issue-1996-03-29•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-29
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-29
issue-1996-03-29Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-03-29Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-7818 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14035-14039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7818]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment Standards Administration; Wage and Hour Division
29 CFR Part 500
RIN 1215-AA93
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration,
Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking, request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes regulations to amend the definition of
[[Page 14036]]
``employ'' under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (MSPA). Consistent with Executive Order 12866, which
concerns regulatory planning and review (see 58 Fed. Reg. 51735 (Oct.
4, 1993)), this document proposes to amend MSPA regulations to clarify
and make easier to understand the definition of ``independent
contractor'' and ``joint employment'' under MSPA, with the goal of
minimizing the potential for uncertainty and litigation arising from
such uncertainty and to better guide the Department's enforcement
activities.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule are due on or before June 12,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Maria Echaveste, Administrator,
Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Commenters who wish to receive notification of
receipt of comments are requested to include a self-addressed, stamped
post card or to submit them by certified mail, return receipt
requested. As a convenience to commenters, comments may be transmitted
by facsimile (``FAX'') machine to (202) 219-5122. This is not a toll-
free number. If transmitted by FAX and a hard copy is also submitted by
mail, please indicate on the hard copy that it is a duplicate copy of
the FAX transmission.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hancock, Office of Enforcement
Policy, Farm Labor Team, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3510, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 219-7605. This is
not a toll-free number. Copies of this NPRM in alternative formats may
be obtained by calling (202) 219-7605, (202) 219-4634 (TDD). The
alternative formats available are large print, electronic file on
computer disk and audio-tape.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule contains no reporting or recordkeeping
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-13).
II. Background
The MSPA definition of ``joint employment,'' 29 CFR 500.20(h)(4),
is proposed to be amended to clarify and provide more accurate and
complete information to the regulated community, thereby making the
MSPA regulations more ``user-friendly.'' The proposed regulation
comports more fully with (1) the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
regulations at 29 CFR 791; (2) seminal court decisions regarding the
employment relationship; and (3) the MSPA legislative history.
The MSPA statutory definition of ``employ'', 29 U.S.C. 1803(3)(5),
from which the concept of ``joint employment'' is drawn, is the FLSA
statutory definition of ``employ'', 29 U.S.C. 203(g), incorporated by
reference. In keeping with the President's executive order directive to
Federal agencies to identify rules that could be clarified to provide
more complete and understandable guidance to the regulated community,
the Department proposes to amend the MSPA ``joint employment''
regulation. The Department has notified the public and the regulated
community of its intention, through the regulatory agenda and
regulatory planning process, to amend this regulation. See 60 Fed. Reg.
23546 (May 8, 1995) and 60 Fed. Reg. 59614 (Nov. 28, 1995).
III. Summary and Discussion
Joint Employment Standard Under MSPA
The Department proposes to amend the MSPA regulation defining the
employment and joint-employment relationship in agriculture. Having
reviewed this regulation in the normal course of DOL operations, the
Department recognizes the need for a clearer and more complete
regulation setting forth the applicable criteria, thereby making the
regulation more ``user-friendly.'' The purpose of the amendment is to
clarify the regulation and, thus, to avoid confusion and misapplication
of the standards to be considered in determining the existence of the
employment and joint-employment relationship. A further purpose is to
update the regulation to reflect more completely the Congressional
intent in the enactment of MSPA, the state of the law, and the
Department's understanding of the employment and joint employment
standard.
The Department has intended for some time to up-date and clarify
this MSPA regulation. The matter has been included in the DOL
regulatory agendas published in the Federal Register (60 FR 23546 (May
8, 1995); 60 FR 59614 (November 28, 1995)). The present proposed
rulemaking undertakes the previously announced revision of the
employment and joint employment definition.
The current MSPA ``joint employment'' regulation identifies
particular factors which should be considered in determining the
existence of such relationships in the agricultural context. This
Departmental guidance appears to be subject to some misunderstanding in
the regulated community and the courts with regard to the applicability
of the legal standards under MSPA and the Fair Labor Standards Act,
which contain the identical statutory standard.1 It is the
Department's view that the MSPA ``joint employment'' regulation should
be modified to focus more closely on the ultimate test for employment
and joint employment as established by the federal courts, i.e.,
``economic dependence,'' and to further clarify the multi-factor
analysis to be used to determine the existence of ``economic
dependence'' in the agricultural context. Such a clarified regulation
will ensure more consistent application of the FLSA principles of
employment and ``joint employment'' under MSPA, and will also ensure
the full implementation of the Congressional intent in adopting those
principles in MSPA.
\1\ Compare: Hodgson v. Griffin & Brand of McAllen, Inc., 471
F.2d 235 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 819 (1973), with Aimable
v. Long and Scott Farms, 20 F.3d 434 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 115
S.Ct. 351 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative and Judicial Basis for ``Joint Employment''
The FLSA defines the term employ as meaning ``to suffer or permit
to work'' (29 U.S.C. 203(g)), and the courts have given an expansive
interpretation to the statutory definition of employ under the FLSA in
order to accomplish the remedial purposes of the Act.2 In
accordance with the FLSA's broad definitions and remedial purposes, the
traditional common law ``right to control'' test has been rejected in
interpreting the FLSA definition of employ. Instead, the test of an
employment relationship under the FLSA is ``economic dependence,''
which requires an examination of the relationships among the employee
and the putative employer(s) to determine upon whom the employee is
economically dependent.3 The determination of economic dependence
is based upon the ``economic reality'' of all the circumstances and not
upon isolated factors or contractual labels.4 Since the ``economic
reality'' test first delineated by the Supreme Court in Rutherford
Food, the courts have uniformly considered a number of factors, no one
of which is
[[Page 14037]]
determinative. Instead, the multi-factor analysis is a means of gauging
whether the worker is economically dependent on the business(es) for
which the worker is ``suffered or permitted to work'' and whether the
nature and degree of that dependence constitutes an employment
relationship within the intended protections of the FLSA.
\2\ See Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 729
(1947).
\3\ See Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Assoc., Inc., 603 F.2d 748
(9th Cir. 1979); Griffin & Brand, supra.
