issue-1996-09-04•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-04
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-04
issue-1996-09-04Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-04Regulation
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. 96-22524 Utah Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46550-46552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22524]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 944
[SPATS No. UT-034]
Utah Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is announcing approval of a proposed amendment to the Utah
regulatory program (hereinafter, the ``Utah program'') under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The
proposed amendment consists of revisions to rules pertaining to
petitions to initiate rulemaking, and backfilling and grading and
highwall retention. The amendment revises the Utah program to be
consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James F. Fulton, Telephone: (303) 672-5524.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Utah Program
On January 21, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Utah program. General background information on the Utah
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval of the Utah program can be
found in the January 21, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 5899).
Subsequent actions concerning Utah's program and program amendments can
be found at 30 CFR 944.15, 944.16, and 944.30.
II. Proposed Amendment
By letter dated November 30, 1995, and March 11, 1996, Utah
submitted to OSM rules that it had promulgated for its program
(administrative record Nos. UT-1079 and UT-1081) pursuant to SMCRA (30
U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). With three exceptions, these rules were
substantively identical to rules that
[[Page 46551]]
Utah had previously submitted to OSM and for which the Director made a
decision in the May 30, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 28040,
administrative record No. UT-1057). The three exceptions occurred in
rules that Utah revised in response to required amendments and in
response a disapproval that OSM set forth in the May 30, 1995, notice.
In response to the required program amendments at 30 CFR 944.16 (c) and
(d) (May 30, 1995, 60 FR 28040, 28043-4, finding Nos. 4 and 5), Utah
proposed to revise Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.110 and Utah Admin. R.
534-301-553.120. In response to the Director not approving proposed
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.651 (May 30, 1995, 60 FR 28040, 28046-7,
finding No. 15), Utah did not promulgate the rule. The rule concerned a
proposed applicability date for the backfilling and grading of
highwalls.
In addition to the aforementioned revisions, Utah by letter dated
December 4, 1995, submitted to OSM a proposed revision to Utah Admin.
R. 645-100-500, pertaining to petitions to initiate rulemaking
(administrative record No. UT-1080). Utah submitted the proposed
revision in response to a November 22, 1995, OSM letter (administrative
record No. UT-1078) notifying Utah of a needed revision to Utah's rule.
These revisions constitute a proposed amendment to Utah's program.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the March 20, 1996,
Federal Register (61 FR 11350), provided an opportunity for a public
hearing or meeting on its substantive adequacy, and invited public
comment on its adequacy (administrative record No. UT-1085). Because no
one requested a public hearing or meeting, none was held. The public
comment period ended on April 19, 1996.
III. Director's Findings
As discussed below, the Director, in accordance with SMCRA and 30
CFR 732.15 and 732.17, finds that the proposed program amendment
submitted by Utah on November 30 and December 4, 1995, and March 11,
1996, is no less effective than the corresponding Federal regulations
and no less stringent than SMCRA. Accordingly, the Director approves
the proposed amendment.
1. Utah Admin. R. 645-100-500, Petitions To Initiate Rulemaking
Utah proposed to revise Utah Admin. R. 645-100-500 to provide that
persons other than the Division or Board of Oil, Gas and Mining may
petition to initiate rulemaking pursuant to Utah Admin. R. Part 641 and
the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act at Utah Code Annotated (U.C.A.)
``63-46a-1, et seq.'' instead of ``63-46-8.''
Utah deleted the reference to the statute at U.C.A. 63-46-8 because
it previously repealed it. Newly referenced ``U.C.A. 63-46a-1 et seq.''
includes the statutory provisions at U.C.A. 63-46a-12, which allow
interested persons to petition agencies requesting the making,
amendment, or repeal of rules.
The Federal counterpart regulation to proposed Utah Admin. R. 645-
100-500 is at 30 CFR 700.12. The Federal counterpart statutory
provision to U.C.A. 63-46a-12 is at section 201(g)(1) of SMCRA. They
both provide for persons to petition OSM requesting the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of a rule.
The proposed revision to Utah Admin. R. 645-100-500 is no less
effective than the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 700.12 and no less
stringent than section 201(g)(1) of SMCRA. Therefore, the Director
approves the proposed revision to Utah Admin. R. 645-100-500.
2. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.110 and .120, Backfilling and Grading and
Highwall Retention
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.110.--On May 30, 1995, OSM at 30 CFR
944.16(c) (finding No. 4, 60 FR 28040, 28043) required Utah to revise
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.110 to correct the cross referenced
provisions in the phrase ``R645-301-500 through R645-301-540,''
regarding previously mined areas, continuously mined areas, and areas
subject to the approximate original contour provisions, to read ``R645-
301-553.500 through R645-301-553.540'' (emphasis added).
In response to the required amendment, Utah proposed to make the
changes in the citations. For the reasons discussed in the May 30,
1995, Federal Register notice, the Director finds that the proposed
revisions to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.110 are consistent with the
Federal regulations at 30 CFR 816.102(k) and 817.102(k). Accordingly,
the Director approves the proposed revisions to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-
553.110 and removes the required amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(c).
Utah Admin. R. 534-301-553.120.--On May 30, 1995, OSM at 30 CFR
944.16(d) (finding No. 5, 60 FR 28040, 28043) required Utah to revise
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.120 to correct the cross-referenced
provisions in the phrase ``R645-301-553.500 through R645-301-540,''
regarding previously mined areas, continuously mined areas, and areas
subject to the approximate original contour provisions, to read ``R645-
031-553.500 through R645-301-553.540'' (emphasis added). In response to
the required amendment, Utah made the revision in the citation.
OSM also at 30 CFR 944.16(d) required Utah to revise Utah Admin. R.
645-301-553.120 to correct the cross-referenced provisions in the
phrase ``R645-301-553.650 through R645-301-553.653'' to read ``R645-
301-553.650 through R645-301-553.651'' (emphasis added), or otherwise
make a revision that had the same effect. As discussed in following
finding No. 4, Utah did not promulgate Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.651.
Therefore, at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.120, Utah proposed to only
reference Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.650.
For the reasons discussed in the May 30, 1995, Federal Register
notice, the Director finds that the proposed revisions to Utah Admin.
R. 645-301-553.120 are consistent with the Federal regulations at 30
CFR 816.102(a)(2) and 817.102(a)(2). Accordingly, the Director approves
the proposed revisions to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.120 and removes
the required amendment at 30 CFR 944.16(d).
3. Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.651, Applicability Date
On May 30, 1995, the Director did not approve Utah's proposed rule
at Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.651 (finding No. 15, 60 FR 28040, 28046)
because it was less stringent than section 515 of SMCRA, not in
accordance with the Secretary's assumptions in approving the provisions
of the Utah program that allow for the incomplete elimination of
highwalls for areas with remaining highwalls subject to the approximate
original contour provisions, and not in accordance with the Director's
previous finding in the September 17, 1993, final rule Federal Register
notice (58 FR 48600, 48605-6; finding No. 3(C)(3)(b)).
In response to this disapproval, Utah deleted the proposed rule at
Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.651 (i.e., did not promulgate the rule in
the State rulemaking process). Utah's deletion of the proposed rule is
consistent with the Director's disapproval.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Following are summaries of all substantive written comments on the
proposed amendment that were received by OSM, and OSM's responses to
them.
[[Page 46552]]
1. Public Comments
OSM invited public comments on the proposed amendment, but none
were received.
2. Federal Agency Comments
Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with an actual or
potential interest in the Utah program (administrative record No. UT-
1082). None of the Federal agencies responded.
3. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Concurrence and Comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to solicit
the written concurrence of EPA with respect to those provisions of the
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality
standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
None of the revisions that Utah proposed to make in its amendment
pertain to air or water quality standards. Therefore, OSM did not
request EPA's concurrence.
Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from EPA (administrative record No. UT-1082). It did
not respond to OSM's request.
4. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from the SHPO and ACHP (administrative record No.
UT-1082). Neither SHPO nor ACHP responded to OSM's request.
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above findings, the Director approves Utah's proposed
amendment as submitted on November 30 and December 4, 1995, and March
11, 1996.
The Director approves, as discussed in: finding No. 1, Utah Admin.
R. 645-100-500, concerning petitions to initiate rulemaking; and
finding No. 2, Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.110 and .120, concerning
backfilling and grading and highwall retention.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 944, codifying decisions
concerning the Utah program, are being amended to implement this
decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by
SMCRA.
VI. Procedural Determinations
1. Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
2. Executive Order 12988
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections
(a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not
applicable to the actual language of State regulatory programs and
program amendments since each such program is drafted and promulgated
by a specific State, not by OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA
(30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 730.11,
732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State regulatory
programs and program amendments submitted by the States must be based
solely on a determination of whether the submittal is consistent with
SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and whether the other
requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have been met.
3. National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
4. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations.
6. Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 944
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: August 21, 1996.
Peter A. Rutledge,
Acting Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 944--UTAH
1. The authority citation for Part 944 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 944.15 is amended by adding paragraph (hh) to read as
follows:
Sec. 944.15 Approval of amendments to the State regulatory program.
* * * * *
(hh) Revisions to Utah Admin. R. 645-100-500, concerning petitions
to initiate rulemaking, and revisions to Utah Admin. R. 645-301-553.110
and Utah Admin. R. 534-301-553.120, concerning backfilling and grading
and highwall retention, as submitted to OSM on November 30 and December
4, 1995, and March 11, 1996, are approved effective September 4, 1996.
Sec. 944.16 [Amended]
3. Section 944.16 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(c) and (d).
[FR Doc. 96-22524 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22512 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22512]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 082796B]
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in
Statistical Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in
Statistical Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is
necessary to prevent exceeding the 1996 pollock total allowable catch
(TAC) in this area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 3,
1996, until 2400 hrs, December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA
exclusive economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the GOA (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is
governed by regulations implementing the FMP at subpart H of 50 CFR
part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 1996 pollock TAC in Statistical Area 630 was established by the
Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4304, February
5, 1996) as 13,680 metric tons (mt). (See Sec. 679.20(c)(3).)
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Director), has
determined, in accordance with Sec. 679.20(d)(1), that the 1996 pollock
TAC in Statistical Area 630 has been reached. The Regional Director
established a directed fishing allowance of 12,080 mt, and has set
aside the remaining 1,600 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated
groundfish fisheries. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 630.
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be
found in the regulations at Sec. 679.20(e).
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: August 29, 1996.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22512 Filed 8-29-96; 4:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22508 Issuance of Report on the NRC Regulatory Agenda
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46537-46538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22508]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Chapter I
Issuance of Report on the NRC Regulatory Agenda
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of NRC Regulatory Agenda.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46538]]
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued the NRC
Regulatory Agenda for the period covering January through June of 1996.
This agenda provides the public with information about NRC's rulemaking
activities. The NRC Regulatory Agenda is a compilation of all rules on
which the NRC has recently completed action, or has proposed action, or
is considering action, and of all petitions for rulemaking that the NRC
has received that are pending disposition. Issuance of this publication
is consistent with Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this report, designated NRC Regulatory Agenda
(NUREG-0936), Vol. 15, No. 1, is available for inspection, and copying
for a fee, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room,
2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
In addition, the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) sells the
NRC Regulatory Agenda. To purchase it, a customer may call (202) 512-
2249 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review
Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of
Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone:
(301) 415-7163, toll-free number (800) 368-5642.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of August 1996. For
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael T. Lesar,
Chief, Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch,
Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of
Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-22508 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22494 Telecommunications Act of 1996; Preemption of Restrictions on Over-the-Air Reception Devices
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46557-46562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22494]
[[Page 46557]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 25
[CS Docket No. 96-83; IB Docket No. 95-59; FCC 96-328]
Telecommunications Act of 1996; Preemption of Restrictions on
Over-the-Air Reception Devices
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Report and Order (``R&O'') implements Section 207 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 207 directs that the Commission
shall: ``pursuant to Section 303 of the Communications Act, promulgate
regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to
receive video programming services through devices designed for over-
the-air reception of television broadcast signals, multichannel
multipoint distribution service or direct broadcast satellite
services.'' The R&O prohibits restrictions that impair a viewer's
ability to install, use and maintain devices used to receive TVBS, MMDS
and DBS signals on property within the exclusive use or control of the
antenna user and in which the user has a direct or indirect ownership
interest. The Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) addresses petitions
for reconsideration in IB Docket No. 95-59 as they relate to
implementation of Section 207. The intended effect of this R&O and MO&O
is to complete the implementation of Section 207 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The R&O and MO&O will foster
competition among video programming service providers and will increase
consumer options for receiving video programming.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) of the new information collection requirements adopted herein,
but no sooner than October 4, 1996. The Commission will publish a
document at a later date advising of the effective date.
ADDRESSES: 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
20054, 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: Jacqueline Spindler, Cable Services
Bureau, (202) 418-7200. For additional information concerning the
information collections contained herein, contact Dorothy Conway at
202-418-0217, or via the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's R&O
and MO&O in CS Docket No. 96-83, IB Docket No. 95-59, FCC No. 96-328,
adopted August 5, 1996 and released August 6, 1996. The full text of
this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (room 239), 1919 M Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20554, and may be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Service, (202) 857-3800,
1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. This R&O and MO&O contain
proposed or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). As part of our continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and OMB to comment on
the modified information collections contained in this Report and
Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-
13. Public and agency comments are due on September 27, 1996; OMB
comments are due November 4, 1996. Comments should address: (a) Whether
the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
will 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: 3060-0707.
Title: Preemption of Restrictions on Over-the-Air Reception
Devices--Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Type of Review: Revision of an existing collection. The following
are burden estimates for the Order portion of the document, as well as
the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of the document. We
account for the burdens estimates separately. If, in a subsequent
rulemaking, the proposed rules in the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking are not adopted in part or in whole, the Commission will
adjust its burden estimates accordingly.
Respondents: State and local governments; small organizations;
small businesses.
Number of Respondents for the Order: 248. (100 requests for
declaratory rulings, 24 comments on requests, 100 petitions for wavers,
24 comments on petitions.)
Estimated Time Per Response for the Order: 2-5 hours.
Total Annual Burden for the Order: 844 hours. It is estimated that
50% of declaratory rulings will be prepared without outside counsel
with a burden of 5 hours each and 50% of parties will hire outside
counsel. The estimated burden to coordinate information with outside
counsel is 2 hours. 50 (50% without outside counsel) x 5 hours = 250
hours. 50 (50% with outside counsel) x 2 hours = 100 hours. It is
estimated that 50% of comments on declaratory rulings will be prepared
without outside counsel with a burden of 4 hours each and 50% of
parties will hire outside counsel. The estimated burden to coordinate
information with outside counsel is 2 hours. 12 (50% without outside
counsel) x 4 hours = 48 hours. 12 (50% with outside counsel) x 2
hours = 24 hours. It is estimated that 50% of petitions for waivers
will be prepared without outside counsel with a burden of 5 hours each
and 50% of parties will hire outside counsel. The estimated burden to
coordinate information with outside counsel is 2 hours. 50 (50% without
outside counsel) x 5 hours = 250 hours. 50 (50% with outside counsel)
x 2 hours = 100 hours. It is estimated that 50% of comments on
waivers will be prepared without outside counsel with a burden of 4
hours each and 50% of parties will hire outside counsel. The estimated
burden to coordinate information with outside counsel is 2 hours. 12
(50% without outside counsel) x 4 hours = 48 hours. 12 (50% with
outside counsel) x 2 hours = 24 hours.
Estimated Costs Per Respondent for the Order: It is estimated that
50 requests for declaratory rulings, 12 comments on requests for
declaratory rulings, 50 petitions for waivers and 12 comments on
petitions for waivers will be prepared each year through outside
counsel. The estimated annual costs are $89,400, illustrated as
follows: 50 declaratory rulings x 5 hours x $150/hr. = $37,500. 12
comments on declaratory rulings x 4 hours x $150/hr. = $7,200. 50
petitions for waivers x 5 hours x $150/hr. = $37,500. 12 comments
on petitions for waivers x 4 hours x $150/hr. = $7,200.
Number of Respondents for the FNPRM: 248. (100 requests for
declaratory rulings, 24 comments on
[[Page 46558]]
requests, 100 petitions for waivers, 24 comments on petitions.)
Estimated Time Per Response for the FNPRM: 2-5 hours.
