public comments, the policy was

revised and has now been finalized.

This notice provides background

information about the development of

the policy, explains how the policy has

been modified, and discusses plans for

its implementation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Holly Gwin, Office of Science and

Technology Policy, Executive Office of

the President, Washington, DC 20502.

Tel: 202–456–6140; Fax: 202–456–6021;

e-mail: hgwin@ostp.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Advances

in science, engineering, and all fields of

research depend on the reliability of the

research record, as do the benefits

associated with them in areas such as

health and national security. Sustained

public trust in the research enterprise

also requires confidence in the research

record and in the processes involved in

its ongoing development. For these

reasons, and in the interest of achieving

greater uniformity in Federal policies in

this area, the National Science and

Technology Council (NSTC) initiated

discussions in April 1996 on the

development of a research misconduct

policy. The Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP) provided

leadership and coordination. The NSTC

approved the proposed draft policy in

May 1999, clearing the way for the

October 14, 1999 Federal Register

notice. Public comments in response to

that notice have been reviewed. The

purpose of this notice is to provide

information about the policy as it has

now been finalized.

This policy applies to federallyfunded research and proposals

submitted to Federal agencies for

research funding. It thus applies to

research conducted by the Federal

agencies, conducted or managed for the

Federal government by contractors, or

supported by the Federal government

and performed at research institutions,

including universities and industry.

The policy establishes the scope of

the Federal government’s interest in the

accuracy and reliability of the research

record and the processes involved in its

development. It consists of a definition

of research misconduct and basic

guidelines for the response of Federal

agencies and research institutions to

allegations of research misconduct.

The Federal agencies that conduct or

support research will implement this

policy within one year of the date of

publication of this notice. An NSTC

interagency research misconduct policy

implementation group has been

established to help achieve uniformity

across the Federal agencies in

implementation of the research

misconduct policy. In some cases, this

may require agencies to amend or

replace extant regulations addressing

research misconduct. In other cases,

agencies may need to put new

regulations in place or implement the

policy through administrative

mechanisms.

The policy addresses research

misconduct. It does not supersede

government or institutional policies or

procedures for addressing other forms of

misconduct, such as the unethical

treatment of human research subjects or

mistreatment of laboratory animals used

in research, nor does it supersede

criminal or other civil law. Agencies

and institutions may address these other

issues as authorized by law and as

appropriate to their missions and

objectives.

Summary of Comments

The Office of Science and Technology

Policy received 237 comments on the

proposed Federal Research Misconduct

Policy. Letters were signed by

individuals, and by representatives of

universities, university associations,

Federal agencies, and private entities.

Comments are available for review.

Comments that resulted in a

modification of the policy are

summarized below. A section that

addresses other questions raised by the

comments follows the summary of

modifications.

Uniform Federal Policy

Issue: Many comments recommended

various mechanisms to ensure uniform

implementation of this policy.

Response: An NSTC research

misconduct policy implementation

group has been formed to foster

uniformity among the agencies in their

implementation of the policy.

Section I: Research Misconduct Defined

Issue: A number of comments

suggested that the definition of

fabrication be modified to read as

follows: ‘‘Fabrication is making up data

or results and recording or reporting

them.’’ (Italicized words are suggested

addition.) This change is to clarify that

the raw data collected or generated in

the research process can be fabricated

just as can the results of the research.

Response: This change was accepted.

Issue: A number of commenters

interpreted the definition of plagiarism

to imply that using material gathered

during the peer review process was

acceptable as long as it is cited.

Response: The policy is intended to

address the problem of reviewers who

take material from the peer review

process and use it without attribution.

This constitutes plagiarism. We have

deleted the phrase ‘‘including those

obtained through confidential review of

others’ research proposals and

manuscripts’’ to avoid any appearance

of condoning a breach of confidentiality

in the peer review process.

Issue: Despite general support for the

rationale for the phrase ‘‘does not

include honest error or honest

differences of opinion,’’ several

comments requested various

clarifications.

Response: This phrase is intended to

clarify that simple errors or mere

differences of judgment or opinion do

not constitute research misconduct. The

phrase does not create a separate

element of proof. Institutions and

agencies are not required to disprove

possible ‘‘honest error or differences of

opinion.’’ The phrase has been retained,

with the deletion of the second

‘‘honest’’ of the phrase as redundant.