\4\ Rutherford Food; Griffin & Brand, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The joint employment doctrine, which has long been recognized under
the FLSA case law,\5\ is defined by the FLSA regulation to mean a
condition in which ``[a] single individual stands in the relation of an
employee to two or more persons at the same time'' (29 CFR 791.2(a)). A
joint employment relation is found when ``employment by one employer is
not completely disassociated from employment by the other employer,''
such a determination depending upon ``all the facts in the particular
case.'' Id.
\5\ Griffin & Brand, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under MSPA, the term employ has the same meaning as that term under
the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. 1802(5). Congress enacted this express
incorporation of the FLSA definition of employ with the deliberate
intention of adopting the FLSA case law defining employment and joint
employment. Congress specifically stated that the ``joint employer
doctrine'' articulated under the FLSA was to serve as the ``central
foundation'' of the MSPA and ``the best means by which to ensure that
the purposes of this Act would be fulfilled.'' 6 Congress intended
the joint employer doctrine to serve as a vehicle for protecting
agricultural employees ``by fixing the responsibility on those who
ultimately benefit from their labors--the agricultural employer.''
7 In declaring this purpose, Congress cited with approval the
joint employment analysis utilized by the Court of Appeals in Griffin &
Brand; thus, that decision should be the benchmark for the analysis in
the agricultural setting.8 The multi-factor test, as stated in
Griffin & Brand, is largely the same as the Supreme Court's seminal
decision in Rutherford Food, although the Court of Appeals restated
some factors to comport more fully and realistically with the unique
characteristics of an agricultural operation.
\6\ H. Rep. No. 97-885, 97th Cong. 2d sess. pp. 6-7 [``Rept.''].
\7\ 128 Cong. Rec. H26008 (Sept. 1982).
\8\ Rept. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current MSPA regulation, promulgated in 1983, sets out a non-
exclusive list of factors which could appropriately be considered in
the joint employment analysis. 29 CFR 500.20(h)(4)(ii). The regulation
states that the ``. . . determination of whether the employment is to
be considered joint employment depends upon all the facts in the
particular case.'' 29 CFR 500.20(h)(4)(i). The factors identified in
the regulation were not intended by the Department to be a checklist
for determining a joint employment relationship; nor were the factors
intended to be given greater weight than other relevant factors
presented in a particular case or developed in the case law. To the
extent that courts and the regulated community may have strayed from
the ``economic reality''/``economic dependence'' analysis by applying
the regulation as a rigid checklist, or treating the regulation as an
exclusive list which precludes consideration of additional factors
(e.g., whether workers' activities are an integral part of the putative
employer's operation), or distorting or placing undue emphasis on
particular factors (e.g., ``control'' misconstrued as being direct
supervision of workers' activities), the regulation is not only
misinterpreted but is also being applied so as to frustrate the express
intention of Congress in enacting MSPA.
Proposed ``Joint Employer'' Rule
In order to resolve any confusion or misunderstanding of the
current MSPA regulation and to provide clearer and more complete
guidance to the regulated community, the regulation is proposed to be
amended to better delineate the appropriate analysis of the employment
and joint employment relationships using ``economic dependence'' as the
touchstone, as contemplated by Congress when MSPA was enacted. The
proposed regulation also addresses the crucial, initial issue of
whether a farm labor contractor (FLC) is a bona fide independent
contractor or an employee of the agricultural association or
agricultural employer; where an FLC is actually an employee of the
agricultural employer or association, any worker employed by the FLC is
necessarily also an employee of the FLC's employer. The proposed
regulation more clearly enunciates the proper test for joint
employment, as prescribed in the legislative history and set forth in
the case law that has properly focused on economic reality and economic
dependence. Further, the regulation will provide needed guidance on
``control,'' clarifying that the inquiry is as to the putative
employer's power or right to exercise authority in the workplace,
either directly or indirectly; the actual exercise of such power or
authority is not necessary. The regulation would be further clarified,
in that the illustrative list of factors eliminates redundancy (e.g.,
items in the current regulation dealing with aspects of control are
consolidated) and provides more complete guidance as to appropriate
consideration of factors. Comments are requested concerning the factors
listed, in particular whether or not additional factors should be
included in the illustrative list of factors.
Executive Order 12866/Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995
This proposed rule is not ``economically significant'' within the
meaning of Executive Order 12866, nor does it require a Sec. 202
statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. However,
because the rule may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, it has been determined by OMB to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' within the meaning of Sec. 3(f)(4) of Executive
Order 12866. The proposed rule proposes to amend the MSPA regulations
to clarify the concepts of employ, employer, employee, and joint
employment. No economic analysis is required because the rule will not
have a significant economic impact.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Department has certified to
this effect to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. The proposed rule contains language which is intended
to clarify what is meant by the terms employ, employer, employment, and
joint employment under MSPA.
Document Preparation
This document was prepared under the direction and control of Maria
Echaveste, Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 500
Agricultural employers, Agricultural associations, Agricultural
worker, Employ, Employee, Employer, Farm labor contractor, Independent
Contractor, Joint Employment, Migrant agricultural workers, Migrant
labor, Seasonal agricultural workers.
[[Page 14038]]
Signed at Washington, D.C., on this 26th day of March, 1996.
John R. Fraser,
Deputy Administrator, Wage and Hour Division.
For the reasons set forth above, 29 CFR part 500 is proposed to be
amended as set forth below:
PART 500--MIGRANT AND SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKER PROTECTION
1. The authority citation for Part 500 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 97-470, 96 Stat. 2583 (29 U.S.C. 1801-1872);
Secretary's Order No. 6-84, 49 FR 32473.
2. In Sec. 500.20, paragraph (h)(4) is revised and paragraph (h)(5)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 500.20 Definitions.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) The definition of the term employ may include consideration of
whether or not an independent contractor or employment relationship
exists under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under MSPA, questions will
arise whether or not the farm labor contractor engaged by the
agricultural employer/association is a bona fide independent contractor
or an employee. Questions also arise whether or not the worker is a
bona fide independent contractor or an employee of the farm labor
contractor and/or the agricultural employer/association. These
questions should be resolved in accordance with the factors set out
below and the principles articulated by the federal courts in
Rutherford Food Corp.v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722 (1947), Real v. Driscoll
Strawberry Assoc., Inc., 603 F.2d 748 (9th Cir. 1979), and Sec'y of
Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529 (7th Cir. 1987).
