issue-1996-05-28•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-28
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-28
issue-1996-05-28Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-05-28Proposed 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. 96-13409 Food Standards: Requirements for Processed Meat and Poultry Products Named by Use of an Expressed Nutrient Content Claim and a Standardized TermExtension of Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13409]
========================================================================
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. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 26470]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 319 and 381
[Docket No. 92-024E]
RIN 0583-AB51
Food Standards: Requirements for Processed Meat and Poultry
Products Named by Use of an Expressed Nutrient Content Claim and a
Standardized Term--Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is extending the
comment period for the proposed rule, ``Food Standards: Requirements
for Processed Meat and Poultry Products Named by Use of an Expressed
Nutrient Content Claim and a Standardized Term'' for an additional 180
days.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: An original and two copies of written comments should be
sent to: FSIS Docket Clerk, Docket No. 92-024P, Room 4352, South
Agriculture Building, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-3700. Oral comments
should be directed to Mr. Charles R. Edwards, Director, Product
Assessment Division, at (202) 254-2565.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles R. Edwards, Director,
Product Assessment Division, Regulatory Programs, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
20250-3700, (202) 254-2565.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FSIS and the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) have initiated reviews of their regulations pertaining to food
standards of identity and composition. Each agency's review responds in
part to President Clinton's March 4, 1995, memorandum to heads of
departments and agencies, titled ``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative.''
This memorandum directed departments and agencies to conduct a page-by-
page review of all of their reguations and eliminate or revise those
that are outdated or otherwise in need of reform.
On December 29, 1995, FSIS published a proposed rule ``Food
Standards: Requirements for Processed Meat and Poultry Products Named
by Use of an Expressed Nutrient Content Claim and a Standardized Term''
(60 FR 67474). The rule proposes to establish a general definition and
standard of identity for standardized meat and poultry products that
have been modified to qualify for use of certain expressed nutrient
content claims as part of the product name.
Also, on December 29, 1995, FDA published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) ``Food Standards of Identity, Quality, and
Fill of Containers; Common or Usual Name Regulations; Request for
Comments on Existing Regulations,'' (60 FR 67492). The ANPR solicited
comments from interested parties on whether FDA's regulations regarding
identity, quality, and fill of container for standardized foods and its
common or usual name regulations for nonstandardized foods should be
retained, revised, or revoked. The ANPR also addressed the need for
consistency between FSIS and FDA in the development and implementation
of food standards. FDA stated that it believes such harmonization will
help manufacturers comply with the requirements of both agencies. On
May 1, 1996, FDA extended the comment period on its ANPR until June 28,
1996, to receive comments only on the issue of FDA and FSIS
harmonization of food standards (61 FR 19220).
FSIS is also developing and will soon publish an ANPR that will
solicit information from the public on what direction further food
standards reform should take, including suggestions on whether to alter
or eliminate entirely the regulations for standardized meat and poultry
products.
FSIS's proposed rule and its soon-to-be-published ANPR encompass
the Agency's food standards review initiative. Therefore, to give the
public an opportunity to consider the proposed rule and ANPR
simultaneously, and in response to requests, FSIS is extending the
comment period 180 days for the proposed rule ``Food Standards:
Requirements for Processed Meat and Poultry Products Named by Use of an
Expressed Nutrient Content Claim and a Standardized Term.''
Done at Washington, DC, on: May 22, 1996.
Michael R. Taylor,
Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-13409 Filed 5-23-96; 1:41 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13329 Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network Information and Other Customer Information
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26483-26491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13329]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Chapter I
[CC Docket No. 96-115, FCC 96-221]
Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
Information and Other Customer Information
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
seeking comment on proposed regulations to specify in more detail and
clarify the obligations of telecommunications carriers with respect to
the use and protection of customer proprietary network information
(CPNI) and other customer information. The Notice is being issued in
response to formal and informal requests for guidance as to local
exchange carriers' responsibilities under the Telecommunications Act of
1996. The objective of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is to provide
an opportunity for public comment and to provide a record for a
Commission decision on the issues stated above.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 11, 1996 and Reply Comments
are due on or before June 26, 1996. Written comments by the public on
the proposed and/or modified information collections are due June 11,
1996. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information
collections on or before July 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments and reply comments should be sent to Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW., Room
222, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to Janice Myles of the Common
Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 544, Washington, DC 20554.
Parties should also file one copy of any documents filed in this docket
with the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription
Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037. In
addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments
on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to
Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
[email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,
725--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaise Scinto, Attorney, Common
Carrier Bureau, Policy and Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1380,
or Radhika Karmarkar, Attorney, Common Carrier Bureau, Policy and
Program Planning Division, (202) 418-1628. For additional information
concerning the information collections contained in this NPRM contact
Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking adopted May 16, 1996 and released May 17, 1996
(FCC-96-221). This NPRM contains proposed or modified information
collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal
agencies are invited to comment on the proposed or modified information
collections contained in this proceeding. The full text of this Notice
[[Page 26484]]
of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
St., NW., Washington, DC. The complete text also may be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service,
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M St., NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections
contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the
same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB notification of action is
due July 29, 1996. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
OMB Approval Number: None.
Title: Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:
Telecommunications Carriers' Use of Customer Proprietary Network
Information and Other Customer Information, CC Docket No. 96-115.
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: New collection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Information collection requirement respondents Estimated time per Total annual burden
(approx.) response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer approval--oral............... 1,500 10 hours................ 15,000 hours.
Customer approval--written............ 1,500 10 hours................ 15,000 hours.
Burden of proof--oral approval........ 100 1 hour.................. 100 hours.
CPNI Disclosure to Third Parties...... 500 5 hours................. 2,500 hours.
Record-keeping requirement for 3,000 5 hours................. 15,000 hours.
restricted CPNI.
Aggregate CPNI disclosure............. 1,400 5 hours................. 7,000 hours.
Subscriber list information disclosure 1,400 4 hours................. 5,600 hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden: 60,200.
Respondents: Business or other for profit, including small
businesses.
Estimated costs per respondent: $0.
Needs and Uses: The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks to clarify
and specify in more detail the obligations of telecommunications
carriers under the customer proprietary network information (CPNI) and
subscriber list information provisions for the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 (see 47 U.S.C. Sec. 222). The Notice also seeks to implement
data safeguards for information about calls received by alarm
monitoring services, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 275(d).
SYNOPSIS OF NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
A. Summary
I. Introduction
1. On February 14, 1996, several local exchange carrier
associations (the Associations) informed the Common Carrier Bureau
(Bureau) that their members were uncertain about their responsibilities
under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act) regarding use
and protection of customer proprietary network information (CPNI), and
requested that the Commission conduct a rulemaking to implement the
provisions of the 1996 Act. On March 5, 1996, the NYNEX Telephone
Companies (NYNEX) filed a petition for declaratory ruling regarding the
proper interpretation of the term ``telecommunications service'' as
used in Section 222. On March 27, 1996, U S West, Inc. (U S West)
responded to the NYNEX Petition by letter to the Bureau Chief. In
response to these and other informal requests for guidance from the
telecommunications industry, we initiate this proceeding to seek
comment on proposed regulations to specify in more detail and clarify
the obligations of telecommunications carriers with respect to the use
and protection of CPNI and other customer information. We invite
parties who wish to respond to any of the above-referenced industry
filings to do so by submitting comments in this proceeding.
2. Section 702 of the 1996 Act added a new Section 222 to the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which sets forth, among other
things, restrictions on the use of CPNI obtained by telecommunications
carriers in providing telecommunications service to customers as well
as certain requirements related to the availability of subscriber list
information. In addition, the 1996 Act establishes a new Section 275(d)
that prohibits local exchange carriers (LECs) from using information
obtained from calls made to alarm monitoring service providers to
market their own alarm monitoring services, or those provided by any
other entity, and requires the Commission to adopt implementing
regulations within six months. Although the requirements of Section 222
were immediately effective, we tentatively conclude that regulations
that interpret and specify in more detail a telecommunications
carrier's obligations under subsections 222 (c)-(f) of the 1996 Act
would be in the public interest. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), we propose a regulatory regime that balances consumer privacy
and competitive considerations to ensure that telecommunications
carriers comply with their new statutory obligations to maintain the
privacy of CPNI and other customer information.
3. In addition, we clarify that the CPNI requirements the
Commission previously established as nonstructural safeguards in the
Computer II and Computer III proceedings for the provision of enhanced
services and customer premises equipment (CPE) by American Telephone
and Telegraph (AT&T), the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs), and GTE
Corporation (GTE) remain in effect, pending the outcome of the
rulemaking, to the extent that they do not conflict with Section 222,
since nothing in the 1996 Act affects these requirements. To the extent
that the 1996 Act requires more of a carrier, or imposes greater
restrictions on a carrier's use of CPNI, the statute, of course,
governs. We seek comment on whether there are statutory, competitive,
or privacy reasons that justify the continued application of these pre-
[[Page 26485]]
existing rules (which are discussed in greater detail below) to the
BOCs, and GTE. With respect to AT&T, we tentatively conclude that these
requirements should be removed in light of our recent decisions
classifying AT&T as a non-dominant carrier, and the pending AT&T
reorganization separating its equipment business from its
telecommunications service business. We also seek comment regarding the
extent to which these pre-existing rules should or must be amended in
light of the language or pro-competitive, deregulatory goals of the new
statute. We tentatively conclude that it is not in the public interest,
at this time, to extend all of these pre-existing CPNI rules to
carriers that are not affiliated with AT&T, the BOCs, or GTE, and seek
comment on that conclusion. To the extent that we conclude that we
should apply more restrictive CPNI access requirements to certain
groups of carriers, such as the BOCs, we seek comment on the specific
market conditions or other circumstances that would warrant removal of
those requirements in the future.
II. Background
A. Commission CPNI Requirements Established Prior to Enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996
4. Prior to enactment of the 1996 Act, in the context of the
Computer II and Computer III proceedings, the Commission established
requirements applicable to the use of CPNI for the marketing of
enhanced services and CPE by AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE. The Commission
determined that such requirements were necessary to protect independent
enhanced service providers (ESPs) and CPE suppliers from discrimination
by AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE. In the absence of these safeguards, the
affected carriers could use CPNI obtained from their provision of
regulated services to gain an anticompetitive advantage in the
unregulated CPE and enhanced services markets. Further, the Commission
found that these CPNI requirements were in the public interest because
they were intended to protect legitimate customer expectations of
confidentiality regarding individually identifiable information. The
Commission defined CPNI to encompass any information about customers'
network services and their use of those services that a telephone
company possessed because it provided those network services.
5. Under the Commission's Computer III rules, the BOCs have been
required to abide by a request from any customer that its CPNI be
withheld from the BOCs' enhanced services and CPE marketing personnel.
If, however, the customer has not requested CPNI protection, the CPNI
rules vary depending on: (1) Whether the information is disclosed to
the BOC's CPE or ESP affiliate; (2) the number of lines to which a
customer subscribes; and (3) whether the subscriber is a residential or
business customer. For example, BOC personnel have been able to use
CPNI without prior authorization for marketing CPE to all customers.
With respect to marketing enhanced services, written prior
authorization has been required from customers that subscribe to more
than 20 lines. BOC personnel could use the CPNI of customers that
subscribe to 20 or fewer lines, however, without prior authorization.
Unaffiliated ESPs by contrast have been required to obtain prior
customer authorization to obtain access to CPNI maintained by the BOCs.
The Commission's rules also imposed on BOCs a notification obligation
which required BOCs to provide annual written notification of CPNI
rights to multiline (2 or more lines) business customers. In previous
orders, the Commission has required the BOCs to implement various
computerized systems to protect against unauthorized access by their
enhanced services and CPE personnel to restricted CPNI. In addition,
the BOCs have been required to accommodate customer requests for
partial or temporary restrictions on access to their CPNI. The
Commission applied these requirements to GTE in its provision of
enhanced services, but not CPE, while declining to apply these
requirements to other independent telephone companies.
6. Although AT&T is subject to CPNI restrictions under Computer
III, the AT&T requirements generally are less stringent than those
applicable to the BOCs. For example, AT&T is not required to obtain
prior authorization from a customer with more than 20 lines before
using its CPNI to market enhanced services. Similarly, while the BOCs
must notify multiline customers annually of their right to restrict
disclosure of CPNI to BOC CPE affiliates, AT&T must only provide such
notification in a one-time billing insert. AT&T, however, must maintain
password/ID systems and other mechanisms to restrict unauthorized
access to CPNI.
7. On March 10, 1994, the Bureau issued a Public Notice inviting
comments on these CPNI rules in light of the increasing alliances,
acquisitions, and mergers by and between telephone and non-telephone
companies. In recognition of these changes, the Bureau sought comment
from the public on whether the existing CPNI safeguards would continue
in the future to strike the appropriate balance among customers'
privacy interests, competitive equity, and efficiency.
B. New Sections 222(c) and (d): CPNI Privacy Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996
8. In new Sections 222(c) and (d), the 1996 Act established
requirements for maintaining the confidentiality of CPNI that became
effective immediately upon enactment for all telecommunications
carriers. New Section 222(f)(1) defines CPNI as ``information that
relates to the quantity, technical configuration, type, destination,
and amount of use of a telecommunications service subscribed to by any
customer of a telecommunications carrier, and that is made available to
the carrier by the customer solely by virtue of the carrier-customer
relationship.'' The statute explicitly includes within the definition
of CPNI ``information contained in the bills pertaining to telephone
exchange service or telephone toll service received by a customer of a
carrier.''
9. New Section 222(c)(1) provides that:
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer,
a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains [CPNI] by
virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only
use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable [CPNI]
in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which
such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used
in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the
publishing of directories.
Section 222 further provides that ``[a] telecommunications carrier
shall disclose [CPNI], upon affirmative written request by the
customer, to any person designated by the customer.''
10. The 1996 Act establishes three exceptions to the general
prohibition set forth in Section 222(c)(1). A telecommunications
carrier, either directly or indirectly through its agents, may use,
disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable CPNI: ``(1) to
initiate, render, bill, and collect for telecommunications services;
(2) to protect the carrier's rights or property of the carrier, or to
protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent,
abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to, such services; or (3)
to provide any inbound telemarketing, referral, or administrative
services to the customer for the duration of the call, if such call was
initiated by the customer and the customer approves of the use of
[[Page 26486]]
such information to provide such service.''
11. The 1996 Act also establishes separate requirements for the
treatment of ``Aggregate Customer Information.'' A telecommunications
carrier, other than a LEC, may use, disclose, or permit access to
aggregate customer information for purposes other than those specified
by Section 222(c)(1). LECs may use aggregate CPNI for purposes other
than those specified by Section 222(c)(1) only if, upon reasonable
request, they provide such aggregate customer information to other
carriers or persons on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and
conditions.
C. New Section 222(e): Availability of Subscriber List Information
12. New Section 222(e) states that, notwithstanding Sections
222(b), (c), and (d), a telecommunications carrier that provides
telephone exchange service must provide ``subscriber list information
gathered in its capacity as a provider of such service on a timely and
unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, terms,
and conditions, to any person upon request for the purpose of
publishing directories in any format.'' ``Subscriber list information''
is defined as ``any information identifying the listed names of
subscribers of a carrier and such subscribers' telephone numbers,
addresses, or primary advertising classifications * * * that the
carrier or an affiliate has published * * * or accepted for publication
in any directory format.'' As with new Sections 222(c) and (d), new
Section 222(e) also became effective immediately upon enactment.
D. New Section 275(d): Use of Data Regarding Alarm Monitoring Services
13. With respect to the provision of alarm monitoring services, the
1996 Act states that a LEC ``may not record or use in any fashion the
occurrence or contents of calls received by providers of alarm
monitoring services for the purposes of marketing such services on
behalf of such [LEC], or any other entity.'' The new statute further
requires the Commission to establish, within six months after the
enactment of the 1996 Act, any regulations necessary to enforce the
provisions concerning LEC use of alarm monitoring service call
information.
III. Discussion
14. As noted above, shortly after passage of the 1996 Act,
representatives of several telecommunications carriers and carrier
associations contacted the Bureau with questions regarding the scope
and substance of their obligations under the Section 222 CPNI
provisions that became effective immediately upon enactment. The Bureau
also received a letter, submitted on behalf of associations
representing a majority of the LECs, that, inter alia, asked the
Commission to commence a rulemaking to resolve questions concerning the
LECs' responsibilities under the CPNI provisions of the 1996 Act. In
addition, NYNEX filed a petition for declaratory ruling seeking
confirmation of its interpretation of one aspect of Section 222 and U S
West responded by letter to that petition.