Issue: A number of comments raised

questions about what fields of research

are included in the definition of

research. For example, some readers

were unsure about the applicability of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices 76261

the policy as written to medicine or the

social sciences.

Response: The policy applies to

research funded by the Federal agencies.

In order to be responsive to specific

inquiries about what fields of research

are covered by the policy, an

illustrative, non-exclusive list of

selected fields of research is now

included in the policy itself.

Section II: Findings of Research

Misconduct

Issue: Several comments stressed the

need for greater precision in the phrase

‘‘significant departure from accepted

practices of the scientific community.’’

Response: This phrase is intended to

make it clear that behavior alleged to

involve research misconduct should be

assessed in the context of community

practices, meaning practices that are

generally understood by the community

but that may not be in a written form.

For clarification purposes and in order

to be more comprehensive, the term

‘‘scientific community’’ has been

modified to read ‘‘relevant research

community.’’ The policy is not intended

to ratify those ‘‘accepted practices’’ but

rather to indicate that these may vary

among different communities.

Issue: Several comments requested

clarification regarding the level of intent

that is required to be shown in order to

reach a finding of research misconduct.

Response: Under the policy, three

elements must be met in order to

establish a finding of research

misconduct. One of these elements is a

showing that the subject had the

requisite level of intent to commit the

misconduct. The intent element is

satisfied by showing that the

misconduct was committed

‘‘intentionally, or knowingly, or

recklessly.’’ Only one of these needs to

be demonstrated in order to satisfy this

element of a research misconduct

finding.

Section III: Responsibilities of Federal

Agencies and Research Institutions

Issue: Some comments indicated that

this section could be incorrectly

construed to require appeal of the

agency misconduct finding back to the

institution.

Response: The policy has been

clarified to affirm that each agency

should establish an appeals process for

persons found by the agency to have

engaged in research misconduct. The

subject of the agency finding cannot

appeal the agency decision back to the

institution, although some institutions

do offer an appeal of the institutional

finding at the institutional level.

Section IV: Guidelines for Fair and

Timely Procedures

Issue: The comments indicated some

uncertainty about to whom the actions

section applied.

Response: The actions delineated are

those that may be taken by the Federal

agencies if research misconduct has

been shown to have occurred. The

section has thus been renamed ‘‘Agency

Administrative Actions.’’

Issue: The suggestion was made that

publications based on false or fabricated

data, or including such data, should be

required to be officially withdrawn.

Response: Correction of the research

record has been added to the list of

possible actions to be taken if a

researcher is found to have engaged in

research misconduct.

Issue: The suggestion was made that

safeguards for informants and subjects

of allegations be made more explicit.

Response: More explicit safeguards

have been added to the policy for both

informants and subjects.

Other Comments

Several comments and clarifications

are addressed in the following question

and answer format rather than through

modification of the policy.

Will agencies be required to announce

the details of their implementation

plans? Yes. Agencies will announce the

details of their implementation plans,

including those plans that do not

require formal rulemaking.

What types of misconduct are covered

by this policy? This policy is limited to

addressing misconduct related to the

conduct and reporting of research, as

distinct from misconduct that occurs in

the research setting but that does not

affect the integrity of the research

record, such as misallocation of funds,

sexual harassment, and discrimination.

This policy does not limit agencies or

research institutions from addressing

these other issues under appropriate

policies, rules, regulations, or laws. In

addition, should the behavior associated

with research misconduct also trigger

the applicability of other laws

(including criminal law) this policy is

not intended to limit agencies or

research institutions from pursuing

these matters under separate authorities.

Does this policy address

misrepresentation of a researcher’s

credentials or publications? Yes,

misrepresentation of a researcher’s

qualifications or ability to perform the

research in grant applications or similar

submissions may constitute falsification

or fabrication in proposing research.

Are authorship disputes covered by

this policy? Authorship disputes are not

covered by this policy unless they

involve plagiarism.

Does research misconduct include the

mistreatment of human subjects or

animals in research? This policy

addresses activity that occurs in the

course of human subjects or animal

research that involves research

misconduct as defined by the policy.