Total Annual Burden for the FNPRM: 844 hours. It is estimated that
50% of declaratory rulings will be prepared without outside counsel
with a burden of 5 hours each and 50% of parties will hire outside
counsel. The estimated burden to coordinate information with outside
counsel is 2 hours. 50 (50% without outside counsel) x 5 hours = 250
hours. 50 (50% with outside counsel) x 2 hours = 100 hours. It is
estimated that 50% of comments on declaratory rulings will be prepared
without outside counsel with a burden of 4 hours each and 50% of
parties will hire outside counsel. The estimated burden to coordinate
information with outside counsel is 2 hours. 12 (50% without outside
counsel) x 4 hours = 48 hours. 12 (50% with outside counsel) x 2
hours = 24 hours. It is estimated that 50% of petitions for waivers
will be prepared without outside counsel with a burden of 5 hours each
and 50% of parties will hire outside counsel. The estimated burden to
coordinate information with outside counsel is 2 hours. 50 (50% without
outside counsel) x 5 hours = 250 hours. 50 (50% with outside counsel)
x 2 hours = 100 hours. It is estimated that 50% of comments on
waivers will be prepared without outside counsel with a burden of 4
hours each and 50% of parties will hire outside counsel. The estimated
burden to coordinate information with outside counsel is 2 hours. 12
(50% without outside counsel) x 4 hours = 48 hours. 12 (50% with
outside counsel) x 2 hours = 24 hours.
Estimated Costs Per Respondent for the FNPRM: It is estimated that
50 requests for declaratory rulings, 12 comments on requests for
declaratory rulings, 50 petitions for waivers and 12 comments on
petitions for waivers will be prepared each year through outside
counsel. The estimated annual costs are $89,400, illustrated as
follows: 50 declaratory rulings x 5 hours x $150/hr. = $37,500. 12
comments on declaratory rulings x 4 hours x $150/hr. = $7,200. 50
petitions for waivers x 5 hours x $150/hr. = $37,500. 12 comments
on petitions for waivers x 4 hours x $150/hr. = $7,200.
Needs and Uses: Submitted information will be used to evaluate
requests for declaratory ruling regarding the reasonableness of state,
local and nongovernmental restrictions, or to requests for waiver of
the rule.
I. Synopsis of Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order
1. On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (``1996
Act'') became law. Section 207 of the 1996 Act directs that the
Commission shall, ``pursuant to Section 303 of the Communications Act,
promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's
ability to receive video programming services through devices designed
for over-the-air reception of television broadcast signals,
multichannel multipoint distribution service, or direct broadcast
satellite services.'' In this Report and Order (R&O) and Memorandum
Opinion and Order (MO&O) we consolidate two rulemaking proceedings, IB
Docket No. 95-59, 11 FCC Rcd 5809 (1996) (61 FR 10710) (DBS Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), and CS Docket No. 96-83, 11 FCC
Rcd 6357 (1996) (61 FR 16890) (TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking), to implement Section 207 with respect to direct broadcast
satellite (``DBS'') service, television broadcast signals (``TVBS'')
and multichannel multipoint distribution service (``MMDS''). We adopt a
rule that prohibits restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to
install, maintain and use devices designed to receive these services on
property within the exclusive use or control of the viewer and in which
the viewer has a direct or indirect property interest.
2. In the DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
the TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we adopted and proposed a
rule, respectively, establishing a rebuttable presumption of
unreasonableness for restrictions on TVBS, MMDS and DBS. In the R&O, we
replace the presumptive approach with a per se preemption of such
restrictions. Although the rebuttable presumption was created in an
effort to be less intrusive in local government affairs, it was broadly
viewed as creating unsustainable burdens on all parties, including the
Commission. Consequently, we replaced the rebuttable presumption
approach with a narrower, clearer preemption. In addition, the rule we
adopt preempts restrictions and regulations that ``impair'' rather than
``affect'' reception, in order to narrow the preemption and adhere more
closely to the language of the statute. A law, regulation or
restriction impairs installation, maintenance or use of an antenna if
it: (1) Unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance or
use, (2) unreasonably increases the cost of installation, maintenance
or use, or (3) precludes reception of an acceptable quality signal.
3. In the DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we proposed to preempt
nongovernmental restrictions on DBS, TVBS, and MMDS reception devices,
and did not provide any recourse for nongovernmental authorities
seeking to enforce their restrictions. In the rule we adopt today, we
preempt nongovernmental restrictions on the same basis as governmental,
and provide the same declaratory ruling and waiver opportunities to
nongovernmental associations as we offer to governmental authorities.
The legislative history of Section 207 consists of the House Commerce
Committee Report, which states clearly that the provision applies to
nongovernmental restrictions, including restrictive covenants and
homeowners' association rules. The final rule treats nongovernmental
restrictions the same as governmental and establishes waiver and
declaratory ruling processes.
4. The rule we adopt creates exemptions for regulations serving
safety and historic preservation goals. The rule that we adopted in the
DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and proposed in the
TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking required that any governmental
entity seeking to enforce a restriction or regulation that affects
reception secure a declaration or waiver. Parties generally agree that
some restrictions are prima facie justified, and we accordingly create
exemptions for safety and historic preservation regulations. While
these restrictions must be tailored to impose as little burden as
possible on the use of receiving devices, they are permissible even if
they impair the ability to receive video programming services.
5. To the extent that they receive video programming services, our
rule applies to services closely related to DBS, TVBS and MMDS,
including medium-power satellite services using antennas one meter or
less in diameter or diagonal measurement to receive over-the-air video
programming, and multipoint distribution services (MDS), instructional
television fixed service (ITFS) and local multipoint distribution
service (LMDS). Our rule defines DBS and MMDS by the size and shape of
the services' receiving devices, and preempts restrictions on antennas
one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement. We also include
masts in our definition of MMDS, and preempt restrictions on antennas
that extend 12 feet or less above the roofline; such
[[Page 46559]]
installations cannot require a permit or prior approval, absent a
safety or historic preservation reason. In addition, governmental and
nongovernmental authorities cannot require permits or prior approvals
for installation of an antenna placed a distance at least as far from
the lot line as the height of the antenna. Because there is no history
of controversy concerning their size or shape, we decline to establish
any size or shape limits on TVBS antennas. However, TVBS antennas are
subject to the same height limitations as MMDS and DBS.
II. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
6. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
601-612, the Commission's Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect
to the R&O, MO&O is as follows:
As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and the TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission sought
written public comments on the proposals in the two proceedings,
including comments on the IRFA. The Commission's Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Report and Order conforms to the
RFA, as amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996
(CWAAA), Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847.
7. Need for Action and Objectives of the Rule. The rulemaking
implements Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Section 207 directs the Commission to
promulgate regulations to prohibit restrictions that impair a viewer's
ability to receive video programming services through devices designed
for over-the-air reception of TVBS, MMDS and DBS. This action is
authorized under the Communications Act of 1934 section 1, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 section 303,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 303, and by Section 207 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996.
8. The Commission seeks to promote competition among video service
providers and to enhance consumer choice. To accomplish these
objectives, the Commission implements Congress' directive by adopting a
rule that prohibits restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to
install, maintain and use devices designed for over-the-air reception
of video programming through TVBS, MMDS, and DBS services. The rule
that we adopt preempts governmental and nongovernmental regulations and
restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the
viewer in which the viewer has a direct or indirect ownership interest.
Our rule exempts regulations and restrictions which are clearly and
specifically designed to preserve safety or historic districts,
allowing for the enforcement of such restrictions even if they impair a
viewer's ability to install, maintain or use a reception device.
9. Summary and Assessment of Issues Raised by Commenters in
Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The
Commission, in its DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, invited comment on the
IRFA and the potential economic impact the proposed rules would have on
small entities. NLC comments that the proposed rule would have a
``substantial economic and administrative impact'' on over 37,000 small
local governments. NLC states that the proposed rule would require
``local governments to amend their laws and to file petitions at the
FCC * * * for permission to enforce those laws.''
10. The Commission has modified its proposed rule and has addressed
the concerns raised by NLC by providing greater certainty regarding the
application of the rule, and by clarifying that local regulations need
not be rewritten or amended. The Commission recognizes that some
regulations are integral to local governments' ability to protect the
safety of its citizens. The rule that we adopt exempts restrictions
clearly defined as necessary to ensure safety, and permits enforcement
of safety restrictions during the pendency of any challenges. In
addition, limiting the rule's scope to regulations that ``impair,''
rather than the proposed preemption of regulations that ``affect,''
will minimize the impact on small local governments, while effectively
implementing Congress' directive. Finally, the inclusion in the Report
and Order of examples of permissible and prohibited restrictions will
minimize the need for local governments to submit waiver or declaratory
ruling petitions to the Commission, decreasing the potential economic
burden.
11. Numerous apartment complexes filed comments seeking
clarification of Section 207's impact on their lease terms. These
filings express concern about the impact the rule will have on the
rental property industry. This Report and Order applies only to
property in the exclusive control or use of the viewer and in which the
viewer has a direct or indirect ownership interest. Thus, this Order
will have no major impact on the rental property industry. The question
of the applicability of Section 207 and our rule to rental properties
is raised in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
12. Several neighborhood associations suggest that our rule will
have a negative economic impact on the value of their land and that
such a prohibition would constitute a taking, requiring compensation
under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. We do not believe that
implementation of our rule results in a taking of property. There is
nothing in the record here to indicate that nullifying a homeowner's
ability to prevent his neighbor from installing antennas has a
measurable economic impact on the homeowner's property, nor that it
interferes with investment-backed expectations. In support of the rule,
several commenters argue that the rule enhances the value of the
homeowner's property.
13. The Commission also notes the positive economic impact the new
rule will have on many small businesses. The new rule will allow small
businesses that use video programming services to select from a broader
range of providers, which could result in significant economic savings;
because providers will be competing for customers, more services will
be available at lower prices. In addition, small business video
programming providers will be faced with fewer entry hurdles, and will
thus be able to develop their markets and compete more effectively,
achieving one of the purposes of Section 207.
14. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
Impacted. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (1980),
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction,'' and ``the same meaning as the term `small
business concern' under section 3 of the Small Business Act.'' A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA), 15 U.S.C. 632 (1996). The rule we adopt today applies to small
organizations and small governmental jurisdictions, rather than
businesses.
15. The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined as
``governments of * * * districts, with a population of less than fifty
thousand.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(5). There are 85,006 governmental entities in
the United States. United States Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1992 Census of Governments.
[[Page 46560]]
This number includes such entities as states, counties, cities, utility
districts and school districts. We note that restrictions concerning
antenna installation are usually promulgated by cities, towns and
counties, not school or utility districts. Of the 85,006 governmental
entities, 38,978 are counties, cities and towns; and of those, 37,566,
or 96%, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The NLC estimates that
there are 37,000 ``small governmental jurisdictions'' that may be
affected by the proposed rule.
16. Section 601(4) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act defines
``small organization'' as ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 5
U.S.C. 601(4). This definition includes homeowner and condominium
associations that operate as not-for-profit organizations. The
Community Associations Institute estimates that there were 150,000
associations in 1993. Given the nature of a neighborhood association,
we assume for the purposes of this FRFA that all 150,000 associations
are small organizations.
17. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements.
The rule does not establish any filing requirements. However, state and
local governments and neighborhood associations promulgating
regulations that are prohibited by this rule may seek declaratory
rulings concerning the validity of a restriction, or may request
waivers of the rule. Petitions for declaratory ruling and requests for
waiver will be considered through a paper hearing process, and the
initiating petition will require only standard secretarial skills to
prepare.
18. If a governmental or nongovernmental authority wishes to
enforce a safety restriction, the rule requires that the safety reasons
for the restrictions be clearly defined in the legislative history,
preamble or text of the restriction. Alternatively, the local entity
may include a restriction on a list of safety restrictions related to
antennas, that is made available to interested parties (including those
who wish to install antennas). Thus, governmental entities will not be
required to amend their rules. Local officials may need time to review
regulations to determine if the safety reasons are clearly defined in
the legislative history, preamble or text, or to create a list of
applicable restrictions.
19. Steps Taken to Minimize the Economic Impact on Small Entities
and Significant Alternatives Rejected. The Commission considered
various alternatives that would have impacted small entities to varying
extents. These included a rebuttable presumption approach, the use of
the term ``affect'' in the rule, and a rule that allowed for
adjudicatory proceedings in courts of competent jurisdiction, all of
which were adopted in the DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and proposed in the TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The rule we adopt today replaces the rebuttable presumption with a
simpler preemption approach, adheres to the statutory language by using
the term ``impair'' rather than ``affect'' in the rule, and allows for
adjudication at the Commission or in a court of competent jurisdiction.
We believe that we have effectively minimized the rule's economic
impact on small entities.
20. In the DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
the TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we adopted and proposed,
respectively, a rebuttable presumption approach to governmental
regulations, and proposed strict preemption of nongovernmental
restrictions. We acknowledged in the DBS Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that a rule relying on a presumptive approach would
be more difficult to administer than a rule based upon a per se
prohibition, and we sought comment in the TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on less burdensome approaches. Under the rebuttable
presumption approach, local governments would have been required to
request a declaratory ruling from the Commission every time they sought
to enforce or enact a restriction; and neighborhood associations would
not have been able to enforce or enact any restrictions that impaired a
viewer's ability to receive the signals in question. The rebuttable
presumption approach was adopted to ensure the protection of local
interests, including local governments. Based on the record, the
Commission recognizes that the burden of rebutting a presumption could
strain the resources of local authorities. The Commission has rejected
the rebuttable presumption approach for a less burdensome preemption
approach. In addition we have provided recourse for both neighborhood
associations and municipalities. The rule we adopt today provides for a
per se prohibition of restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to
install, maintain or use devices designed for over-the-air reception of
video programming services. Our Report and Order provides examples of
reasonable regulations that can be enforced without a waiver
application. The Commission believes that the Report and Order provides
such clarity as will make the enforcement of the rule the most
efficient and least burdensome for local governments, neighborhood
associations, and this Commission.
21. In adopting the new rule, the Commission rejected the
alternative of preempting all restrictions that ``affect'' the
reception of video programming services through devices designed for
over-the-air reception of TVBS, MMDS and DBS services. The new rule
prohibits only those local restrictions that ``impair'' a viewer's
ability to receive these signals and exempts restrictions necessary to
ensure safety or to preserve historic districts. In defining the term
``impair'' we reject the interpretation that impair means prevent
because that definition would not properly implement Congress'
objective of promoting competition. We find that a restriction impairs
a viewer's ability to receive over-the-air video programming signals,
if it (a) unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance or
use of a device used for the reception of over-the-air video
programming signals by DBS, TVBS, or MMDS; (b) unreasonably increases
the cost of installation, maintenance or use of such devices; (c)
precludes reception of an acceptable quality signal. The use of the
term impair will decrease the burden on small entities while
implementing Congress' objective.
22. In the DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
the TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we discussed the
possibility of parties seeking judgment from either the Commission or a
court of competent jurisdiction. The Commission is concerned about
uniformity in the application of our rule, and about the financial
burden that litigation might place on small entities. While we cannot
prohibit parties' applications to courts of competent jurisdiction, we
address this concern by exercising our Congressional grant of
jurisdiction and implementing a waiver process, and encouraging parties
to use this approach rather than relying on costly litigation.
23. Waiver proceedings will be paper hearings, allowing the
Commission to alleviate the negative potential economic impact from
costly litigation. Further, any regulations necessary to the
safeguarding of safety will remain enforceable pending the Commission's
resolution of waiver requests. The Commission believes that the rule we
adopt today effectively implements Congress' intent while minimizing
any significant economic impact on small entities.
[[Page 46561]]
24. Report to Congress. The Commission shall send a copy of this
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, along with this Report and
Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also be published in the
Federal Register.
III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
25. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This Report and
Order has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 and found to contain an information collection requirement on the
public. Implementation of an information collection requirement is
subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget as
prescribed by the Act.
26. In the DBS Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
the TVBS-MMDS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we proposed an information
collection process, utilizing waivers and declaratory rulings, that has
now been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This
Report and Order contains a modified information collection that we
believe is less burdensome. As part of our continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and OMB to comment on
the modified information collections contained in this Report and
Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.
104-13. Public and agency comments are due on September 27, 1996; OMB
comments are due November 4, 1996. Comments should address: (a) whether
the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
will 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.
27. Written comments by the public on the modified information
collections are due on September 27, 1996. Written comments must be
submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed
and/or modified collections on or before November 4, 1996. 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].
IV. Ordering Clauses
28. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j),
and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
154(i), 154(j), and 303, and section 207 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, Public Law No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, that the rule discussed
in this Report and Order is adopted as Sec. 1.4000 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.4000.
29. It is further ordered that Sec. 25.104 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 25.104, is amended as set forth below.
30. It is further ordered that the Petitions for Reconsideration
filed in IB Docket No. 95-59 by Alphastar Television Network, Inc.;
County of Boulder, State of Colorado; DIRECTV, Inc.; Florida League of
Cities; Hughes Network Systems, Inc.; City of Dallas et al.; National
League of Cities et al.; Primestar, Inc.; Satellite Broadcasting and
Communications Association of America; and United States Satellite
Broadcasting Co., to the extent that they address issues related to
section 207, are granted in part as discussed herein, and are otherwise
denied.