15. In view of these concerns expressed by the industry, as well as
our own analysis of the 1996 Act, we tentatively conclude that
regulations that interpret and specify in more detail a
telecommunications carrier's obligations under Section 222 would be in
the public interest. We seek comments on this tentative conclusion and
on the specific requirements we propose to adopt. Based on our reading
of the 1996 Act and its legislative history, we believe that Congress
sought to address both privacy and competitive concerns by enacting
Section 222. In their comments, we ask parties to explain specifically
whether their arguments in support of, or in opposition to, the
adoption of particular CPNI requirements are based on privacy concerns,
competitive concerns, or both. In this proceeding, we seek to establish
promptly the regulatory framework for carrier compliance with the CPNI
requirements contained in Section 222. We also clarify the
applicability of our existing Computer III CPNI rules to AT&T, the
BOCs, and GTE, and seek comment on whether these pre-existing rules
should continue to apply. In addition, we seek comment on the carrier
requirements in Section 222(e) for making subscriber list information
available to others upon request for the purpose of publishing
directories. Finally, we seek comment on what procedures LECs should
develop to comply with their Section 275(d) obligations.
A. Scope of the Commission's Authority
16. Section 2(b) of the 1934 Act preserves state jurisdiction over
``charges, classifications, practices, services, facilities, or
regulations for or in connection with intrastate communications service
by wire or radio of any carrier * * *.'' Under Louisiana PSC, the
Commission has authority to preempt state regulation of intrastate
telecommunications services where such state regulation would thwart or
impede the Commission's exercise of its lawful authority over
interstate telecommunications services because regulation of the
interstate aspects cannot be severed from regulation of the intrastate
aspects. We note that, in connection with the CPNI rules we established
prior to the enactment of the 1996 Act, we preempted state CPNI rules
that required prior authorization inconsistent with our own rules,
determining that such state rules would effectively negate federal
policies promoting both carrier efficiency and consumer benefits. The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld this exercise of our
preemption authority. We note that our preexisting CPNI rules were
established pursuant to the Commission's general regulatory authority
under the Communications Act of 1934. The 1996 Act establishes a
specific statutory scheme governing access to and protection of CPNI in
a way that ``balance[s] both competitive and consumer privacy interests
with respect to CPNI.''
17. We seek comment on the extent to which Section 222 permits
states to impose additional CPNI requirements. We further seek comment
regarding what aspects of state regulation of CPNI or other customer
information would enhance or impede the federal purpose. We are
particularly interested in receiving comment on state regulation
regarding: (1) Whether written or oral authorization is allowed, and
(2) the appropriate interpretation of the term ``telecommunications
service,'' and whether such state regulation would enhance or impede
valid federal interests with respect to CPNI and other customer
information.
18. In addition, we seek comment regarding whether the CPNI
provisions of Section 222 and the data safeguards provision of Section
275(d) may by themselves give the Commission jurisdiction over both the
interstate and intrastate use and protection of CPNI and other customer
information with respect to matters falling within the scope of those
sections.
19. In addition, we seek comment regarding the scope of the
Commission's authority with respect to the subscriber list information
provision set out in Section 222(e), which applies to information
gathered in the provision of ``telephone exchange service.'' Because
Section 222(e) applies to ``telephone exchange service,'' we further
seek comment regarding the respective federal and state roles in
ensuring that subscriber list information is made available ``under
nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions.''
[[Page 26487]]
B. Procedures for All Telecommunications Carriers: Sections 222(c) and
(d)
i. CPNI Use Prohibition
20. Absent prior customer authorization, Section 222(c)(1)
authorizes a telecommunications carrier to use individually
identifiable CPNI obtained from the provision of a particular
telecommunications service solely to provide ``the telecommunications
service from which such information is derived,'' or services necessary
to provide that telecommunications service. Neither Section 222 nor the
definition of the terms ``telecommunications'' and ``telecommunications
service'' set forth in the 1996 Act provide explicit guidance as to the
scope of the term ``a telecommunications service,'' as used in Section
222. Moreover, the Joint Explanatory Statement in the Conference Report
is silent on this issue. Some might contend that Congress intended to
define the term ``telecommunications service'' broadly to include all
services that the Commission has classified as ``basic'' services.
Under this interpretation, providers of telecommunications services
could use, without prior customer authorization, CPNI obtained from any
such service to market any other telecommunications service. We
believe, however, that a close reading of Section 222 does not support
this interpretation.
21. Section 222(c)(1), by its terms, bars a telecommunications
carrier from using CPNI obtained from the provision of ``a
telecommunications service'' for any purpose other than to provide
``the telecommunications service'' from which the CPNI is obtained or
services necessary to provide ``such telecommunications service.'' The
use of the singular in this section suggests that Congress recognized
that telecommunications carriers provide a variety of
telecommunications services and intended, absent prior customer
approval, to prohibit a carrier from using CPNI obtained from the
provision of one service for marketing or other purposes in connection
with the provision of another service. This statutory interpretation is
reinforced by other provisions of Section 222. Section 222(a) refers to
``telecommunications services'' and Section 222(b) refers to ``any
telecommunications service.'' These references support our reading that
Congress contemplated that a single carrier provides different
telecommunications services.
22. We tentatively conclude that it would be reasonable to
interpret Section 222 as distinguishing among telecommunications
services based on traditional service distinctions. Under this
approach, we tentatively conclude that we should treat the following as
distinct ``telecommunications services'': local (including short-haul
toll); interexchange (including interstate, intrastate, and
international long distance offerings, as well as short-haul toll); and
commercial mobile radio services (CMRS). We tentatively conclude that
short-haul toll should be treated as both a local telecommunications
service, when provided by a LEC, as well as an interexchange
telecommunications service, when provided by an interexchange carrier
(IXC), because under traditional service distinctions both LECs and
IXCs currently market and provide short-haul toll service as part of an
integrated package with local and interexchange services, respectively.
Under the AT&T Consent Decree, BOC services have been subject to LATA
boundaries. See United States v. Western Elec. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131
(D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001
(1983) (subsequent history omitted); 47 U.S.C. 153(25). The Commission
has not traditionally applied the interLATA and intraLATA distinction.
For purposes of this NPRM, with respect to the BOCs, the term ``short-
haul toll'' should be interpreted as ``intraLATA toll,'' and the term
``interexchange'' should be interpreted as ``interLATA.'' We seek
comment on these proposed distinctions and on other possible service
distinctions. We further seek comment on how changes in
telecommunications technology and regulation that allow carriers to
provide more than one traditionally distinct service (e.g., LECs and
IXCs may begin providing each others' services) may impact how carriers
would implement the requirements of Section 222 to restrict use of CPNI
from one telecommunications service to another.
23. CPNI obtained from providing any one of the discrete services
listed above may not be used for any purpose, including marketing,
involving any of the other services, unless the telecommunications
carrier obtained prior customer authorization or one of the exceptions
established by Sections 222(c) and (d) applies. We recognize that in
the rapidly evolving market for telecommunications services, the
distinctions we propose here may become outdated. Thus, we invite
parties to suggest other distinctions among telecommunications services
that in their view are mandated, envisioned, or logically consistent
with the statute for CPNI protection. We request that parties who do so
comment specifically on the costs and benefits of the schemes they
propose, as well as the impact that such schemes will have on both
competitive and consumer privacy interests. We also seek comment on
whether and when technological and market developments may require us
to revisit the issue of telecommunications service distinctions.
24. Our interpretation also enhances customer privacy by giving
customers greater control over CPNI use; CPNI derived from one
telecommunications service cannot be used to provide other services or
products without prior customer knowledge. We believe that our
interpretation of the term ``telecommunications service'' also
addresses competitive considerations. Our reading of the 1996 Act
prohibits carriers that are established providers of certain
telecommunications services from gaining an advantage by using CPNI to
facilitate their entry into new telecommunications services without
obtaining prior customer authorization.
25. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions concerning the
scope of the term ``telecommunications service,'' especially regarding
the costs and benefits associated with our interpretation. We also seek
comment on the effect on customer privacy of precluding the use of CPNI
among telecommunications service categories. We further seek comment
regarding how our proposed interpretation of the term
``telecommunications service'' would affect competition both in the
provision of telecommunications services, and the provision of other
adjacent services and products, such as information services and CPE.
26. The CPNI prohibition restricts unauthorized use of CPNI for any
purpose other than those specified in Section 222(c)(1) and the
exceptions listed in Section 222(d). For example, CPNI obtained from
the provision of any telecommunications service may not be used to
market information services or CPE without prior customer
authorization. Section 222(d)(1) enables carriers to use, disclose, or
permit access to CPNI ``to initiate, render, bill, and collect for
telecommunications services.'' We seek comment on whether this
exception permits carriers, without prior authorization, to use a
customer's CPNI derived from the provision of one telecommunications
service to perform installation, maintenance, and repair for any
telecommunications service to which that customer subscribes. We also
seek comment on whether, in the alternative, installation, maintenance,
[[Page 26488]]
and repair would qualify as ``services necessary to, or used in, the
provision of such telecommunications service,'' under Section
222(c)(1)(B). We also seek comment on what other services might be
``necessary to, or used in the provision of, such telecommunications
service'' under Section 222(c)(1)(B).
ii. Customer Notification of CPNI Rights/Prior Authorization
27. Section 222(c)(1) authorizes a carrier that obtains CPNI by
providing a telecommunications service to use that CPNI for purposes
unrelated to the service from which it is obtained if the customer
approves. The statute, however, does not specify the procedures that a
carrier must use to obtain customer approval, nor whether approval must
be written or oral. We seek comment on what methods carriers may use to
obtain customer authorization for use of CPNI in compliance with the
statute.
a. Notification Requirements
28.We tentatively conclude that, in order to ensure full compliance
with the prior authorization requirement specified by Section
222(c)(1), we should require a telecommunications carrier seeking
approval for CPNI use from its customers to notify those customers of
their rights to restrict access to their CPNI. We tentatively conclude
that customers must know that they can restrict access to the CPNI
obtained from their use of a telecommunications service before they
waive that right, in order to be considered to have given approval. We
seek comment on whether we should allow such notification to be given
orally and simultaneously with a carrier's attempt to seek approval for
CPNI use, or whether we should instead require an advance written
notification. We further seek comment on what is the least burdensome
method of notification that would meet the objectives of the 1996 Act.
We note that under the Computer III CPNI rules, we require AT&T, the
BOCs, and GTE to provide to multiline business customers written
notification of their CPNI rights, along with election forms to
restrict or authorize CPNI access. We seek comment on whether we need
to specify the information that should be included in the customer
notification, and, if so, the disclosure requirements that we should
adopt.
b. Authorization Requirements
29. Carriers may choose to obtain written authorization from
customers to use their CPNI for purposes unrelated to the provision of
the service from which it was obtained. This authorization could take
the form of a letter or a billing insert sent to the customer that
contains a summary of the customer's CPNI rights and is accompanied by
a postcard which the customer could sign and return to the carrier to
authorize CPNI use. Written authorization provides greater protection
to both customers and the carrier than oral authorization, in that the
former advises customers in writing of their CPNI rights and provides
the carrier with evidence that it has obtained customer approval. From
a consumer protection standpoint, written notification, which is more
specific and verifiable than oral notification, may be preferable.
30. We seek comment on whether Section 222(c)(1) allows carriers to
choose to use outbound telemarketing programs to obtain oral
``approval'' from customers for use of their CPNI. We note that Section
222(c)(1) mandates that carriers obtain ``the approval of the
customer'' in order to obtain access to the customer's CPNI, without
indicating whether the approval has to be written or oral. There are
two related provisions of the statute which give rise to conflicting
inferences on this point. On the one hand, Section 222(c)(2) requires
carriers to disclose CPNI to any person designated by a customer ``upon
affirmative written request by the customer,'' which suggests that
Section 222(c)(1) allows oral approval, because unlike 222(c)(2) it
does not specifically require written authorization.
31. On the other hand, Section 222(d)(3) regarding inbound
telemarketing provides that a telecommunications carrier may use,
disclose, or permit access to CPNI obtained from its customers ``to
provide any inbound telemarketing, referral, or administrative services
for the duration of the call, if such call was initiated by the
customer and the customer approves of the use of such information to
provide such service.'' Section 222(d)(3) could be interpreted as
suggesting that oral consent cannot be given for a broader purpose or a
longer duration. In the alternative, Section 222(d)(3) could also be
interpreted as permitting a carrier to use CPNI to provide a customer
with information for the duration of an inbound call, even if the
customer has otherwise restricted the carrier's use of its CPNI. We
seek comment on how Section 222(c)(1) should be interpreted in light of
Section 222(c)(2) and Section 222(d)(3). We also seek comment on the
privacy and competitive implications of requiring carriers to obtain
prior written approval under Section 222(c)(1) in order to obtain
access to customer CPNI, as well as on the costs and benefits of
requiring written approval.
32. To the extent that oral approval is allowed under 222(c)(1), we
propose to require carriers choosing to obtain oral approval to bear
the burden of proof associated with such a scheme in the event of a
dispute. Specifically, such carriers would be required to demonstrate
through credible evidence that they had obtained the required customer
authorization prior to granting access to the CPNI for purposes that
otherwise would be unlawful.
33. Additionally, we seek comment on whether we should establish
requirements regarding: (1) How long a customer's CPNI use
authorization should remain valid; (2) how often carriers may contact a
customer in order to attempt to obtain CPNI use authorization, whether
or not the customer has requested restriction of its CPNI; and (3)
whether and to what extent customers may authorize partial access to
their CPNI (for example, limited to certain uses or time periods).
iii. CPNI Disclosure to Third Parties
34. Section 222(c)(2) requires carriers, when presented with a
customer's affirmative written request, to provide that customer's CPNI
to any person designated in the written authorization. Section
222(c)(2) imposes a disclosure requirement on carriers to ensure that
any party with customer authorization, including unaffiliated third
party competitors, can obtain access to individually identifiable CPNI.
As such, carriers must provide a customer's CPNI to any party that has
obtained an affirmative written authorization from the customer. We
seek comment with respect to what additional mechanisms or procedures,
if any, we ought to require telecommunications carriers to implement to
guard against unauthorized access to CPNI by third parties.
iv. Safeguards for Customer-Restricted CPNI Data
35. We tentatively conclude that all telecommunications carriers
must establish effective safeguards to protect against unauthorized
access to CPNI by their employees or agents, or by unaffiliated third
parties. We noted above that we have required AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE
to implement computerized safeguards and manual file indicators to
prevent unauthorized access to CPNI. We seek comment on whether these
requirements should continue to apply to AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE.
36. We tentatively conclude that we should not now specify
safeguard
[[Page 26489]]
requirements for all other telecommunications carriers, but we note
that these carriers may wish to adopt some or all of the types of
safeguards against unauthorized access to CPNI that we applied to AT&T,
the BOCs, and GTE in Computer III, in satisfaction of their obligation
to develop effective means to protect restricted CPNI. We seek comment,
however, regarding whether we should impose on all telecommunications
carriers any of the requirements imposed on AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE, or
any other safeguard designed to protect against unauthorized access to
restricted CPNI, and will adopt such requirements if the record
indicates a need for them.
v. Aggregate CPNI
37. The aggregate CPNI provisions of Section 222(c)(3) permit
telecommunications carriers, other than LECs, to use aggregate CPNI for
purposes other than providing telecommunications services. LECs,
however, may use aggregate CPNI for purposes other than providing
telecommunications service only if the aggregate CPNI is made available
to others on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis. In Computer III,
we required the subject carriers to notify third parties about the
availability of aggregate CPNI used by these carriers by publishing
notices in trade publications or newsletters. We seek comment on
whether, in addition to the statutory requirements of Section 222, we
should also require all LECs to provide similar notification to others
regarding the availability of aggregate CPNI, on a reasonable and
nondiscriminatory basis prior to using such aggregate CPNI themselves.
C. Applicability of Computer III CPNI Requirements
38. We conclude that the 1996 Act does not prohibit the Commission
from enforcing CPNI requirements that are not inconsistent with the new
statutory provisions, since nothing in the 1996 Act affects these
requirements. We recognize that in certain respects our existing
Computer III requirements place greater restrictions than the 1996 Act
on CPNI access by AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE for the provision of enhanced
services and CPE. Under our reading of the new statute, these
additional restrictions will continue to apply to those carriers,
pending the outcome of this rulemaking.
39. AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE must continue to provide annual written
notification to customers about CPNI rights before using this CPNI to
market enhanced services. The current retention of this requirement
does not supersede the new statutory requirement that all
telecommunications carriers, including AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE, obtain
prior authorization before using CPNI to engage in any activity other
than providing the service from which the CPNI was derived. The BOCs
and GTE must also continue to obtain prior written authorization from
customers with more than twenty lines before using their CPNI to market
enhanced services. With respect to use of CPNI for marketing CPE, AT&T
must continue to notify customers in a one-time billing insert before
using the CPNI of these customers to market CPE. Similarly, the BOCs
must continue to notify multiline customers annually about their CPNI
rights before using this CPNI to market CPE. In addition, AT&T, the
BOCs, and GTE must maintain any previously approved mechanisms (i.e,
computer password systems, filing mechanisms) to restrict unauthorized
internal access to CPNI.