Thus, falsification, fabrication, or

plagiarism that occurs during the course

of human or animal research is

addressed by this policy. However,

other issues concerning the ethical

treatment of human or animal subjects

are covered under separate procedures

and are not affected by this policy.

Why doesn’t the policy provide

immunity for research misconduct

investigative committees? Providing

immunity to research misconduct

investigative committees and other

participants in institutional and agency

research misconduct proceedings would

require significant statutory or

regulatory initiatives which will be

explored separately from this policy.

Aren’t there circumstances when

omission of data or results is

appropriate? A number of commenters

suggested that there are circumstances

when it may be appropriate to omit data

in reporting research results. It is not the

intent of this policy to call accepted

practices into question. However, the

omission of data is considered

falsification when it misleads the reader

about the results of the research.

Does this policy supersede

institutional policies regarding research

misconduct? Non-federal research

institutions have authority to establish

policies for research and employee

misconduct that serve their own

institutional purposes. However, the

Federal research misconduct policy (as

implemented by the agencies) provides

the relevant guidance to institutions for

purposes of Federal action.

Does this policy supersede other

agency policies, procedures, rules, and

regulations? Agencies must comply with

all relevant Federal personnel policies

and laws in responding to allegations of

research misconduct. However,

personnel actions may not adequately

protect the public from the

consequences of falsified, fabricated or

plagiarized research. For example,

Federal personnel policies may permit

termination of an employee who

commits research misconduct, but may

not address the problem of research

misconduct or seek to prevent it from

recurring. The administrative actions

available under the Federal research

misconduct policy, such as debarment

from federal funding, supervision and

certification of research, and correction

76262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

1No rights, privileges, benefits or obligations are

created or abridged by issuance of this policy alone.

The creation or abridgment of rights, privileges,

benefits or obligations, if any, shall occur only upon

implementation of this policy by the Federal

agencies.

2Research, as used herein, includes all basic,

applied, and demonstration research in all fields of

science, engineering, and mathematics. This

includes, but is not limited to, research in

economics, education, linguistics, medicine,

psychology, social sciences, statistics, and research

involving human subjects or animals.

3The research record is the record of data or

results that embody the facts resulting from

scientific inquiry, and includes, but is not limited

to, research proposals, laboratory records, both

physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts,

theses, oral presentations, internal reports, and

journal articles.

of the literature, are designed to

specifically address the problems raised

by research misconduct.

Must all three elements in the Finding

of Research Misconduct section be

present for there to be a finding of

research misconduct? Yes.

Who makes the final determination

about whether or not there is a finding

of research misconduct? The Federal

agency will make the final decision

about whether to make an agency

finding of research misconduct.

However, within its own internal

jurisdiction, a non-Federal research

institution may establish policies and

take actions as appropriate to its needs

and as consistent with other relevant

laws.

Shouldn’t the burden of proof be more

stringent, e.g., require ‘‘clear and

convincing evidence’’ to support a

finding of research misconduct? While

much is at stake for a researcher accused

of research misconduct, even more is at

stake for the public when a researcher

commits research misconduct. Since

‘‘preponderance of the evidence’’ is the

uniform standard of proof for

establishing culpability in most civil

fraud cases and many federal

administrative proceedings, including

debarment, there is no basis for raising

the bar for proof in misconduct cases

which have such a potentially broad

public impact. It is recognized that nonFederal research institutions have the

discretion to apply a higher standard of

proof in their internal misconduct

proceedings. However, when their

standard differs from that of the Federal

government, research institutions must

report their findings to the appropriate

Federal agency under the applicable

Federal government standard, i.e.,

preponderance.

Why don’t the Federal agencies

conduct all inquiries and investigations?

Research institutions are much closer to

what is going on in their own

institutions and are in a better position

to conduct inquiries and investigations

than are the Federal agencies. While the

Federal agencies could have taken on

the task of investigating all allegations

of research misconduct, or established a

separate agency for this purpose, this

would have involved a substantial new

Federal bureaucracy, which is not

thought desirable. An agency may take

steps, as appropriate, should a research

institution demonstrate a lack of

commitment to the policy’s guidelines.

How will a lead agency be identified?

