Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Air Travel

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket OST-96-1880; Notice 96-25]

RIN 2105-AC28

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Air Travel

AGENCY: Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department is proposing to amend its rules implementing

the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 concerning seating accommodations

for individuals with disabilities and the stowage of collapsible

electric wheelchairs. These proposals are the result of petitions for

rulemaking on which the Department previously received comment. The

Department is also proposing to clarify the meaning of the general

nondiscrimination provision in the Air Carrier Access Act rule. The

Department is also seeking comment on petitions requesting a smoke-free

path through airports for passengers with severe respiratory

disabilities.

DATES: Comments are requested within January 30, 1997. Late-filed

comments will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent, preferably in triplicate, to Docket

Clerk, Docket No. OST-96-1880, Department of Transportation, 400 7th

Street, S.W., Room PL-401, Washington, D.C., 20590. We request that, to

facilitate scanning comments into the Department's electronic docket

system, commenters put comments on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch white paper using

dark ink, without tabs and unbound. Comments will be available for

inspection at this address from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday. Commenters who wish the receipt of their comments to be

acknowledged should include a stamped, self-addressed postcard with

their comments. The Docket Clerk will date-stamp the postcard and mail

it back to the commenter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and

Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, S.W., Room

10424, Washington, D.C., 20590. (202) 366-9306 (voice); (202) 755-7687

(TDD); or Nancy Ebersole, Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Transportation Policy, same street address, Room 9217, (202) 366-4864.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In its September 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking on the Air

Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rules (58 FR 47681; September 9, 1993), the

Department asked for comment on three petitions for rulemaking. These

concerned use of oxygen by airline passengers, seating accommodations

for passengers with disabilities, and the stowage of collapsible

electric wheelchairs. The Department is considering addressing the

first of these issues through a negotiated rulemaking. The Department

has decided to grant the other two petitions, by issuing this NPRM

proposing amendments to the ACAA rule. The public will have the

opportunity to comment on these proposals before the Department takes

any final action on them. In addition, having become aware of

misunderstanding on the part of some parties concerning the scope and

nature of the general nondiscrimination obligation under the ACAA, the

Department is proposing a clarification of Part 382's statement of that

obligation.

General Nondiscrimination Obligation

The history of the ACAA clearly shows that Congress enacted the

statute to fill a gap in nondiscrimination coverage left by a Supreme

Court decision that said that section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act did

not apply to air carriers, since they do not (with the exception of

participants in the Essential Air Service program) receive Federal

financial assistance. The intent of the statute was to achieve the same

protection from discrimination for airline passengers that section 504

provides persons affected by Federally-assisted programs. For a summary

of the history of the Act, see the preamble to the Department's 1990

final ACAA rule (55 FR 8009; March 6, 1990).

When Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it

excluded transportation by aircraft from the definition of ``specified

public transportation.'' Congress did so specifically because air

transportation was covered by the ACAA. (See H. Rept. 101-485, Pt. 1;

May 14, 1990; p. 36.) There is no evidence that Congress intended this

exclusion, which simply avoids duplication in coverage, to suggest that

a weaker standard of nondiscrimination applies to air carriers than to

transportation providers covered by the ADA.

Under section 504 and the ADA, providers of transportation and

other facilities and services to the public have the obligation to take

steps to accommodate customers who have disabilities, though these

obligations have limits. For example, places of public accommodation

under Title III of the ADA are required to make

reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when

the modifications are necessary to afford goods, services,

facilities, privileges, or accommodations to individuals with

disabilities, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that

making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the

goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations. (28 CFR

Sec. 36.302.(a))

Under the ADA, public accommodations must remove barriers where doing

so is ``readily achievable i.e., easily accomplishable and able to be

carried out without much difficulty or expense'' (28 CFR

Sec. 36.304(a)). One option open to a public accommodation is making

its services available through readily achievable alternative means

where barrier removal itself is not

[[Page 56482]]

readily achievable (28 CFR Sec. 36.305(a)). These provisions are

intended to be compatible with the section 504 standards, which

requires recipients of Federal funds to make accommodations to the

needs of individuals with disabilities, as long as doing so does not

create undue financial or administrative burdens.