40. We do not propose to extend our pre-existing Computer III CPNI
requirements, as modified by the 1996 Act, to other telecommunications
carriers, because we tentatively conclude that these additional CPNI
restrictions are not necessary to secure the public interest objectives
of the 1996 Act. The Commission's CPNI rules were established in the
context of the Computer III proceeding, in which the Commission adopted
various nonstructural safeguards to protect independent ESPs and CPE
suppliers from discrimination by AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE. The
Commission specifically sought to prohibit these carriers from using
CPNI obtained from their provision of basic regulated services to gain
an anticompetitive advantage in the unregulated CPE and enhanced
services markets. In that proceeding, we determined that, because AT&T,
the BOCs, and GTE could gain anticompetitive advantages in this manner,
their use of CPNI must be restricted.
41. We, however, recognize that some of the anticompetitive
concerns we sought to address through the establishment of our CPNI
rules may now be addressed by the new Section 222. In such light, we
seek comment on which, if any, of our Computer III CPNI rules may no
longer be necessary as a result of new Section 222. For example, we
seek comment on the necessity for continuing to require AT&T, the BOCs,
and GTE to provide written notification to multiline customers of their
CPNI rights. Given that the Computer III CPNI rules are part of a
scheme of nonstructural safeguards, parties should address how changing
the CPNI rules might influence the effect of other Computer III
requirements. Parties should comment on whether there are privacy or
competitive reasons for continuing to apply these specific pre-existing
requirements to these carriers, as well as on the costs and benefits of
maintaining these requirements. We also invite parties to comment on
what, if any, modifications to our current CPNI rules should be adopted
to further the pro-competitive, deregulatory goals of the 1996 Act, in
addition to those discussed in this NPRM.
42. We further seek comment on whether AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE
continue to possess a competitive advantage with respect to access to
and use of customer CPNI, as well as whether any other entities, such
as independent LECs, now possess similar advantages. In particular, it
appears that our recent decisions classifying AT&T as a non-dominant
carrier, and the pending AT&T reorganization separating its equipment
business from its telecommunications service business, may justify
removal of Computer III CPNI requirements for AT&T. We tentatively
conclude that removal of these requirements is now justified. We
further seek comment regarding whether privacy, competitive concerns,
or any other considerations, justify special regulatory treatment of
AT&T, the BOCs, and GTE. Further, to the extent that commenters believe
differential regulatory treatment is justified for certain carriers, we
seek comment on whether such differential treatment should be permanent
or limited in duration, and, if limited, what sunset provisions should
apply.
D. Section 222(e): Availability of Subscriber List Information
43. Section 222(e) states that a telecommunications carrier that
provides ``telephone exchange service'' shall provide subscriber list
information ``gathered in its capacity as a provider of such service on
a timely and unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and reasonable
rates, terms, and conditions, to any person upon request for the
purpose of publishing directories in any format.'' We interpret Section
222(e) to require not only LECs, but also any telecommunications
carrier, including an IXC or cable operator, for example, to meet the
requirements of this section to the extent such carrier provides
telephone exchange service. We seek comment on this interpretation.
[[Page 26490]]
44. Subscriber list information is defined in Section 222(f)(3) as
any information ``identifying the listed names of subscribers of a
carrier and such subscribers' telephone numbers, addresses, or primary
advertising classifications (as such classifications are assigned at
the time of the establishment of such service)'' or any combination of
such information, that the ``carrier or an affiliate has published * *
* or accepted for publication in any directory format.'' We seek
comment on what regulations, if any, are necessary to clarify the type
and/or categories of information that must be made available under this
section. In particular, we seek comment on the meaning of ``primary
advertising classifications,'' since the statute does not specify what
is meant by this term. We also note that new Section 274(h)(2)(i) of
the 1996 Act excepts from the definition of ``electronic publishing''
the provision of ``directory assistance that provides names, addresses,
and telephone numbers and does not include advertising.'' We
tentatively conclude that the term ``primary advertising
classifications'' in Section 222(e) is used differently than the term
``advertising'' in Section 274(h)(2)(i), and that therefore subscriber
list information does not fall within the definition of electronic
publishing. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
45. We also seek comment on what regulations or procedures may be
necessary to implement the requirement that subscriber list information
be provided ``on a timely and unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory
and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions.'' Commenting parties
should state specifically what regulations or procedures, if any,
should be required and how Section 222(e) makes them necessary. In
particular, commenters should comment on the format in which the
information should be provided and how it should be unbundled.
46. We also seek comment on what safeguards may be necessary to
ensure that a person seeking subscriber list information is doing so
for the specified purpose of ``publishing directories in any format.''
While the Joint Explanatory Statement states that the purpose of
Section 222(e) is to guarantee ``independent publishers access to
subscriber list information'' upon request, we seek comment on how and
to what extent a telecommunications carrier subject to this section may
seek authorization from a person or entity requesting such information.
Parties should comment on whether such requests must be in writing or
whether they can be made orally.
E. Section 275(d): Alarm Monitoring Procedures for LECs
47. Section 275(d) prohibits a LEC from recording or using in any
fashion ``the occurrence or content of calls received by providers of
alarm monitoring services for the purposes of marketing such services
on behalf of such [LEC], or any other entity.'' Thus, Section 275(d)
restricts LECs from using the information described in that section for
marketing another alarm monitoring service, either their own service or
a service offered by another affiliated or unaffiliated entity. We
tentatively conclude that a customer's authorization under Section
222(c)(1) will not extend to any records concerning the occurrence of
calls received by alarm monitoring service providers. Although call
content information is not considered CPNI, we note that, pursuant to
Section 275(d), LECs may not use information concerning the ``content
of calls'' received by providers of alarm monitoring services to market
such services. We seek comment on what procedures LECs should develop
to comply with Section 275(d).
IV. Conclusion
48. In this notice, we seek comment on rules to ensure compliance
by telecommunications carriers with the provisions relating to carrier
use of and access to CPNI and other customer information established by
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in new Sections 222(c)-(f) and
275(d), and to secure the privacy and competitive protections mandated
by Congress. We invite comment on our interpretation of the
requirements imposed by Section 222(c)-(f) and Section 275(d), as well
as our tentative conclusions regarding regulations necessary to ensure
carrier compliance with these requirements and to more fully effectuate
the statutory policies. We also request parties to specify whether
their comments on our proposed regulatory requirements address privacy
or competitive concerns, and to comment on the appropriate duration of
such regulatory requirements. Any party disagreeing with our tentative
conclusions should explain with specificity in terms of costs and
benefits its position and suggestions for alternative regulatory
policies.
V. Procedural Issues
A. Ex Parte Presentations
49. This is a non-restricted notice-and-comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided that they are disclosed as provided in
the Commission's rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203,
1.1206.
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
50. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
Secs. 601-612, the Commission's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
with respect to the NPRM is as follows:
51. Reason for Action: The Commission is issuing this NPRM seeking
comment on proposed regulations to ensure telecommunications carriers'
compliance with requirements for the use and protection of customer
proprietary network information (CPNI) and other customer information
set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110
Stat. 56 (1996).
52. Objectives: The objective of the NPRM is to provide an
opportunity for public comment and to provide a record for a Commission
decision on the issues stated above. The Commission is committed to
reducing the regulatory burdens on small communications services
companies whenever possible, consistent with our other public interest
responsibilities.
53. Legal basis: The NPRM is adopted pursuant to Sections 1, 4,
222, 275, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154, 222, 275, and 303(r).
54. Description, potential impact, and number of small entities
affected: Any rule changes that might occur as a result of this
proceeding could impact small business entities, as defined in Section
601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. After evaluating the comments
in this proceeding, the Commission will further examine the impact of
any rule changes on small entities and set forth findings in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of
this NPRM to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (1981).
55. Reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirement:
None.
56. Federal rules that overlap, duplicate or conflict with the
Commission's proposal: None.
57. Any significant alternatives minimizing impact on small
entities and
[[Page 26491]]
consistent with stated objectives: The NPRM solicits comments on a
variety of alternatives.
58. Comments are solicited: Written comments are requested on this
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These comments must be filed
in accordance with the same filing deadlines set for comments on the
other issues in this NPRM but they must have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of the Notice to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance
with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
59. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information
collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments
are due at the same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments
are due 60 days from date of publication of this NPRM in the Federal
Register. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
D. Comment Filing Procedures
60. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Secs. 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before June 11, 1996 and
reply comments on or before June 26, 1996. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and six (6) copies of all
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each
Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file
an original and eleven (11) copies. Comments and reply comments should
be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
1919 M Street, NW., Room 222, Washington, DC 20554, with a copy to
Janice Myles of the Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW., Room
544, Washington, DC 20554. Parties should also file one copy of any
documents filed in this docket with the Commission's copy contractor,
International Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037. Comments and reply comments will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, 1919 M Street, NW, Room 239, Washington, DC.
20554.
61. In order to facilitate review of comments and reply comments,
both by parties and by Commission staff, we require that comments be no
longer than twenty-five (25) pages and reply comments be no longer than
fifteen (15) pages. Copies of specific proposed rules that conform to
the C.F.R. format, relevant state orders, sample CPNI notification and
authorization forms or letters, and empirical economic studies will not
be counted against these page limits. Comments and reply comments must
also comply with Section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the
Commission's Rules. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. 1.49. However, we require here
that a summary be included with all comments and reply comments,
regardless of length, although a summary that does not exceed three
pages will not count toward the page limit for comments or reply
comments. This summary may be paginated separately from the rest of the
pleading (e.g., as ``i, ii'').
62. Parties are also asked to submit comments and reply comments on
diskette. Such diskette submissions would be in addition to and not a
substitute for the formal filing requirements addressed above. Parties
submitting diskettes should submit them to Janice Myles of the Common
Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW., Room 544, Washington, DC 20554.
Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette formatted in an IBM
compatible form using MS DOS 5.0 and WordPerfect 5.1 software. The
diskette should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The diskette should
be clearly labelled with the party's name, proceeding, type of pleading
(comment or reply comments) and date of submission. The diskette should
be accompanied by a cover letter.
63. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified
information collections are due June 11, 1996. Written comments must be
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed
and/or modified information collections on or before 60 days after date
of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information
collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy Conway,
Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to
Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725--17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].
VI. Ordering Clauses
64. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 222,
275, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Secs. 151, 154, 222, 275, and 303(r), a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is hereby Adopted.
65. It is further ordered that, the Secretary shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the regulatory
flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration, in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13329 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13304 ``Draft Document Concerning the Regulation of Placental/Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell Products Intended for Transplantation or Further Manufacture into Injectable Products;'' Availability; Extension of Comment Period
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26473-26474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13304]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Chapter I
[Docket No. 96N-0002]
``Draft Document Concerning the Regulation of Placental/Umbilical
Cord Blood Stem Cell Products Intended for Transplantation or Further
Manufacture into Injectable Products;'' Availability; Extension of
Comment Period
Agency: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Action: Availability of draft document; extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending to July
26, 1996, the comment period for the draft document entitled ``Draft
Document Concerning the Regulation of Placental/Umbilical Cord Blood
Stem Cell Products Intended for Transplantation or Further Manufacture
into Injectable Products,'' which appeared in the Federal Register of
February 26, 1996 (61 FR 7087). The purpose of the draft document is to
identify a draft regulatory approach that FDA believes is appropriate
for the regulation of placental/umbilical cord blood stem cell products
for transplantation. FDA published the draft document in response to
numerous inquiries regarding the agency's regulatory approach to cord
blood stem cell products and to provide an opportunity for interested
persons to submit written comments on the draft document prior to fully
implementing this approach. FDA is taking this action in response to
requests to allow additional time for public comments.
DATES: Written comments by July 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon A. Carayiannis, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-630), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-594-
3074.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 26, 1996
(61 FR 7087), FDA requested public comment from interested persons on
the draft document which included discussions of the following: (1) The
applicable legal authorities in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act and the Public Health Service Act; (2) FDA's approach to the
regulation of human cord blood stem cells intended for transplantation;
(3) FDA's approach to the regulation of cord blood stem cells as source
material for further manufacture; and (4) FDA's approach to the
regulation of ancillary products used for production of cord blood stem
cells. Interested persons were given until April 26, 1996, to submit
written comments on the draft document.
The agency received four letters from companies and research
institutions involved in the collection and storage of cord blood
requesting an extension of the comment period. The letters requested up
to 90 additional days for comment on the basis that FDA's proposed
regulatory approach would significantly alter the current cord blood
collection and storage practices used by companies and research
institutions. In addition, the requests cited the need for additional
time to adequately review
[[Page 26474]]
and analyze the draft document so as to formulate and submit
meaningful, substantive comments to the agency. In a letter of April
26, 1996, FDA responded by offering an additional 29 days for comment,
while the agency considered the requests for a 90-day extension. After
careful consideration, the agency has concluded that it is in the
public interest to allow additional time for interested persons to
submit comments. Accordingly, FDA is extending the original comment
period by 90 days, to July 26, 1996.
Interested persons may, on or before July 26, 1996, submit written
comments to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). Two copies
of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit
one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the draft document
and received comments are available for public examination in the
Dockets Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
Dated: May 23, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-13304 Filed 5-22-96; 4:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13260 State Program Amendments
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26477-26483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13260]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Parts 925, 926, 931, 934, 935, 936, 938, 943, 944, 946, 948
and 950
RIN 1029-AB87
State Program Amendments
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
is proposing to amend its regulations by revising the information
currently reported in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) regarding
the OSM Director's approval of amendments to State regulatory programs
and abandoned mine land reclamation plans (hereafter State program
amendments). A companion rule, State Program Amendments (I), was
proposed revising the information reported at 30 CFR parts 901 through
920. As with the prior rulemaking, the information regarding the
Director's approval of State program
[[Page 26478]]
amendments would be condensed to a tabular presentation depicting the
dates when State program amendments were originally submitted to OSM
and the dates the OSM Director's decision approving all or portions of
these amendments were published in the Federal Register. This
rulemaking would further reduce the number of unnecessary pages in the
CFR. As always, people interested in getting copies of the full text of
the amended State regulatory program or abandoned mine land reclamation
plan could contact the State regulatory authority office or the OSM
field office with oversight authority for that State.
DATES: Written comments: We will accept written comments on the
proposed rule until 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on July 29, 1996.
Public hearings: We will accept requests for a public hearing until
4:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 27, 1996. People who want to attend but
not testify at the hearing, must contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, beforehand to verify that we will hold a
hearing. Any disabled individuals who need special accommodations to
attend a public hearing should also contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: Please hand-deliver to the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Room 120, 1951 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC, or mail to the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record, SIB 120, 1951
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20240.
You may also send comments through the Internet to OSM's
Administrative Record. Our Internet address is: OSMRulesOSMRE.GOV. We
will file copies of any electronic messages received with our
Administrative Record.
Public hearings: You must contact the person identified under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the time required under DATES to request
a public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John A. Trelease, Rules and Legislation Staff, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington
DC 20240; Telephone (202) 208-2783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Discussion of Proposed Rules
Why is this rule being written?
What would change?
How do I get a copy of State program amendments?
III. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
Written Comments
If you are submitting written comments on the proposed rule please
be specific, limit your comments to issues pertinent to the proposed
rule, and explain the reason for your recommendations. If possible,
please submit three copies of your comments to our Administrative
Record (see ADDRESSES). We may not consider your comments for the final
rule when received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or
delivered to addresses other than those listed in ADDRESSES.
Public Hearings
We will hold public hearings on the proposed rule by request only.
If no one has contacted Mr. Trelease requesting a hearing by the date
listed in DATES, we will not hold a hearing. We will hold a public
meeting instead of a hearing if only one person expresses an interest.
We will include the results of all meetings and hearings in our
Administrative Record.
If we hold a hearing, it will continue until everyone who wants to
testify is heard. Please provide us with an advanced copy of your
testimony at the address specified for the submission of written
comments (see ADDRESSES), and a copy of the transcriber when you arrive
at the hearing. This will assist us in preparing appropriate questions,
and ensure that the transcriber provides us with an accurate record of
the testimony.
II. Discussion of Rule
Why Is This Rule Being Written?
On March 4, 1995, the President announced a government-wide
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The President directed each agency
to conduct a page-by-page review of its regulations for the purpose of
eliminating or revising those that are outdated or otherwise in need of
reform. As part of that effort, OSM is considering several means of
reducing the number of pages in the CFR.
This rulemaking would result in a reduction of approximately 50
pages from the CFR and reduce future printing costs for the government,
and contribute to on-going efforts to make the CFR a more readable
document.
What Would Change?
The OSM Director's approval or approval in part of State program
amendments is published in the Federal Register and codified in the
CFR. The regulatory text documenting such decisions usually contains
topical outlines of the amendments and associated program citations,
the dates the amendments were submitted to OSM, and the dates the
amendments became effective. Under the revised procedures of this
rulemaking, the regulatory text for 30 CFR parts 925, 926, 931, 934,
935, 936, 938, 943, 944, 946, 948 and 950 would be limited to a tabular
presentation of the dates that States submitted amendments, and the
dates the amendments were published in the Federal Register after
approval, or partial approval, by the OSM Director. A companion rule
was proposed on May 8, 1996 (61 FR 20768), revising the information
reported at 30 CFR parts 901 through 920.