If it is determined that the farm labor contractor is an employee of
the agricultural employer/association, the agricultural workers in the
farm labor contractor's crew who perform work for the agricultural
employer/association are deemed to be employees of the agricultural
employer/association and an inquiry into joint employment is not
necessary or appropriate. In determining if the worker or farm labor
contractor is an employee or an independent contractor, the ultimate
question is the economic reality of the relationship--whether there is
economic dependence upon the farm labor contractor or agricultural
employer/association, as appropriate. This determination is based upon
an evaluation of all of the circumstances, including the following:
(i) The nature and degree of the putative employer's control as to
the manner in which the work is performed;
(ii) The putative employee's opportunity for profit or loss
depending upon his managerial skill;
(iii) The putative employee's investment in equipment or materials
required for the task, or the putative employee's employment of other
workers;
(iv) Whether the services rendered by the putative employee
requires special skill;
(v) The degree of permanency and duration of the working
relationship;
(vi) The extent to which the services rendered by the putative
employee are an integral part of the putative employer's business.
(5) The definition of the term employ includes the joint employment
principles applicable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The term
joint employment means a condition in which a single individual stands
in the relation of an employee to two or more persons at the same time.
A determination of whether the employment is to be considered joint
employment depends upon all the facts in the particular case. If the
facts establish that two or more persons are completely disassociated
with respect to the employment of a particular employee, a joint
employment situation does not exist.
(i) If it is determined that the farm labor contractor is an
independent contractor, it still must be determined whether or not the
employees of the farm labor contractor are also jointly employed by the
agricultural employer/association. Joint employment under the Fair
Labor Standards Act is joint employment under the MSPA. Such joint
employment relationships, which are common in agriculture, have been
addressed both in the legislative history and by the courts.
(ii) The legislative history of the Act (H. Rep. No. 97-885, 97th
Cong., 2d Sess., 1982) states that the legislative purpose in enacting
MSPA was ``to reverse the historical pattern of abuse and exploitation
of migrant and seasonal farm workers . . .,'' which would only be
accomplished by ``advanc[ing] . . . a completely new approach'' (Rept.
at 3). Congress's incorporation of the FLSA term employ was undertaken
with the deliberate intent of adopting the FLSA joint employer doctrine
as the ``central foundation'' of MSPA and ``the best means by which to
insure that the purposes of this MSPA would be fulfilled'' (Rept. at
6). Further, Congress intended that the joint employer test under MSPA
be the formulation as set forth in Hodgson v. Griffin & Brand of
McAllen, Inc. 471 F.2d 235 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 819
(1973) (Rept. at 7). In endorsing Griffin & Brand, Congress stated that
this formulation should be controlling in situations ``where an
agricultural employer . . . asserts that the agricultural workers in
question are the sole employees of an independent contractor/
crewleader,'' and that the ``decision makes clear that even if a farm
labor contractor is found to be a bona fide independent contractor, . .
. this status does not as a matter of law negate the possibility that
an agricultural employer may be a joint employer . . . of the harvest
workers'' together with the farm labor contractor. Further, regarding
the joint employer doctrine and the Griffin & Brand formulation,
Congress stated that ``the absence of evidence on any of the criteria
listed does not preclude a finding that an agricultural association or
agricultural employer was a joint employer along with the crewleader'',
and that ``it is expected that the special aspects of agricultural
employment be kept in mind'' when applying the tests and criteria set
forth in the case law and legislative history (Rept. at 8).
(iii) In determining whether or not an employment relationship
exists between the agricultural employer/association and the
agricultural worker, the ultimate question to be determined is the
economic reality--whether the worker is so economically dependent upon
the agricultural employer/association as to be considered its employee,
subject to MSPA protections.
(iv) The factors set forth below are analytical tools to be used in
determining the ultimate question of economic dependency. The factors
are not to be applied as a checklist. They are illustrative only and
are not intended to be exhaustive; other factors may be considered,
depending upon the specific circumstances of the relationship among the
parties. No one factor is critical to the analysis; nor must a majority
of the factors be found for an employment relationship to exist.
Rather, how the factors are weighed depends upon all of the facts and
circumstances. Among the factors to be considered in determining
whether or not an employment relationship exists are:
(A) Whether the agricultural employer/association has the power,
either alone or through control of the farm labor contractor to direct,
control, or supervise the worker(s) or the work performed (such control
may be either direct or indirect, and may be either exercised or
unexercised, taking into
[[Page 14039]]
account the nature of the work performed);
(B) Whether the agricultural employer/association has the power,
either alone or in addition to another employer, directly or
indirectly, to hire or fire, modify the employment conditions, or
determine the pay rates or the methods of wage payment for the
worker(s);
(C) Whether the agricultural employer/association supplies housing,
transportation, tools and equipment or materials required for the job;
(D) The degree of permanency and duration of the relationship of
the parties, in the context of the agricultural activity at issue;
(E) The extent to which the services rendered by the workers are
repetitive, rote tasks requiring skills which are acquired with
relatively little training;
(F) Whether the activities performed by the worker are an integral
part of the overall business operation of the agricultural employer/
association;
(G) Whether the work is performed on the agricultural employer/
association's premises or on the premises owned or controlled by
another business entity;
(H) Whether the agricultural employer/association undertakes
responsibilities in relation to the worker which are normally performed
by employers, such as maintaining payroll records, preparing and/or
issuing pay checks, paying FICA taxes, providing workers' compensation
insurance, or providing field sanitation facilities; and
(I) Other facts bearing on economic dependency.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-7818 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-27-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7744 Pesticide Worker Protection, Standard Language and Size Requirement for Warning Sign; Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7744]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250116; FRL-5358-9]
Pesticide Worker Protection, Standard Language and Size
Requirement for Warning Sign; Notification to the Secretary of
Agriculture
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to
the Secretary of Agriculture a final regulation under section 25(a) of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The
rule amends the requirements in the worker protection standards for the
posting of a warning sign at pesticide use sites. This action is
required by FIFRA section 25(a)(2).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: John R. MacDonald, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location and telephone number: Rm. 1121F, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703-305-7370).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA provides that the
Administrator shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of
any final regulation at least 30 days before signing it for publication
in the Federal Register. If the Secretary comments in writing regarding
the final regulation within 15 days after receiving it, the