The Department has become aware that there may be some

misunderstanding concerning the applicability of these basic

nondiscrimination principles to air carriers. To avoid such

misunderstanding, the Department is proposing to add language to the

nondiscrimination section of Part 382 reciting explicitly the existing

legal requirement that carriers have the duty of accommodating

disabilities of passengers, consistent with these principles, even

where a specific accommodation is not mandated elsewhere in the

regulation.

Seating Assignments to Accommodate Passengers' Disabilities

Background

Section 382.37 of the existing rule, concerning seating

assignments, prohibits carriers from excluding a person from a

particular seat location or requiring a person to sit in a particular

location, on the basis of disability, with certain exceptions (e.g., to

comply with the FAA's exit row seating rule). The intent of this

provision was to preclude carriers from limiting a passenger's choice

of seats on the basis of disability. The issue in this rulemaking is

the other side of this coin: should carriers be required to provide a

particular seat assignment that a passenger needs to accommodate a

disability?

The petitioner, a consumer, has a disability that prevents her from

bending one of her legs. She requested that the ACAA rule be modified

to require airlines to seat a passenger in a location requested by the

passenger (e.g., a bulkhead seat) when sitting in that location is

necessary to reasonably accommodate the passenger's disability, even if

this requires changing the seat assignment of another passenger. In

addition to asking for comment on this petition, the 1993 NPRM also

requested comment on whether, if such a requirement were added to the

rule, carriers should be permitted to require advance notice for this

accommodation.

Comments

There was strong support for this petition from consumers. About 50

comments from passengers and disability groups said that airlines

should accommodate passengers with disabilities by placing them in a

seat that facilitates their travel. Examples cited in the comments

included ensuring that passengers with mobility impairments had the

opportunity to sit in a a row with a movable aisle armrest, that people

with fused legs could sit in bulkhead seats, that personal care

attendants could sit next to passengers whom they serve, and that

people with guide dogs could choose either a bulkhead or non-bulkhead

seat.

One commenter suggested that, if an appropriate seat in coach was

not available, the airline should offer a first-class upgrade if it

would facilitate the passenger's travel and there was a seat available

in first class. A few commenters suggested that it would be acceptable

for an airline to require passengers requesting a seating accommodation

to provide documentation of their need (e.g., a note from their

doctor). Four disability community commenters opposed permitting

airlines to request advance notice for providing seating

accommodations. Three commenters suggested that seating accommodations

be made for tall people, since they have trouble being comfortable in

many airline seats, and one suggested similar treatment for parents

traveling with infants.

Carriers and their associations generally opposed the petition.

They had several objections. First, it would be difficult to determine

which people deserved priority for seating accommodations. For example,

if multiple persons arrived for a flight and asked for a bulkhead seat,

how would carrier personnel decide who should be selected to receive

the desired seat? Airline personnel should not have to decide who is

the most deserving passenger. Second, it would be unfair and annoying

to other passengers who were asked to move to make room for the

disabled passengers. Passengers typically reserve flights on a first-

come/first-serve basis, and often seek aisle or bulkhead seats because

there is more space there, because they are tall, because they have

infants to care for, etc. They do not want to be bumped from the seat

assignment they had called in advance to obtain. Third, having to deal

with seat reassignments would distract flight attendants and other

personnel from other pre-flight duties, including those related to

safety.

One commenter pointed out that, like other passengers, people with

disabilities could call early for a seat assignment in order to get the

accommodation they wanted. This commenter suggested that carriers

should not have to do more than hold back one or two seats from advance

assignment, and then only until 24 hours before departure. Another

commenter suggested that, rather than mandating seating accommodations,

airlines should ask for volunteers to move from seats, perhaps

providing incentives like extra frequent-flier miles. One commenter

thought disabled passengers present a risk because they clog the

aisles. The commenter believes that such passengers should be kept out

of aisle seats and deplaned last. Another said that passengers who want

extra room should pay for it or find another mode of transportation.