31. It is further ordered that the requirements and regulations
established in this decision shall become effective upon approval by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the new information
collection requirements adopted herein, but no sooner than October 4,
1996.
32. This Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order contains
a modified information collection. As part of our continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the OMB to
comment on the information collections contained in this Report and
Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-
13. Public and agency comments are due September 27, 1996; OMB comments
are due November 4, 1996. Comments should address: (a) Whether the
modified and proposed collections of information are necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
whether the information will 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 collection of information on the respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. 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].
33. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall send a copy of
this Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with
paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354, 94
Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (1981).
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Telecommunications, Television.
47 CFR Part 25
Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Parts 1 and 25 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended to read as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 1 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 207, 303 and 309(j) unless
otherwise noted.
2. A new subpart S is added to part 1 to read as follows:
Subpart S--Preemption of Restrictions That ``Impair'' a Viewer's
Ability To Receive Television Broadcast Signals, Direct Broadcast
Satellite Services or Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Services
Sec. 1.4000. Restrictions impairing reception of television
broadcast signals, direct broadcast satellite services or
multichannel multipoint distribution services.
[[Page 46562]]
Subpart S--Preemption of Restrictions That ``Impair'' a Viewer's
Ability To Receive Television Broadcast Signals, Direct Broadcast
Satellite Services or Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Services
Sec. 1.4000. Restrictions impairing reception of television broadcast
signals, direct broadcast satellite services or multichannel multipoint
distribution services.
(a)(1) Any restriction, including but not limited to any state or
local law or regulation, including zoning, land-use, or building
regulation, or any private covenant, homeowners' association rule or
similar restriction on property within the exclusive use or control of
the antenna user where the user has a direct or indirect ownership
interest in the property, that impairs the installation, maintenance,
or use of: An antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast
satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite services, that is
one meter or less in diameter or is located in Alaska; or an antenna
that is designed to receive video programming services via multipoint
distribution services, including multichannel multipoint distribution
services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint
distribution services, and that is one meter or less in diameter or
diagonal measurement; or an antenna that is designed to receive
television broadcast signals; is prohibited, to the extent it so
impairs, subject to paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) For purposes of this section, a law, regulation or restriction
impairs installation, maintenance or use of an antenna if it:
(i) Unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance or
use,
(ii) Unreasonably increases the cost of installation, maintenance
or use, or
(iii) Precludes reception of an acceptable quality signal.
(3) No civil, criminal, administrative, or other legal action of
any kind shall be taken to enforce any restriction or regulation
prohibited by this section except pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of
this section. No fine or other penalties shall accrue against an
antenna user while a proceeding is pending to determine the validity of
any restriction.
(b) Any restriction otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a) of this
section is permitted if:
(1) It is necessary to accomplish a clearly defined safety
objective that is either stated in the text, preamble or legislative
history of the restriction or described as applying to that restriction
in a document that is readily available to antenna users, and would be
applied to the extent practicable in a non-discriminatory manner to
other appurtenances, devices, or fixtures that are comparable in size,
weight and appearance to these antennas and to which local regulation
would normally apply; or
(2) It is necessary to preserve an historic district listed or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, as
set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 470a, and imposes no greater restrictions on
antennas covered by this rule than are imposed on the installation,
maintenance or use of other modern appurtenances, devices or fixtures
that are comparable in size, weight, and appearance to these antennas;
and
(3) It is no more burdensome to affected antenna users than is
necessary to achieve the objectives described above.
(c) Local governments or associations may apply to the Commission
for a waiver of this rule under Sec. 1.3. Waiver requests will be put
on public notice. The Commission may grant a waiver upon a showing by
the applicant of local concerns of a highly specialized or unusual
nature. No petition for waiver shall be considered unless it specifies
the restriction at issue. Waivers granted in accordance with this
section shall not apply to restrictions amended or enacted after the
waiver is granted.
Any responsive pleadings must be served on all parties and filed
within 30 days after release of a public notice that such petition has
been filed. Any replies must be filed within 15 days thereafter.
(d) Parties may petition the Commission for a declaratory ruling
under Sec. 1.2, or a court of competent jurisdiction, to determine
whether a particular restriction is permissible or prohibited under
this section. Petitions to the Commission will be put on public notice.
Any responsive pleadings must be served on all parties and filed within
30 days after release of a public notice that such petition has been
filed. Any replies must be filed within 15 days thereafter.
(e) In any Commission proceeding regarding the scope or
interpretation of any provision of this section, the burden of
demonstrating that a particular governmental or nongovernmental
restriction complies with this section and does not impair the
installation, maintenance or use of devices designed for over-the-air
reception of video programming services shall be on the party that
seeks to impose or maintain the restriction.
(f) All allegations of fact contained in petitions and related
pleadings before the Commission must be supported by affidavit of a
person or persons with actual knowledge thereof. An original and two
copies of all petitions and pleadings should be addressed to the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M St.
NW.,Washington, DC 20554. Copies of the petitions and related pleadings
will be available for public inspection in the Cable Reference Room in
Washington, DC. Copies will be available for purchase from the
Commission's contract copy center, and Commission decisions will be
available on the Internet.
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 25.101 to 25.601 issued under Sec. 4, 48
Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154. Interpret or apply secs. 101-
104, 76 Stat. 416-427; 47 U.S.C. 701-744; 47 U.S.C. 554.
2. Section 25.104 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and
adding new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.104 Preemption of local zoning of earth stations.
* * * * *
(b)(1) Any state or local zoning, land-use, building, or similar
regulation that affects the installation, maintenance, or use of a
satellite earth station antenna that is two meters or less in diameter
and is located or proposed to be located in any area where commercial
or industrial uses are generally permitted by non-federal land-use
regulation shall be presumed unreasonable and is therefore preempted
subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. No civil, criminal,
administrative, or other legal action of any kind shall be taken to
enforce any regulation covered by this presumption unless the
promulgating authority has obtained a waiver from the Commission
pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, or a final declaration from
the Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction that the
presumption has been rebutted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
* * * * *
(f) a satellite earth station antenna that is designed to receive
direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite
services, that is one meter or less in diameter or is located in Alaska
is covered by the regulations in Sec. 1.4000 of this chapter.
[FR Doc. 96-22494 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22487 Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Xylazine Injection
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22487]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 522
Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Xylazine
Injection
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect approval of an abbreviated new animal drug
application (ANADA) filed by Chanelle Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
Ltd. The ANADA provides for intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous
use of xylazine injection in dogs and cats to produce sedation
accompanied by a shorter period of analgesia.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra K. Woods, Center For Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-114), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1617.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Chanelle Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing Ltd.,
Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland, filed ANADA 200-184, which provides
for intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous use of
Chanazine (20 milligrams/milliliter (mg/mL)) Injectable
(xylazine hydrochloride equivalent to 20 mg xylazine per mL) in dogs
and cats to produce sedation accompanied by a shorter period of
analgesia. The drug is limited to use by or on the order of a licensed
veterinarian.
Approval of ANADA 200-184 for Chanelle's Chanazine
(xylazine 20 mg/mL) Injectable is as a generic copy of Bayer's NADA 47-
955 for Rompun (xylazine 20 mg/mL) injectable. The ANADA is
approved as of July 12, 1996, and the regulations are amended by
revising 21 CFR 522.2662(b) to reflect the approval. The basis of
approval is discussed in the freedom of information summary.
In accordance with the freedom of information provisions of part 20
(21 CFR part 20) and Sec. 514.11(e)(2)(ii) (21 CFR 514.11(e)(2)(ii)), a
summary of safety and effectiveness data and information submitted to
support approval of this application may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23, Rockville, MD 20857, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(d)(1)(i) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522
Animal drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is
amended as follows:
PART 522--IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Sec. 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 360b).
2. Section 522.2662 is amended by revising the first two sentences
in paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 522.2662 Xylazine hydrochloride injection.
* * * * *
(b) Sponsor. See 000856 in Sec. 510.600(c) of this chapter for use
in horses, wild deer, and elk. See 000859 and 061651 in Sec. 510.600(c)
of this chapter for use in horses, wild deer, elk, dogs, and cats. * *
*
* * * * *
Dated: August 20, 1996.
Stephen F. Sundlof,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-22487 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22486 New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor Name and Address
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46547-46548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22486]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 510
New Animal Drugs; Change of Sponsor Name and Address
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor name and address from
Roussel-UCLAF to Roussel-UCLAF SA.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. McKay, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0213.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Roussel-UCLAF, Division Agro-Veterinaire,
163 Avenue Gambetta, 75020 Paris, France, has informed FDA of a change
of sponsor name and address to Roussel-UCLAF SA, Animal Health
Division, 102 Route de Noisy, 93235 Romainville Cedex, France.
Accordingly, the agency is amending the regulations in 21 CFR
510.600(c)(1) and (c)(2) to reflect the change of sponsor name and
address.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 510 is
amended as follows:
PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 512, 701, 721 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 360b, 371, 379e).
2. Section 510.600 is amended in the table in paragraph (c)(1) by
removing the entry ``Roussel-UCLAF'' and adding in its place a new
entry for ``Roussel-UCLAF SA'' and in the table in paragraph (c)(2) in
the entry for ``012579'' by revising the sponsor name and address to
read as follows:
Sec. 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of
approved applications.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firm name and address Drug labeler code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Roussel-UCLAF SA, Animal Health Division,
102 Route de Noisy, 93235 Romainville
Cedex, France 012579
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) * * *
[[Page 46548]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug labeler code Firm name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
012579................................. Roussel-UCLAF SA, Animal Health
Division, 102 Route de Noisy,
93235 Romainville Cedex,
France.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 20, 1996.
Robert C. Livingston,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-22486 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22484 Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Production Aids, and Sanitizers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46545-46547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22484]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 178
[Docket No. 96F-0027]
Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Production Aids, and
Sanitizers
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of bis(2,4-di-tert-
butyl-6-methylphenyl) ethyl phosphite as a processing stabilizer for
olefin polymers intended for use in contact with food. This action is
in response to a petition filed by Ciba-Geigy Corp.
DATES: Effective September 4, 1996; written objections and requests for
a hearing by October 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vir D. Anand, Center for Food Safety
and
[[Page 46546]]
Applied Nutrition (HFS-216), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St.
SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of February 9, 1996 (61 FR 5001), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 6B4492) had been filed by Ciba-Geigy Corp., 540
White Plains Rd., Tarrytown, NY 10591-9005, proposing that food
additive regulations be amended in Sec. 178.2010 Antioxidants and/or
stabilizers for polymers (21 CFR 178.2010) to provide for the safe use
of bis(2,4-di-tert-butyl-6-methylphenyl) ethyl phosphite as a
processing stabilizer for olefin polymers complying with 21 CFR
177.1520 intended for use in contact with food.
FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material.
The agency concludes that the proposed use of the additive is safe,
that the additive will achieve its intended technical effect, and that
the regulations in Sec. 178.2010(b) should be amended as set forth
below.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the
information contact person listed above. As provided in Sec. 171.1(h),
the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not
available for public disclosure before making the documents available
for inspection.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before October 4, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall
be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 178
Food additives, Food packaging.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 21 CFR part 178 is amended as follows:
PART 178--INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: ADJUVANTS, PRODUCTION AIDS, AND
SANITIZERS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 178 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e).
2. Section 178.2010 is amended in the table in paragraph (b) by
alphabetically adding a new entry for bis(2,4-di-tert-butyl-6-
methylphenyl) ethyl phosphite to read as follows:
Sec. 178.2010 Antioxidants and/or stabilizers for polymers
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Substances Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
Bis(2,4-di-tert-butyl-6-methylphenyl) For use only:
ethyl phosphite (CAS Reg. No. 145650- 1. At levels not to exceed 0.3
60-8). percent by weight of olefin
polymers complying with Sec.
177.1520(c) of this chapter.
The finished polymers may only
be used with food of the types
identified in Sec. 176.170(c)
of this chapter, Table 1,
under Categories I, II, IV-B,
VI-A, VI-B, VII-B, and VIII,
and under conditions of use B
through H described in Table 2
of Sec. 176.170(c) of this
chapter.
2. At levels not to exceed 0.1
percent by weight of propylene
polymers complying with Sec.
177.1520(c) of this chapter,
items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.2b,
3.4, or 3.5, or 3.1a (where
the density of this polymer is
at least 0.85 gram per cubic
centimeter and less than 0.91
gram per cubic centimeter).
The finished polymers may only
be used in contact with food
of the types identified in
Sec. 176.170(c) of this
chapter, Table 1, under
Categories III, IV-A, V, VI-C,
VII-A, and IX, and under
conditions of use B through H
described in Table 2 of Sec.
176.170(c) of this chapter.
[[Page 46547]]
3. At levels not to exceed 0.1
percent by weight of high-
density ethylene polymers
complying with Sec.
177.1520(c) of this chapter,
items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1a,
3.1b, 3.2a, or 3.6 (where the
density of each of these
polymers is at least 0.94 gram
per cubic centimeter), or 5.
The finished polymers may only
be used in contact with food
of the types identified in
Sec. 176.170(c) of this
chapter, Table 1, under
Categories III, IV-A, V, VI-C,
VII-A, and IX, and under
conditions of use C (maximum
temperature 70 C) through G
described in Table 2 of Sec.
176.170(c) of this chapter.
Provided, that the finished
food contact articles have a
volume of at least 18.9 liters
(5 gallons).
4. At levels not to exceed 0.01
percent by weight of low-
density ethylene polymers
complying with Sec.
177.1520(c) of this chapter,
items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1a,
3.1b, 3.2a, 3.4, 3.5, or 3.6
(where the density of each of
these polymers is less than
0.94 gram per cubic
centimeter). The finished
polymers may only be used in
contact with food of the types
identified in Sec. 176.170(c)
of this chapter, Table 1,
under Categories III, IV-A, V,
VI-C, VII-A, and IX, and under
conditions of use B through H
described in Table 2 of Sec.
176.170(c) of this chapter.
Provided, that the average
thickness of such polymers in
the form in which they contact
food shall not exceed 0.001
inch.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: August 22, 1996.
Fred R. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-22484 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22483 Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Production Aids, and Sanitizers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46544-46545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22483]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
21 CFR Part 178
[Docket No. 96F-0092]
Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Production Aids, and
Sanitizers
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the expanded safe use of
phosphorous acid, cyclic neopentanetetrayl bis(2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-
methylphenyl)ester for use as an antioxidant and/or stabilizer at
levels not to exceed 0.05 percent by weight of olefin polymers intended
for use in contact with food. This action is in response to a petition
filed by Asahi Denka Kogyo K. K.
DATES: Effective September 4, 1996; written objections and requests for
a hearing by October 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vir D. Anand, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-216), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of March 25, 1996 (61 FR 12075), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 6B4498) had been filed by Asahi Denka Kogyo K.
K., 2-13 Shirahata 5-Chome, Urawa City, Saitama 336, Japan. The
petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations in
Sec. 178.2010 Antioxidants and/or stabilizers for polymers (21 CFR
178.2010) to provide for the expanded safe use of phosphorous acid,
cyclic neopentanetetrayl bis(2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenyl)ester for
use as an antioxidant and/or stabilizer at levels not to exceed 0.05
percent by weight of olefins complying with 21 CFR 177.1520 intended
for use in contact with food.
FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material.
[[Page 46545]]
Based on this information, the agency concludes that the proposed use
of the additive is safe, that the additive will achieve its intended
technical effect, and therefore, that the regulations in Sec. 178.2010
should be amended as set forth below.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the
information contact person listed above. As provided in Sec. 171.1(h),
the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not
available for public disclosure before making the documents available
for inspection.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before October 4, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall
be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 178
Food additives, Food packaging.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 21 CFR part 178 is amended as follows:
PART 178--INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: ADJUVANTS, PRODUCTION AIDS, AND
SANITIZERS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 178 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e).
2. Section 178.2010 is amended in the table in paragraph (b) by
revising the entry for ``Phosphorous acid, cyclic neopentanetetrayl
bis(2,6-di-tert-butyl-4-methylphenyl)ester'' under the heading
``Substances'' and by adding a new entry ``2.'' under the heading
``Limitations'' to read as follows:
Sec. 178.2010 Antioxidants and/or stabilizers for polymers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substances Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Phosphorous acid, cyclic neopentanetetrayl bis(2,6-di-
tert-butyl-4-methylphenyl)ester (CAS Reg. No. 80693-00-
1)..................................................... For use only:
...................................................... 1. At levels not to exceed 0.25 percent by weight of
polypropylene complying with Sec. 177.1520 of this
chapter. * * *
...................................................... 2. At levels not to exceed 0.05 percent by weight of
polymers complying with Sec. 177.1520(c) of this
chapter, item 3.1 or 3.2, and with a maximum
thickness of 100 micrometers (0.004 inch) for use
with all food types under conditions of use B, C, D,
E, F, G, and H described in Table 2 of Sec.