If more than one Federal agency has

jurisdiction over allegations of research

misconduct, those agencies should work

together to designate a lead agency.

What criteria will be used for selecting

the research institution that will handle

the response to the allegation of

research misconduct? In most cases,

agencies will rely on the researcher’s

home institution to respond to

allegations of research misconduct.

However, in cases where the subject has

switched institutions, it may be more

appropriate for the institution where the

alleged research misconduct occurred to

respond to the allegation. The

institution where the questioned

research was conducted may have better

access to the evidence and witnesses

and therefore will have the capability to

undertake a more efficient and thorough

response.

Shouldn’t the policy be more explicit

about time lines for a response to

allegations of misconduct? In

establishing reasonable time lines the

Federal agencies must balance the

interests of concluding the process

expeditiously while ensuring it has been

conducted fairly and thoroughly. This

will allow flexibility for the research

institutions while at the same time

ensuring that the process does not

extend for an unreasonably long period.

Research institutions should have the

option to request reasonable extensions

of agency timelines in individual cases.

What can informants or subjects of

allegations expect with regard to

confidentiality? The policy strives for

confidentiality for all involved to the

extent consistent with a fair and

thorough process and as allowed by law,

including applicable Federal and state

freedom of information and privacy

laws.

Should the policy punish informants

who act in bad faith or individuals who

harass informants? The principal aim of

this policy is to communicate to the

research community those behaviors

that constitute research misconduct and

to take actions where research

misconduct is found to have occurred.

As employers and managers of the

research, non-Federal research

institutions may adopt policies to

address the consequences of false,

malicious, or capricious allegations and

to respond to retaliation against

informants. Agencies may also address

this issue in their implementation of

this policy.

How should the ‘‘seriousness’’ of the

research misconduct be evaluated and

how will this relate to any actions

taken? In determining what action to

take, agencies should fully consider the

level of intent of the misconduct, the

consequences of the behavior, and other

aggravating and mitigating factors.

Next Steps

The Federal agencies have up to one

year from the date of publication of this

notice to implement the policy. An

interagency implementation group has

been established under the auspices of

the National Science and Technology

Council to assist agencies in their

implementation process and to strive for

the highest level of uniformity possible

and as appropriate in their

implementation plans.

Federal Policy on Research

Misconduct 1

I. Research 2 Misconduct Defined

Research misconduct is defined as

fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism

in proposing, performing, or reviewing

research, or in reporting research

results.

• Fabrication is making up data or

results and recording or reporting them.

• Falsification is manipulating

research materials, equipment, or

processes, or changing or omitting data

or results such that the research is not

accurately represented in the research

record.3

• Plagiarism is the appropriation of

another person’s ideas, processes,

results, or words without giving

appropriate credit.

• Research misconduct does not

include honest error or differences of

opinion.

II. Findings of Research Misconduct

A finding of research misconduct

requires that:

• There be a significant departure

from accepted practices of the relevant

research community; and

• The misconduct be committed

intentionally, or knowingly, or

recklessly; and

• The allegation be proven by a

preponderance of evidence.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices 76263

4The term ‘‘research institutions’’ is defined to

include all organizations using Federal funds for

research, including, for example, colleges and

universities, intramural Federal research

laboratories, Federally funded research and

development centers, national user facilities,

industrial laboratories, or other research institutes.

Independent researchers and small research

institutions are covered by this policy.

III. Responsibilities of Federal Agencies

and Research Institutions 4

Agencies and research institutions are

partners who share responsibility for the

research process. Federal agencies have

ultimate oversight authority for

Federally funded research, but research

institutions bear primary responsibility

for prevention and detection of research

misconduct and for the inquiry,

investigation, and adjudication of

research misconduct alleged to have

occurred in association with their own

institution.

• Agency Policies and Procedures.

Agency policies and procedures with

regard to intramural as well as

extramural programs must conform to

the policy described in this document.

• Agency Referral to Research

Institution. In most cases, agencies will

rely on the researcher’s home institution

to make the initial response to

allegations of research misconduct.

Agencies will usually refer allegations

of research misconduct made directly to

them to the appropriate research

institution. However, at any time, the

Federal agency may proceed with its

own inquiry or investigation.