Administrator shall issue for publication in the Federal Register, with
the final regulation, the comments of the Secretary, if requested by
the Secretary, and the response of the Administrator concerning the
Secretary's comments. If the Secretary does not comment in writing
within 15 days after receiving the final regulation, the Administrator
may sign the regulation for publication in the Federal Register anytime
thereafter. As required by FIFRA section 25(a)(3), a copy of the final
regulation has been forwarded to the Committee on Agriculture of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Pesticides and pests.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-7744 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7742 Pesticide Worker Protection Standard, Decontamination Requirements; Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14040-14041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7742]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 170
[OPP-250115; FRL-5359-1]
Pesticide Worker Protection Standard, Decontamination
Requirements; Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 14041]]
ACTION: Notification to the Secretary of Agriculture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Administrator of EPA has forwarded to
the Secretary of Agriculture a final regulation under section 25(a) of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The
rule reduces the duration that decontamination supplies must be
maintained for low toxicity pesticides. This action is required by
FIFRA section 25(a)(2).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Linda H. Strauss, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm. 1121F, CM
#2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703-308-3240), e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 25(a)(2) of FIFRA provides that the
Administrator shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture with a copy of
any final regulation at least 30 days before signing it for publication
in the Federal Register. If the Secretary comments in writing regarding
the final regulation within 15 days after receiving it, the
Administrator shall issue for publication in the Federal Register, with
the final regulation, the comments of the Secretary, if requested by
the Secretary, and the response of the Administrator concerning the
Secretary's comments. If the Secretary does not comment in writing
within 15 days after receiving the final regulation, the Administrator
may sign the regulation for publication in the Federal Register anytime
thereafter. As required by FIFRA section 25(a)(3), a copy of the final
regulation has been forwarded to the Committee on Agriculture of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Labeling, Occupational safety and health, Pesticides and pests.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-7742 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7707 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14044-14045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7707]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies a petition from the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) for rulemaking to incorporate the latest version of SAE
Standard J594--Reflex Reflectors, into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. NHTSA's analysis of the petition concludes
that there is minimal benefit to the public in updating the reference
to this SAE standard. While incorporation would make reflex reflector
requirements more readily available to lighting and vehicle design
engineers as a current reference, it would require considerable
expenditures of agency resources to implement it and all the other SAE
standards whose references in FMVSS No. 108 are not the most recent.
The agency's commitment of its resources to identify its safety
priorities precludes
[[Page 14045]]
granting this petition. However, the agency will compile a reference
document of materials incorporated into Standard No. 108 to improve
availability of these materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Mr. Medlin's telephone number is: (202) 366-5276. His facsimile
number is (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated October 4, 1995, William A.
McKinney, Chairman of the Lighting Coordinating Committee of the
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (Petitioner) petitioned the
agency to incorporate the latest version of SAE J594--Reflex
Reflectors, into 49 CFR 571.108 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment). The
petitioner claimed the changes in the latest version (J594 JUL95)
provide significant improvements in format consistent with the current
SAE practice, incorporate information on other SAE publications
referenced in the document, include definitions of photometry
observation and entrance angles, and provide additional explanations
and guidelines for photometry and installation requirements. Petitioner
further claimed that these revisions make this new version easier to
apply, as well as easier to find because it is located in current SAE
Handbooks. Petitioner also claimed that the changes would not adversely
affect the costs of any lighting or vehicle manufacturer. No claims
about safety or performance were made.
The agency has reviewed what would be required to implement the
Petitioner's desired solution. It has found that the tests and many
requirements of the new J594 are from or referenced to SAE Recommended
Practice J575 JUN92--Test Methods and Equipment for Lighting Devices
and Components for Use on Vehicles Less than 2032 mm in Overall Width.
However, the version of J575 to which FMVSS No. 108 refers is J575e
August 1970. It is not found in the current SAE Handbook. The same
issue occurs for SAE J578, Color Specification. The new SAE J594 refers
to the ``current version(s)'', rather than the version required by
FMVSS No. 108, which is SAE J578a October 1966.
Therefore, the advantage claimed by Petitioner by referencing to a
standard in current SAE handbooks appears to be very small because this
action would update only J594, and none of the subreferenced documents.
Additionally, because NHTSA reference to SAE standards is not always
absolute, in that parts of standards are referenced or exceptions are
made to specific requirements in SAE standards where different or more
stringent performance is necessary for safety purposes, the value of
having the latest version of an SAE document is lessened. Thus, without
a careful reading of FMVSS No. 108, a reader of the newest J594 could
continue to be misled as to the pertinent requirements, just as with
the currently referenced version.
An example of this issue is seen in the Installation Requirements
paragraph of J594 JUL95. NHTSA is currently proposing in another
rulemaking (60 FR 54833) to amend geometric visibility requirements of
signal lamps (installed visibility requirements) that are substantially
different from those in J594 JUL95. Should this geometric visibility
proposal be adopted, the text of any referenced version of J594 will be
superseded. It is unlikely that J594 JUL95, or any version of a
referenced industry standard would be wholly usable for more than just
a short period of time and probably would be out of print after just
five years because of SAE's schedule of periodic updating of its
standards. At that time, the value of the rulemaking efforts requested
by this petition would be negated by another SAE update.
Allocation of agency resources and agency priorities must be
considered in processing what may be the first of many petitions from
the SAE to update each of the SAE standards directly referenced in
FMVSS No. 108, and potentially more petitions to update the additional
SAE standards that are sub-referenced in those SAE standards. All of
these mentioned standards have specific dated versions referenced in
FMVSS No. 108. Because the SAE endeavors to update its standards on a
regular five year schedule, the federal regulatory workload from such a
course of updating would be continuous and drain resources from other
activities. This is not a desirable course given the agency's shrinking
resources. Nonetheless, NHTSA recognizes that the technical expertise
found on SAE Committees is invaluable to NHTSA's mission, particularly
when performance requirements must be developed to accommodate new
technologies. Consequently, NHTSA plans to consider how best to
cooperate with the SAE. NHTSA will still be favorably inclined to
consider any future SAE request that has significant safety benefits or
when such action would remove impediments to the use of new
technologies.