176.170(c) of this chapter.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 20, 1996.
Fred R. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-22483 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22482 Indirect Food Additives: Polymers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46543-46544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22482]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 177
[Docket No. 95F-0402]
Indirect Food Additives: Polymers
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of di(4-methylbenzoyl)
peroxide as an accelerator for silicone polymers and elastomers for use
in contact with food. This action is in response to a petition filed by
Registration and Consulting Co., Ltd., on behalf of Peroxid-Chemie
GmbH.
DATES: Effective September 4, 1996; written objections and requests for
a hearing by October 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch
(HFA-
[[Page 46544]]
305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vir D. Anand, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-216), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C
St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register of December 20, 1995 (60 FR 65658), FDA announced that a food
additive petition (FAP 6B4489) had been filed by Registration and
Consulting Co., Ltd., on behalf of Peroxid-Chemie GmbH, c/o Bruce A.
Schwemmer, Bruce EnviroExcel Group, Inc., 94 Buttermilk Bridge Rd.,
Washington, NJ 07882 (formerly 55 River Dr. South No. 1808, Jersey
City, NJ 07310). The petition proposed to amend the food additive
regulations in Sec. 177.2600 Rubber articles intended for repeated use
(21 CFR 177.2600) to provide for the safe use of di(4-methylbenzoyl)
peroxide as an accelerator for silicone polymers and elastomers
complying with Sec. 177.2600 for use in contact with food.
FDA has evaluated data in the petition and other relevant material.
The agency concludes that the proposed use of the additive is safe,
that it will achieve its intended technical effect, and that the
regulations in Sec. 177.2600 should be amended as set forth below.
In accordance with Sec. 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition
and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its
decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the
information contact person listed above. As provided in 21 CFR
171.1(h), the agency will delete from the documents any materials that
are not available for public disclosure before making the documents
available for inspection.
The agency has carefully considered the potential environmental
effects of this action. FDA has concluded that the action will not have
a significant impact on the human environment, and that an
environmental impact statement is not required. The agency's finding of
no significant impact and the evidence supporting that finding,
contained in an environmental assessment, may be seen in the Dockets
Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at
any time on or before October 4, 1996, file with the Dockets Management
Branch (address above) written objections thereto. Each objection shall
be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with
particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is
made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on
which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to
request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a
waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered
objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed
description and analysis of the specific factual information intended
to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing
is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any
particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a
hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents shall be
submitted and shall be identified with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in
response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 177
Food additives, Food packaging.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 21 CFR part 177 is amended as follows:
PART 177--INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: POLYMERS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 177 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 201, 402, 409, 721 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e).
2. Section 177.2600 is amended in paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(b) by
alphabetically adding a new entry for ``Di(4-methylbenzoyl) peroxide''
to read as follows:
Sec. 177.2600 Rubber articles intended for repeated use.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(b) * * *
Di(4-methylbenzoyl) peroxide (CAS Reg. No. 895-85-2) for use only as a
crosslinking agent in silicone polymers and elastomers identified under
paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section at levels not to exceed 1 percent
by weight of such polymers and elastomers where the total of all
accelerators does not exceed 1.5 percent by weight of rubber product.
* * * * *
Dated: August 22, 1996.
Fred R. Shank,
Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 96-22482 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22448 Virginia Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46552-46554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22448]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
30 CFR Part 946
[VA-108-FOR]
Virginia Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
[[Page 46553]]
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed amendment to the Virginia
regulatory program (hereinafter referred to as the ``Virginia
program'') under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
(SMCRA). The proposed amendment consists of regulatory changes to
implement the remining standards of the Federal Energy Policy Act of
1992. The amendment is intended to revise the Virginia program to be
consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations as amended on
November 27, 1995. (60 FR 58480)
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert A. Penn, Director, Big Stone Gap Field Office, 1941 Neely Road,
Suite 201, Compartment 116, Big Stone Gap, Virginia 24219 Telephone:
(540) 523-4303
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Virginia Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations.
I. Background on the Virginia Program
On December 15, 1981, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Virginia program. Background information on the Virginia
program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of
comments, and the conditions of approval can be found in the December
15, 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 61088). Subsequent actions concerning
conditions of approval and program amendments can be found at 30 CFR
946.11, 946.12, 946.13, 946.15, and 946.16.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated May 28, 1996, (Administrative Record No. VA-885)
Virginia submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant to
SMCRA. Virginia submitted the proposed amendment at its own initiative.
Virginia proposed amendments to implement the remining standards of the
Federal Energy Policy Act of 1992.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the June 19,
1996, Federal Register (61 FR 31071) and in the same document opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment
period closed on July 19, 1996.
III. Director's Findings
Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the
proposed amendment.
Revisions not specifically discussed below concern nonsubstantive
wording changes, or revised cross-references and paragraph notations to
reflect organizational changes resulting from this amendment.
A. Revisions to Virginia Regulations That Are Substantively Identical
to the Corresponding Federal Regulations
The amendments proposed by Virginia are as follows:
1. Section 480-03-19.700.5 Definitions
(a) ``Lands eligible for remining'' has been added to mean those
lands that would otherwise be eligible for expenditures under section
404 or under section 402(g)(4) of the Federal Act.
(b) ``Unanticipated event or condition'' has been added to mean (as
used in Sec. 480-03-19.773.15), an event or condition related to prior
mining activity which arises from a surface coal mining and reclamation
operation on lands eligible for remining and was not contemplated by
the applicable permit.
2. Section 480-03-19.773.15 Review of Permit Applications
(a) New subsection (b)(4) has been added to provide, at (b)(4)(i)
that subsequent to October 24, 1992, the prohibitions of paragraph (b)
of this section regarding issuance of a new permit shall not apply to
any violation that: occurs after that date; is unabated; and results
from an unanticipated event or condition that arises from a surface
coal mining and reclamation operation on lands that are eligible for
remining under a permit which is issued before September 30, 2004, or
any renewals thereof, and held by the person making applications for
the new permit.
New subsection (b)(4)(ii) provides that for permits issued under
Sec. 480-03-19.785.25 of this chapter, an event or condition shall be
presumed to be unanticipated for the purposes of this paragraph if it:
arose after permit issuance; was related to prior mining; and was not
identified in the permit.
(b) New subsection (c)(14) has been added to provide that for
permits to be issued under Sec. 480-03-19.785.25 of this chapter, the
permit application must contain: lands eligible for remining; an
identification of the potential environmental and safety problems
related to prior mining activity which could reasonably be anticipated
to occur at the site; and mitigation plans to sufficiently address
these potential environmental and safety problems so that reclamation
as required by the applicable requirements of this chapter can be
accomplished.
3. Section 480-03-19.785.25 Lands Eligible for Remining
This new section contains permitting requirements to implement
Sec. 480-03-19.773.15(b)(4), and provides that: any person who submits
a permit application to conduct a surface coal mining operation on
lands eligible for remaining must comply with this section; any
application for a permit under this section shall be made according to
all requirements of this subchapter applicable to surface coal mining
and reclamation operations. In addition, the application shall: to the
extent not otherwise addressed in the permit application, identify
potential environmental and safety problems related to prior mining
activity at the site and that could be reasonably anticipated to occur.
This identification shall be based on a due diligence investigation
which shall include visual observations at the site, a record review of
past mining at the site, and environmental sampling tailored to current
site conditions; with regard to potential environmental and safety
problems referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, describe the
mitigative measures that will be taken to ensure that the applicable
reclamation requirements of this chapter can be met; The requirements
of this section shall not apply after September 30, 2004.
4. Section 480-03-19.816/817.116 Revegetation: Standards for Success
Subsections (c)(2)(i) have been amended by adding the phrase
``except as provided in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section'' to the
first sentence. This modification was made in response to the new
language added at subsection (c)(2)(ii), and that is identified below.
New subsection (c)(2)(ii) provide that the responsibility period
shall be two full years for lands eligible for remining included in
permits issued before September 30, 2004, or any renewals thereof. To
the extent that the success standards are established by paragraph
(b)(5) of this section, the lands shall equal or exceed the standards
during the growing season of the last year of the responsibility
period.
Because the above proposed revisions are identical in meaning to
the corresponding Federal regulation, the Director finds that
Virginia's proposed rules are no less effective than the Federal rule.
[[Page 46554]]
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
The Director solicited public comments and provided an opportunity
for a public hearing on the proposed amendment. No public comments were
received, and because no one requested an opportunity to speak at a
public hearing, no hearing was held.
Federal Agency Comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(i), the Director solicited
comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with
an actual or potential interest in the Virginia program. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
responded and recommended that the amendments be accepted. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service responded and stated that the proposed
regulatory changes are not likely to adversely affect threatened or
endangered species or critical habitats. The U.S. Department of Labor,
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) responded and stated that
the amendments should be accepted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the
written concurrence of the EPA with respect to those provisions of the
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality
standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The
Director has determined that this amendment contains no provisions in
these categories and that EPA's concurrence is not required.
Pursuant to 732.17(h)(11)(i), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from EPA on May 31, 1996. EPA responded that the
amendment was acceptable.
State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(4), OSM solicited comments on the
proposed amendment from the SHPO and ACHP. They did not respond.
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above finding(s), the Director approves the proposed
amendment as submitted by Virginia on May 28, 1996.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 946, codifying decisions
concerning the Virginia program, are being amended to implement this
decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by
SMCRA.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12988
The Department of the Interior has concluded the reviews required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extent allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such
program is drafted and promulgated by a special State, not by OSM.
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30
CFR 730.11, 732.15 and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA [30 U.S.C. 1292(d)] provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumption for the counterpart Federal regulations.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: August 14, 1996.
Tim L. Dieringer,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 946--VIRGINIA
1. The authority citation for Part 946 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 946.15 is amended by adding paragraph (ll) to read as
follows:
Sec. 946.15 Approval of regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
(ll) The amendment to the Virginia program concerning
implementation of the remining standards of the Federal Energy Policy
Act of 1992 as submitted to OSM on May 28, 1996, is approved effective
September 4, 1996.
[FR Doc. 96-22448 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22447 Ohio Regulatory Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46548-46550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22447]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Part 935
[OH-238-FOR, #72]
Ohio Regulatory Program
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; approval of amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSM is approving a proposed amendment to the Ohio regulatory
program (hereinafter referred to as the ``Ohio program'') under the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). Ohio
proposed revisions to rules pertaining to underground mining. The
amendment is intended to revise the Ohio program to be consistent with
the corresponding Federal regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Rieger, Field Branch Chief,
Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center, OSM, 3 Parkway Center,
Pittsburgh, PA 15220, Telephone: (412) 937-2153.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background on the Ohio Program
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
III. Director's Findings
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
V. Director's Decision
VI. Procedural Determinations
I. Background on the Ohio Program
On August 16, 1982, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally
approved the Ohio program. Background information on the Ohio program,
including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and
the conditions of
[[Page 46549]]
approval can be found in the August 10, 1982, Federal Register (42 FR
34668). Subsequent actions concerning conditions of approval and
program amendments can be found at 30 CFR 935.11, 935.12, 935.15, and
935.16.
II. Submission of the Proposed Amendment
By letter dated May 23, 1996, (Administrative Record No. OH-2166-
00) Ohio submitted a proposed amendment to its program pursuant to
SMCRA at its own initiative. Ohio proposed to revise the Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) at sections 1501:13-4-12(G)(3)(d) and
4(f),(I)--Requirements for Special Categories of Mining; 1501:13-9-
08(A),(B)--Protection of Underground Mining; and 1501:13-13-01--
Concurrent Surface and Underground Mining.
OSM announced receipt of the proposed amendment in the June 24,
1996, Federal Register (61 FR 32382), and in the same document opened
the public comment period and provided an opportunity for a public
hearing on the adequacy of the proposed amendment. The public comment
period closed on July 24, 1996.
III. Director's Findings
Set forth below, pursuant to SMCRA and the Federal regulations at
30 CFR 732.15 and 732.17, are the Director's findings concerning the
proposed amendment.
Revisions not specifically discussed below concern nonsubstantive
wording changes, or revised cross-references and paragraph notations to
reflect organizational changes resulting from this amendment.
A. Revisions to Ohio's Regulations That Are Substantively Identical to
the Corresponding Provisions of the Federal Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State regulation Subject Federal counterpart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OAC 1501:13-4-12(G)(3)(d).............. Variances................. 30 CFR 785.18(b)(4)
OAC 1501:13-4-12(G)(4)(f).............. Permit Issuance........... 30 CFR 785.18(c)(6)
OAC 1501:13-4-12(G)(4)(i).............. Permit Issuance........... 30 CFR 785.18(c)(9)(iii)
OAC 1501:13-9-08(A)(1)................. Protection of Underground 30 CFR 816.79(b)
Mining.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the above proposed revisions are identical in meaning to
the corresponding Federal regulations, the Director finds that Ohio's
proposed rules are no less effective than the Federal rules.
B. Revisions to Ohio's Regulations With No Corresponding Federal
Regulations
Ohio proposed to delete OAC 1501:13-9-08(B) which required that
surface mining operations be designed to protect disturbed surface
areas, including spoil disposal sites, so as not to endanger any
present or future coal mining operation. There is no corresponding
Federal requirement to this provision. Therefore, the Director finds
that the proposed deletion will not render the State program less
effective than the Federal regulations.
Ohio proposed to delete OAC 1501:13-13-01 which specifies
performance standards for concurrent surface and underground mining
activities operating under a variance from contemporaneous reclamation
requirements. These provisions have no corresponding Federal
requirements. Ohio's provisions for variances in contemporaneous
reclamation appear in OAC 1501:13-4-12(G). The Director finds that the
proposed deletion will not render the State program less effective than
the Federal regulations.
IV. Summary and Disposition of Comments
Public Comments
The Director solicited public comments and provided an opportunity
for a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Two public comments
were received. Because no one requested an opportunity to speak at a
public hearing, no hearing was held.
One commenter stated that by rescinding OAC 1501:13-13-01,
underground and surface coal reserves will be sterilized needlessly.
The commenter suggests that this provision provides a degree of
flexibility and that the 500 foot barrier was meant for underground and
surface mines in the same seam. The Director notes that the changes
proposed by Ohio simplify its rule structure by eliminating OAC
1501:13-13-01 which duplicates requirements found under 1501:13-4-12(G)
(contemporaneous reclamation) and 1501:13-9-08 (concurrence). The
revisions are not intended to create the loss of any flexibility nor
cause any impact that would sterilize or impact the ability to mine
certain reserves beyond those that currently exist in the Ohio program
and do not render the program less effective than the Federal
regulations.
The second commenter, the Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO),
expressed several concerns. OHPO feels that proposed rule changes
pertaining to surface mining operations are not routinely sent to OHPO
for review. OHPO is particularly concerned that there is no basis for
selecting the 500 foot distance requirement specified in OAC 1501:13-9-
08. If feels this could create situations where there are adverse
effects to a property eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). OHPO is also concerned that the proposed
changes could result in an acceleration of surface affectment actions
with increased risks for adverse effects to properties that may be
eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The Director acknowledges that all
requirements of coordination and consultation between agencies
responsible for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) must be met. However, the changes proposed by Ohio do not impact
compliance with NHPS and the OHPA comments are, therefore, outside the
scope of this amendment. The Director notes that the referenced 500
foot distance concerns the amount of barrier that may be necessary to
ensure the protection of underground coal miners and is consistent with
Federal requirements. The barrier is a hydrologic and structural
consideration and not considered as a direct limitation on surface
impacts as OHPA suggests. The Director concludes that none of the
changes proposed by Ohio create barriers to compliance with the NHPA.
Federal Agency Comments
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(I), the Director solicited
comments on the proposed amendment from various Federal agencies with
an actual or potential interest in the Ohio program. None were
received.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(h)(11)(ii), OSM is required to obtain the
written concurrence of the EPA with respect to those provisions of the
proposed program amendment that relate to air or water quality
standards promulgated under the authority of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.) or the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
[[Page 46550]]
None of the revisions Ohio proposed to make in its amendment
pertains to air or water quality standards. Nevertheless, OSM requested
EPA's concurrence with the proposed amendment. EPA did not respond to
OSM's request.
V. Director's Decision
Based on the above findings, the Director approves the proposed
amendment as submitted by Ohio on May 23, 1996.
The Federal regulations at 30 CFR Part 935, codifying decisions
concerning the Ohio program, are being amended to implement this
decision. This final rule is being made effective immediately to
expedite the State program amendment process and to encourage States to
bring their programs into conformity with the Federal standards without
undue delay. Consistency of State and Federal standards is required by
SMCRA.