OSM believes that there is no compelling public need to codify all
of the information currently found in the regulatory text of State
program amendment approvals. Although the topical outline of an
approved amendment may be a convenient reference for members of the
public who want to begin their research of particular provisions of
that program amendment, OSM believes that the public would still find
it necessary to refer back to the final rule's Federal Register notice
for a thorough preamble discussion of those provisions. As always,
those people who would like copies of the full text of the State
program amendment may contact the State regulatory authority office or
the OSM field office with oversight authority for that State.
How Do I Get a Copy of State Program Amendments?
Copies of approved State program amendments may be obtained by
contacting the State regulatory authority or the local OSM field office
with oversight authority for that State. Addresses for these offices
are found in parts 900 through 950 of the CFR with their respective
State programs.
II. Procedural Matters
Federal Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain collections of information which require
approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this revision would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities
[[Page 26479]]
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Unfunded Mandates
This rule imposes no unfunded mandates on any government or private
entity and is in compliance with the provisions of the Unfunded
Mandates Act of 1995.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule has been reviewed by OSM and it has been determined to be
categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process in accordance with the Departmental Manual 516 DM 6,
Appendix 8.4.A.(2).
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and does
not require review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under the applicable standards
of Section 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform (61
FR 4729). In general, the requirements of Section 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988 are covered by the preamble discussion of this proposed
rule. Additional remarks follow concerning individual elements of the
Executive Order:
A. What is the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the
regulation?
The proposed rule would have no preemptive effect.
B. What is the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, if
any, including all provisions repealed or modified?
This rule does not modify the implementation of SMCRA, nor does it
modify the implementation of any other Federal statute. The preceding
discussion of this rule specifies the Federal regulatory provisions
that are affected by this rule.
C. Does the rule provide a clear and certain legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting
implication and burden reduction?
The standards established by this rule are so clear and certain as
practicable, given the complexity of the topics covered and the
mandates of SMCRA.
D. What is the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the
regulation?
This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
E. Are administrative proceedings required before parties may file
suit in court? Which proceedings apply? Is the exhaustion of
administrative remedies required?
No administrative proceedings are required before parties may file
suit in court challenging the provisions of this rule under section
526(a) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1276(a).
Prior to any judicial challenge to the application of the rule,
however, administrative procedures must be exhausted. In situations
involving OSM application of the rule, applicable administrative
procedures may be found at 43 CFR Part 4. In situations involving State
regulatory authority application of provisions equivalent to those
contained in this rule, applicable administrative procedures are set
forth in the particular State program.
F. Does the rule define key terms, either explicitly or by
reference to other regulations or statutes that explicitly define those
items?
Terms which are important to the understanding of this rule are set
forth in 30 CFR 700.5 and 701.5.
G. Does the rule address other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship of regulations set forth by the Attorney
General, with the concurrence of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, that are determined to be in accordance with the
purposes of the Executive Order?
As of the date of publication, the Attorney General and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget have not issued any
guidance on this requirement.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Parts 925, 926, 931, 934, 935, 936, 938,
943, 944, 946, 948 and 950
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: May 20, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Parts 925, 926,
931, 934, 935, 936, 938, 943, 944, 946, 948 and 950 are proposed to be
amended as follows.
PART 925--MISSOURI
1. The authority citation for part 925 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 925.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 925.15 Approval of Missouri regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 3, 1980 and March 12, 1981....... July 23, 1982.
September 7, 1982 and October 13, 1982.... January 17, 1983.
April 13, 1983............................ May 8, 1984.
March 13, 1986............................ January 7, 1987.
February 4, 1987.......................... February 26, 1988.
June 22, 1987............................. June 16, 1988.
December 14 and 18, 1987.................. October 31, 1988.
August 3, 1988............................ December 11, 1989.
July 8, 1988.............................. January 8, 1990.
March 18, 1988............................ June 5, 1990.
June 5, 1989.............................. July 6, 1990.
July 21, 1989............................. October 30, 1990.
January 12, 1989.......................... January 3, 1991.
July 8, 1988 and January 12, 1988......... May 8, 1991.
November 8, 1991.......................... September 24, 1992.
October 10, 1990.......................... September 29, 1992.
October 19, 1992.......................... December 6, 1993.
September 24, 1993........................ April 22, 1994.
February 10, 1995......................... July 13, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Section 925.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 925.25 Approval of Missouri abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
(a) You may receive copies of the Missouri abandoned mine land
reclamation plan and amendments from the:
(1) Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Land Reclamation
Program, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102;
or
(2) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Mid-
Continent Regional Coordinating Center, Alton Federal Building, 501
Belle Street, Alton, IL 62002.
(b) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 22, 1987............................. June 16, 1988.
August 22, 1988........................... March 15, 1989.
November 29, 1994......................... August 24, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 926--MONTANA
4. The authority citation for part 926 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
5. Section 926.15 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 26480]]
Sec. 926.15 Approval of Montana regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 13, 1983........................ January 3, 1984.
April 2, 1984............................. January 3, 1985.
January 3, 1984........................... November 18, 1985.
July 3, 1985.............................. February 14, 1986.
April 23, 1987............................ December 31, 1987.
December 21, 1988......................... May 11, 1990.
June 19, 1990............................. March 20, 1991 and August
19, 1992.
October 19, 1992.......................... February 25, 1994.
June 16, 1993 and July 28, 1993........... February 1, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Section 926.25 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 926.25 Approval of Montana abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
(a) Montana certification of completing all known coal-related
impacts is accepted, effective July 9, 1990.
(b) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 20, 1983............................ September 19, 1983.
March 22, 1995............................ July 19, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 931--NEW MEXICO
7. The authority citation for part 931 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
8. Section 931.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 931.15 Approval of New Mexico regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 28, 1982......................... May 27, 1982.
July 9, 1982.............................. October 26, 1982.
February 8, 1984.......................... August 1, 1984.
June 6, 1984.............................. January 4, 1985.
June 20, 1984 and July 18, 1984........... January 31, 1985.
August 12, 1987........................... February 11, 1988.
September 1, 1988......................... January 30, 1989.
June 17, 1987............................. March 9, 1989.
April 18, 1988 and October 20, 1988....... March 17, 1989.
February 21, 1989 and August 17, 1989..... December 26, 1989.
March 29, 1989 and April 26, 1989......... April 26, 1990.
May 25, 1989.............................. November 23, 1990.
July 22, 1989............................. February 26, 1991.
April 24, 1990............................ June 21, 1991.
March 15, 1990............................ December 31, 1991.
July 9, 1991.............................. April 13, 1992.
November 22, 1991......................... June 23, 1992.
January 16, 1991.......................... December 17, 1993.
October 26, 1994.......................... February 15, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 934--NORTH DAKOTA
9. The authority citation for part 934 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
10. Section 934.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 934.15 Approval of North Dakota regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30, 1982............................. February 9, 1983 and
November 9, 1983.
February 2, 1984.......................... July 19, 1984.
February 27, 1984......................... January 3, 1985.
June 18, 1985............................. February 18, 1986.
May 30, 1986.............................. October 21, 1986.
September 8, 1986......................... December 9, 1986.
April 3, 1987............................. November 16, 1987.
February 10, 1987......................... February 2, 1988.
June 1, 1988,............................. March 10, 1989.
April 11, 1989............................ August 4, 1989.
November 1, 1988.......................... January 19, 1990.
November 20, 1990......................... January 9, 1992.
June 12, 1991 and November 19, 1991....... August 20, 1992.
April 21, 1993............................ March 15, 1994 and July 22,
1994.
October 22, 1993.......................... July 22, 1994.
November 10, 1994......................... April 13, 1995.
February 17, 1994......................... July 14, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Section 934.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 934.25 Approval of North Dakota abandoned mine land reclamation
plan amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orginal amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 4, 1983............................. June 24, 1983.
September 15, 1987........................ June 16, 1988.
October 31, 1991.......................... July 27, 1992.
May 25, 1993.............................. September 27, 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 935--OHIO
12. The authority citation for part 935 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
13. Section 935.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 935.15 Approval of Ohio regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 16, 1982........................ January 17, 1983.
October 13, 1982.......................... January 31, 1983 and July
22, 1983.
January 6, 1983........................... May 24, 1983.
June 10, 1983, August 11, 1983 and August October 6, 1983.
22, 1983.
July 18, 1983............................. October 13, 1983.
January 30, 1984.......................... April 23, 1984.
February 8, 1984.......................... May 1, 1984.
December 28, 1983......................... June 5, 1984.
March 5, 1984............................. August 8, 1984.
June 15, 1984............................. September 25, 1984.
July 23, 1984............................. November 1, 1984.
March 9, 1984............................. November 7, 1984.
September 17, 1984........................ December 31, 1984.
July 10 and 23, 1984...................... March 18, 1985.
July 11, 1984 and July 23, 1984........... May 23, 1985.
July 3, 1985.............................. September 18, 1985.
November 15, 1985......................... April 9, 1986 and June 9,
1986.
January 15, 1986.......................... May 6, 1986.
October 26, 1985.......................... July 17, 1986.
November 6, 1984.......................... July 28, 1986.
March 3, 1986............................. September 18, 1986.
July 10, 1986............................. October 29, 1986.
October 8, 1986........................... March 5, 1987.
December 1, 1986 and January 13, 1987..... July 17, 1987.
May 16, 1986.............................. July 17, 1987.
January 28, 1987.......................... August 10, 1987.
June 26, 1987............................. December 9, 1987.
January 16, 1987.......................... March 10, 1988.
October 16, 1987.......................... May 27, 1988.
March 24, 1988 and August 23, 1988........ December 22, 1988.
March 8, 1988 and July 1, 1988............ January 30, 1989.
April 17, 1987............................ February 21, 1989.
November 3, 1987.......................... December 15, 1989.
January 26, 1989.......................... January 31, 1990.
[[Page 26481]]
October 2, 1989........................... April 20, 1990.
August 11, 1989........................... June 5, 1990.
December 5, 1989.......................... July 20, 1990.
October 20, 1988.......................... July 25, 1990.
May 11, 1990.............................. August 21, 1990.
March 1, 1989............................. September 18, 1990.
January 20, 1989.......................... September 24, 1990.
May 11, 1990.............................. February 21, 1991.
December 7, 1990.......................... February 26, 1991.
June 15, 1990............................. April 19, 1991.
January 31, 1991.......................... May 21, 1991 and June 6,
1991.
March 1, 1991............................. May 30, 1991.
January 31, 1989.......................... October 21, 1991.
August 23, 1991........................... December 9, 1991.
November 16, 1987 and October 12, 1990.... April 13, 1992.
January 16, 1990.......................... July 27, 1992.
July 22, 1991 and September 10, 1991...... August 18, 1992.
May 12, 1992.............................. September 11, 1992.
December 11, 1991......................... October 28, 1992.
June 30, 1992............................. January 12, 1993.
May 12, 1992 and June 22, 1992............ January 14, 1993.
December 9, 1992.......................... April 23, 1993.
February 7, 1992 and March 2, 1992........ June 11, 1993.
April 5, 1993............................. June 22, 1993.
February 11, 1993......................... August 16, 1993.
January 15, 1993.......................... September 3, 1993.
May 1, 1992 and June 11, 1993............. May 2, 1994.
May 17, 1994.............................. July 27, 1994.
March 15, 1993............................ September 1, 1994.
February 23, 1994......................... October 12, 1994.
March 4, 1993............................. November 15, 1994.
July 19, 1994............................. May 11, 1995.
May 17, 1994.............................. May 12, 1995.
September 22, 1994........................ July 17, 1995.
March 28, 1995............................ July 25, 1995.
February 2, 1995.......................... November 9, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Section 935.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 935.25 Approval of Ohio abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 6, 1983........................... May 24, 1983.
April 2, 1984............................. November 19, 1984.
August 20, 1986........................... August 17, 1987.
October 2, 1989........................... April 20, 1990.
February 19, 1992......................... September 24, 1992.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 936--OKLAHOMA
15. The authority citation for part 936 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
16. Section 936.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 936.15 Approval of Oklahoma regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 22, 1982.......................... April 2, 1982.
February 22, 1983......................... May 4, 1983.
May 13, 1983.............................. August 28, 1984.
July 8, 1983.............................. March 18, 1985.
July 16, 1985............................. December 10, 1985.
August 15, 1985........................... January 14, 1986.
September 11, 1985........................ January 16, 1986.
August 8, 1985............................ April 28, 1986.
May 18, 1988.............................. March 27, 1990 and May 15,
1990.
March 30, 1990............................ December 18, 1990 and
February 15, 1991.
June 21, 1990............................. January 9, 1991.
February 6, 1992.......................... December 7, 1993.
February 17, 1994......................... January 10, 1995.
Septemver 14, 1994........................ March 10 and 29, 1995.
July 5, 1995.............................. November 9, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 938--PENNSYLVANIA
17. The authority citation for part 938 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
18. Section 938.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 938.15 Approval of Pennsylvania Regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 26, 1983 and May 12, 1983........... October 5, 1983.
August 1, 1983............................ January 4, 1984.
January 17, 1984.......................... March 20, 1984.
October 31, 1983.......................... May 15, 1984 and July 3,
1984.
March 30, 1984............................ November 27, 1984.
March 2, 1984............................. April 4, 1985.
April 19, 1985............................ August 15, 1985.
April 16, 1985............................ November 4, 1985.
September 5, 1985......................... February 19, 1986.
November 2, 1984.......................... May 19, 1986.
September 30, 1985........................ September 8, 1986.
April 18, 1985............................ June 18, 1987.
January 22, 1987.......................... July 14, 1987.
April 14, 1987............................ October 27, 1988.
December 5, 1988.......................... July 14, 1989.
August 17, 1988........................... August 18, 1989.
August 21, 1986........................... November 3, 1989.
December 22, 1989......................... May 31, 1991.
September 24, 1986........................ October 24, 1991.
May 27, 1992.............................. October 28, 1992.
June 2, 1992.............................. November 16, 1992.
December 18, 1991......................... December 30, 1992, January
14, 1993 and April 8, 1993.
February 18, 1993......................... July 6, 1993.
March 9, 1993............................. December 6, 1993.
May 11, 1993.............................. July 20, 1994.
October 24, 1994.......................... April 3, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Section 938.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 938.25 Approval of Pennsylvania abandoned mine land reclamation
plan amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 17, 1992............................ October 30, 1992.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 943--TEXAS
20. The authority citation for part 943 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
21. Section 943.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 943.15 Approval of Texas regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 27, 1980............................ November 26, 1980.
September 18, 1981........................ June 3, 1982.
August 31, 1984........................... July 9, 1985.
August 24, 1988........................... December 11, 1989.
June 24, 1991............................. February 19, 1992.
December 23, 1991......................... April 17, 1992.
September 12, 1989........................ May 21, 1992.
September 22, 1989........................ August 19, 1992.
February 8, 1993.......................... March 21, 1994.
May 24, 1994.............................. March 27, 1995.
August 11, 1995........................... December 13, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Section 943.25 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 26482]]
Sec. 943.25 Approval of Texas abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
(a) Texas certification of completing all known coal-related
impacts is accepted, effective August 19, 1992.
(b) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 11, and May 26, 1989.................. August 19, 1992.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 944--UTAH
23. The authority citation for part 943 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
24. Section 944.15 is revised to read as follow:
Sec. 944.15 Approval of Utah regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 29, 1981............................. June 22, 1982.
May 21, 1981.............................. September 27, 1982.
August 26, 1982........................... December 13, 1982.
December 3, 1982.......................... March 7, 1983.
February 6, 1984.......................... August 29, 1984 and December
18, 1985.
August 13, 1984........................... December 3, 1985.
October 9, 1985........................... January 16, 1986.
January 21, 1985.......................... June 10, 1986.
March 3, 1986............................. July 28, 1986.
September 3, 1986......................... January 28, 1987.
January 8, 1988........................... March 28, 1988.
September 24, 1987........................ August 18, 1988.
August 11, 1989........................... April 12, 1990.
November 13, 1989......................... August 13, 1990.
October 10, 1990.......................... January 29, 1991.
July 3, 1990.............................. August 23, 1991.
March 1, 1991............................. November 22, 1991.
December 30, 1991......................... May 11, 1992.
July 26, 1991............................. August 19, 1992.
November 20, 1991......................... September 11, 1992.
November 5, 1992.......................... March 30, 1993.
April 30, 1992............................ September 17, 1993.
September 17, 1992........................ April 7, 1994.
March 7, 1994............................. May 24, 1994 and September
27, 1994.
August 2, 1993............................ July 11, 1994.
January 27, 1994.......................... September 27, 1994.
September 9, 1994......................... March 27, 1995.
February 10, 1995......................... May 2, 1995.
November 12, 1993......................... May 30, 1995.
April 14, 1994............................ July 19, 1995.