To respond to the need expressed by SAE, the agency will compile
and provide on request to interested persons, a document containing the
desired SAE and other organizations' standards which are referenced and
subreferenced in FMVSS No. 108. The immediate effect is to make it
easier for all interested persons, especially lighting and vehicle
personnel, to have available in one document all the requirements in
the Federal lighting standard. The agency recognizes the problem of
finding older SAE Standards, and takes this action to solve that
problem. It will be updated as required.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there is no
reasonable possibility that the specific action requested by the
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking
proceeding. Accordingly, it denies the SAE's petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on March 25, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-7707 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7706 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7706]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document denies Mr. John Chevedden's petition for
rulemaking to require only amber bulbs be sold in the aftermarket for
replacement of the front amber turn signal bulbs. NHTSA's analysis of
the petition concludes that this action would have a negligible effect
on reducing crashes or fatalities, and would have significant cost
effects for the redesign of turn signal and stop lamps.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Van Iderstine, Office of
Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Van Iderstine's telephone number is: (202)
366-5275. His facsimile number is (202) 366-4329.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated November 14, 1995, Mr. John
Chevedden of Redondo Beach, California, petitioned the agency to issue
a rule that would ``require only amber light bulbs to be sold in the
aftermarket for replacement of factory amber front turn signal bulbs.''
Mr. Chevedden stated that this is necessary ``to prevent the
aftermarket from nullifying the requirement (since 1963) that front
turn signal lamps be amber.'' He states that the use of clear bulbs on
vehicles with clear lenses on front turn signal lamps nullifies the
amber requirement.
While it is true that front turn signal lamps are required to be
amber on new motor vehicles at the time of their delivery to the first
user, the requirement may be met by either an amber bulb behind a clear
lens, or a clear bulb behind an amber lens. In service, the correct
maintenance of that safety equipment is the responsibility of vehicle
owners. The installation of incorrect bulbs or replacement lenses
represents the failure of the owner to fulfill that responsibility. The
responsibility for inspection of and enforcement for properly operating
safety equipment belongs to the states, and in the petitioner's case,
existing laws in most states require that front turn signal lamps emit
amber light.
The clear bulbs, about which the petitioner is concerned, that may
be used to replace burned-out amber bulbs in front turn signal lamps
with clear lenses, are also used for all existing backup, stop, and
rear red turn signal lamps, as well as for other purposes. These bulbs
would be banned under the Mr. Chevedden's petition. Ultimately, this
would necessitate that new bulbs be designed and marketed that are not
interchangeable between lamp functions. This would have cost impacts on
new and replacement bulbs as well as on the design of new signal lamps.
This also could have significant adverse consequences to safety,
because of the inability of vehicle owners to obtain clear replacement
bulbs for the ones that will burn out on the 150 million vehicles
already in the fleet. Thus, the fleet could have fewer and fewer
functional lamps over time, leading to increases in accidents.
Mr. Chevedden did not provide any support for his petition, such as
the argument that accidents are occurring as a result of the use of
clear turn signal bulbs in lamps with clear lenses. In the absence such
support and in light of the adverse consequences that the agency
foresees for his solution, the agency sees no basis for rulemaking.
In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, this completes the agency's
technical review of the petition. The agency has concluded that there
is no reasonable possibility that the amendment requested by the
petitioner would be issued at the conclusion of a rulemaking
proceeding. After considering all relevant factors, including the need
to allocate and prioritize limited agency resources to best accomplish
the agency's safety mission, the agency has decided to deny the
petition.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Issued on: March 25, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-7706 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7691 Illinois Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14039-14040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7691]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 913
[SPATS No. IL-092-FOR]
Illinois Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public
hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the
Illinois regulatory program (hereinafter the ``Illinois program'')
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).
The proposed amendment consists of the revision of four sections and
the addition of one section to Title 62 of the Illinois Administrative
Code (IAC) regulations pertaining to self-bonding. The amendment is
intended to revise the Illinois program to be consistent with the
corresponding Federal regulations.
DATES: Written comments must be received by 4 p.m., e.s.t., April 29,
1996. If requested, a public hearing on the proposed amendment will be
held on April 25, 1996. Requests to speak at the hearing must be
received by 4 p.m., e.s.t. on April 15, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to speak at the hearing should
be mailed or hand delivered to Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Indianapolis
Field Office, at the address listed below.
Copies of the Illinois program, the proposed amendment, a listing
of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in
response to this document will be available for public review at the
addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. Each requester may receive one free copy of
the proposed amendment by contacting OSM's Indianapolis Field Office.
Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Indianapolis Field Office, Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Minton-Capehart Federal
Building, 575 North Pennsylvania Street, Room 301, Indianapolis, IN
46204, Telephone: (317) 226-6700.
Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals,
524 South Second Street, Springfield, IL 62701-1787, Telephone (217)
782-4970.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roger W. Calhoun, Director, Indianapolis Field Office, Telephone: (317)
226-6700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Illinois Program
On June 1, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Illinois program. Background information on the Illinois
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval can be found in the June 1,
1982, Federal Register (47 FR 23883). Subsequent actions concerning the
conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR
913.15, 913.16, and 913.17.
II. Description of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated March 4, 1996 (Administrative Record No. IL-1800),
Illinois submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant to
SMCRA. Illinois submitted the proposed amendment at its own initiative.
Illinois proposed to revise 62 IAC 1800.4, Department responsibilities;
62 IAC 1800.5, Definitions; 62 IAC 1800.11, Requirement to file a bond;
and 62 IAC 1800.12, Form of the performance bond. Illinois also
proposed to add 62 IAC 1800.23, Self-bonding.
1. 62 IAC 1800.4 Department Responsibilities
Illinois proposes to revise Sec. 1800.4 by adding new subsection
(c) that authorizes the acceptance of a self-bond if the permittee
meets the requirements of 62 IAC 1800.23. Existing subsections (c)
through (e) are proposed to be redesignated (d) through (f).