VI. Procedural Determinations
Executive Order 12866
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review).
Executive Order 12778
The Department of the Interior has conducted the reviews required
by section 2 of Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform) and has
determined that, to the extend allowed by law, this rule meets the
applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section.
However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of
State regulatory programs and program amendments since each such
program is drafted and promulgated by a specific State, not by OSM.
Under sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30
CFR 730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed State
regulatory programs and program amendments submitted by the States must
be based solely on a determination of whether the submittal is
consistent with SMCRA and its implementing Federal regulations and
whether the other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have
been met.
National Environmental Policy Act
No environmental impact statement is required for this rule since
section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency
decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not
constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section
102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(C)).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3507 et seq.).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior has determined that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
The State submittal which is the subject of this rule is based upon
corresponding Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was
prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a
significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, this rule will ensure that existing requirements
previously promulgated by OSM will be implemented by the State. In
making the determination as to whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and
assumptions for the corresponding Federal regulations.
Unfunded Mandates
This rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any
given year on any governmental entity or the private sector.
List of Subjects in 30 CFR 935
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: August 19, 1996.
Tim L. Dieringer,
Acting Regional Director, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, Title 30, Chapter VII,
Subchapter T of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 935--OHIO
1. The authority citation for Part 935 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
2. Section 935.15 is amended by adding paragraph (bbbb) to read as
follows:
Sec. 935.15 Approval of regulatory program amendments.
* * * * *
(bbbb) The following rules, as submitted to OSM on May 23, 1996 are
approved effective September 4, 1996.
OAC 1501:13-4-12(G)(3)(d)--Variance
OAC 1501:13-4-12(G)(4)(f),(i)--Permit Issuance
OAC 1501:13-9-08(A)(1)--Protection of Underground Mining
OAC 1501:13-9-08(B) (Deletion)--Protection of Underground Mining
OAC 1501:13-13-01 (Deletion)--Concurrent Surface and Underground Mining
[FR Doc. 96-22447 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22430 Use of Environman and Human Figure and Design Symbol
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46554-46556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22430]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Parts 1 and 15
RIN 1024-AC50
Use of Environman and Human Figure and Design Symbol
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is adopting this final rule to
[[Page 46555]]
remove the regulations on the ``Environman'' symbol and program which
was developed in the late 1960's during the early days of the NPS
Division of Environmental Education. The Environman symbol was
developed as the NPS symbol for environmental education. Portions of
the environmental education program never materialized as envisioned,
however, and the Environman symbol was seldom used and has not been
used since the early 1970's. Therefore, these regulations are no longer
necessary and will be removed from the CFR. A conforming amendment is
also made to the regulation regarding symbolic signs.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The rule will become effective on September 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Burnett, Washington Office of Ranger Activities, P.O. Box 37127,
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127. Telephone 202-208-4874.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 31, 1971, the NPS published in the Federal Register (36
FR 25406) a final rule adding a new Part 15 to the CFR. The purpose of
the rule was to give notice that the name ``Environman'' and an
Environman symbol named ``Human Figure and Design'', were owned and
protected by the U.S. Government. The symbol was to identify the role
of the NPS in promoting high-quality environmental education and to
represent and symbolize such activities. The ``Human Figure and
Design'' was the official sign to identify a National Environmental
Study Area (NESA). The name ``Environman'' was used in connection with
NESA's and that name and the ``Human figure and Design'' were used in
connection with National Environmental Education Developments and
National Environmental Education Landmarks.
The regulation provided the necessary protection of the symbol from
unauthorized use, while listing guidelines for individuals wishing a
license to reproduce, manufacture, sell or use either ``Environman'' or
the ``Human Figure and Design''. Portions of the environmental
education program never materialized as envisioned, however, and the
Environman symbol has not been used since the early 1970's. Therefore,
36 CFR Part 15 is no longer needed and will be deleted from the CFR.
Administrative Procedure Act
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B)), the NPS is promulgating this rule under the ``good cause''
exception of the Act from general notice and comment rulemaking. As
discussed above, the NPS believes this exception is warranted because
the existing regulations are no longer used. This final rule will not
impose any additional restrictions on the public and comments on this
rule are deemed unnecessary. Based upon this discussion, the NPS finds
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 533(b)(B) that it would be contrary to the public
interest to publish this rule through general notice and comment
rulemaking.
The NPS also believes that publishing this final rule 30 days prior
to the rule becoming effective would be counterproductive and
unnecessary for the reasons discussed above. A 30-day delay in this
instance would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
Therefore, under the ``good cause'' exception of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)), it has been determined that this
final rulemaking is excepted from the 30-day delay in the effective
date and will therefore become effective on the date published in the
Federal Register.
Drafting Information. The primary author of this rule is Dennis
Burnett, Washington Office of Ranger Activities, National Park
Service.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain collections of information
requiring approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Compliance With Other Laws
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review
under Executive Order 12866. The Department of the Interior determined
that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 USC 601 et. seq.). The economic effects of this rulemaking are
nonexistent.
The NPS has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rule will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local,
State, or tribal governments or private entities.
The NPS has determined that this rule will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment, health and safety
because it is not expected to:
(a) Increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature
and character of the area or causing physical damage to it;
(b) Introduce non-compatible uses which compromise the nature and
characteristics of the area, or cause physical damage to it;
(c) Conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses; or
(d) Cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.
Based on this determination, this final rule is categorically
excluded from the procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) by Departmental regulations in 516 DM 6 (49 FR
21438). As such, neither an Environmental Assessment (EA) nor an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 1
National parks, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Signs and symbols.
36 CFR Part 15
National parks, Signs and symbols.
In consideration of the foregoing, and under the authority of 16
U.S.C. 1 and 5 U.S.C. 301, the NPS is amending 36 CFR Chapter I as
follows:
PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460 1-6a(e), 462(k); D.C. Code 8-
137, 40-721 (1981)
Sec. 1.10 [Amended]
2. Section 1.10 is amended in paragraph (b) by revising the second
page of symbolic signs to read as follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
[[Page 46556]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04SE96.001
PART 15--[REMOVED]
3. 36 CFR Part is removed.
Dated: August 13, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-22430 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22429 Radio Broadcast Services; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22429]
[[Page 46563]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 87-267]
Radio Broadcast Services; Correction
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Correcting amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rules that
were published Thursday, December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64842). The rules
related to improvement of the AM broadcast service.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1992.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William A. Dever, (202) 418-2689.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final rules that are the subject of these corrections were
adopted in the Federal Communications Commission's Report and Order in
MM Docket No. 87-267, which was published on December 12, 1991 (56 FR
64842). The rules, which related generally to improvement of the AM
broadcast service, were intended to include all of the rules adopted in
the Commission's Report and Order in MM Docket No. 89-46, which were
published on August 13, 1990 (55 FR 32922), and which provided for
interference reduction between AM broadcast stations.
Need for Correction
The amendatory text accompanying the Report and Order in MM Docket
No. 87-267 omitted two provisions that were adopted in MM Docket No.
89-46, and that were intended to be included in the final rules in MM
Docket No. 87-267.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, 47 CFR Part 73 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 73--AMENDED
1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154 and 303.
Sec. 73.1750 [Corrected]
2. Section 73.1750 is amended to add the following language at the
end to read as follows:
Sec. 73.1750 Discontinuance of operation.
* * * If a licensee surrenders its license pursuant to an
interference reduction arrangement, and its surrender is contingent
upon the grant of another application, the licensee surrendering the
license must identify in its notification the contingencies involved.
3. Section 73.3571(c)(1) is amended by redesignating paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) as (c)(2) and (c)(3), and by adding new paragraph
(c)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3571 Processing of AM broadcast station applications.
[Corrected]
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) In order to grant a major or minor change application made
contingent upon the grant of another licensee's request for a facility
modification, the Commission will not consider mutually exclusive
applications by other parties that would not protect the currently
authorized facilities of the contingent applicants. Such major change
applications remain, however, subject to the provisions of
Secs. 73.3580 and 1.1111. The Commission shall grant contingent
requests for construction permits for station modifications only upon a
finding that such action will promote the public interest, convenience
and necessity.
* * * * *
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-22429 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22426 Introduction of New Employment Authorization Document
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46534-46537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22426]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Parts 210, 245a, 264, 274a and 299
[INS No. 1399 E-96]
RIN 1115-AB73
Introduction of New Employment Authorization Document
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) is
publishing a final rule introducing a more secure Employment
Authorization Document (EAD), Form I-766. The
[[Page 46535]]
Service will begin issuing Form I-766 on or after October 4, 1996. This
rule will confer authority for INS to begin issuing Form I-766 to
certain classes of aliens as evidence of authorization to work
temporarily in the United States. Form I-766 may be used by employees
and employers for purposes of employment verification eligibility
requirements on the Service Form I-9. No action is necessary for those
aliens who have valid evidence of employment authorization on Service
Forms I-688A and I-688B.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
MayBurn DeBoe, Senior Immigration Examiner, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Adjudications and Nationality Division, 425 I
Street NW., room 3214, Washington, DC. 20536, telephone (202) 514-5014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service published a supplemental
proposed rule (INS No. 1399S-94) in the Federal Register at 60 FR
32472-32477 on June 22, 1995. That rule, among other things, proposed
to introduce a new, more secure Employment Authorization Document
(EAD), Form I-766. This final rule introduces Form I-766 as a
designated employment authorization document and, for Form I-688A and
I-688B Employment Authorization Document holders, evidence of alien
registration; while also amending 8 CFR parts 210 and 245a to reflect
revised document numbers.
The Service will begin to issue Form I-766 on October 4, 1996. At
this time, the Service is publishing in final form those provisions
which will allow for the use of Form I-766. Form I-766 will eventually
replace two existing Employment Authorization Documents, Forms I-688A
and I-688B. These provisions were contained in the proposed document
reduction rule (INS No. 1399-92) published on November 23, 1993, at 58
FR 61846-61850, and the supplemental proposed rule (INS No. 1399S-94)
published on June 22, 1995. The Service has elected to publish only
these select provisions in final form at this time. The remainder of
the provisions contained in the proposed document reduction rule and
supplemental proposed rule will be published in final form at a later
date.
Centralized EAD Production
The Service will centralize I-766 production at the service
centers. The Service has determined that utilizing state-of-the-art
technology at one or more of its service centers will enable the
Service to produce a more secure EAD which will benefit employers,
aliens who have been granted employment authorization, and the Service
as well.
Currently, more than half of all EAD applications are filed and
processed at the service centers through direct mail, and the Service
plans to shift all remaining EAD applications to direct mail as a new
production system becomes available in the service centers. As noted in
the proposed supplemental rule, direct mail is a Service program which
allows the public to file certain applications and petitions for
benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), as amended,
at service centers instead of field offices. This centralization has
improved inventory control, data integrity, and overall service.
Introduction of Form I-766
In the proposed rule published November 23, 1993, the Service
proposed amending 8 CFR parts 210 and 245a to reflect the eventual
replacement of Form I-688A with Form I-766. The Service will amend
those parts to include specific references to the form number of
Service-issued employment authorization documents (e.g., Form I-688B
and Form I-766). In addition, current language in sections under 8 CFR
parts 210 and 245a provide for employment authorization in 6-month
increments. This rule amends those sections to make them consistent
with language in 8 CFR 274a.12(c) which provides for employment
authorization in increments not to exceed 1 year.
Related Regulatory and Process Changes
To clarify the regulatory provisions for legalization applicant
work authorization in 8 CFR 274a.12, the Service is adding paragraphs
to (c) (20) and (22) to include these legalization groups as classes of
aliens who must apply for employment authorization while their
applications are pending before the Service. The addition of these two
(2) paragraphs will permit the Service to indicate on the EAD, the
different terms and conditions of legalization applicants under
sections 210 and 245A of the Act.
In addition, since Form I-688A, which is issued to legalization
applicants, is designated by existing regulation as evidence of alien
registration, 8 CFR part 264 will be amended to permit Form I-766,
which eventually will replace Form I-688A, to be used as evidence of
alien registration. Also, because an employment authorization document
is considered an alien registration document for purposes of identity
and employment eligibility (List A) of the Form I-9, the Service is
amending part 264 to add Forms I-688B and I-766.
Elimination of Certain Service-Issued Paper Documents
In the supplemental proposed rule published on June 22, 1995, the
Service notified the public of its intent to eliminate from circulation
an unknown number of paper work authorization documents issued prior to
June 1, 1987. These pre-1987 paper work authorization documents neither
adhered to uniform standards for issuance and recordkeeping nor
contained security features. The Service, by its own regulation,
intended that these paper documents be terminated automatically on June
1, 1988. However, the Service was not in a state of readiness to issue
a secure employment authorization document on June 1, 1988 and
published in the Federal Register a stay and suspension of this
paragraph of its regulation. The Service is now prepared to issue a
highly secure document, Form I-766. Accordingly, effective December 31,
1996, consistent with the provisions of 8 CFR 274a.14(c), this rule
will lift the stay on the expiration of Service-issued paper work
permits issued before June 1, 1987, that was noticed at 53 FR 20086-87
on June 1, 1988. The stay was imposed ``to promote clarity in the
issuance of employment authorization documents'' while the Service
investigated technologies for a secure, standardized employment
authorization system. The technology behind Form I-766 represents an
important step towards such a system. Holders of such documents will be
required to obtain the new, secure Form I-766, through the prescribed
process for filing an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-
765. This provision applies exclusively to paper documents evidencing
periods of temporary employment authorization issued prior to June 1,
1987. Although the Service does not know the precise number of aliens
holding these pre-1987 paper work permits, it is reasonable to expect
that most such aliens have applied for immigration benefits under the
legalization program enacted in 1986 or otherwise sought immigration
benefits at which time the question of employment authorization would
have been revisited.
Comments
Many of the comments received on the proposed supplement relate to
sections that are not the subject of this final rule. Those will be
addressed when the Service publishes the final
[[Page 46536]]
document reduction rule. One commenter supported the eventual
elimination of the Form I-688B in conjunction with Form I-688A with the
introduction of the Form I-766. However, another commenter requested
that prompt adjudication of EAD applications be ensured. The commender
expressed concern that the processing time for Form I-766 will further
increase overall adjudication and processing time. The commenter also
encouraged the Service to engage in an aggressive informational
campaign to make affected aliens aware of the need to eventually
replace their EADs and to advise employers about the proposed changes
so that inadvertent discrimination and verification mistakes do not
occur.
The Service is prepared to institute an aggressive informational
and educational campaign advising both employers and employees of the
introduction of the Form I-766. The Form I-766 is a more secure card
and is being introduced by the Service as a means to ensure quicker
processing time, as well as greater uniformity and consistency among
EADs. It is anticipated that the new EAD will ultimately result in less
confusion for the employment community.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in
accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b)),
has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Employers, including small entities, are
required to comply with existing employment verification eligibility
requirements under the Act. Introduction of the more secure EAD, Form
I-766, imposes no such additional requirement. Rather, introduction of
the more secure EAD and centralizing its production are intended to
streamline the current process and simplify existing employment
verification eligibility requirements imposed on employers.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is considered by the Department of Justice, Immigration
and Naturalization Service, to be a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and
Review, and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). As noted in the supplementary section of this rule, this action
is intended to streamline and simplify compliance with the employment
eligibility verification requirements of the Act.
Executive Order 12612
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibility among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
List of Subjects
8 CFR Part 210
Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 245a
Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 264
Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 274a
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Part 299
Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 210--SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
1. The authority citation for part 210 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1160; 8 CFR part 2.
2. In Sec. 210.4 paragraphs (b) (2) and (3) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 210.4 Status and benefits.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Employment and travel authorization prior to the granting of
temporary resident status. Permission to travel abroad and to accept
employment will be granted to the applicant after an interview has been
conducted in connection with a nonfrivolous application at a Service
office. If an interview appointment cannot be scheduled within 30 days
from the date an application is filed at a Service office,
authorization to accept employment will be granted, valid until the
scheduled appointment date. Employment authorization, both prior and
subsequent to an interview, will be restricted to increments not
exceeding 1 year, pending final determination on the application for
temporary resident status. If a final determination has not been made
prior to the expiration date on the Employment Authorization Document
(Form I-766, Form I-688A or Form I-688B) that date may be extended upon
return of the employment authorization document by the applicant to the
appropriate Service office. Persons submitting applications who
currently have work authorization incident to status as defined in
Sec. 274a.12(b) of this chapter shall be granted work authorization by
the Service effective on the date the alien's prior work authorization
expires. Permission to travel abroad shall be granted in accordance
with the Service's advance parole provisions contained in Sec. 212.5(e)
of this chapter.