February 6, 1995.......................... September 14, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Section 944.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 944.25 Approval of Utah abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 26, 1991............................. August 19, 1992.
March 7, 1994............................. September 27, 1994.
April 14, 1994............................ July 19, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 946--VIRGINIA
26. The authority citation for part 946 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
27. Section 946.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 946.15 Approval of Virginia regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 28, 1982.......................... July 21, 1982.
July 9, 1982.............................. August 19, 1982.
July 8, 1982.............................. September 21, 1982.
August 13, 1982........................... December 13, 1982.
September 30, 1982........................ January 18, 1983.
December 20, 1982......................... February 28, 1983.
March 22, 1983............................ April 21, 1983 and June 6,
1983 and June 20, 1983.
July 9, 1982.............................. April 22, 1983.
May 20, 1983.............................. December 27, 1983.
July 27, 1983............................. March 16, 1984.
February 10, 1984......................... May 8, 1984.
April 11, 1984............................ August 2, 1984.
June 13, 1984............................. August 31, 1984.
February 20, 1985......................... May 8, 1985.
May 1985.................................. August 15, 1985.
September 4, 1985......................... November 18, 1985.
November 8, 1985.......................... November 25, 1986.
March 20, 1987............................ July 17, 1987.
January 16, 1987.......................... August 17, 1987.
June 15, 1987 and July 2, 1987............ December 31, 1987.
September 1, 1987......................... March 7, 1988.
September 10, 1987........................ June 16, 1988.
June 30, 1989............................. December 1, 1989.
July 5, 1989.............................. February 2, 1990.
April 6, 1988............................. February 5, 1990.
August 31, 1990........................... December 7, 1990.
September 12, 1990........................ December 26, 1990.
June 29, 1990............................. January 4, 1991.
April 5, 1991 and May 1, 1991............. August 5, 1991.
October 1, 1990........................... July 7, 1992.
May 6, 1993............................... September 24, 1993.
October 22,1993........................... September 27, 1994.
October 31, 1994.......................... August 8, 1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Section 946.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 946.25 Approval of Virginia abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
(a) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 8, 1985.......................... November 25, 1986.
February 3, 1987.......................... November 13, 1987.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) You may receive a copy from:
(1) Virginia Division of Mined Land Reclamation, P.O. Drawer 900, Big
Stone Gap, Virginia 24219, or
(2) Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Big Stone Gap
Field Office, P.O. Drawer 1216, Powell Valley Square Shopping Center,
room 220, Route 23, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219.
PART 948--WEST VIRGINIA
29. The authority citation for part 948 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
30. Section 948.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 948.15 Approval of West Virginia regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 29, 1981.......................... May 11, 1982.
June 17, 1982............................. September 10, 1982.
September 14, 1982 and October 29, 1982... March 1, 1983.
February 16, 1983, April 29, 1983, June November 16, 1983.
15, 1983 and September 13, 1983.
January 12, 1984.......................... September 20, 1984.
November 20, 1984......................... April 23, 1985.
March 30, 1984, October 30, 1984, May 20, July 11, 1985.
1985 and June 14, 1985.
[[Page 26483]]
November 11, 1985......................... March 20, 1986.
June 30, 1986 and April 26, 1986.......... May 23, 1990.
June 29, 1990............................. October 4, 1991.
July 12, 1991............................. November 19, 1991.
July 30, 1993............................. August 16, 1995.
June 28, 1993............................. October 4, 1995 and February
21, 1996.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Section 948.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 948.25 Approval of West Virginia abandoned mine land reclamation
plan amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 20, 1985.............................. July 11, 1985.
December 30, 1987......................... August 26, 1988.
September 17, 1991 and October 25, 1991... March 26, 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 950--WYOMING
32. The authority citation for part 950 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
33. Section 950.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 950.15 Approval of Wyoming regulatory program amendments.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to
OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 26, 1981 and April 8, 1981.......... February 18, 1982.
May 26, 1982.............................. September 27, 1982.
March 3, 1983, March 8, 1983 and March 21, November 9, 1983.
1983.
June 25, 1984............................. February 28, 1985.
September 21, 1984........................ December 3, 1985.
October 12, 1984.......................... December 13, 1985.
June 19, 1985............................. January 2, 1986.
June 10, 1985............................. March 31, 1986.
May 1, 1986............................... November 24, 1986.
December 13, 1985......................... May 6, 1987.
March 31, 1989............................ July 25, 1990.
May 1, 1986............................... January 29, 1991.
March 21, 1991............................ July 8, 1992.
June 24, 1991............................. October 29, 1992.
March 19, 1993............................ August 23, 1993.
July 8, 1992.............................. October 7, 1993.
July 24, 1992............................. November 2, 1993.
August 18, 1982 and March 9, 1993......... January 24, 1994.
December 15, and August 6, 1993........... March 30, 1994.
May 1, 1986............................... June 30, 1994.
April 13, 1994............................ October 21, 1994.
November 8, 1994.......................... March 17, 1995.
June 2, 1995.............................. September 14, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. Section 950.35 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 950.35 Approval of Wyoming abandoned mine land reclamation plan
amendments.
(a) Wyoming certification of completing all known coal-related
impacts is accepted, effective May 25, 1984.
(b) The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted
to OSM and the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or
portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original amendment submission date Date of final publication
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 16, 1991......................... April 13, 1992.
April 21, 1995............................ February 21, 1996.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-13260 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13254 Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Rochester, MN
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13254]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AGL-1]
Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Rochester, MN
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action withdraws the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
which amended the Class E airspace at Rochester, MN. The airspace, as
published, was incomplete and will be reissued subsequently with the
corrected airspace description.
DATES: May 28, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John A. Clayborn, Air Traffic Division, Operations Branch, AGL-530,
Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60018, telephone (847) 294-7459.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Proposed Rule
On March 22, 1996, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in
the Federal Register to amend the Class E airspace at Rochester, MN.
This was necessary to accommodate the new Copter GPS 325 degrees
approach procedure to St. Mary's Hospital Heliport, Rochester, MN (61
FR 11792). The airspace description, as published, was incomplete;
therefore this NPRM is being withdrawn and will be reissued.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Airspace
Docket No. 96-AGL-1, as published in the Federal Register on March 22,
1996 (61 FR 11792), is hereby withdrawn.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 14 CFR 11.69.
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on May 1, 1996.
Maureen Woods,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 96-13254 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13247 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Final Indirect Cost Rates
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26766-26767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13247]
[[Page 26765]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Defense
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
48 CFR Parts 42 and 52
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Final Indirect Cost Rates; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 28, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 26766]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 42 and 52
[FAR Case 95-018]
RIN 9000-AG88
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Final Indirect Cost Rates
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 and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council are proposing to amend the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to revise the procedures relating to final
indirect cost rates. This regulatory action was not subject to Office
of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated
September 30, 1993. This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before July 29, 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 95-018 in all correspondence related to this
case.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda Klein at (202) 501-3775 in
reference to this FAR case. For general information, contact the FAR
Secretariat, Room 4037, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405 (202) 501-
4755. Please cite FAR case 95-018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
This proposed rule amends FAR Subpart 42.7 to permit, with certain
restrictions, increased interim payments to contractors under certain
circumstances. FAR 42.704 is amended to permit, with certain
restrictions, contractor use of billing rates contained in certified
final indirect cost rate proposals. The clauses at FAR 52.216-7 and
52.216-13 are revised to establish a timeframe for contractor
submission of final vouchers. The clauses at 52.216-8 through 52.216-10
are revised to require release of 75 percent of all fee withholds under
physically completed cost-type contracts, and to permit release of 90
percent of all withholds in certain circumstances.
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 business are awarded on the basis of firm-
fixed-price, and settlement of final indirect cost rates is, therefore,
not an issue. Furthermore, any impact of this rule would be to reduce
cost and administrative burdens on both contractors and Government. 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 5 U.S.C. 610 of the Act.
Such comments must be submitted separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601
et seq. (FAR case 95-018), 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.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 42 and 52
Government procurement.
Dated: May 21, 1996.
Edward C. Loeb,
Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
Therefore, it is proposed that 48 CFR Parts 42 and 52 be amended as
set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 42 and 52 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. 2301 to 2331; and 42
U.S.C. 2473(c).
PART 42--CONTRACTOR ADMINISTRATION
2. Section 42.704 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
42.704 Billing rates.
* * * * *
(e) When the contractor provides to the cognizant contracting
officer the certified final indirect cost rate proposal in accordance
with 42.705-1(b) or 42.705-2(b), the contractor may bill the proposed
indirect cost rates, as approved by the Government to reflect
historically disallowed amounts from prior years' audits, until the
proposal has been audited and settled. The historical decrement will be
determined by either the cognizant contracting officer (42.705-1(b)) or
the cognizant auditor (42.705-2(b)).
3. Section 42.705 is revised to read as follows:
42.705 Final indirect cost rates.
(a) Final indirect cost rates shall be established on the basis
of--
(1) Contracting officer determination procedure (see 42.705-1) or
(2) Auditor determination procedure (see 42.705-2).
(b) Within 120 days after settlement of the final indirect cost
rates, the contractor shall submit a completion invoice or voucher
reflecting the settled amounts and rates on all contracts physically
completed in the year covered by the proposal.
PART 52--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
4. Section 52.216-7 is amended by revising the date of the clause;
redesignating paragraph (d)(4) as (d)(5) and adding a new paragraph
(d)(4); and revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:
52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment.
* * * * *
Allowable Cost and Payment (Date)
(d) * * *
(4) Within 120 days after settlement of the final indirect cost
rates covering the year in which this contract is physically
complete, the Contractor shall submit a completion invoice or
voucher to reflect the settled amounts and rates.
* * * * *
(h) Final payment. (1) Upon approval of a completion invoice or
voucher submitted by the Contractor in accordance with paragraph
(d)(4) of this clause, and upon the Contractor's compliance with all
terms of this contract, the Government shall promptly pay any
balance of allowable costs and that part of the fee (if any) not
previously paid.
* * * * *
5. Section 52.216-8 is amended by revising the date and paragraph
(b) of the clause to read as follows:
52.216-8 Fixed fee.
* * * * *
Fixed-Fee (Date)
* * * * *
(b) The Contracting Officer shall release 75 percent of all fee
withholds under this contract after receipt of the certified final
indirect cost rate proposal covering the year of physical completion
of this contract, provided the Contractor has satisfied all other
contract terms and conditions,
[[Page 26767]]
including the submission of the final patent and royalty reports,
and is not delinquent in submitting final vouchers on prior years'
settlements. The Contracting Officer may release up to 90 percent of
the fee withhold under this contract based on the Contractor's past
performance related to the submission and settlement of final
indirect cost rate proposals.
(End of clause)
6. Section 52.216-9 is amended by revising the date and paragraph
(c) of the clause to read as follows:
52.216-9 Fixed-Fee--Construction.
* * * * *
Fixed-Fee--Construction (Date)
* * * * *
(c) The Contracting Officer shall release 75 percent of all fee
withholds under this contract after receipt of the certified final
indirect cost rate proposal covering the year of physical completion
of this contract, provided the Contractor has satisfied all other
contract terms and conditions, including the submission of the final
patent and royalty reports, and is not delinquent in submitting
final vouchers on prior years' settlements. The Contracting Officer
may release up to 90 percent of the fee withhold under this contract
based on the Contractor's past performance related to the submission
and settlement of final indirect cost rate proposals.
7. Section 52.216-10 is amended by revising the date of the clause;
and adding two sentences to the end of paragraph (c); to read as
follows:
52.216-10 Incentive Fee.
* * * * *
Incentive Fee (Date)
* * * * *-
(c) * * * The Contracting Officer shall release 75 percent of
all fee withholds under this contract after receipt of the certified
final indirect cost rate proposal covering the year of physical
completion of this contract, provided the Contractor has satisfied
all other contract terms and conditions, including the submission of
the final patent and royalty reports, and is not delinquent in
submitting final vouchers on prior years' settlements. The
Contracting Officer may release up to 90 percent of the fee withhold
under this contract based on the Contractor's past performance
related to the submission and settlement of final indirect cost rate
proposals.
* * * * *
(End of clause)-
8. Section 52.216-13 is amended by revising the date of the clause;
redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as (c)(5) and adding a new paragraph
(c)(4); and by revising the date and paragraph (h) of Alternate I to
read as follows:
52.216-13 Allowable Cost and Payment--Facilities.
* * * * *
Allowable Cost and Payment--Facilities (Date)
* * * * *-
(c) * * *-
(4) Within 120 days after settlement of the final indirect cost
rate covering the year in which this contract is physically
complete, the Contractor shall submit a completion invoice or
voucher to reflect the settled amounts and rates.
* * * * *
(End of clause)-
Alternate I (Date) * * *
* * * * *-
(h) Final payment. Upon approval of a completion invoice or
voucher submitted by the Contractor in accordance with paragraph
(c)(4) of this clause, and upon the Contractor's compliance with all
terms of this contract, the Government shall promptly pay any
balance of allowable costs not previously paid.
[FR Doc. 96-13247 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13246 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Elimination of Nonstatutory Certifications
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26496-26497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13246]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Chapter 1
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Elimination of Nonstatutory
Certifications
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Agenda for public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By Federal Register notice dated May 14, 1996 (61 FR 24263),
the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Federal
Acquisition Regulatory Council announced a public meeting to discuss
implementation of Section 4301(b) for the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104). The notice
stated that there would be an interactive meeting between the Federal
Acquisition Regulatory Council, other Government representatives (from
the procurement, legal and Inspector General communities), and
industry. The purpose of this notice is to provide a sample of the
types of issues/questions that will be posed for discussion and to
solicit additional questions/issues from the public. Suggestions thus
far include:
1. What are the requirements of Section 4301(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106)?
2. What role do certifications required in the FAR play in the
Federal procurement process? Is this role one that should be preserved
or discontinued? Why?
3. What are the positive aspects of FAR certification requirements?
What concerns or issues, if any, do they create for Government? What
concerns or issues, if any, do they create for offerors/contractors?
4. What are the negative aspects of FAR certification requirements?
What concerns or issues, if any, do they create for Government? What
concerns or issues, if any, do they create for offerors/contractors?
5. Do FAR requirements for prime Government contractors to include
certification requirements in their subcontract provide benefits for
Government or for offerors/contractors? Do such requirements create
concerns or issues for Government or offerors/contractors?
6. Identify any existing FAR certification requirements that are
especially burdensome to offerors/contractors. Describe the nature of
the burden, and indicate whether or not any benefit derived from the
requirement outweighs the burden.
7. In implementing the requirements of Section 4301, what criteria
should be used to determine whether or not a particular certification,
other than those mandated by statute, should be retained or deleted?
8. Do the FAR certification requirements affect whether or not
commercial firms, or commercial divisions of firms, are interested in
selling supplies or services to the Government? Why or why not?
9. If the FAR certification requirements do provide a benefit to
the Federal procurement process that is worth preserving, is there an
alternative means by which the same benefit can be provided?
10. Do certifications promote socially useful efforts by companies
to assure that they are in compliance with the law? How useful are
these certifications in ensuring the integrity of the procurement
process?
11. How should we view the suggestion that certifications make it
easier to prosecute cases against those the Government suspects of
criminal wrongdoing? Do certifications make it ``too easy'' for the
Government to win, or does it allow the Government to overcome the
proof of burden that would otherwise be almost impossible to meet?
DATES: The public meeting will be conducted at the address shown below
from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Eastern daylight time, on June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the White House Conference
Center, Truman Room, 726 Jackson Place, NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Suggestions for other questions/issues should be sent prior to the
meeting to Mike Mutty, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, PDUSD
(A&T) DP(DAR), IMD 3D129, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-
3062, or by FAX to (703) 602-0350.
[[Page 26497]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Mutty, Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council, at (703) 602-0131, FAX (703) 602-0350.
Dated: May 21, 1996.
Edward C. Loeb,
Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. 96-13246 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13226 Truth in Savings
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26470-26471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13226]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 230
[Regulation DD; Docket No. R-0904]
Truth in Savings
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed official staff interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is withdrawing proposed revisions to the official
staff commentary to Regulation DD (Truth in Savings) concerning
guidance on issues of general interest, based on considerations of
regulatory burden which was published in the Federal Register on
December 6, 1995.
DATES: The proposal is withdrawn May 21, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Ahrens, Senior Attorney, or
Michael L. Hentrel, Staff Attorney, Division of Consumer and Community
Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, at (202)
452-3667 or 452-2412. For users of Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (TDD) only, please contact Dorothea Thompson, at (202) 452-3544.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The purpose of the Truth in Savings Act (TISA), 12 U.S.C. 4301 et
seq., is to assist consumers in comparing deposit accounts offered by
depository institutions. The TISA requires institutions to disclose
fees, the interest rate, the annual percentage yield (APY), and other
account terms whenever a consumer requests the information and before
an account is opened. Fees and other information also must be provided
on any periodic statement the
[[Page 26471]]
institution sends to the consumer. Rules are set forth for deposit
account advertisements and advance notices to account holders of
adverse changes in terms. The act restricts how institutions must
determine the account balance on which interest is calculated. The TISA
is implemented by the Board's Regulation DD (12 CFR part 230). The
regulation authorizes the issuance of official staff interpretations.