Three commenters thought that passengers desiring seating

accommodations should have to provide advance notice, to minimize last-

minute seat changes for other passengers.

DOT Response

As noted above, carriers have an obligation to accommodate the

disabilities of passengers, through means such as altering policies and

practices, as long as doing so does not create an undue financial or

administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the service

provided. After reviewing the comments on this petition, the Department

believes that responding to requests for seat assignments to

accommodate the needs of an individual with a disability comes well

within the scope of this obligation.

Many people with disabilities--particularly those with mobility

impairments--find it very difficult to travel by air in the absence of

seat assignments that facilitate their use of the aircraft. Having to

transfer over a fixed aisle armrest, when moveable armrests are

available elsewhere in the cabin, burdens wheelchair users. Sitting in

a middle non-bulkhead seat may make it unfeasible for someone with a

fused leg to travel. Sitting apart from a personal care attendant may

make it impossible for a person with severe mobility impairment to eat

or to receive other needed assistance during the flight. Seating

accommodations that permit an individual who travels with a service

animal to sit with the animal may also be necessary.

The proposal would apply only to requests in these four categories.

The Department does not believe it would be relevant to apply the

provision to persons with other disabilities (e.g., vision or hearing

impairments, less severe mobility impairments). However, we seek

comments on whether there are additional situations in which seating

accommodations should be provided. In addition, we seek comment on

whether

[[Page 56483]]

it is necessary or appropriate for persons seeking these seating

accommodations to provide any documentation to the carrier.

To accommodate these needs of individuals with disabilities would

not appear to impose significant financial or administrative burdens on

carriers, or fundamentally alter the nature of the service they provide

to passengers. What appears to be needed is a limited modification of

existing administrative policies. There could be some inconvenience to

other passengers, but when a carrier is implementing a

nondiscrimination statute like the ACAA, accommodating the needs of

passengers with disabilities outweighs this inconvenience.

Under the proposal, a passenger seeking seating accommodations

would call the airline at least 48 hours before the scheduled departure

of the flight (see discussion of advance notice below). If the airline

had any seats that would provide the accommodation that had not yet

been assigned to another passenger, it would assign such a seat to the

requester. This includes situations in which there are unassigned seats

that have not been made available for assignment to the general

passenger population (e.g., seats that are not assigned until a short

time before the flight or that are held for frequent fliers). If,

however, all seats in which the needed accommodation could be provided

to the requester have been assigned to other passengers, the airline

would change the seat assignment of another passenger. In no case,

however, would another passenger be bumped off the flight to

accommodate the seating requests of an individual with a disability.

Part 382 already contains a number of accommodations for disabled

passengers for which carriers may request advance notification (see 14

CFR Sec. 382.33(b)). The purpose of this provision is to give carriers

time to prepare to provide the accommodations. While the Department is

aware that consumers with disabilities have opposed provisions of this

kind, we believe that they strike a fair balance between the needs of

passengers to receive accommodations and the needs of carriers to do

the work of providing them. Therefore, in addition to requiring seating

accommodations, we propose to add a 48 hours' advance notice provision.

We would point out that, for all accommodations to which the

advance notice provisions apply, a carrier is required to provide the

accommodation even when the passenger does not provide advance notice,

if the carrier can do so by making a reasonable effort that will not

delay the flight (see 14 CFR Sec. 382.33(c)). In the case of seating

accommodations, this should prove possible to do in most instances,

since all that may be involved is a quick request by carrier personnel

to another passenger to switch seats to accommodate the situation of a

disabled passenger. While, in a case where advance notice had not been

provided, the airline would not be mandated to change another

passenger's seating assignment, the carrier would be obligated to make

the request, and could, as comments suggested, provide incentives to

persons who agreed to a seat assignment change.