(3) Employment and travel authorization upon grant of temporary
resident status. Upon the granting of an application for adjustment to
temporary resident status, the service center will forward a notice of
approval to the applicant at his or her last known address and to his
or her qualified designated entity or representative. The applicant may
appear at any Service office, and upon surrender of the previously
issued Employment Authorization Document, will be issued Form I-688,
Temporary Resident Card. An alien whose status is adjusted to that of a
lawful temporary resident under section 210 of the Act has the right to
reside in the United States, to travel abroad (including commuting from
a residence abroad), and to accept employment in the United States in
the same manner as aliens lawfully admitted to permanent residence.
* * * * *
PART 245a--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSONS ADMITTED FOR
LAWFUL TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS UNDER SECTION 245A OF
THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
3. The authority citation for part 245a continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1255a and 1255a note.
4. In Sec. 245a.2 paragraph (n)(2) heading, and paragraphs
(n)(2)(ii) and (n)(3) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 245a.2 Application for temporary residence.
* * * * *
[[Page 46537]]
(n) * * *
(2) Employment authorization prior to the granting of temporary
resident status.
* * * * *
(ii) If an interview appointment cannot be scheduled within 30 days
from the date an application is filed at a Service office,
authorization to accept employment will be granted, valid until the
scheduled appointment date. Employment authorization, both prior and
subsequent to an interview, will be restricted to increments of 1 year,
pending final determination on the application for temporary resident
status. If a final determination has not been made prior to the
expiration date on the Employment Authorization Document (Form I-766,
Form I-688A or Form I-688B), that date may be extended upon return of
the employment authorization document by the applicant to the
appropriate Service office.
(3) Employment and travel authorization upon grant of temporary
resident status. Upon the granting of an application for adjustment to
temporary resident status, the service center will forward a notice of
approval to the applicant at his or her last known address and to his
or her qualified designated entity or representative. The applicant may
appear at any Service office and, upon surrender of the previously
issued Employment Authorization Document, will be issued Form I-688,
Temporary Resident Card, authorizing employment and travel abroad.
* * * * *
PART 264--REGISTRATION AND FINGERPRINTING OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED
STATES
5. The authority citation for part 264 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1201, 1201a, 1301-1305.
6. In Sec. 264.1 paragraph (b) is amended by adding the entries for
``Form I-766'' and ``Form I-688B'' to the listing of forms, in proper
numerical sequence, to read as follows:
Sec. 264.1 Registration and fingerprinting.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Form No. and Class
* * * * *
I-688B, Employment Authorization Document.
I-766, Employment Authorization Document.
* * * * *
PART 274A--CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS
7. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 8 CFR part 2.
8. Section 274a is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(v)(A)(6)
and removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(1)(v)(A)(7) and
(b)(1)(v)(A)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 274a.2 Verification of employment eligibility.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
(A) * * *
(6) An unexpired Employment Authorization Document issued by the
Immigration and Naturalization Service which contains a photograph,
Form I-766; Form I-688, Form I-688A, or Form I-688B;
(7) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(10) [Reserved]
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 274a.12, new paragraphs (c)(20) and (c)(22) are added,
to read as follows:
Sec. 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(20) Any alien who has filed a completed legalization application
pursuant to section 210 of the Act (and part 210 of this chapter).
Employment authorization shall be granted in increments not exceeding 1
year during the period the application is pending (including any period
when an administrative appeal is pending) and shall expire on a
specified date.
* * * * *
(22) Any alien who has filed a completed legalization application
pursuant to section 245A of the Act (and part 245a of this chapter).
Employment authorization shall be granted in increments not exceeding 1
year during the period the application is pending (including any period
when an administrative appeal is pending) and shall expire on a
specified date.
* * * * *
10. In 274a.14 paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 274a.14 Termination of employment authorization.
* * * * *
(c) Automatic termination of temporary employment authorization
granted prior to June 1, 1987--(1) Temporary employment authorization
granted prior to June 1, 1987, pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)
(Sec. 109.1(b) contained in the 8 CFR edition revised as of January 1,
1987), shall automatically terminate on the date specified by the
Service on the document issued to the alien, or on December 31, 1996,
whichever is earlier. Automatic termination of temporary employment
authorization does not preclude a subsequent application for temporary
employment authorization.
(2) A document issued by the Service prior to June 1, 1987, that
authorized temporary employment authorization for any period beyond
December 31, 1996, is null and void pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of
this section. The alien shall be issued a new employment authorization
document upon application to the Service if the alien is eligible for
temporary employment authorization pursuant to 274A.12(c).
* * * * *
PART 299--IMMIGRATION FORMS
11. The authority citation for part 299 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103; 8 CFR part 2.
12. Section 299.1 is amended by adding the entry for ``Form I-766''
in proper numerical sequence to the listing of forms, to read as
follows:
Sec. 299.1 Prescribed forms.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edition
Form No. date Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
I-766....................... 01-03-96 Employment Authorization
Document.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: May 20, 1996.
Doris Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22426 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22366 Executive, Management, and Supervisory Development
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46531-46534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22366]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 172 / Wednesday, September 4, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46531]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Parts 317 and 412
RIN 3602-AF96
Executive, Management, and Supervisory Development
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final
regulations to eliminate the 3-year limitation on the validity of
Qualifications Review Board (QRB) certification for appointment to the
Senior Executive Service (SES). The Office is also revising its
regulations governing executive and management development. The
coverage has been expanded to include supervisory development. The
revised regulations present broad program criteria on the systematic
development of executives, managers, supervisors, and candidates for
these positions. They also establish minimum requirements for formal
SES candidate development programs. The revisions are intended to
promote training and development activities which foster a corporate
perspective of Government within the Federal executive cadre.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Constance Maravell at 202-606-1832.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM published proposed regulations to make
changes in parts 317 and 412 on December 11, 1995 (60 FR 63454). We
received comments from 7 agencies, 1 individual, and the Senior
Executives Association (SEA). Most comments were supportive of the
changes. There were some reservations about requirements for SES
candidate development programs.
Part 317--Employment in the Senior Executive Service
The proposed regulations included a change in 5 CFR 317.501(c)(5)
which would have allowed Executive Resources Boards to refer to the
selecting official all candidates as best qualified when there were
less than 10 applicants for a position. This was proposed in response
to a recommendation from the Executive Resources Management Group's
(ERMG) Staffing Work Group, with the goal of simplifying and
streamlining the merit staffing process. However, we recognize that
such a provision presents difficulties in the context of other
requirements of 5 CFR 317.501(c), calling for the ``relative ranking of
the candidates'' and requiring selection ``from among the candidates
identified as best qualified.'' Two agencies as well as the Senior
Executives Association raised concerns relating to the interpretation
and application of the proposed revision. In evaluating the proposal
and the subsequent comments, we placed primary emphasis on the language
of the merit principle requiring selection and advancement ``solely on
the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills * * * '' (5 U.S.C.
2301(b)(1)). In light of these considerations, the proposals has been
deleted from the final regulation.
Another recommendation put forward by the ERMG's Staffing Work
Group involves a larger role for agencies in the management of the QRB
process. Two agencies commenting on these proposed regulations
recommended that the QRB process be delegated to agencies or,
alternatively, eliminated entirely. Our research of the legislative
history of the Civil Service Reform Act indicates that Congressional
intent in legislating Qualifications Review Boards was to assure an
independent review of executive qualifications outside the selecting
agency. This is incompatible with full delegation of the QRB process to
agencies. We currently have an interagency advisory group reviewing the
function and operations of the QRBs as they are presently conducted. If
we conclude that the QRB process does not ``add value'' to the
selection of Federal executives, we will recommend appropriate changes,
including revisions to the statute if necessary.
Part 412--Executive, Management, and Supervisory Development
One agency raised a question about sabbaticals, which are spelled
out in statute (5 U.S.C. 3396(c)) and which are not covered in this
final rule. The question concerned whether agencies would have complete
authority for deciding the merits of requests for sabbaticals. Agencies
have always had complete decision-making authority regarding the use of
sabbaticals. Agencies should continue to report the use of sabbaticals
to OPM, including submission of appropriate documentation (currently
OPM Form 1390, Executive Personnel Transaction).
One agency suggested including the role of ``team leader'' in the
supervisory, managerial, and executive continuum. At this time the role
of the team leader is still evolving and may vary widely, depending on
the type of team or the specific agency. There is no prohibition
barring an agency from setting whatever training policies it deems
appropriate for the training of teams and team leaders. However, we are
not broadening the scope of part 412 to incorporate such a requirement
for all agencies.
Another agency asked for verification of its assumption that a
person who leaves the Government and has been certified as qualified
for the SES by a QRB retains that certification. Since the
certification has no time limit, this is a correct assumption. The
individual could use that certification to return to the Government and
receive a noncompetitive appointment to the SES, provided that he or
she had competed Governmentwide to enter the Candidate Development
Program (CDP).
One agency commented that agencies should be encouraged to train
their managerial corps as needed to meet their program needs rather
than being required to provide managerial training generally. The
regulations require that training and development programs be
consistent with an agency's strategic plan. We would like to emphasize
the importance of training for enhancing organizational achievement.
Training and development play a critical role in assuring high quality
customer service, information management, and improved management
skills. This is widely recognized in the private sector as well as in
Government. Furthermore, the requirements for managerial
[[Page 46532]]
development are flexible enough to allow agencies to comply within the
limits of their financial resources.
Section 412.104 Formal Candidate Development Programs for SES
Positions
OPM believes that formal SES Candidate Development Programs (CDPs)
provide an excellent vehicle for creating and reinforcing a corporate
perspective within the SES. The idea of a ``corporate SES'' originated
with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and was reinforced by the
National Performance Review (NPR) in 1994. One agency asked us to
clarify the concept of corporate SES perspective; another questioned
whether it was a valid objective. We believe that a corporate SES ( a
Governmentwide executive service with shared values, a common identity,
and a certain fundamental uniformity in personnel systems) contributes
to stronger Government, and we will continue our efforts to promote a
corporate SES culture in our policies and programs.
The essence of a corporate SES is shared values. These values must
transcend a commitment to agency mission; they must extend beyond an
executive's individual profession and aspirations. The SES values must
respect and embrace the dynamics of American democracy, an approach to
governance that provides a continuing vehicle for change. The NPR
report on the SES captures the original vision of the SES:
to serve the twin objectives of change and continuity: On one hand
helping the top officials of a new administration to steer their
agencies in the direction set by the newly elected President; on the
other hand carrying forward the institutional memory of government
and maintaining high standards of public service.
We believe that this vision is still valid, and we believe that
balancing continuity and change is the fundamental responsibility of
the Senior Executive. Inherent in this responsibility is respect for
both merit and diversity, both the dignity and importance of the
individual and the richness and wisdom that diversity of individuals
brings to organizations and societies.
Two agencies commented in favor of adding a provision to establish
a cadre of ``precertified'' managers in order to expedite the filling
of executive positions. The ERMG's Staffing Work Group has recommended
that OPM examine ways to allow agencies to precertify the
qualifications of executive candidates outside of the candidate
development process. We are currently considering the feasibility of
possible options for implementing such a recommendation. We recognize
that even experienced managers, who would otherwise meet the
requirements for SES appointment, can benefit from the training and
development provided through a formal CDP. However, given the
limitations of formal training budgets, the CDP is not a cost-effective
vehicle for certifying executive qualifications obtained outside a
formal program.
One agency advocated substituting a general statement of purpose
for formal candidate development programs, in place of the specific
program requirements at Sec. 412.104(e), saying that such
specifications are ``unnecessary and rigid.'' Another agency took
exception to the requirement specifying the aggregate length of
developmental assignment(s) outside the candidate's position of record.
We do not find these requirements to be unnecessary, and it is not our
intention to be rigid in their application or interpretation. In all
cases except where competition for entry into the CDP is restricted to
agency employees, QRB certification based on successful completion of
an OPM-approved executive development program makes an individual
eligible Governmentwide for noncompetitive appointment to the SES.
Therefore, to support development of a corporate perspective in
Government, there is a Governmentwide interest in assuring that a
minimum level of training and development is shared by successful DCP
participants. The regulations allow a great deal of flexibility in
choosing the formal interagency training experience, and the 4 months
of developmental assignments can be accomplished through a series of
shorter assignments. Furthermore, OPM will work with agencies to
develop program plans that are tailored to specific agency needs and
circumstances, and we will permit individual participants to have
development plans which deviate from their agencies' approved program
plans, provided these deviations are approved by OPM in advance. We
absolutely agree with the comment that developmental assignments should
be ``tailored to the individual developmental needs of each
candidate.''
At the same time, some work experiences would not normally provide
the depth and breadth of experience needed to enhance a candidate's
executive qualifications. For example, one agency asked if a candidate
could stay in his/her current position and have extra duties added to
that position. This does not go far enough to achieve the principal
goal of the developmental assignment, which is to have the person gain
a broader perspective on his/her agency and the Federal Government. To
achieve this requires experience in other lines of work and/or in
different working relationships within the organization, or in
different organizations. Adding duties to an existing position does not
accomplish that purpose.
One agency commented that not all candidates have equivalent
backgrounds and, therefore, that development should be based on
individual requirements needed to reach a set level of expected job
performance. As we have previously indicated, we agree that development
plans should be tailored to the individual needs of each candidate. The
regulations require that each candidate have a development plan
prepared from a competency-based needs assessment. The minimum
standards are sufficiently broad so that individual development plans
can be tailored to meet each candidate's needs.
Another agency requested that OPM not restrict formal training to
``interagency sources.'' In fact, the regulations do not restrict
formal training to any particular source or sources. The regulations
allow agencies to choose any source, including nongovernmental, for the
required training experience, which must be Governmentwide or multi-
agency in its nature and scope. The purpose of this requirement is to
expose potential executives to multiple points of view and foster a
corporate perspective.
One agency questioned the necessity of requiring OPM approval of
agency programs prior to announcement for the first time under the new
regulations. We believe these regulations are a significant departure
from the superseded regulations, such that prior OPM review and
approval will contribute to the development of agency programs that
both meet minimum regulatory standards and are tailored to individual
agency needs. We encourage agencies to meet with us early in the
development of their programs so that the concerns of all parties can
be surfaced and adequately addressed. By engaging in such discussion
before agencies' programs are announced for the first time, we can
minimize problems which might arise as individual candidates are
submitted for QRB certification.
The Senior Executives Association (SEA) commented on the
requirement that agencies' recruitment efforts comply with statutory
merit principles (1) and (2) and also take ``into consideration the
goal of achieving a
[[Page 46533]]
diversified workforce'' (412.104(b)). SEA believes ``To provide
additional emphasis will create an appearance that preferential
treatment for some is the desired, but unclearly stated, goal.'' In
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995), the Supreme
Court ruled that all Federal programs which use race-based decision-
making are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. However, the provision
in question speaks to the recruiting process and not to the selection
process. In a Department of Justice memorandum to General Counsels
providing guidance on the Adarand decision (February 29, 1996),
agencies were advised:
Adarand does not apply, however, to actions in which race is not
used as a basis for making employment decisions about individuals.
For example, action to increase minority applications for employment
is not subject to Adarand. Outreach and recruitment efforts * * *
which merely seek to expand the pool of qualified applicants
generally would not be subject to strict scrutiny under Adarand.
Our purpose in highlighting the value of achieving a diversified
workforce is not to influence selections or other employment decisions
but to articulate the principle that members of all groups should have
an opportunity for consideration.
The SEA suggested that we list in the regulations the 22 generic
competencies identified in the Leadership Effectiveness Framework to
assist potential candidates in assessing their qualifications for SES
positions. For purposes of assessing an individual's executive
qualifications, these 22 competencies are grouped into five ``executive
core qualification:'' strategic vision, human resources management,
program development and evaluation, resource planning and management,
and organizational representation and liaison. It is against these five
core qualifications that individuals are evaluated by Qualifications
Review Boards to determine ``demonstrated executive experience'' and/or
``likelihood of executive success,'' as required by 5 U.S.C. 3393. OPM
has already published guidance which describes the five core
qualifications and provides additional information on how to present a
candidate's executive qualifications for consideration by a QRB.
Operational Issues
One agency raised a number of operational issues, such as the
appropriate organizational level for seeking OPM approval of agency
programs and the lowest organizational level appropriate for seeking
exceptions to Governmentwise recruitment under section 412.104(a)(2).
We plan to discuss these and other procedural questions with all stake
holders and issue operational guidance at the time the regulations
become final.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect
only federal employees and agencies.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Parts 317 and 412
Government employees.
James B. King,
Director, Office of Personnel Management.
Accordingly, the Office of Personnel Management is amending 5 CFR
parts 317 and 412 as follows:
PART 317--EMPLOYMENT IN THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 317 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3392, 3393, 3393a, 3395, 3395, 3397, 3593,
and 3595.