On December 6, 1995 (60 FR 62349), the Board published for comment
proposed amendments to the commentary to Regulation DD. Mainly, the
proposed revisions provided guidance on technical matters such as the
effect of a leap year on the calculation of interest, the APY and the
annual percentage yield earned (APYE). Comments addressing other
technical issues concerning the definition of bonuses and time accounts
were also proposed.
The Board received nearly 50 comments on its proposal. About 90
percent of the comments were from financial institutions. By far,
commenters focused on the proposals addressing leap-year calculations
and compounding and crediting policies. Overall, comments were mixed.
Some supported the proposals as helpful clarifications. Others opposed
the proposals--particularly the revisions concerning calculations in a
leap year and crediting interest--as being unduly technical and
unnecessary. Based on the comments received and upon further analysis,
the Board is withdrawing all proposed commentary revisions, due to
considerations of regulatory burden and the narrow scope of the
proposals.
II. Discussion
Leap-Year Calculations
Regulation DD requires institutions to pay interest on the full
amount of principal in an interest-bearing account each day.
Institutions may apply a daily rate of 1/365 or 1/366 of the interest
rate during a leap year. On August 8, 1994, the Board issued a final
staff commentary for Regulation DD (59 FR 40217). Comment 7(a) (1)-4
clarified that institutions may apply a daily rate of 1/365 or 1/366 of
the interest rate for 366 days during a leap year, if the account will
earn interest for February 29.
The Board published on December 6, 1995 proposed revisions to the
commentary that further discussed leap-year calculations of interest,
as well as the APY and the APYE. Numerous commenters opposed the
proposed revisions (60 FR 62349). Many believed the regulation
sufficiently addresses the rule, and that highly technical
interpretations were neither necessary nor desirable. Other commenters
opposed the Board's existing rule that permits institutions sometimes
to use a daily factor of 1/366 or 1/365 during a leap year--although
these commenters represent both ends of the spectrum. Some believe a
daily factor of 1/366 should never be used; others would expand its
use, for example to all accounts during a calendar leap year. Not all
commenters opposed the proposal. Some supported the revisions, and
sought further elaboration about calculations for a variety of specific
accounts. After reviewing the concerns raised and upon further
analysis, the Board has decided not to adopt the proposed comments
addressing leap-year calculations. The Board believes that for some
institutions, a variety of specific examples would be helpful; overall,
however, the Board believes the level of technical guidance proposed is
not necessary. The regulation and commentary provide general guidance
on leap-year calculations, which, on balance, the Board believes is the
appropriate level of interpretive detail at this time.
Compounding and Crediting Policies
Institutions must pay interest on the full amount of principal in
the account each day, but may compound or credit interest at any
frequency. Neither the TISA nor the regulation define ``compounding,''
``crediting,'' or ``principal.'' Proposed comment 7 (b)-4 would have
provided that once interest is credited to an account it becomes part
of the principal, and if interest remains in the account, interest must
accrue on those funds.
Many commenters addressing the issue favored the proposal as a
clarification of current banking practice. However, many others were
opposed to the proposal. Commenters raised several related concerns
arising out of the proposal about the definition of terms such as
``posting,'' ``crediting,'' and ``principal.'' Those commenters argued
that the Board's proposal raised issues that should properly be
addressed after further notice and opportunity for public comment.
Others were concerned about the effect of the proposal on time accounts
that permit consumers to withdraw credited interest during the account
term without penalty. They argued that if this interest were to be
considered part of the principal, early withdrawal penalties could be
triggered under some account agreements. Some commenters also stated
that the TISA and Regulation DD do not require such a reading of the
rules regarding the payment of interest. Many stated that the proposal
would result in a reduction of account choices or interest rates
available to consumers for those institutions wishing to avoid accruing
interest on interest credited to and remaining in the account.
The Board believes a number of valid concerns were raised about
issues that were not addressed in the proposal. Accordingly, the Board
is withdrawing the comment and will consider whether further guidance
is needed in the future on these matters.
Other Proposed Revisions
The proposed commentary update also addressed rounding rules for
the APYE and the definitions of time account and bonuses. Given the
technical nature and narrow application of these remaining proposals,
the Board believes the cost and regulatory burden of reviewing and
implementing changes associated with these provisions outweighs the
benefits of additional official guidance, and is therefore withdrawing
all proposed comments.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated
authority, May 21, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-13226 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13225 Loan Guarantees for Defense Production
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26471-26473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13225]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 245
[Regulation V; Docket No. R-0928]
Loan Guarantees for Defense Production
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Board is proposing to abolish its Regulation V as
obsolete. This consideration does not represent any major policy
change, but rather is intended to eliminate an outmoded regulation and
reduce regulatory burden.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments, which should refer to Docket No. R-0928, may be
mailed to Mr. William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20551. Comments addressed to Mr. Wiles also may be
delivered to the Board's mail room between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. and
to the security control room outside of
[[Page 26472]]
those hours. Both the mail room and the security control room are
accessible from the courtyard entrance on 20th Street between
Constitution Avenue and C Street, N.W. Comments may be inspected in
Room M-P-500 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oliver Ireland, Associate General
Counsel (202-452-3625), Heatherun Allison, Attorney (202-452-3565),
Legal Division; for users of the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
(TDD) only, Dorothea Thompson (202-452-3544); Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory Review
Pursuant to Section 303 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (the Board) is conducting a review of its
regulations and written policies in order to improve efficiency, reduce
unnecessary costs, eliminate unwarranted constraints on credit
availability, and to remove inconsistencies and outmoded and
duplicative requirements. As part of this review, the Board is
proposing to abolish Regulation V (12 CFR part 245), concerning the
loan guarantee program under the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
App. U.S.C. 2061) (the Act). The Board is requesting public comment on
this proposed regulatory change, as well as soliciting the views of the
guaranteeing departments and agencies (as defined in the Act)
consistent with Executive Order 12919 (June 3, 1994) and Executive
Order 10789 (Nov. 14, 1958) (as amended), implementing the Act.
Authority for Regulation V
The Board promulgated Regulation V (12 CFR 245) pursuant to the Act
``to facilitate the financing of contracts or other operations deemed
necessary to national defense production.'' Section 301(a)(1) of the
Act allows the President to authorize ``guaranteeing agencies'' to
enter into guarantees with public or private financing institutions
concerning contracts ``deemed by the guaranteeing agency to be
necessary to expedite or expand production and deliveries or services
under Government contracts for the procurement of industrial resources
or critical technology items essential to the national defense, or for
the purpose of financing any contractor, subcontractor or other person
in connection with or in contemplation of the termination, in the
interest of the United States, of any contract made for the national
defense; * * *'' Section 301(a)(1) of the Act defines ``guaranteeing
agencies'' as the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the
Department of Commerce, ``and such other agencies of the United States
engaged in procurement for the national defense as he may designate.''
Exec. Order No. 12,919 (1994) provides that ``the head of each
Federal department or agency engaged in procurement for the national
defense * * * and the President and chairman of the Export-Import Bank
of the United States'' is authorized to guarantee public or private
financing institutions as provided in Section 301 of the Act.\1\ In
furtherance of this authorization, Exec. Order No. 12,919 provides that
``The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is authorized,
after consultation with heads of guaranteeing departments and agencies,
the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director, OMB, to prescribe
regulations governing procedures, forms, rates of interest, and fees
for [loan] guarantee contracts.'' Exec. Order. No. 12919, 59 FR 29,525
(1994).\2\ The Board exercised this authorization in implementing
Regulation V in the 1950s. Regulation V was modified and streamlined in
1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``head of each Federal department or agency engaged in
procurement for the national defense'' is defined as the head of
each of the departments and agencies listed in Exec. Order No.
10,789 (1958), consisting of the following Departments: Defense,
Army, Navy, Air Force, Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce,
Transportation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, General Services
Administration, National Aeronautics & Space Administration,
Tennessee Valley Authority, Government Printing Office, and Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Exec. Order No. 10,789, 23 Fed. Reg.
8,897 (1958), as amended.
\2\ A similar provision was formerly set forth in Section 302(c)
of Exec. Order No. 10,480 (1953). Exec. Order No. 10,480 was revoked
by Exec. Order No. 12,919 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose of Regulation V
The loan guarantee provisions of the Act were intended to permit
defense agencies to enter into defense-related contracts without regard
to whether appropriations had been made for the underlying projects.
Without the appropriations, defense agencies would lack the legal
authority to make progress payments to defense contractors. Without
progress payments, contractors would not have the working capital to
perform their contracts unless they could obtain financing from private
banking institutions, which might be reluctant to lend for the
performance of contracts if the funds for the contract had not been
appropriated. Thus, while the Act contemplates that defense-contract
funding would be obtained from private banks, the loan guarantees
provisions of the Act would enable the funding and therefore the
continued production of items deemed necessary to the national defense
by ensuring private banks of repayment when the contract was completed.
Regulation V sets forth applicable procedures, forms, fees, charges and
rates of interest for these loan guarantees, in which a Federal Reserve
Bank acts as the fiscal agent of one or more specified federal
departments or agencies for the guarantee by that department or agency
of a defense production loan made by a private financing institution.
Decline in Use of Regulation V
The Act and the Executive Orders implementing it have periodically
expired and subsequently been reauthorized. However, in 1975, the Act
was amended to make the guarantee provisions unnecessary for most
practical purposes. These amendments provided that ``all authority
hereby or hereafter extended under title III [relating to expansion of
productive capacity and supply, including loan guarantee provisions]
shall be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or in such
amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation Acts.'' 50 U.S.C.
App. 2166(a). Thus, under the 1975 amendments, defense agencies that
have authority to authorize loan guarantees have authority to do so
only if funds have been appropriated for the contract in question. Once
funds have been appropriated, however, there is little need for the
guarantee, because the appropriated funds can be paid timely in
accordance with the defense contracts. Notwithstanding the 1975
amendments, the loan guarantee provisions of the Act were not deleted.
No loan guarantees are currently outstanding and no applications for
loan guarantees have been filed for several years.
Current Regulatory Review Proposal
Repealing Regulation V would achieve the objectives of Section 303
of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of
1994 by improving efficiency and removing outmoded requirements while
at the same time not adversely affecting the abilities of any parties
to participate in a loan guarantee should the need arise. Repealing
Regulation V would not affect the existence or availability of the loan
guarantee program as provided by the Act. Although the 1975 amendments
to the Act make it unlikely that a loan guarantee application will be
filed, the Board and the Federal Reserve Banks would be able to perform
their fiscal
[[Page 26473]]
agency and application coordination responsibilities under the Act if
such an application were filed using fiscal agency procedures already
in place in other contexts and on a case-by-case basis.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to publish an initial regulatory flexibility analysis with any
notice of proposed rulemaking. Two of the requirements of an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603(b) (1)-(2)), a
description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered
and a statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposal, are contained in the supplementary material above. The
proposal rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping
requirements and does not overlap with other federal rules. (5 U.S.C.
603(b) (4)-(5).)
Another requirement for the initial regulatory flexibility analysis
is a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. (5 U.S.C.
603(b)(3).) The proposal will apply to all depository institutions
regardless of size. The proposal seeks to eliminate an obsolete
regulatory provision and does not impose any substantial economic
burden on small entities.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, May 21, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-13225 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-13194 Service of Process; Production of Official Information; and Testimony of Agency Employees
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26474-26477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13194]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY
22 CFR Part 608
Service of Process; Production of Official Information; and
Testimony of Agency Employees
AGENCY: Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would establish or clarify policies,
practices, responsibilities, and procedures for the service of legal
process upon the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
(ACDA, the Agency), its officers, and employees, and the production of
official ACDA information and the appearance of and testimony by ACDA
employees as witnesses in connection with litigation. This rule is
procedural in nature. Although not required to do so, ACDA is
voluntarily publishing this proposed rule for public comment.
DATES: To be considered, comments must be delivered by mail or in
person to the address, or faxed to the telephone number, listed below
by 5 p.m. on Friday, June 28, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to the Office of the General
Counsel, United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Room 5636,
320 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20451; FAX (202) 647-0024.
Comments will be available for inspection between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m.
at the same address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frederick Smith, Jr., United States Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, Room 5635, 320 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20451,
telephone (202) 647-3596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General
This proposed rule is intended to clarify ACDA policies and
practices regarding litigation-related matters such as service of
process upon ACDA and ACDA employees and the production of official
ACDA information in litigation. ACDA anticipates that the rule, which
generally parallels similar rules which have been adopted by numerous
other federal agencies, e.g., the Department of Defense (32 CFR part
97), the Department of Justice (28 CFR part 16, subpart B), the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (10 CFR part 9, subpart D), and the Department of
State (22 CFR part 172), will eliminate or reduce current ambiguities
regarding such matters for ACDA employees, as well as for private
attorneys and judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. ACDA also
expects that this rule will promote consistency in ACDA's assertions of
privileges and objections, thereby reducing the potential for both
inappropriate, potentially harmful disclosure of protected information
and wasteful or inappropriate allocation of Agency resources. Although
the proposed rule is largely self-explanatory, we describe the general
scheme of the several subsections below for the readers' ease of
reference.
Service of Process
Part 604.4(b) of 22 CFR establishes the Agency's Office of the
General Counsel as the designated office for the presentation of
administrative claims asserted under the Federal Tort Claims Act (and
22 CFR parts 602, 603, and 605 set forth procedures for administrative
requests under the Freedom of Information Act, under the Privacy Act,
and for declassification of national security information,
respectively). However, until the present, the Agency has not had
regulations establishing the Agency's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate, as the sole Agency recipient for litigation-related demands,
whether civil or criminal, for official Agency information, whether
oral or documentary, or for other Agency action. The proposed rule also
clarifies that ACDA is not an agent for service on behalf of its
employees in respect of purely private legal disputes and explains that
ACDA will counsel its employees not to use their official positions to
evade judicial process.
Compliance With Requests or Demands for Official Information
Fundamentally, the compliance sections of the proposed rule
(Sec. Sec. 608.4-608.9) simply track, to a greater or lesser degree,
similar regulations which have been adopted by other federal agencies
(such as those referenced above), and which derive from the Supreme
Court's decision in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462
(1951). Thus, the principal thrust of the compliance provisions of the
proposed rule is that Agency employees (including former employees)
must obtain the approval of the Agency's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate, prior to responding to any subpoenas or other litigation-
related requests or demands for Agency information, whether classified
or unclassified, that relate to the employee's official duties.
Significantly, Sec. 608.5 requires the party who initiates a
litigation-related request or demand for official ACDA information to
provide a written statement providing specified information concerning
the nature and scope of the demand.
Finally, the proposed rule describes factors, among others, that
Agency officials shall take into consideration when considering
litigation-related requests or demands and specifies that Agency
employees may ordinarily not provide expert or official testimony on
behalf of private parties.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
It is hereby certified that the proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 12866 Determination
ACDA has determined that the proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of section 3(f) of that Executive
Order.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
The proposed rule is not subject to the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act because it does not contain any information collection
requirements within the meaning of that Act.
[[Page 26475]]
Unfunded Mandates Act Determination
ACDA has determined that the proposed rule will not result in
expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private
sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, a
budgetary impact statement is not required under section 202 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532.
List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 608
Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information,
Government employees.
The Proposed Regulations
ACDA proposes to amend title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations
by adding a new part 608 as follows:
PART 608--SERVICE OF PROCESS; PRODUCTION OR DISCLOSURE OF OFFICIAL
INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO COURT ORDERS, SUBPOENAS, NOTICES OF
DEPOSITIONS, REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, OR SIMILAR
REQUESTS OR DEMANDS IN CONNECTION WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LITIGATION;
EXPERT TESTIMONY
Sec.
608.1 Purpose and scope; definitions.
608.2 Service of summonses and complaints.
608.3 Service of subpoenas, court orders, and other demands or
requests for official information or action.
608.4 Testimony and production of documents prohibited unless
approved by appropriate Agency officials.
608.5 Procedure when testimony or production of documents is
sought--general.
608.6 Procedure when response to demand is required prior to
receiving instructions.
608.7 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.
608.8 Considerations in determining whether the Agency will comply
with a demand or request.
608.9 Prohibition on providing expert or opinion testimony.
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2581(j).
Sec. 608.1 Purpose and scope; definitions.
(a) This part sets forth the procedures to be followed with respect
to:
(1) Service of summonses and complaints or other requests or
demands directed to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA,
the Agency) or to any ACDA employee or former employee in connection
with federal or state litigation arising out of or involving the
performance of official activities of ACDA; and
(2) The oral or written disclosure, in response to subpoenas,
orders, or other requests or demands of federal or state judicial or
quasi-judicial authority (collectively, ``demands''), whether civil or
criminal in nature, or in response to requests for depositions,
affidavits, admissions, responses to interrogatories, document
production, or other litigation-related matters, pursuant to the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, or applicable state rules (collectively, ``requests''), of
any material contained in the files of the Agency, any information
relating to material contained in the files of the Agency, or any
information acquired while the subject of the demand or request is or
was an employee of the Agency as part of the performance of the
person's duties or by virtue of the person's official status.