2. 62 IAC 1800.5 Definitions
Illinois proposes to revise Sec. 1800.5 by adding a definition for
the term ``self-bonding'' at new subsection (c) that reads as follows:
Self-bonding means an indemnity agreement in a sum certain executed
by the applicant or by the applicant and any corporate guarantor and
made payable to the Department, with or without separate surety.
3. 62 IAC 1800.11 Requirement to File a Bond
Illinois proposes to revise Sec. 1800.11 by adding new subsection
(e) that requires self-bonding for eligible permittees be administered
consistent with all applicable provisions of 62 IAC 1800.1 through
1800.50.
4. 62 1800.12 Form of the Performance Bond
Illinois proposes to revise Sec. 1800.12 by adding new subsection
(c) that identifies a self-bond as form of performance bond allowed by
the Illinois program. Existing subsection (c) is proposed to be
redesignated subsection (d).
5. 62 IAC 1800.23 Self-Bonding
Illinois proposes to add new Sec. 1800.23 concerning its conditions
for acceptance of a self-bond. At subsection (a), Illinois defines the
terms to be used in the section: ``current assets''; ``current
liabilities''; ``fixed assets''; ``liabilities''; ``net worth'';
``parent corporation''; and ``tangible net worth.'' At subsection (b),
Illinois specifies the conditions that must be met before a self-bond
would be accepted from the applicant. At
[[Page 14040]]
subsection (c), Illinois specifies the conditions that must be met for
acceptance of a written guarantee for an applicant's self-bond from a
parent corporation guarantor or non-parent corporation guarantor. At
subsection (d), Illinois specifies that the total amount of the
outstanding and proposed self-bonds for either an applicant, parent
corporation guarantor, or nonparent corporate guarantor shall not
exceed 25 percent of the their tangible net worth in the United States.
At subsection (e), Illinois is requiring an indemnity agreement be
submitted with specified requirements. At subsection (f), Illinois is
requiring submittal of an update of specified information within 90
days after the close of each fiscal year following issuance of the
self-bond or corporate guarantee. At subsection (g), Illinois is
requiring that if the financial conditions of the applicant, parent or
nonparent corporate guarantor change so that specified criteria are not
satisfied, the permittee shall notify Illinois immediately and post an
alternate form of bond within 90 days.
III. Public Comment Procedures
In accordance with the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is
seeking comments on whether the proposed amendment satisfies the
applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment
is deemed adequate, it will become part of the Illinois program.
Written Comments
Written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues
proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of the
commenter's recommendations. Comments received after the time indicated
under DATES or at locations other than the Indianapolis Field Office
will not necessarily be considered in the final rulemaking or included
in the Administrative Record.
Public Hearing
Persons wishing to speak at the public hearing should contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., e.s.t
on April 15, 1996. The location and time of the hearing will be
arranged with those persons requesting the hearing. If no one requests
an opportunity to speak at the public hearing, the hearing will not be
held.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing is
requested as it will greatly assist the transcriber. Submission of
written statements in advance of the hearing will allow OSM officials
to prepare adequate responses and appropriate questions. Any disabled
individual who has need for a special accommodation to attend a public
hearing should contact the individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
The public hearing will continue on the specified date until all
persons scheduled to speak have been heard. Persons in the audience who
have not been scheduled to speak, and who wish to do so, will be heard
following those who have been scheduled. The hearing will end after all
persons scheduled to speak and persons present in the audience who wish
to speak have been heard.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak at a hearing, a
public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed
amendment may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings will be open to the
public and, if possible, notices of meetings will be posted at the
locations listed under ADDRESSES. A written summary of each meeting
will be made a part of the Administrative Record.
IV. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 913
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Deborah Watford,
Acting Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional Coordinating Center.
[FR Doc. 96-7691 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7688 Operation Above 40 GHz
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14041-14042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7688]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 15 and 97
[Docket No. 94-124; RM-8308; FCC 95-499]
Operation Above 40 GHz
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making, (``2nd NPRM''),
the Commission addresses proposals: to restrict amateur usage of the
76-77 GHz band in order to protect vehicle radar systems from
interference while also giving amateur operators coprimary status in
the 77.5-78 GHz band; to develop a spectrum etiquette technical
standard for the 59-64 GHz band to minimize interference within that
band; and to further restrict emissions above 200 GHz to protect radio
astronomy operations from interference.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 28, 1996. Reply
comments must be submitted on or before June 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Reed, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2455,
Richard Engelman, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2445,
or Michael Marcus, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-
2470, or send an electronic mail message via the Internet to
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 2nd
NPRM, ET Docket 94-124, FCC 95-499, adopted December 15, 1995, and
released December 15, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 246 or 2100 M Street,
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
[[Page 14042]]
Summary of 2nd NPRM
1. 2nd NPRM addresses several issues relating to use of the 46.7-
46.9 GHz, 59-64 GHz, and 76-77 GHz bands. First, we are proposing to
amend Part 97 of our rules to restrict temporarily amateur use of the
76-77 GHz band in order to ensure that vehicle radar systems will not
receive interference from amateur operations. To balance any perceived
harm by amateur operators, we are proposing to upgrade the status of
amateur operators in the 77.5-78 GHz band to co-primary with the
radiolocation service. We are also proposing limits for emissions in
the 200-231 GHz band to protect radio astronomy operations from
potential interference. In addition, we are proposing to initiate the
development of a spectrum etiquette standard to prevent interference
among unlicensed 59-64 GHz devices, analogous to the standards used for
unlicensed PCS under Part 15 of our rules, and request specific
proposals for such standards. See 47 CFR 15.321 and 15.323.
2. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') is
contained in the text of the 2nd NPRM. The Commission requests written
public comment on the foregoing IRFA. Comments must have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines specified in the summary above.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 2
Communications equipment, Radio.
47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Highway safety, Radio.
47 CFR Part 97
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-7688 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7687 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contractor Overhead Certification
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7687]
[[Page 14215]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Defense
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
48 CFR Part 31
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contractor Overhead Certification;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14216]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Part 31
[FAR Case 92-613]
RIN 9000-AG85
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contractor Overhead Certification
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC) and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council (DARC) are considering revisions to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation to clarify the allowability of certain
costs. This regulatory action was not subject to Office of Management
and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30,
1993.
DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before May 28, 1996, to be
considered in the formulation of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties should submit written comments to:
General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, (VRS), 18th & F
Streets NW., Room 4037, Washington, DC 20405.
Please cite FAR case 92-613 in all correspondence related to this
case.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy F. Olson at (202) 501-3221
in reference to this FAR case. For general information, contact the FAR
Secretariat, Room 4037, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405; telephone:
(202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR case 92-613.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report GAO/NSIAD-93-79,
``CONTRACT PRICING: Unallowable Costs Charged to Defense Contracts,''
dated November 20, 1992, reported many instances where contractors had
proposed costs for gifts and entertainment that appeared to be
questionable. Some of those costs appeared to be unallowable under the
existing cost principles and others, while not specifically
unallowable, appeared to be unreasonable. GAO recommended that FAR
31.205-1, 31-205-13, and 31.205-14 be revised to eliminate confusion as
to which cost principle was controlling. The December 1992 OMB SWAT
summary report on civilian agency contracting practices also
recommended these cost principles be made more explicit.
This proposed rule removes from paragraph (f)(5) of the cost
principle at FAR 31.205-1, Public relations and advertising costs, the
parenthetical reference to other cost principles to eliminate any
confusion as to which cost principle governs. Other recommendations
made by GAO and the OMB SWAT concerning further revisions to the cost
principles have now been overtaken by the implementation of the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), Public Law 103-355. These
include revisions to FAR 31.205-13 and 31.205-14, which were published
as final in the Federal Register at 60 FR 42648, August 16, 1995, under
FAR Case 94-750, Entertainment, Gift, and Recreation Costs for
Contractor Employees. FAR Case 94-750 implements section 2192 of FASA.
Revisions to FAR Parts 42 and 52, requiring contractors to certify that
indirect cost rate proposals do not contain unallowable costs, were
published as a final rule in the Federal Register at 60 FR 42663,
August 16, 1995, under FAR Case 94-752, Contractor Overhead
Certification, which implements section 2151 of FASA.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because most
contracts awarded to small businesses are awarded through sealed
bidding on a firm fixed-price basis. The cost principles apply only
where contracts are based on cost or pricing data. An Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed.
Comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR subpart will
be considered in accordance with section 610 of the Act. Such comments
must be submitted separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.,
(FAR case 92-613), in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed
changes to the FAR do not impose recordkeeping or information
collection requirements, or collections of information from offerors,
contractors, or members of the public which require the approval of the
Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. 5 CFR
1320.7(j)(1) provides an exclusion for certifications when they entail
no burden other than necessary to identify the respondent, the date,
the respondent's address and the nature of the instrument.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 31
Government procurement.
Dated: March 25, 1996.
Edward C. Loeb,
Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR part 31 be amended as set
forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 31 continues to read as
follows:
PART 31--CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42
U.S.C. 2473(c).
31.205-1 [Amended]
2. Section 31.205-1(f)(5) is amended by removing the parenthetical.
[FR Doc. 96-7687 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7663 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 and Model 737 Series Airplanes Equipped With J.C. Carter Company Fuel Valve Actuators
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14034-14035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7663]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 62 / Friday, March 29, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14034]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 96-NM-31-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 727 and Model 737 Series
Airplanes Equipped With J.C. Carter Company Fuel Valve Actuators
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 and Model
737 series airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of the
actuator of the engine fuel shutoff valve and the fuel system crossfeed
valve with an improved actuator. This proposal is prompted by a report
indicating that, during laboratory tests, the actuator clutch on the
engine shutoff and crossfeed valves slipped at cold temperatures due to
improper functioning. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent improper functioning of these actuators, which
could result in a fuel imbalance due to the inability of the flightcrew
to crossfeed fuel; improperly functioning actuators could also prevent
the pilot from shutting off the fuel to the engine following an engine
failure and/or fire.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 96-NM-31-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from J.C. Carter Company Inc., Aerospace Components and Repair
Service, 673 W. 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California 92627-3605. This
information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen S. Bray, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206) 227-2681; fax (206) 227-1181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 96-NM-31-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter. Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 96-NM-31-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
On July 7, 1995, the FAA issued AD 95-15-06, amendment 39-9309 (60
FR 37811, July 24, 1995), applicable to certain Boeing Model 727 and
Model 737 series airplanes, to require replacement of the actuator of
the engine fuel shutoff valve and the fuel system crossfeed valve with
an improved actuator. That action was prompted by reports indicating
that, during laboratory tests on Model 737 series airplanes, the
actuator clutch on the engine shutoff and crossfeed valves slipped at
cold temperatures due to improper functioning. The requirements of that
AD are intended to prevent improper functioning of these actuators,
which could result in a fuel imbalance due to the inability of the
flightcrew to crossfeed fuel; improperly functioning actuators could
also prevent the pilot from shutting off the fuel to the engine
following an engine failure and/or fire.
Since issuance of that AD, the FAA has received a report indicating
that an additional fuel valve actuator having part number (P/N) 40574-5
(Kearfott Model 3715-9) installed on certain Model 727 and Model 737
series airplanes is also subject to the same failure. Therefore, the
FAA has determined that this additional actuator is subject to the same
unsafe condition addressed in AD 95-15-06.
The FAA has reviewed and approved J.C. Carter Company Service
Bulletin 61163-28-09, dated September 28, 1995. The service bulletin
describes procedures for replacement of actuators having P/N 40574-5
(Kearfott Model 3715-9) and P/N 40574-2 (Kearfott Model 3715-7 and
3715-8) on the fuel system crossfeed valve and the engine shutoff
valves. These actuators are replaced with new actuators having P/N
40574-4; or with actuators having P/N 40574-2 (Kearfott Model 3715-7)
with nameplates indicating that they were manufactured by General
Design, Midland Ross, Janitrol Aero Division, or FL Aerospace/General
Design (except FL Aerospace/General Design serial numbers 0001 through
0200, inclusive).