Circumstances in which agencies may

elect not to defer to the research

institution include, but are not limited

to, the following: the agency determines

the institution is not prepared to handle

the allegation in a manner consistent

with this policy; agency involvement is

needed to protect the public interest,

including public health and safety; the

allegation involves an entity of

sufficiently small size (or an individual)

that it cannot reasonably conduct the

investigation itself.

• Multiple Phases of the Response to

an Allegation of Research Misconduct.

A response to an allegation of research

misconduct will usually consist of

several phases, including: (1) an

inquiry—the assessment of whether the

allegation has substance and if an

investigation is warranted; (2) an

investigation—the formal development

of a factual record, and the examination

of that record leading to dismissal of the

case or to a recommendation for a

finding of research misconduct or other

appropriate remedies; (3) adjudication—

during which recommendations are

reviewed and appropriate corrective

actions determined.

• Agency Follow-up to Institutional

Action. After reviewing the record of the

investigation, the institution’s

recommendations to the institution’s

adjudicating official, and any corrective

actions taken by the research institution,

the agency will take additional oversight

or investigative steps if necessary. Upon

completion of its review, the agency

will take appropriate administrative

action in accordance with applicable

laws, regulations, or policies. When the

agency has made a final determination,

it will notify the subject of the allegation

of the outcome and inform the

institution regarding its disposition of

the case. The agency finding of research

misconduct and agency administrative

actions can be appealed pursuant to the

agency’s applicable procedures.

• Separation of Phases. Adjudication

is separated organizationally from

inquiry and investigation. Likewise,

appeals are separated organizationally

from inquiry and investigation.

• Institutional Notification of the

Agency. Research institutions will

notify the funding agency (or agencies

in some cases) of an allegation of

research misconduct if (1) the allegation

involves Federally funded research (or

an application for Federal funding) and

meets the Federal definition of research

misconduct given above, and (2) if the

institution’s inquiry into the allegation

determines there is sufficient evidence

to proceed to an investigation. When an

investigation is complete, the research

institution will forward to the agency a

copy of the evidentiary record, the

investigative report, recommendations

made to the institution’s adjudicating

official, and the subject’s written

response to the recommendations (if

any). When a research institution

completes the adjudication phase, it

will forward the adjudicating official’s

decision and notify the agency of any

corrective actions taken or planned.

• Other Reasons to Notify the Agency.

At any time during an inquiry or

investigation, the institution will

immediately notify the Federal agency if

public health or safety is at risk; if

agency resources or interests are

threatened; if research activities should

be suspended; if there is reasonable

indication of possible violations of civil

or criminal law; if Federal action is

required to protect the interests of those

involved in the investigation; if the

research institution believes the inquiry

or investigation may be made public

prematurely so that appropriate steps

can be taken to safeguard evidence and

protect the rights of those involved; or

if the research community or public

should be informed.

• When More Than One Agency is

Involved. A lead agency should be

designated to coordinate responses to

allegations of research misconduct

when more than one agency is involved

in funding activities relevant to the

allegation. Each agency may implement

administrative actions in accordance

with applicable laws, regulations,

policies, or contractual procedures.

IV. Guidelines for Fair and Timely

Procedures

The following guidelines are provided

to assist agencies and research

institutions in developing fair and

timely procedures for responding to

allegations of research misconduct.

They are designed to provide safeguards

for subjects of allegations as well as for

informants. Fair and timely procedures

include the following:

• Safeguards for Informants.

Safeguards for informants give

individuals the confidence that they can

bring allegations of research misconduct

made in good faith to the attention of

appropriate authorities or serve as

informants to an inquiry or an

investigation without suffering

retribution. Safeguards include

protection against retaliation for

informants who make good faith

allegations, fair and objective

procedures for the examination and

resolution of allegations of research

misconduct, and diligence in protecting

the positions and reputations of those

persons who make allegations of

research misconduct in good faith.

• Safeguards for Subjects of

Allegations. Safeguards for subjects give

individuals the confidence that their

rights are protected and that the mere

filing of an allegation of research

misconduct against them will not bring

their research to a halt or be the basis

for other disciplinary or adverse action

absent other compelling reasons. Other

safeguards include timely written

notification of subjects regarding

substantive allegations made against

them; a description of all such

allegations; reasonable access to the data

and other evidence supporting the

allegations; and the opportunity to

respond to allegations, the supporting

evidence and the proposed findings of

research misconduct (if any).