The Department does not believe that implementing this proposed

requirement would place carriers in the position of determining who was

the most deserving occupant of a given seat. Airlines could, under the

proposal, operate in a ``first-come/first-served'' manner. That is, if

a passenger with a disability for which sitting in a bulkhead seat

would be an accommodation (e.g., an individual with a fused leg, a

passenger traveling with a service dog) makes a request to sit in that

seat, another passenger subsequently requesting that seat as an

accommodation to a disability could be told that the seat was

unavailable. The airline would find a different seat to accommodate the

second passenger to the extent feasible.

A few things that this NPRM does not propose to require in this

provision should be noted. The proposal would not require airlines that

do not pre-assign seats to passengers to begin doing so. These airlines

allow passengers needing various kinds of accommodations to preboard.

Permitting passengers who need particular kinds of seating

accommodations to preboard would satisfy the intent of this provision.

It might be necessary, however, for the carrier to request or direct

that some preboarded passengers move to accommodate a passenger with a

disability who needed a particular seat location as an accommodation.

The Department seeks comment on whether any specific regulatory

provisions are needed to handle this situation.

Nor would this proposal require the airline to provide upgrades to

first class for coach passengers or provide more than one seat to an

individual. In this context, we note that the Department has received

occasional inquiries concerning passengers who are very obese. It may

be necessary for some such passengers to occupy the space of two seats.

The Department has been asked whether it is consistent with the ACAA

for carriers to charge for two seats in this situation. We have replied

that, if an individual is actually using two seats, it is not

discriminatory for the airline to charge the individual for two seats.

The Department seeks comments on whether this approach should be

changed. Should there be circumstances in which such a passenger should

be accommodated without being charged for more than one seat?

Handling of Collapsible Electric Wheelchairs

Background

The Department received a petition from Mr. Ralph Black, an

attorney representing a consumer who uses a collapsible electric

wheelchair, powered by a non-spillable battery. The consumer has

encountered difficulty with airlines that, in her view, treat the

wheelchair as it were a non-collapsible wheelchair powered by a

spillable battery. The petition set forth a rationale for changing the

ACAA rule and suggested revisions to the rule's language.

Comments

Disability commenters generally supported this petition. A few

expressed the concern that airlines may damage wheelchairs, either by

dropping them when being located into the luggage compartment or when

disassembling or reassembling them. (Two carriers suggested, in

response to this latter problem, that wheelchair manufacturers or

passengers be required to provide written instructions for disassembly

and reassembly.)

Air carrier comments focused on the battery-related portions of the

petition. They reiterated a long-standing industry concern that

passengers are not reliable sources of information about whether a

battery is spillable or non-spillable. Reliance on passenger-

representations, they said, could lead to safety problems. Some carrier

comments suggested that FAA certify or label which batteries are non-

spillable or that carriers be able to rely on their own list of

approved non-spillable batteries.

DOT Response

The Department has decided to partially grant this petition for

rulemaking. We believe it is useful to clarify that collapsible

electric wheelchairs, like folding manual wheelchairs, can be carried

in the cabin if they can be transported in appropriate storage

locations, such as in closets or overhead compartments, or under seats.

Indeed, commenters appeared to have

[[Page 56484]]

no objections to this idea. The Department has interpreted its existing

rule consistent with this idea. Consequently, we are proposing to adopt

the petitioner's proposed amendment to Sec. 382.41(g)(2), as well as

adding clarifications to Sec. 382.41(e) concerning in-cabin storage.

However, the issue of distinguishing spillable from non-spillable

batteries continues to be complex, and it continues to be discussed

among the Department and representatives of the industry and disability

community. We believe that is premature to propose further rulemaking

on the subject of handling batteries at this time. We also believe that

the existing, permissive provision concerning written instructions for

disassembly and reassembly is adequate. We do not see in the comments

an adequate basis for making the provision of such instructions

mandatory.

Additional Provisions for Passengers With Hearing Impairments

The Department has received some suggestions for additional

rulemaking concerning accommodations for persons with hearing

impairments. These include captioning of video material (e.g., movies

and other entertainment features) shown on the aircraft, and making

telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs) available where air

phone service is provided to other passengers. Part 382 requires

captioning of safety videos, but not other videos shown on flights.