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the
proposed AD would require replacement of the actuator having P/N 40574-
5 (Kearfott Model 3715-9) on the fuel system crossfeed valve and the
engine shutoff valves
[[Page 14035]]
either with a new actuator having P/N 40574-4, or with an actuator
having P/N 40574-2 and an appropriate nameplate. The actions would be
required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin
described previously.
Operators should note that, although the service bulletin specifies
replacement of actuators having P/N 40574-5 (Kearfott Model 3715-9) and
P/N 40574-2 (Kearfott Model 3715-7 and 3715-8), this proposed AD would
require replacement of only P/N 40574-5. Actuators having P/N 40574-2
currently are required to be replaced in accordance with AD 95-15-06.
[Note: The FAA's normal policy is that when an AD requires a
substantive change, such as a change (expansion) in its
applicability, the ``old'' AD is superseded by removing it from the
system and a new AD is added. In the case of this AD action, the FAA
normally would have proposed superseding AD 95-15-06 to expand its
applicability to include the J.C. Carter Company fuel valve actuator
having P/N 40574-5 as an additional affected actuator. However, in
reconsideration of the entire fleet size that would be affected by a
supersedure action, and the consequent workload associated with
revising maintenance record entries, the FAA has determined that a
less burdensome approach is to issue a separate AD applicable only
to the additional actuator. This AD does not supersede AD 95-15-06;
airplanes listed in the applicability of AD 95-15-06 are required to
continue to comply with the requirements of that AD. This proposed
AD is a separate AD action, and is applicable only to airplanes
equipped with J.C. Carter Company fuel valve actuator having P/N
40574-5.]
There are approximately 4,137 Boeing Model 727 and Model 737 series
airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA
estimates that 2,190 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by
this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 3 work hours per
airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would be supplied by J.C.
Carter Company at no cost to operators. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$394,200, or $180 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Boeing: Docket 96-NM-31-AD.
Applicability: All Model 727 and Model 737 series airplanes;
equipped with J.C. Carter Company fuel valve actuator having part
number (P/N) 40574-5; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent improper functioning of a certain actuator, which
could result in a fuel imbalance due to the inability of the
flightcrew to crossfeed fuel, or which could prevent the pilot from
shutting off the fuel to the engine following an engine failure and/
or fire, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the actuator having P/N 40574-5 (Kearfott Model 3715-9) on
the fuel system crossfeed valve and the engine shutoff valves with
either a new actuator having P/N 40574-4, or an actuator having P/N
40574-2 with a nameplate identified in paragraph III, Material of
J.C. Carter Company Service Bulletin 61163-28-09, dated September
28, 1995. The replacement shall be done in accordance with J.C.
Carter Company Service Bulletin 61163-28-09, dated September 28,
1995.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall
submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal
Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the
Manager, Seattle ACO.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 25, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-7663 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7622 Radio Broadcasting Services; Ruidoso, NM
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7622]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-54; RM-8769]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Ruidoso, NM
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Kellie
K. Brown seeking the allotment of Channel 268A to Ruidoso, NM, as the
community's third aural and second local FM service. Channel 268A can
be allotted to Ruidoso in compliance with the Commission's minimum
distance separation requirements without the imposition of a site
restriction, at coordinates 33-20-00 NL; 105-40-54 WL. Mexican
concurrence is required since Ruidoso is located within 320 kilometers
(199 miles) of the U.S.-Mexican border.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 13, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Kellie
K. Brown, P.O. Box 4396, Ruidoso, NM 88345 (Petitioner).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-54, adopted March 1,
1996, and released March 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-7622 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7621 Radio Broadcasting Services; Nikiski, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14042-14043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7621]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-50; RM-8768]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Nikiski, AK
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed by William J. Glynn, Jr., requesting the allotment of FM Channel
227C2 to Nikiski, Alaska, as that community's first local aural
transmission service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 60-35-40
and 151-20-00.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 13, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner, as follows: William J. Glynn, Jr., P.O.
Box 79, Kasilof, AK 99610.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-50, adopted March 5,
1996, and released March 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
[[Page 14043]]
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-7621 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7620 Radio Broadcasting Services; Princeville, HI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7620]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-52; RM-8755]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Princeville, HI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed on behalf of John Moore dba Moore Broadcasting Company, one of
two mutually-exclusive applicants for Channel 255C1 at Princeville,
Hawaii, proposing the allotment of Channel 260C1 to Princeville, to
resolve the mutual exclusivity while providing a second local FM
service to that community. If the channel is allotted with cut-off
protection, petitioner also seeks to amend its pending application for
Channel 255C1 at Princeville to reflect operation on Channel 260C1.
Coordinates used for Channel 260C1 at Princeville are 22-00-00 and 159-
22-50.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 13, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Cary S. Tepper,
Esq., Booth, Freret & Imlay, P.C., 1233 - 20th Street, NW., Suite 204,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-52, adopted March 6,
1996, and released March 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-7620 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7619 Television Broadcasting Services; Marinette, WI
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14043-14044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7619]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-53; RM-8767]
Television Broadcasting Services; Marinette, WI
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by Douglas
A. Maszka d/b/a Tri-City Television Company proposing the allotment of
UHF Television Channel 25+ to Marinette, Wisconsin. There is a site
restriction 18.6 kilometers (11.6 miles) north of the community at
coordinates 45-15-54 and 87-36-51. The proposed allotment of Channel
25+ will require a plus offset. Canadian concurrence will be requested
for this allotment.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 13, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner, as follows: Douglsa A. Maszka, d/b/a Tri-City
Television Company, 600 Vroman Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54303.
[[Page 14044]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-53, adopted March 6, 1996,
and released March 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contact.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-7619 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7618 Radio Broadcasting Services; Wellington, CO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 62 (Friday, March 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 14043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7618]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-51; RM-8764]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Wellington, CO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed by Victor A. Michael, Jr., requesting the allotment of FM Channel
232C3 to the incorporated community of Wellington, Colorado, as its
first local aural tramsission service. Coordinates used for this
proposal are 40-53-57 and 105-01-53.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 13, 1996, and reply
comments on or before May 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner, as follows: Victor A. Michael, Jr., 7901
Stoneridge Drive, Cheyenne, WY 82001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-51, adopted March 6,
1996, and released March 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-7618 Filed 3-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.