(b) For purposes of this part, and except as ACDA may otherwise
determine in a particular case, the term employee includes the Director
of ACDA and former Directors of ACDA, and all employees and former
employees of ACDA or other federal agencies who are or were appointed
by, or subject to the supervision, jurisdiction, or control of the
Director of ACDA, whether residing or working in the United States or
abroad, including United States nationals, foreign nationals, and
contractors.
(c) For purposes of this part, the term litigation encompasses all
pre-trial, trial, and post-trial stages of all judicial or
administrative actions, hearings, investigations, or similar
proceedings before courts, commissions, boards, or other judicial or
quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, whether criminal, civil, or
administrative in nature. This part governs, inter alia, responses to
discovery requests, depositions, and other pre-trial, trial, or post-
trial proceedings, as well as responses to informal requests by
attorneys or others in situations involving litigation. However, this
part shall not apply to any claims by ACDA employees (present or
former), or applicants for Agency employment, for which jurisdiction
resides with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; the U.S.
Merit Systems Protection Board; the Office of Special Counsel; the
Federal Labor Relations Authority; the Foreign Service Labor Relations
Board; the Foreign Service Grievance Board; or a labor arbitrator
operating under a collective bargaining agreement between ACDA and a
labor organization representing ACDA employees; or their successor
agencies or entities.
(d) For purposes of this part, official information means all
information of any kind, however stored, that is in the custody and
control of ACDA, relates to information in the custody and control of
ACDA, or was acquired by ACDA employees as part of their official
duties or because of their official status within ACDA while such
individuals are employed by or served on behalf of ACDA.
(e) Nothing in this part affects disclosure of information under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, the Privacy Act, 5
U.S.C. 552a, Executive Order 12356 on national security information (or
successor order thereto), the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C.
552b, the Agency's regulations in 22 CFR chapter VI implementing any of
the foregoing, or pursuant to congressional subpoena. Nothing in this
part otherwise permits disclosure of information by ACDA or its
employees except as provided by statute or other applicable law.
(f) This part is intended only to inform the public about ACDA
procedures concerning the service of process and responses to demands
or requests and is not intended to and does not create, and may not be
relied upon to create, any right or benefit substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law by a party against ACDA or the United States.
(g) Nothing in this part affects:
(1) The disclosure of information during the course of legal
proceedings in foreign courts, commissions, boards, or other judicial
or quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals; or
(2) The rules and procedures, under applicable U.S. law and
international conventions, governing diplomatic and consular immunity.
(h) Nothing in this part affects the disclosure of official
information to other foreign agencies or Department of Justice
attorneys in connection with litigation conducted on behalf or in
defense of the United States, its agencies, officers, and employees, or
to federal, state, local, or foreign prosecuting and law enforcement
authorities in conjunction with criminal law enforcement
investigations, prosecutions, extradition, deportation or other
proceedings.
Sec. 608.2 Service of summonses and complaints.
(a) Only ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate, is authorized
to receive and accept summonses or complaints sought to be served upon
ACDA or ACDA employees. All such documents should be delivered or
addressed to
[[Page 26476]]
General Counsel, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 320 21st St.
N.W., Room 5635, Washington, DC 20451. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 659(b) and
5 U.S.C. 5520a(c)(1), this same officer has been designated
specifically to accept service of process for the enforcement of the
legal obligation to provide child support or to make alimony payments
by employees of the Agency and to accept service of process for the
enforcement of the legal obligation to pay monies owed for other than
child support or alimony by employees of the Agency, respectively.
(b) In the event any summons or complaint described in
Sec. 608.1(a) is delivered to an employee of ACDA other than in the
manner specified in this part, such attempted service shall be
ineffective, and the recipient thereof shall either decline to accept
the proffered service or return such document under cover of a written
communication which directs the person attempting to make service to
the procedures set forth in this part.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in Secs. 608.2(d) and 608.3(c),
ACDA is not an authorized agent for service of process with respect to
civil litigation against ACDA employees purely in their personal, non-
official capacity. Copies of summonses or complaints directed to ACDA
employees in connection with legal proceedings arising out of the
performance of official duties may, however, be served upon ACDA's
General Counsel, or his/her delegate.
(d) Although ACDA is not an agent for the service of process upon
its employees with respect to purely personal, non-official litigation,
ACDA recognizes that its employees stationed overseas should not use
their official positions to evade their personal obligations and will,
therefore, counsel and encourage ACDA employees to accept service of
process in appropriate cases, and will waive applicable diplomatic or
consular privileges and immunities when ACDA determines that it is in
the interest of the United States to do so. Pursuant to section 302 of
Executive Order 12953, ACDA's General Counsel has been designated in
Appendix B to 5 CFR part 581 as the official to assist in the service
of legal process in civil actions pursuant to orders of State courts to
establish paternity and to establish or to enforce support obligations
by making ACDA employees available for service of process, regardless
of the location of the employee's workplace.
(e) Documents for which ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate, accepts service in official capacity only shall be stamped
``Service Accepted in Official Capacity Only.'' Acceptance of service
shall not constitute an admission or waiver with respect to
jurisdiction, propriety of service, improper venue, or any other
defense in law or equity available under the laws or rules applicable
for the service of process.
Sec. 608.3 Service of subpoenas, court orders, and other demands or
requests for official information or action.
(a) Except in cases in which ACDA is represented by legal counsel
who have entered an appearance or otherwise given notice of their
representation, only ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate, is
authorized to receive and accept subpoenas, or other demands or
requests directed to ACDA or any component thereof, or its employees,
or former employees, whether civil or criminal in nature, for:
(1) Material, including documents, contained in the files of the
Agency;
(2) Information, including testimony, affidavits, declarations,
admissions, response to interrogatories, or informal statements,
relating to material contained in the files of the Agency or which any
Agency employee acquired in the course and scope of the performance of
official duties;
(3) Garnishment or attachment of compensation of current or former
employees; or
(4) The performance or non-performance of any official ACDA duty.
(b) In the event that any subpoena, demand, or request is sought to
be delivered to an Agency employee (including former employee) other
than in the manner prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, such
attempted service shall be ineffective. Such employee shall, after
consultation with the office of the General Counsel, decline to accept
the subpoena, demand, or request or shall return it to the serve under
cover of a written communication referring to the procedures prescribed
in this part.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in this part, ACDA is not an agent
for service or otherwise authorized to accept on behalf of its
employees any subpoenas, show-cause orders, or similar compulsory
process of federal or state courts, or requests from private
individuals or attorneys, which are not related to the employees'
official duties except upon the express, written authorization of the
individual ACDA employee to whom such demand or request is directed.
(d) Acceptance of such documents by ACDA's General Counsel, or his/
her delegate, does not constitute a waiver of any defenses that might
otherwise exist with respect to service under the Federal Rules of
Civil or Criminal Procedure or other applicable rules.
Sec. 608.4 Testimony and production of documents prohibited unless
approved by appropriate Agency officials.
(a) No employee of ACDA shall, in response to a demand or request
in connection with any litigation, whether criminal or civil, provide
oral or written testimony by deposition, declaration, affidavit, or
otherwise concerning any information acquired wile such person is or
was an employee of ACDA as part of the performance of that person's
official duties or by virtue of that person's official status, unless
authorized to do so by ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate.
(b) No ACDA employee shall, in response to a demand or request in
connection with any litigation, produce for use at such proceedings any
document or any other material acquired as part of the performance of
that employee's duties or by virtue of that employee's official status,
unless authorized to do so by ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate.
Sec. 608.5 Produce when testimony or production of documents is
sought--general.
(a) if official ACDA information is sought, through testimony or
otherwise, by a request or demand, the party seeking such release or
testimony must (except as otherwise required by federal law or
authorized by the Office of the General Counsel) set forth in writing
and with as much specificity as possible, the nature and relevance of
the official information sought. Where documents or other materials are
sought, the party should identify the record or reasonably describe it
in terms of date, format, subject matter, the office originating or
receiving the record, and the names of all persons to whom the record
is known to relate. Subject to Sec. 606.7, ACDA employees may produce,
disclose, release, comment upon, or testify concerning only those
matters that were specified in writing and properly approved by ACDA's
General Counsel or his/her delegate. See United States ex re. Toughy v.
Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). The Office of the General Counsel may waive
this requirement in appropriate circumstances.
(b) To the extent it deems necessary or appropriate, ACDA may also
require from the party seeking such testimony or documents a plan of
all reasonably foreseeable demands, including but not limited to the
names of all employees and former employees from whom discovery will be
sought, areas of
[[Page 26477]]
inquiry, expected duration of proceedings requiring oral testimony, and
identification of potentially relevant documents.
(c) ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate, will notify the
ACDA employee and such other persons as circumstances may warrant of
the decision regarding compliance with the request or demand.
(d) The Office of the General Counsel will consult with the
Department of Justice regarding legal representation for ACDS employees
in appropriate cases.
Sec. 608.6 Procedure when response to demand is required prior to
receiving instructions.
(a) If a response to a demand is required before ACDA's General
Counsel, or his/her delegate, renders a decision, ACDA will request
that either a Department of Justice attorney or an ACDA attorney
designated for the purpose:
(1) Appear with the employee upon whom the demand has been made;
(2) Furnish the court or other authority with a copy of the
regulations contained in this part;
(3) Inform the court or other authority that the demand has been or
is being, as the case may be, referred for the prompt consideration of
ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her delegate; and
(4) Respectfully request the court or authority to stay the demand
pending receipt of the requested instructions.
(b) In the event that an immediate demand for production or
disclosure is made in circumstances that would preclude the proper
designation or appearance of a Department of Justice or ACDA attorney
on the employee's behalf, the employee shall respectfully request the
demanding court or authority for a reasonable stay of proceedings for
the purpose of obtaining instructions from ACDA.
Sec. 608.7 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.
If the court or other judicial or quasi-judicial authority declines
to stay the effect of the demand in response to a request made pursuant
to Sec. 608.6, or if the court or other authority rules that the demand
must be complied with irrespective of the Agency's instructions not to
produce the material or disclose the information sought, the employee
upon whom the demand has been made shall respectfully decline to comply
with the demand, citing these regulations and United States ex rel.
Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 463 (1951).
Sec. 608.8 Considerations in determining whether the Agency will
comply with a demand or request.
(a) In deciding whether to comply with a demand or request, ACDA
officials and attorneys shall consider, among others:
(1) Whether such compliance would be unduly burdensome or otherwise
inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rules of
procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand arose;
(2) Whether compliance is appropriate under the relevant
substantive law concerning privilege or disclosure of information;
(3) The public interest;
(4) The need to conserve the time of ACDA employees for the conduct
of official business;
(5) The need to avoid spending the time and money of the United
States for private purposes;
(6) The need to maintain impartiality between private litigants in
cases where a substantial government interest is not implicated;
(7) Whether compliance would have an adverse effect on performance
by ACDA of its mission and duties; and
(8) The need to avoid involving ACDA in controversial issues not
related to its mission.
(b) Among those demands and requests in response to which
compliance will not ordinarily be authorized are those with respect to
which, inter alia, any of the following factors exist:
(1) Compliance would violate a statute or a rule of procedure;
(2) Compliance would violate a specific regulation or executive
order;
(3) Compliance would reveal information properly classified in the
interest of national security;
(4) Compliance would reveal confidential commercial or financial
information or trade secrets without the owner's consent;
(5) Compliance would reveal the internal deliberative processes of
the Executive Branch; or
(6) Compliance would potentially impede or prejudice an ongoing law
enforcement investigation.
Sec. 608.9 Prohibition on providing expert or opinion testimony.
(a) Except as provided in this section, and subject to 5 CFR
2635.805, ACDA employees shall not provide opinion or expert testimony
based upon information which they acquired in the scope and performance
of their official ACDA duties, except on behalf of the United States or
a party represented by the Department of Justice.
(b) Upon a showing by the requester of exceptional need or unique
circumstances and that the anticipated testimony will not be adverse to
the interests of the United States, ACDA's General Counsel, or his/her
delegate, may, consistent with 5 CFR 2635.805, in the exercise of
discretion, grant special, written authorization for ACDA employees to
appear and testify as expert witnesses at no expense to the United
States.
(c) If, despite the final determination of ACDA's General Counsel,
a court of competent jurisdiction or other appropriate authority orders
the appearance and expert or opinion testimony of an ACDA employee,
such employee shall immediately inform the Office of General Counsel of
such order. If the Office of the General Counsel determines that no
further legal review of or challenge to the court's order will be made,
the ACDA employee shall comply with the order. If so directed by the
Office of the General Counsel, however, the employee shall respectfully
decline to testify. See United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S.
462 (1951).
Dated: May 17, 1996.
Mary Elizabeth Hoinkes,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-13194 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-32-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-12946 Broadcast Blanketing Interference
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26491-26496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12946]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-62; FCC 96-124]
Broadcast Blanketing Interference
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission proposes consolidation of FCC regulations to
combine the blanketing interference rules into a new single rule
section for AM, FM, and TV broadcast services. This rulemaking
proceeding also proposes to amend signal contour determinations in
establishing AM radio and TV broadcast blanketing areas, provide
detailed clarification of broadcast licensee's responsibility in
resolving blanketing interference, and provide a list of protected and
non-protected devices.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 25, 1996 and reply
comments filed on or before July 25, 1996. Written comments by the
public
[[Page 26492]]
on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or
before June 29, 1996. Written comments must be submitted by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified
information collections on or before July 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments
on the information collection contained herein should be submitted to
Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
[email protected], and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10234 NEOB,
725--17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernard Gorden (202) 418-2190, or
Robert Greenberg (202) 418-2720, Mass Media Bureau. For additional
information concerning the information collection contained in the
NPRM, contact Dorothy Conway at (202) 418-0217, or via the Internet at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
OMB Information Collection Notification
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other
Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following
proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. The NRPM has been
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under
Section 3507(d) of the PRA. Comments are requested concerning (a)
whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy
of the Commissions burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
OMB Control Number: None.
Title: Proposed Section 73.1630 Blanketing Interference.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: New.
Respondents: Broadcast Licensees.
Number of Respondents: 21,000 Complainants.
Estimated time per response: The burden ranges from 1 hour to 2
hours.
Annual Burden: 41,000 hours.
Total Annual Cost per Respondent: 0.
Needs and Uses: This rulemaking proceeding proposes to provide
detailed clarification of the AM, FM, and TV licensee's
responsibilities in resolving/eliminating blanketing interference
caused by their individual stations. Under the current rules (Section
73.88 (AM), Section 73.318 (FM), Section 73.685(d) (TV)), the licensee
is financially responsible for resolving complaints of interference
within one year of program test authority when certain conditions are
met. After the first year, a licensee is only required to provide
technical assistance in determining the cause of the interference. In
this NPRM, we are proposing to consolidate all blanketing interference
rules under a new Section 73.1630, Blanketing Interference. This new
rule is designed to facilitate the resolution of broadcast interference
problems and sets forth all responsibilities of the licensee/permittee
of a broadcast station. For one year after the broadcast station
commences program tests, the licensee is financially responsible for
resolving blanketing interference complaints. After the first year, the
licensee is obligated to provide technical assistance to resolve
complaints of blanketing interference. The information provided to
complainants will be used to facilitate the resolution of complaints of
blanketing interference.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in MM Docket No. 96-62 adopted March 21, 1996, and released on
April 26, 1996. The complete text of this Notice of Proposed Rule
Making is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M St., NW.,
Washington, DC, and may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800,
2100 M St., NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.
Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making
1. This proceeding is initiated, on the Commission's own motion, in
order to clarify to what extent broadcast licensees are responsible for
eliminating blanketing interference caused by their individual
stations. In addition, this action is taken to refine and specify
methods for determining the geographical blanketing area. In many
cases, the licensee's responsibility in eliminating blanketing
interference is misunderstood by listeners and broadcasters alike.
Thus, the objectives of this action is intended to remove confusion and
facilitate the resolution of broadcast blanketing interference
problems.
2. Receivers are designed to operate in an environment consisting
of desired and undesired signals. As long as the levels of the signals
remain within the design specifications of the receiver, it will
operate in a predictable manner. If any of the signals in the
environment exceed the design specifications of the receiver, the
receiver will begin to operate with unpredictable results. In addition
to broadcast receivers, as mentioned above, a wide range of electronic
devices can suffer blanketing interference from the signals of nearby
radio and TV stations. For example, we are aware of problems with
telephone equipment (including answering machines, hard-wired,
cordless, and cellular telephones), hi-fi audio amplifiers, public
address systems, electronic music keyboard instruments, professional
studio and home recording components, and electronic medical equipment.
Currently, however, protection of these devices are not the
responsibility of the broadcast licensee.