Another suggestion was for providing assistive listening technology for

public address announcements in the aircraft. The Department has also

received suggestions for electronic message and/or assistive listening

technology in gate areas, to ensure that hearing-impaired passengers

would receive information about flight departures and arrivals,

boarding announcements, etc. The Department seeks comment on the need

for such accommodations, as well as their technical feasibility and

cost.

Petitions Concerning an Accessible Path Through Airports for

Persons With Severe Respiratory Disabilities

The Department is seeking comment on petitions from individuals

with respiratory disabilities for a requirement for an accessible path

through airports. Petitions on this subject have been received from Dr.

Dwain Eckberg, a physician and medical school faculty member from

Richmond, Virginia, and Dr. Judith Plotkin, a Maryland resident. Both

individuals suggested that the Department add regulatory provisions to

protect such individuals from exposure to tobacco smoke.

The petitions make the point that some individuals have respiratory

conditions that can create significant health problems for them if they

are exposed to tobacco smoke. If such an individual must, in order to

get from the entrance of an airport to an aircraft, pass through areas

in which he or she is exposed to smoke, he or she may suffer these

health problems, require oxygen that is not immediately available, or

require emergency medical treatment. Exposure to smoke, then, acts as a

significant barrier for such individuals to the use of the air travel

system.

If granted, these petitions would lead to a proposal that carriers

and airports carrier ensure that an individual with a severe

respiratory disability that is triggered by exposure to tobacco smoke

have available a path of access from the terminal entrance to the

aircraft free from exposure to tobacco smoke. As with other airport

terminal accessibility issues, amendments to both the ACAA and section

504 rules would be needed as part of such a proposal. The air carrier

and airport would be expected to work together to meet an obligation to

provide such passengers with a means of getting to an aircraft that

does not expose them to significant adverse health effects.

We anticipate that any proposal resulting from this petition would

not specify or limit the means to be used. A smoke-free path through

the airport, transportation from the gate to the tarmac that does not

go through a terminal in which smoke is present, an enclosed cart that

took the passenger through the airport without exposure to smoke that

was present, etc. might all be possibilities.

The Department would not intend, if it granted these petitions, to

propose to ban all smoking in terminals. Regulating smoking in public

places is traditionally a state or local matter, and the Department

would not attempt to pre-empt state or local decisionmaking.

The Department seeks comment on whether we should propose a

provision of the kind requested by the petitioners. We seek comments on

the extent to which such a provision is needed and on cost and

feasibility considerations that should be taken into account.

The Department is also aware of people with environmental

sensitivities to a wide variety of common substances (e.g., cleaning

agents, perfumes). In some cases, these sensitivities may be severe. In

addition to seeking comment on whether to proceed with a proposal based

on the petitions, the Department seeks comment on whether it would be

desirable and feasible to have similar provisions for people with

severe environmental sensitivities.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

This NPRM does not propose a significant rule under Executive Order

12866 or a significant rule under the Department's Regulatory Policies

and Procedures. The Department certifies that this rule, if adopted,

would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of

small entities. The basis for this statement is that the modifications

to airline practices and procedures involved if the rules are made

final would involve little additional cost to carriers or airports.

The Department has determined that there would not be sufficient

Federalism impacts to warrant the preparation of a Federalism

Assessment. As it implements a nondiscrimination statute, this rule is

not subject to scrutiny under the Unfunded Mandates Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 382

Aviation, Handicapped.

Issued this 8th Day of October, 1996, at Washington, D.C.

Federico Pena,

Secretary of Transportation.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes

to amend 14 CFR Part 382 as follows:

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 382 would continue to

read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41702, 47105, and 41712.

2. In Sec. 382.7, a new paragraph (c) would be added to read as

follows:

Sec. 382.7 General prohibition of discrimination.