2. In subpart E, Sec. 317.502, paragraph (c) is revised to read as
follows:
Subpart E--Career Appointments
Sec. 317.502 Qualifications Review Board certification.
* * * * *
(c) Qualifications Review Board certification of executive
qualifications just be based on demonstrated executive experience;
successful completion of an OPM-approved candidate development program;
or possession of special or unique qualities that indicate a likelihood
of executive success. Any existing time limit on a previously approved
certification is removed.
* * * * *
PART 412--EXECUTIVE, MANAGEMENT, AND SUPERVISORY DEVELOPMENT
3. Part 412 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec.
412.101 Coverage.
412.102 Purpose.
412.103 Criteria for programs for the systematic training and
development of executives, managers, supervisors, and candidates.
412.104 Formal candidate development programs for Senior Executive
Service positions.
Subpart B--Senior Executive Service Status and Nonstatus Candidate
Development Programs
412.201 Purpose.
412.202 ``Status'' programs.
412.203 ``Non-status'' programs.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3397, 4101, et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
Sec. 412.101 Coverage.
This subpart applies to all incumbents of or candidates for
supervisory, managerial, and executive positions in the General
Schedule, the Senior Executive Service (SES), or equivalent pay systems
who are also covered by part 410 of this chapter.
Sec. 412.102 Purpose
(a) This subpart implements for supervisors, managers, and
executives the provisions of chapter 41 of title 5 of the United States
Code related to training and section 3396 of title 5 related to the
criteria for programs of systematic development of candidates for the
SES and the continuing development of SES members.
(b) The subpart identifies a continuum of preparation starting with
supervisory positions and proceeding through management and executive
positions Governmentwide. For this reason, the subpart establishes a
comprehensive system that is intended to:
(1) Provide the competencies needed by supervisors, managers, and
executives to perform their current functions at the mastery level of
proficiency; and
(2) Provide learning through development and training in the
context of succession planning and corporate perspective to prepare
individuals for advancement, thus supplying the agency and the
government with an adequate number of well prepared and qualified
candidates to fill supervisory, managerial, and executive positions
Governmentwide.
Sec. 412.103 Criteria for programs for the systematic training and
development of executives, managers, supervisors, and candidates.
Each agency must provide for the initial and continuing development
of individuals in executive, managerial, and supervisory positions, and
candidates for those positions. The agency must issue a written policy
to assure that their development programs:
(a) Are designed as part of the agency's strategic plan and foster
a corporate perspective.
(b) Make assignments to training and development consistent with
the merit
[[Page 46534]]
system principles set forth in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b) (1) and (2).
(c) Provide for:
(1) Initial training as an individual makes critical career
transitions to become a new supervisor, a new manager, or a new
executive consistent with the results of needs assessments;
(2) Continuing learning experiences, both short- and long-term,
throughout an individual's career in order for the individual to
achieve the mastery level of proficiency for his or her current
management level and position; and
(3) Systematic development of candidates for advancement to a
higher management level. Formal candidate development programs leading
to noncompetitive placement eligibility represent one, but not the
only, type of systematic development.
Sec. 412.104 Formal candidate development programs for Senior
Executive Service positions.
Formal SES candidate development programs permit the certification
of the executive qualifications of graduates by a Qualifications Review
Board under the criterion of 5 U.S.C. 3393(c)(2)(B) and selection for
the SES without further competition. The agency must have a written
policy describing how the program will operate. The agency must obtain
OPM approval of the program before it is conducted for the first time
under these regulations and whenever there are substantive changes to
the program. Agency programs must meet the following criteria.
(a) Recruitment.
(1) Recruitment for the program is from all groups of qualified
individuals within the civil service, or all groups of qualified
individuals whether or not within the civil service.
(2) Agencies may request an exception to the provision in paragraph
(a) of this section if they can show that during the 5-year period
prior to the announcement of a program they have made at least 15% of
their career SES appointments from sources outside the agency.
Notwithstanding this exception recruitment must be competitive and be
announced at least agencywide. Graduates of these programs who have
been certified by a QRB must then compete Governmentwide for entry to
the SES, but do not have to obtain a second QRB certification before
appointment.
(b) In recruiting, the agency, consistent with the merit system
principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b) (1) and (2), takes into consideration
the goal of achieving a diversified workforce.
(c) All candidates are selected through SES merit staffing
procedures. The number selected shall be consistent with the number of
expected vacancies.
(d) Each candidate has an SES development plan covering the period
of the program. The plan is prepared from a competency-based needs
determination. It is approved by the Executive Resources Board.
(e) The minimum program requirements, unless an exception is
obtained in advance of the beginning of the candidate's program, for an
SES development plan are as follows:
(1) There is a formal training experience that addresses the
executive core qualifications and their application to SES positions
Governmentwide. The training experience must include interaction with a
wide mix of Federal employees outside the candidate's department or
agency to foster a corporate perspective but may include managers from
the private sector and state and local governments. The nature and
scope of the training must have Governmentwide or multi-agency
applicability. If formal interagency training is used to meet this
requirement, it must total at least 80 hours. If an interagency work
experience is used, it must be of significantly longer duration than 80
hours.
(2) There are developmental assignments that total at least 4
months of full-time service outside the candidate's position of record.
The purpose of the assignments is to broaden the candidate's experience
and/or increase knowledge of the overall functioning of the agency so
that the candidate is prepared for a range of agency positions.
(3) There is a member of the Senior Executive Service as a mentor.
(f) Each candidate's performance in the program is evaluated
periodically, and there is a written policy for discontinuing a
candidate's participation in the program. A candidate can be
discontinued or may withdraw from the program without prejudice to his
or her ability to apply directly for SES positions.
(g) Each candidate has a documented starting and finishing date in
the program.
Subpart B--Senior Executive Service Status and Nonstatus Candidate
Development Programs
Sec. 412.201 Purpose.
Section 3393 of title 5, United States Code, requires that career
appointees to the SES be recruited either from all groups of qualified
individuals within the civil service, or from all groups of qualified
individuals whether or not within the civil service. This subpart sets
forth regulations establishing two types of SES candidate development
programs, ``status'' and ``non-status.''
Sec. 412.202 ``Status'' programs.
Only employee serving under career appointments, or under career-
type appointments as defined in Sec. 317.304(a)(2) of this chapter, may
participate in ``status'' candidate development programs.
Sec. 412.203 ``Non-status'' programs.
(a) Eligibility. Candidates are from outside Government and/or from
among employees serving on other than career or career-type
appointments within the civil service.
(b) Requirements.
(1) Candidates must be appointed using the Schedule B authority
authorized by Sec. 213.3202(j) of this chapter. The appointment may not
exceed or be extended beyond 3 years.
(2) Assignments must be to a full-time position created for
developmental purposes connected with the SES candidate development
program. Candidates serving under Schedule B appointment may not be
used to fill an agency's regular positions on a continuing basis.
(3) Schedule B appointments must be made in the same manner as
merit staffing requirements prescribed for the SES, except that each
agency shall follow the principle of veteran preference as far as
administratively feasible. Positions filled through this authority are
excluded under Sec. 302.101(c)(6) of this chapter from the appointment
procedures of part 302.
[FR Doc. 96-22366 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22263 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46540-46541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22263]
[[Page 46540]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-237-AD; Amendment 39-9736; AD 96-18-12]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A320 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes, that requires
an inspection to detect damage to the electrical wiring of the fuel
tank of the wings and to verify if the proper P-clip is installed in
the electrical wiring. This amendment also requires re-fitting any
proper P-clip, replacing any improper
P-clip with a new P-clip, and repairing damaged electrical wiring. This
amendment is prompted by a report that incorrect P-clips were found
installed in the electrical wiring of the fuel system on these
airplanes. The actions specified by this AD are intended to ensure that
the proper P-clips are installed. Improper P-clips could fail to
adequately safeguard the fuel tank of the wing against a lightning
strike, which could result in electrical arcing and resultant fire.
DATES: Effective October 9, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A320 series
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 1996 (61
FR 18709). That action proposed to require a one-time inspection to
detect damage to the electrical wiring and to verify if the proper P-
clip is installed in the electrical wiring at outboard rib 6 in the
inner cell of the fuel tank of the wings. That action also proposed to
require re-fitting proper P-clips, replacing improper P-clips with
certain new fuel-resistant P-clips, and repairing damaged electrical
wiring.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the three comments received.
All commenters support the proposed rule.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 44 Airbus Model A320 series airplanes of
U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take
approximately 3 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required
actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required
parts will cost approximately $100 per airplane. Based on these
figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$12,320, or $280 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-18-12 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-9736. Docket 95-NM-237-AD.
Applicability: Model A320 series airplanes, manufacturer's
serial numbers 129 through 343 inclusive, 345 through 347 inclusive,
and 349 through 363 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure that the proper P-clips are installed, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, perform
a one-time inspection to detect damage to the electrical wiring and
to verify if the proper P-clip is installed in the electrical wiring
at outboard rib 6 in the inner cell of the fuel tank of the wings,
in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1052, Revision 2,
dated September 8, 1994.
[[Page 46541]]
Note 2: Accomplishment of the actions specified in this
paragraph in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1052,
Revision 1, dated July 7, 1993, prior to the effective date of this
AD is considered acceptable for compliance with this paragraph.
(1) If any damage is detected to the wiring, prior to further
flight, repair it in accordance with the Airplane Wiring Manual.
(2) If a P-clip having P/N NSA5515-03NF or NSA5516-03NV is
installed, prior to further flight, re-fit it in accordance with the
service bulletin.
(3) If a P-clip having P/N NSA5516-03NJ is installed, prior to
further flight, replace it with a new fuel-resistant P-clip having
P/N NSA5515-03NF or NSA5516-03NV, in accordance with the service
bulletin.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-28-1052, Revision 2, dated September 8, 1994, which
contains the following list of effective pages:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision level shown
Page No. on page Date shown on page
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-5............ 2..................... September 8, 1994.
6-9............ Original.............. July 7, 1993.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be
inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on October 9, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 26, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22263 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22261 Airworthiness Directives; Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-800A and -1000A, and Model Hawker 800 and 1000 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46542-46543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22261]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-165-AD; Amendment 39-9733; AD 96-18-09]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-800A and
-1000A, and Model Hawker 800 and 1000 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-800A and -1000A,
and Model Hawker 800 and 1000 series airplanes, that requires
modification of the TKS metering pump in the airframe ice protection
system. This amendment is prompted by a report that the pump was found
fitted with silver plated wiring. The actions specified by this AD are
intended to ensure that silver plated wiring is removed from these
pumps; silver plated wiring carrying a direct current can ignite the
ice protection fluid (glycol) when exposed to it, which could result in
a possible fire hazard.
DATES: Effective October 9, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager Service Engineering,
Hawker Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 85, Wichita, Kansas 67201-
0085. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,
DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Backman, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2797; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe
125-800A and -1000A, and Model Hawker 800 and 1000 series airplanes was
published in the Federal Register on May 13, 1996 (61 FR 21979). That
action proposed to require modification of the TKS metering pump in the
airframe ice protection system.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response
to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require
the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 23 airplanes of U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per
airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor
rate is $60 per work hour.
[[Page 46543]]
Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is
estimated to be $1,380, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-18-09 Beech Aircraft Company (Formerly DeHavilland; Hawker
Siddeley; British Aerospace, PLC; Raytheon Corporate Jets, Inc.):
Amendment 39-9733. Docket 95-NM-165-AD.
Applicability: Model BAe 125-800A and -1000A, and Model Hawker
800 and 1000 series airplanes; on which Modification 257676A has not
been accomplished (reference Hawker Service Bulletin SB.30-61-7676A
or Aerospace Systems and Technology Service Bulletin S.B.30-25);
certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Note 2: Beech (Raytheon) Model BAe 125-800B and BAe 125-1000B
series airplanes are similar in design to the airplanes that are
subject to the requirements of this AD and, therefore, also may be
subject to the unsafe condition addressed by this AD. However, as of
the effective date of this AD, those models are not type
certificated for operation in the United States. Airworthiness
authorities of countries in which the Model BAe 125-800B and BAe
125-1000B series airplanes are approved for operation should
consider adopting corrective action, applicable to those models,
that is similar to the corrective action required by this AD.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To ensure that silver plated wiring is removed from the TKS
metering pump and a possible fire hazard eliminated, accomplish the
following:
(a) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the TKS metering pump in the airframe ice protection system in
accordance with Hawker Service Bulletin SB.30-61-7676A, dated
February 15, 1995.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install
on any airplane a TKS metering pump, having part number XA9511E003-3
or XA9511E009, unless it has been modified in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 3: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The modification shall be done in accordance with Hawker
Service Bulletin SB.30-61-7676A, dated February 15, 1995. (NOTE: The
issue date of this service bulletin is indicated only on Page 1; no
other page of the document is dated.) This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from Raytheon Aircraft Company, Manager Service
Engineering, Hawker Customer Support Department, P.O. Box 85,
Wichita, Kansas 67201-0085. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on October 9, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 26, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22261 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22260 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 and A310 Series Airplanes Equipped With General Electric Model CF6-80 Engines
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46541-46542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22260]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-175-AD; Amendment 39-9734; AD 96-18-10]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 and A310 Series
Airplanes Equipped With General Electric Model CF6-80 Engines
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD),
applicable to certain Airbus Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes,
that requires an inspection to detect defects of the directional pilot
valves (DPV); and replacement of any defective DPV with a new DPV, or
deactivation of the thrust reverser system, if necessary. This
amendment is prompted by a report indicating that, during a maintenance
check, an uncommanded deployment and stowage of the thrust reverser
occurred due to improperly modified DPV's. The actions specified by
this AD are intended to prevent uncommanded deployment and stowage of
the thrust reverser during maintenance activities, as a result of
improperly modified DPV's, which could result in injury to maintenance
personnel or other people on the ground.
DATES: Effective October 9, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: The service information referenced in this AD may be
obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules
Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of
the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Huber, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2589; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A300-600 and
A310 series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on April
29, 1996 (61 FR 18699). That action proposed to require a one-time
inspection to detect defects of the DPV. If a defective DPV is
detected, it will be required to be replaced with a new DPV, or the
thrust reverser system will be required to be deactivated until the DPV
is replaced.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to
the two comments received.
Both commenters support the proposed rule.
Conclusion
After careful review of the available data, including the comments
noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public
interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
Cost Impact
The FAA estimates that 43 Airbus Model A300-600 and A310 series
airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will
take approximately 10 work hours per airplane to accomplish the
required one-time inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60
per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $25,800, or $600 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD
action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the
future if this AD were not adopted.
Regulatory Impact
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
[[Page 46542]]
Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action
and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained
from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
96-18-10 Airbus Industrie: Amendment 39-9734. Docket 95-NM-175-AD.
Applicability: Model A300B4-601, -603, -605R, A300-F4-605R, and
A310-203, -203C, -204, -304, -308 series airplanes, equipped with
General Electric Model CF6-80 engines; on which General Electric
Service Bulletin 78-031 has been accomplished; certificated in any
category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent uncommanded deployment and stowage of the thrust
reverser during maintenance activities, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
perform an inspection to detect defects of the directional pilot
valves (DPV), in accordance with Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT)
78-05, Revision 01, February 8, 1995.
(1) If no defects are detected, no further action is required by
this AD.
(2) If any defect is detected, prior to further flight, either
replace the defective DPV with a new DPV in accordance with the AOT;
or deactivate the thrust reverser system in accordance with approved
procedures of the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) until the DPV is
replaced.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The inspection and replacement shall be done in accordance
with Airbus All Operators Telex (AOT) 78-05, Revision 01, February
8, 1995. This incorporation by reference was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)
and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1
Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may
be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on October 9, 1996.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 26, 1996.
Darrell M. Pederson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22260 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22247 Airworthiness Directives; Bellanca, Incorporated Models 17-30, 17-30A, 17-31, 17-31A, 17-31TC, and 17-31ATC Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46538-46539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22247]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-CE-54-AD; Amendment 39-9731; AD 96-18-07]
RIN 2120-AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Bellanca, Incorporated Models 17-30,
17-30A, 17-31, 17-31A, 17-31TC, and 17-31ATC Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that
applies to Bellanca, Incorporated (Bellanca) Models 17-30, 17-30A, 17-
31, 17-31A, 17-31TC, and 17-31ATC airplanes. This action requires
repetitively inspecting, testing, and possibly replacing the nose
landing gear (NLG) strut and brackets. A collapse of a Bellanca
airplane's NLG during a landing prompted this action. The actions
specified by this AD are intended to prevent possible failure of the
nose landing gear, which, if not detected and corrected, could result
in loss of control of the airplane during landing operations.