• Objectivity and Expertise. The

selection of individuals to review

allegations and conduct investigations

who have appropriate expertise and

have no unresolved conflicts of interests

help to ensure fairness throughout all

phases of the process.

• Timeliness. Reasonable time limits

for the conduct of the inquiry,

investigation, adjudication, and appeal

76264 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 6, 2000 / Notices

phases (if any), with allowances for

extensions where appropriate, provide

confidence that the process will be well

managed.

• Confidentiality During the Inquiry,

Investigation, and Decision-Making

Processes. To the extent possible

consistent with a fair and thorough

investigation and as allowed by law,

knowledge about the identity of subjects

and informants is limited to those who

need to know. Records maintained by

the agency during the course of

responding to an allegation of research

misconduct are exempt from disclosure

under the Freedom of Information Act

to the extent permitted by law and

regulation.

V. Agency Administrative Actions

• Seriousness of the Misconduct. In

deciding what administrative actions

are appropriate, the agency should

consider the seriousness of the

misconduct, including, but not limited

to, the degree to which the misconduct

was knowing, intentional, or reckless;

was an isolated event or part of a

pattern; or had significant impact on the

research record, research subjects, other

researchers, institutions, or the public

welfare.

• Possible Administrative Actions.

Administrative actions available

include, but are not limited to,

appropriate steps to correct the research

record; letters of reprimand; the

imposition of special certification or

assurance requirements to ensure

compliance with applicable regulations

or terms of an award; suspension or

termination of an active award; or

suspension and debarment in

accordance with applicable governmentwide rules on suspension and

debarment. In the event of suspension

or debarment, the information is made

publicly available through the List of

Parties Excluded from Federal

Procurement and Nonprocurement

Programs maintained by the U.S.

General Services Administration. With

respect to administrative actions

imposed upon government employees,

the agencies must comply with all

relevant federal personnel policies and

laws.

• In Case of Criminal or Civil Fraud

Violations. If the funding agency

believes that criminal or civil fraud

violations may have occurred, the

agency shall promptly refer the matter

to the Department of Justice, the

Inspector General for the agency, or

other appropriate investigative body.

VI. Roles of Other Organizations

This Federal policy does not limit the

authority of research institutions, or

other entities, to promulgate additional

research misconduct policies or

guidelines or more specific ethical

guidance.

Barbara Ann Ferguson,

Assistant Director for Budget and

Administration, Office of Science and

Technology Policy.

[FR Doc. 00–30852 Filed 12–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3170–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

November 27, 2000.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before January 5, 2001.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th

Street, SW, DC 20554 or via the Internet

to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collection(s), contact Judy

Boley at 202–418–0214 or via the

Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Control No.: 3060–0951.

Title: Service of Petitions for

Preemption, 47 CFR 1.1204(b) Note and

1.1206(a) Note 1.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households; businesses or other forprofit, not-for-profit institutions and

state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 125.

Estimated Time Per Response: 15

minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirement and third party

disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 30 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: These provisions

supplement the procedures for filing

petitions seeking Commission

preemption of state and local

government regulation of

telecommunications services. They

require that such petitions, whether in

the form of a petition for rulemaking or

a petition for declaratory ruling, be

served on all state and local

governments. The actions for which as

cited as a basis for requesting

preemption. Thus, in accordance with

these provisions, persons seeking

preemption must serve their petitions

not only on the state or local

government whose authority would be

preempted, but also on other state or

local governments whose actions are

cited in the petition.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0937.

Title: Establishment of a Class A

Television Service, MM Docket No. 00–

10.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 1,000

respondents; 19,370 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: .166

hours to 52 hours.

Frequency of Response:

Recordkeeping requirement, on

occasion and quarterly reporting

requirement and third party disclosure

requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 396,251 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $2,284,000.

Needs and Uses: The Community

Broadcasters Protection Act directed the

Commission to make Class A television

licensees subject to the same operating

requirements as that of full-service

broadcast stations. The Commission has