* * * * *

(c) In carrying out their nondiscrimination obligations under this

part, carriers shall, in addition to meeting the specific requirements

of this part, provide accommodations to passengers with disabilities

and remove barriers to the use of facilities and aircraft by such

passengers. In meeting this obligation, carriers shall apply the

standards of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, as amended,

and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

3. In Sec. 382.33(b), the ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(7) is

proposed to be removed, a semicolon and the word ``and'' are proposed

to be substituted for the period at the end of paragraph (b)(8), and a

new paragraph (b)(9) is proposed to be added, to read as follows:

[[Page 56485]]

Sec. 382.33 Advance notice requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(9) Designation of a particular seat as an accommodation to a

passenger's disability.

* * * * *

4. In Sec. 382.37, a new paragraph (d) is proposed to be added to

read as follows:

Sec. 382.37 Seat assignments.

* * * * *

(d) On request of a passenger with a disability designated in

paragraph (d)(1) of this section for a particular seat assignment

needed to accommodate the disability, the carrier shall provide the

seat assignment to the passenger.

(1) Requests for seating accommodations required to be accommodated

under this paragraph include a request by a wheelchair user for a seat

in a row with a moveable armrest, a request by a person traveling with

a personal care attendant whose services will be needed on the flight

to sit next to the personal care attendant, a request by an individual

traveling with a service animal for a bulkhead or non-bulkhead seat, or

a request by an individual with a fused or immobile leg for a bulkhead

seat or other seat that provides greater legroom than other seats.

(2) In responding to requests from passengers for seat assignments

to accommodate a disability, carriers shall comply with FAA safety

rules, including those pertaining to exit row seating (see 14 CFR

121.585 and 14 CFR 135.129).

(3) When a person makes a request for a seating accommodation

covered by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the carrier shall assign

the person a seat providing the requested accommodation if it has not

already been assigned, even if the seat is not available for assignment

to other passengers at the time.

(4) When a person makes a request for a seating accommodation

covered by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and all seats providing

the requested accommodation have already been assigned to other

passengers, the carrier shall change the seat assignment of other

passengers as needed to provide the accommodation.

(5) The carrier is not required to provide the accommodations in

paragraphs (d) (4) and (5) in response to a request made less than 48

hours before the scheduled departure time of the flight.

(6) If an individual making the request does not make it 48 hours

before the scheduled departure time of the flight, the carrier shall

attempt to meet the request by asking other passengers to move to a

different seat location to accommodate the individual. No other

passenger shall be required to change assigned seats, however.

(7) If the carrier has already assigned a seat to an individual

with a disability in response to a request covered by this paragraph,

the carrier shall not reassign that individual to another seat in

response to a subsequent request from another individual with a

disability without the first individual's consent.

(8) In no case shall any passenger be removed from a flight or

denied transportation in order to accommodate an individual with a

disability under this paragraph.

5. In Sec. 382.41, paragraphs (e)(2) and (g)(2) are proposed to be

revised to read as follows:

Sec. 382.41 Stowage of personal equipment.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) In an aircraft in which a closet or other approved stowage area

is provided in the cabin for passengers' carry-on items, of a size that

will accommodate a folding, collapsible, or break-down wheelchair, the

carrier shall designate priority stowage space, as described in

paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this section for at least one such wheelchair

in that area.

(ii) An individual with a disability who takes advantage of a

carrier offer of the opportunity to preboard the aircraft may stow his

or her wheelchair in this area, with priority over the carry-on items

brought onto the aircraft by other passengers enplaning at the same

airport. An individual with a disability who does not take advantage of

a carrier offer of the opportunity to preboard may use the area to stow

his or her wheelchair on a first-come, first-served basis along with

all other passengers seeking to stow carry-on items in the area.

(g) * * *

(2) Whenever feasible, the carrier shall transport electric-powered

wheelchairs secured in an upright position, so that batteries need not

be separated from the wheelchair in order to comply with DOT hazardous

materials rules. However, when an electric-powered wheelchair is

designated to fold or collapse, the passenger may request that the

batteries be removed and the wheelchair be folded. The carrier shall,

in any case, take those actions (and only those actions) required by

DOT hazardous materials regulations with respect to the transportation

of batteries by air.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-27192 Filed 10-31-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-62-M