Blanketing Interference Contours
3. Section 73.88 currently requires licensees of each AM broadcast
station to satisfy all reasonable complaints of blanketing interference
within the 1 V/m contour. Unlike the rules for FM, which define the
method of calculating the blanketing contour, no such method is
specified for AM. Thus, the licensee may find it convenient to
determine the 1 V/m contour by field measurements. As an alternative,
determining the AM blanketing contour mathematically for a single tower
antenna may result in a close approximation of the measured contour.
Determination of the AM blanketing contour from multi-tower directional
antenna arrays, however, may need to be calculated with near-field
considerations.
4. In continuing to use the current AM blanketing contour, we
propose that for directional antenna array systems, the determination
of the 1 V/m contour along each radial direction should be by actual
mathematical vector summation of the field radiated by each antenna.
Since this approach may require near-field considerations, we believe
that a more realistic determination of the 1 V/m contour AM blanketing
area would be reflected with this method. Therefore, we propose to
amend the rules for the method of calculating the blanketing
[[Page 26493]]
interference contour for AM broadcast stations as presented under
proposed Section 73.1630(a) below.
5. Because many of the transmitting antenna signal characteristics
and structural locations are the same for both FM and television
broadcast stations, we are not aware of any apparent reason, at this
time, not to utilize for television stations the same blanketing area
contour currently used for FM stations. Therefore, for regulatory
consistency, we propose to amend the rules by specifying that the TV
blanketing area be defined by the 115 dBu contour, as presented under
proposed Section 73.1630(b) below.
6. When the 115 dBu contour was originally proposed for FM
blanketing in BC Docket No. 82-186, most of the commenters agreed with
its use. Now that the industry has had much experience with this
contour level, we seek information as to whether it continues to be an
appropriate contour for defining FM blanketing areas, and should be
extended for defining television blanketing areas. In addition, because
the 1 V/m contour used for describing the AM blanketing area was
established at an even earlier period than the FM blanketing contour,
we seek information as to whether the 1 V/m contour continues to be an
appropriate contour level in today's radiofrequency environment.
Licensee's Responsibility
7. Under the current rules, which we propose to continue, the
licensee is financially responsible for resolving complaints when all
three of the following conditions are met: (1) The complainant's
affected device is located inside the station's blanketing contour; (2)
the complainant filed notice to the station within the first year of
program test authority; and (3) the interference is not to electrical
devices excluded from protection by Section 73.318(b). When these
conditions are met, the licensee must provide effective technical
assistance in determining the cause of the problem and advising on
corrective measures. Resolution of such blanketing interference
complaints may involve the installation of electrical or electronic
filters and traps, or the replacement of the complainants' affected
equipment, and these efforts are at the licensee's expense and without
cost to the complainant. If an otherwise valid complaint is lodged
after the one year period, the licensee is only required to provide
effective technical assistance in determining the cause of the problem
and advice on corrective measures; the licensee is not financially
responsible for any necessary corrective equipment or measures. If a
complainant is located outside of the blanketing contour area and files
after the one year period or the complaint involves devices and
equipment excluded from protection, the licensee has no obligation
under our rules to resolve the interference problem. However, as noted
earlier, many licensees take voluntary steps to assist in alleviating
the interference to promote goodwill within the station's community.
8. To give broadcast licensees further detailed guidance in
resolving blanketing interference problems, we propose to publish in
the rules an outlined summary of the station's responsibilities. We
propose that the licensee responsibility will vary depending on (1)
whether or not the complaint was filed within the first year of
operation, (2) whether the complainant is located inside or outside the
blanketing contour, and (3) whether the device experiencing
interference is covered under the blanketing rule.
9. Additionally, we note that in today's highly transitory society,
neighborhoods may have many residents move in after the initial one
year period specified in the rules. Further, the proliferation of new
communications services and technology may bring into established
neighborhoods many new devices subject to blanketing interference.
Therefore, we seek comment on whether the Commission's rules should be
modified for situations when blanketing interference occurs after the
one year period. Further, we seek comment on whether locations of
temporary lodging or transient residences, e.g., hotels, university
student dormitories, and rental properties should be subject to the
blanketing rules beyond the one year limit. In other words, we seek
comment on whether a station's obligation ends with that initial group
of complainants that files within one year, or whether the station's
obligation should extend to subsequent residents. Further, we seek
comment on whether these types of cases should be considered on a case-
by-case basis.
Effective Technical Assistance
10. Section 73.1630(d) of the proposed rules states, ``[f]ollowing
the one year period of full financial obligation to satisfy blanketing
complaints, licensees shall provide technical information or assistance
to complainants on remedies for blanketing interference.'' The rule
requires that a licensee provide information and assistance
sufficiently specific to enable the complainant to eliminate all
blanketing interference and not simply that the station attempt to
correct the problems. Effective technical assistance entails providing
specific details about proper corrective measures to resolve the
blanketing interference. For example, licensees may provide
complainants with diagrams and descriptions which explain how and where
to use radiofrequency chokes, ferrite cores, filters, and/or shielded
cable. In addition, effective technical assistance also includes the
recommendation on replacement equipment that would work better in the
high radiofrequency fields. We note that the licensee may authorize a
consultant or service company to provide this information or
assistance. However, effective technical assistance is not rendered
merely by referring the complainant to the equipment manufacturer.
High Gain Antennas
11. Section 73.318(b) specifies the conditions under which
licensees and permittees must satisfy complaints of blanketing
interference. It states, in pertinent part, that ``[t]hese requirements
specifically do not include interference complaints resulting from
malfunctioning or mistuned receivers, improperly installed antenna
systems, or the use of high gain antennas or antenna booster
amplifiers.'' It has been our experience that high gain antennas have
not been a factor in blanketing interference problems. Therefore, we
propose to delete reference to high gain antennas from our blanketing
rules and seek comment accordingly.
Telephone Interference
12. A great number of blanketing interference complaints are
submitted because of interference to telephones. The Commission's
blanketing rules, however, do not currently require broadcasters to
resolve telephone interference. Hard-wired telephones are considered
non-RF devices under the current blanketing interference rules and
thus, are excluded from protection per Section 73.318(b). Cordless
telephones are covered by Part 15 of the Commission's rules and thus,
Section 15.5(b) states, in pertinent part, that cordless telephones may
not cause harmful interference and that interference to cordless
telephones caused by the operation of an authorized radio station must
be accepted. Portable and mobile cellular telephones are RF devices
licensed under Part 22, Subpart K, and are considered as mobile
receivers, and thus, not protected by the current blanketing
interference rules. Because cell sites are fixed locations, however,
[[Page 26494]]
they would be protected from blanketing interference by the
Commission's rules.
13. We are concerned about interference to all telephones and
wireless devices, including interference that may develop in future PCS
and specialized mobile radio (SMR) systems. Therefore, we seek specific
comment on the following questions:
a. Should the Commission require broadcasters to resolve
interference to telephones, either hard-wired or wireless?
b. If so, to what extent should broadcast licensees be responsible
for resolving the interference? The Commission found, while conducting
the telephone interference survey, that filters are not always reliable
in eliminating residential telephone interference. Thus, if such
filtering devices are ineffective and licensees are not required to
furnish them, to what extent should licensees provide other technical
information and assistance?
c. Should the Commission rely on industry voluntary efforts to
implement interference free design standards for telephones, or should
the Commission initiate a separate rulemaking proceeding to consider
imposing higher interference immunity standards for residential
telephones?
d. If voluntary standards for interference immunity are developed,
should there be any blanketing requirements for telephones that do not
meet the voluntary standards for interference free telephones?
Licensee's Response Time
14. There is currently no criteria for speed of service for
correcting blanketing interference caused by new or modified station
operation. Based on case history, many stations have been slow to
respond, i.e., months before a complaint was acted upon, and often even
further delay before the interference was finally corrected. There is
also no specific requirement to maintain records of name, location,
type of complaint, etc. The public inspection file requirements,
however, do specify that license application engineering related
matters need not be retained longer than three years in the local
public inspection file. Accordingly, in that blanketing interference is
of engineering related circumstances, the Commission expects broadcast
licensees to maintain all letters of such complaints that are timely
filed with the station per the proposed Section 73.1630. However, in
order to establish a station's definitive efforts to solve blanketing
interference, should we require stations to maintain a specific log for
some period of time, such as two years after new construction or
transmitter modification which would include name, location, phone
number, date complaint filed, date complaint resolved, type of
complaint, list of affected equipment (manufacturer's name and model
number), and what action it took to resolve the complaint? And finally,
should we require licensees to respond to complaints within a specified
period such as 10 working days and to resolve the complaints within an
additional period of time such as 30 calendar days?
Conclusion
15. In light of the proliferation of electronic equipment available
to consumers, the increase in the number of broadcast stations, and our
concern about the effects of blanketing interference on future wireless
communication systems, we believe that it is time to revisit the
subject of broadcast blanketing interference. In addition to proposing
amendments to refine the Commission's rules and regulations in this
area for broadcast licensees, this proceeding may stimulate various
related industry manufacturers to begin to meet the challenge of
producing components that are less susceptible to blanketing
interference. We are proposing specific rule amendments in the
broadcast services that primarily clarify our current requirements.
Additionally, we seek specific comment on the questions raised,
especially those regarding telephone interference, and the specific
rule amendments proposed below.
Administrative Matters
Ex Parte Rules--Non-Restricted Proceeding
16. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in
Commission rules. See generally 47 CFR Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203 and
1.1206(a).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
17. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
the Commission has prepared the following Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the expected impact on small entities of
the proposals suggested in this document. Written public comments are
requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with
the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the NPRM, but they
must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall
send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Public Law No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981)).
Reason for Action. This action is taken in order to clarify to what
extent broadcast licensees are responsible for eliminating blanketing
interference cause by their individual stations. In addition, this
action is taken to refine and specify methods for determining the
geographical blanketing area.
Objectives. In many cases, the licensee's responsibility in
eliminating blanketing interference is misunderstood by listeners and
broadcaster alike. Thus, the objectives of this action is intended to
remove confusion and facilitate the resolution of broadcast blanketing
interference problems.
Legal Basis. Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may
be found in Sections 4 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154 and 303.
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements. None.
Federal Rules which Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rule. None.
Description, Potential Impact and Number of Small Entities
Involved. None.
Any Significant Alternatives Minimizing the Impact on Small
Entities and Consistent with the Stated Objectives. There are none
apparent.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
18. This NPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information
collections contained in this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency
comments are due June 25, 1996, OMB comments are due July 29, 1996.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
[[Page 26495]]
clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Comment Information
19. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before June 25, 1996 and
reply comments on or before July 25, 1996. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original plus five copies of all comments,
reply comments, and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original
plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to Office
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center
(Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting, Television broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334.
Sec. 73.88 [Removed]
2. Sections 73.88 is removed.
Sec. 73.318 [Removed]
3. Section 73.318 is removed.
4. Section 73.685 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.685 Transmitter location and antenna system.
* * * * *
(d) (See Section 73.1630 concerning blanketing interference)
* * * * *
5. A new Section 73.1630 is added to Subpart H to read as follows:
Sec. 73.1630 Blanketing interference.
(a) Calculation of the Blanketing Interference Contour for AM
Stations. Areas adjacent to the transmitting antenna that receive a
signal with a strength of 1 V/m or greater will be assumed to be
blanketed. The determination of the location of the 1 V/m contour along
a radial shall be by actual field strength measurement or by iterative
vector summation of the field radiated by each antenna until the 1 V/m
contour is located. The distance from each tower to the point at which
the fields are being summed, shall be calculated using the Cosine Law
with the distance from the tower to the array reference point being one
side, the distance to the point of summation from the reference point
being the second side and the angle between the two sides being the
included angle. The field radiated by each tower is attenuated using
only inverse distance attenuation and the phase of the field component
from each tower shall be taken as the phase of the current at the
tower's current loop minus the space phase from the tower to the point
of summation.
Note to paragraph (a): If dn is the distance from the
reference point to the point of summation, sn the distance from
the reference point to the tower n, and n the
included angle, the distance Dn, from tower n, is given by
Dn = (dn2 + sn2
-2dnsncos( ))\1/2\. The Field ,
a vector quantity, is given by =
n/Dn where n is the field
radiated by tower n and Dn is the distance from tower n.
(b) Calculation of the Blanketing Interference Contour for FM and
TV Stations. Areas adjacent to the transmitting antenna that receive a
signal with a strength of 115 dBu (562 mV/m) or greater will be assumed
to be blanketed. In determining the blanketed area, the 115 dBu contour
is determined by calculating the inverse distance field using the
effective radiated power of the maximum radiated lobe of the antenna
without considering its vertical radiation pattern or height. For
directional antennas, the effective radiated power in the pertinent
bearing shall be used. The distance to the 115 dBu contour is
determined using the following equation:
D (in kilometers) = 0.394P
D (in miles) = 0.245P
Where P is the maximum effective radiated power (ERP), measured in
kilowatts, of the maximum radiated lobe.
(c) After January 1, 1997, permittees or licensees who either
commence program tests, replace their antennas, or request facilities
modifications and are issued a new construction permit must satisfy all
complaints of blanketing interference which are received by the station
during a one year period. The period begins with the commencement of
program test, or commencement of programming utilizing the new antenna.
Resolution of complaints shall be at no cost to the complainant. These
requirements specifically do not include interference complaints
resulting from malfunctioning or mistuned receivers, improperly
installed antenna systems, or the use of antenna booster amplifiers.
Mobile receivers and non-RF devices such as tape recorders or hi-fi
amplifiers (phonographs) are also excluded. (See the Appendix to
Sec. 73.1630 for covered devices and non-covered devices.)
(d) A permittee collocating with one or more existing stations and
beginning program tests on or after January 1, 1997, must assume full
financial responsibility for remedying new complaints of blanketing
interference for a period of one year. Two or more permittees that
concurrently collocate on or after January 1, 1997, shall assume shared
responsibility for remedying blanketing complaints within the
blanketing area unless an offending station can be readily determined
and then that station shall assume full financial responsibility.
(e) Following the one year period of full financial obligation to
satisfy blanketing complaints, licensees shall provide technical
information or assistance to complainants on remedies for blanketing
interference.
(f) A summary of the station's responsibilities are as follows:
(1) Complainant Within the Blanketing Contour.
(i) Complaint Received Within First Year of Operation--Paragraph
(c) of this section.
(A) DEVICES COVERED UNDER Section 73.1630--Licensee/permittee is
financially responsible for resolving interference complaints.
(B) DEVICES NOT COVERED UNDER Section 73.1630--Licensee/permittee
is not financially responsible for resolving interference complaints.
(ii) Complaint Received After First Year of Operation--Paragraph
(e) of this section.
(A) DEVICES COVERED UNDER Section 73.1630--Licensee/permittee is
not financially responsible for resolving interference complaints.
Licensee/permittee is required to provide technical assistance to
complainants. This entails the providing of information on the cause of
the interference and also providing information on proper corrective
measures.
[[Page 26496]]
(B) DEVICES NOT COVERED UNDER Section 73.1630--Same as paragraph
(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
(2) Complainant Outside the Blanketing Contour.
(i) Complaint Received Within First Year of Operation--Paragraph
(c) of this section.
(A) DEVICES COVERED UNDER Section 73.1630--Licensee/permittee is
not financially responsible for resolving interference complaints.
However, the licensee/permittee is expected to cooperate with
complainants by providing technical assistance in determining the cause
of the problem and providing advice on corrective measures.
(B) DEVICES NOT COVERED UNDER Section 73.1630--Same as paragraph
(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) Complaint Received After First Year of Operation--Paragraph
(e) of this section.
(A) DEVICES COVERED UNDER Section 73.1630--Same as paragraph
(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
(B) DEVICES NOT COVERED UNDER Section 73.1630--Same as paragraph
(f)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
Appendix to Sec. 73.1630--Covered and Non-Covered Devices
I. Devices Covered Under 47 CFR Sec. 73.1630
Receivers, Tuners, and RF Amplifiers
--Radio (stationary or portable)
--TV (stationary or portable)
--Satellite TV
--VCR
--Cable TV head-end
--Fixed radio sites for cellular systems, private radio
services, SMR and PCS systems.
II. Devices Not Covered Under 47 CFR Sec. 73.1630
--Malfunctioning or mistuned receivers
--Improperly installed antenna systems
--Antenna booster amplifiers
--Mobile receivers and non-RF devices such as:
--Mobile receivers (i.e. Walkman or Watchman)
--Car radios
--Musical instrument amplifiers
--All Telephones (including hard-wired, cordless, mobile or
pocket cellular or PCS)
--Answering machines
--Digital or Analog tape recorders
--CD players
--Phonographs
--Computers
III. Definitions
Mobile Receivers--Devices that do not remain in one fixed
location. These devices are excluded due to their inherently
transient nature.
Portable Receivers--Capable of being carried, whether operating
by electric cord or batteries.
Note: Not all portable receivers are operated in the mobile
mode.
[FR Doc. 96-12946 Filed 5-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.