DATES: Effective October 25, 1996.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of October 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Service information that applies to this AD may be obtained
from Bellanca, Incorporated, P.O. Box 964, Alexandria, Minnesota 56308;
telephone (612) 762-1501. This information may also be examined at the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket 95-CE-54-AD, Room
1558, 601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office
of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven J. Rosenfeld, Aerospace
Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Rm. 232, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; (847) 294-7030; facsimile
(847) 294-7834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that would apply
to Bellanca Models 17-30, 17-30A, 17-31, 17-31A, 17-31TC, and 17-31ATC
airplanes was published in the Federal Register on January 22, 1996 (61
FR 1532). The action proposed to require repetitively inspecting,
testing, and possibly replacing the nose landing gear (NLG) strut and
brackets. Accomplishment of the proposed action would be in accordance
with Bellanca Service Letter (SL) B-107, dated September 20, 1995.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate
in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the
proposed rule or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
After careful review of all available information related to the
subject presented above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the
public interest require the adoption of the rule proposed except for
minor editorial corrections. The FAA has determined that these minor
corrections will not change the meaning of the AD and will not add any
additional burden upon the public than was already proposed.
The FAA estimates that 1,109 airplanes in the U.S. registry will be
affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 24 workhours per
airplane to accomplish the required action, and that the average labor
rate is approximately $60 an hour. Parts cost approximately $160 per
airplane. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on
U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,774,400 or approximately $1,600
per airplane. Bellanca has informed the FAA that no parts have been
distributed to owners/operators for this replacement; therefore, this
figure is based on the assumption that no owners/operators have
accomplished the proposed inspection, testing, and replacement. In
addition, the FAA has no way of determining the number of repetitive
inspections each owner/operator will incur prior to replacing the
bracket.
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)
[[Page 46539]]
will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the final evaluation prepared for
this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be
obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under
the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive
(AD) to read as follows:
96-18-07. Bellanca, Incorporated: Amendment 39-9731; Docket No. 95-
CE-54-AD.
Applicability: The following airplane models and serial numbers,
certificated in any category:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-30..................................... (30123 through 30262)
17-30A.................................... (30263 through 78-30905,
except 76-30824)
17-31..................................... (32-1 through 32-14)
17-31A.................................... (32-15 through 78-32172)
17-31TC................................... (31001 through 31003)
17-31ATC.................................. (31004 through 79-31155)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required initially upon accumulating 500 hours time-
in-service (TIS) or within the next 50 hours TIS after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, unless already
accomplished, and thereafter as indicated in the body of this AD.
To prevent failure of the nose landing gear (NLG), which, if not
detected and corrected, could result in loss of control of the
airplane during landing operations, accomplish the following:
(a) Inspect the NLG drag strut brackets for cracks or bends in
accordance with the instructions in section 4, NLG DRAG STRUT
BRACKET INSPECTION, of Bellanca Service Letter (SL) B-107, dated
September 20, 1995. Prior to further flight, replace any cracked or
bent bracket with a part number (P/N) 194650-0 (right side) bracket
or a P/N 194383-0 (left side) bracket in accordance with the
instructions in section 5, INSTALLATION NEW BRACKETS, of Bellanca SL
B-107, dated September 20, 1995.
(b) Inspect the NLG installation, including the upper and lower
leg assemblies, upper and lower drag struts, over-center spring
assembly, and engine mount for corroded or worn bolts in accordance
with the instructions in Section 6, NLG DRAG STRUT INSPECTION, of
Bellanca SL B-107, dated September 20, 1995. Prior to further
flight, replace any corroded or worn bolts.
(c) Check the NLG drag strut rigging, the overcenter of the drag
strut, and the NLG cylinder actuator stroke limit, and adjust any
discrepancies in accordance with the applicable instructions
contained in the following:
(1) Section 7, PRELIMINARY NLG DRAG STRUT RIGGING CHECK
(including section 7.1, Preliminary Nose-Wheel-In-The-Well Test, and
section 7.2, Preliminary NLG Cylinder Down Test), of Bellanca SL B-
107, dated September 20, 1995.
(2) Section 8, DRAG STRUT OVERCENTER TEST AND ADJUSTMENT, of
Bellanca SL B-107, dated September 20, 1995.
(3) Section 9, NLG CYLINDER DOWN TEST AND ADJUSTMENT, of
Bellanca SL B-107, dated September 20, 1995.
(d) If any discrepancies are found during any of the checks
accomplished as required by paragraph (c) of this AD, and the right
side NLG drag strut bracket has not been replaced with P/N 194650-0
(accomplished as possible requirement of paragraph (a) of this AD),
accomplish the following:
(1) Reinspect the NLG drag strut brackets for cracks or bends at
intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS in accordance with Section 4,
NLG DRAG STRUT BRACKET INSPECTION, of Bellanca SL B-107, dated
September 20, 1995.
(2) Prior to further flight, replace any cracked or bent bracket
with a P/N 194650-0 (right side) bracket or a P/N 194383-0 (left
side) bracket in accordance with the instructions in section 5,
INSTALLATION NEW BRACKETS, of Bellanca SL B-107, dated September 20,
1995. Installing the P/N 194650-0 (right side) bracket eliminates
the repetitive inspection requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this
AD.
(3) The P/N 194650-0 (right side) bracket may be installed at
any time to eliminate the repetitive inspection requirement of this
AD.
(e) Check the NLG retraction (NLG-In-The-Well Test) in
accordance with the instructions in Section 10, NLG-IN-THE-WELL TEST
AND NLG CYLINDER MODIFICATION, of Bellanca SL B-107, dated September
20, 1995. If the nose gear cylinder rod motion is greater than 0.015
inches, prior to further flight, replace the cylinder internal
stroke limiting sleeve with a new sleeve, P/N 195577-4, in
accordance with the instructions in Section 10, NLG-IN-THE-WELL TEST
AND NLG CYLINDER MODIFICATION, of Bellanca SL B-107, dated September
20, 1995.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
initial or repetitive compliance times that provides an equivalent
level of safety may be approved by the Manager, Chicago Aircraft
Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Rm. 232, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60018. The request shall be forwarded through an
appropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then
send it to the Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Chicago Aircraft Certification Office.
(h) The inspections, modifications, and replacements required by
this AD shall be done in accordance of Bellanca Service Letter B-
107, dated September 20, 1995. This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from
Bellanca, Incorporated, P.O. Box 964, Alexandria, Minnesota 56308;
telephone (612) 762-1501. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,
Central Region, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Room 1558,
601 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, or at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
(i) This amendment (39-9731) becomes effective on October 25,
1996.
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 23, 1996.
Michael Gallagher,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22247 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-21583 Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Low Power Radio and Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Operations in the 216- 217 MHz Band
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 4, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46563-46570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21583]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 80 and 95
[WT Docket No. 95-56; FCC 96-315]
Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Low Power Radio
and Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Operations in the 216-
217 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action amends the maritime service and personal radio
service rules to permit the shared use of the 216-217 MHz band on a
secondary, non-interference basis, for a new Low Power Radio Service
(LPRS) to include auditory assistance devices, health care assistance
devices, law enforcement tracking systems, and automated maritime
telecommunications system (AMTS) point-to-point network control
communications. The effect of this rule is to: increase educational
opportunities and access to telecommunications devices for persons with
disabilities; facilitate health care services, strengthen law
enforcement, and maximize efficiency in the use of AMTS coast stations
frequencies. This action promotes effective utilization of presently
unused radio spectrum.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Noel or Ira Keltz of the
Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-0680 or
via email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order, FCC 96-315, adopted July 25, 1996, and released August 2,
1996. The full text of this Report and Order is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239) 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The
complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,
ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037,
telephone (202) 857-3800.
Summary of Order
1. The 216-220 MHz band was originally allocated to the AMTS to
provide automated, integrated, interconnected ship-to-shore
communications for vessel operators. The 216-217 MHz portion of the
band, however, was found to be unusable by high power AMTS coast
stations within 105 miles of TV channel 13 stations, which operate on
the immediately adjacent 210-216 MHz band, due to the potential for
harmful interference. On May 16, 1995, the Commission released a Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, 60 FR 28079 (May 30, 1995), in this proceeding
proposing to permit the shared use of the 216-217 MHz band for a new
LPRS and low power AMTS communications.
2. This action authorizes use of the 216-217 MHz band for a new
service, the LPRS, for auditory assistance, radio-based health care,
law enforcement tracking, and AMTS point-to-point network control
communications. LPRS transmitters will be authorized on a secondary,
non-interference, basis and must not cause harmful interference to TV
receivers within the Grade B contour of any TV channel 13 station or
cause harmful interference to the United States Navy's Space
Surveillance System (SPASUR) operating in the 216.88-217.08 MHz band.
3. Rather than licensing each station individually, this action
authorizes LPRS transmitters by rule under the Citizens Band Radio
Service in Part 95 of the Commission's rules. This approach greatly
reduces administrative and economic burdens for individuals and
organizations that will use LPRS systems by not requiring them to file
license applications and remit fees to the Commission prior to using
these low
[[Page 46564]]
power devices. Although these devices may be used anywhere in the
United States, its territories, and possessions, LPRS devices may only
be operated as follows: for auditory assistance communications
(including but not limited to applications such as assistive listening
devices, audio description for the blind, and simultaneous language
translation); for health care related communications; for law
enforcement tracking purposes; and for AMTS point-to-point network
control communications.
4. In order to promote flexible use of the 216-217 MHz band, the
LPRS channel plan accommodates a variety of channel bandwidths and
technologies. We believe that this flexible channel plan will allow
consumers to choose equipment that best suits their needs. The channel
plan permits LPRS transmitters (excluding AMTS) to utilize 40 twenty-
five kilohertz (standard band) channels, 20 fifty kilohertz (extra
band) channels, or 200 five kilohertz (narrow band) channels. These
channels are overlapping and extend throughout the entire one megahertz
band. AMTS transmissions, however, will be limited to the 216.750-
217.000 MHz band and may use this entire segment as a single wideband
channel or may use any of the three channelizations described above. In
order to minimize the potential for harmful interference to TV
reception and federal government radar, all LPRS transmissions are
limited to 100 milliwatts effective radiated power and must comply with
the out of band emission and frequency stability requirements as
described in the final rules.
5. This rule is necessary in order to provide for the utilization
of presently unused radio spectrum. This action also furthers the goals
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Technology-
Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of
1994 by promoting the development and use of affordable
telecommunications devices by persons with disabilities in places such
as educational settings, public gathering places, and health care
facilities. Additionally, this action promotes the development of
state-of-the-art law enforcement tools that will facilitate the
reduction of crime and law enforcement costs by expediting the
retrieval of stolen goods and apprehension of suspects. Finally, this
action benefits vessel operators on our nation's waterways by
increasing the efficiency of channel usage for AMTS coast stations.
5. This Report and Order is issued under the authority of sections
4(i), 302, 303(r), and 307(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154(i), 302, 303(r), and 307(e).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. Sec. 603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The
Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including on the IRFA. The Commission's
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Report and Order
conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America
Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA), Public Law No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847
(1996).
I. Need For and Purpose of this Action
Our objective is to permit the shared use of the 216-217 MHz band
on a secondary basis by a new Low Power Radio Service (LPRS)--
consisting of auditory assistance devices, health care aids, law
enforcement tracking systems and AMTS point-to-point network control
communications. This action will: (1) promote the utilization of
presently unused spectrum; (2) speed development and delivery of
advanced telecommunications devices for persons with disabilities and
illnesses; (3) promote the development of tools for use by federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies in retrieving stolen goods
and deterring crime; and (4) increase system efficiency in the AMTS.
In creating a new LPRS, we find that the potential benefits to
persons with disabilities and illnesses, the law enforcement community,
and vessel operators exceed any negative effects that may result from
the promulgation of rules for this purpose. Thus, we conclude that the
public interest is served by creating a new LPRS in the 216-217 MHz
band.
II. Summary of Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
No comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA. In general
comments on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, however, some small
business commenters raised issues that might affect small entities. In
particular, some small business commenters argued that requiring very
low power LPRS devices to be licensed by the Commission would be overly
burdensome on small entities and individuals and could deter them from
using LPRS systems. Small business commenters also noted that the
Commission should channelize the 216-217 MHz band in order to promote
the conversion of existing equipment (operating in 72-76 MHz band) to
the higher band and the rapid deployment of auditory assistance
systems. Further, small business commenters asked the Commission to
eliminate the requirement for LPRS transmitters to employ crystal
oscillators to control frequency stability. These small business
commenters noted that there may be other technologies that may be
economically and technically viable, while providing adequate frequency
control. The Commission carefully considered each of these comments in
reaching the decisions set forth in this Notice.
III. Changes Made to the Proposed Rules
In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Commission proposed to
generally license LPRS stations regionally based on Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs), with the AMTS
stations licensed under the Maritime Service Rules in Part 80 and two
of the law enforcement tracking channels under the Police Radio Service
in Part 90. The Commission also proposed to require the public to apply
for these licenses using FCC Form 600 or FCC Form 503 (AMTS only).
However, the Commission here determines that the public interest is
served by licensing all LPRS stations by rule, rather than
individually. The Commission proposed to divide the 216-217 MHz band
into 40, twenty-five kilohertz channels. In order to promote technical
flexibility and allow consumers to choose among a broader range of low
power equipment, the Commission decided to instead divide the band into
40, twenty-five kilohertz channels (standard band), 20, fifty kilohertz
channels (extra band), 200, five kilohertz channels (narrowband), and
permit AMTS operations in the highest two hundred fifty kilohertz block
of the band. The Commission proposed to permit 100 milliwatt and 1 watt
transmissions in the lower and upper portions of the 216-217 MHz band,
respectively. Based on the comments, however, the Commission decides to
instead limit LPRS transmitter power to 100 milliwatts. The Commission
also deviates from the proposed rules to expand the scope of the LPRS
to include auditory assistance services for all persons in educational
settings and persons that require language translation in any setting.
The
[[Page 46565]]
Commission decides not to specify the means by which manufacturers may
provide for frequency stability in LPRS transmitters. Finally, the
Commission determines that it is unnecessary for AMTS licensees to
notify channel 13 TV stations of proposed LPRS point-to-point
operations other than those stations that were not originally notified
at licensing.
IV. Description and Estimate of the Small Entities Subject to the Rules
The rules adopted in this Report and Order will apply to small
businesses that choose to use, manufacturer, design, import, or sell
auditory assistance devices, radio-based health care aids, law
enforcement tracking systems, or AMTS point-to-point transmitters.
There is no requirement, however, for any entity to use or produce
these types of products.
A. Estimates for LPRS Manufacturers/Importers
The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to LPRS manufacturers and importers. Therefore,
the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the
Small Business Administration rules applicable to radio and television
broadcasting and communications equipment manufacturers. This
definition provides that a small entity is any entity employing less
than 750 persons. See 13 CFR Sec. 121.201, Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Code 3663. Additionally, the Small Business
Administration rules state that wholesale electronic parts and
equipment firms must have 100 or fewer employees in order to qualify as
a small business entity. See 13 CFR Sec. 121.201. Since the Regulatory
Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the record in this
proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information
regarding the number of small entities that may choose to manufacture
LPRS equipment and is unable at this time to make a meaningful estimate
of the number of potential manufacturers which are small businesses.
The 1992 Census of Manufacturers, conducted by the Bureau of
Census, which is the most comprehensive and recent information
available, shows that approximately 925 out of the 948 entities
manufacturing radio and television transmitting equipment in 1992
employed less than 750 persons. We are unable to discern from the
Census data precisely how many of these manufacturers produce devices
similar to those that will be used under the new LPRS. Further, any
entity may choose to manufacture LPRS equipment. Further, 12,161 of the
12,654 wholesale electronic parts and equipment firms have fewer than
100 employees, and would be classified as small entities. Therefore,
for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we estimate that there are at least
13,086 potential manufacturers or importers of LPRS equipment which are
small businesses, as that term is defined by the Small Business
Administration.
B. Estimates for AMTS Licensees
The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
specifically applicable to AMTS licensees. Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the Small Business
Administration rules applicable to radiotelephone service providers.
This definition provides that a small entity is any entity employing
less than 1,500 persons. See 13 CFR Sec. 121.201, Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Code 4812. Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act
amendments were not in effect until the record in this proceeding was
closed, the Commission was unable to request information regarding the
number of small AMTS businesses and is unable at this time to determine
the precise number of AMTS firms which are small businesses.
The size data provided by the Small Business Administration does
not enable us to make a meaningful estimate of the number of AMTS firms
which are small businesses. Therefore, we used the 1992 Census of
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau
of the Census, which is the most recent information available. This
document shows that only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of
1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more
employees. There are three AMTS licensees which are authorized on an
exclusive basis along the Mississippi River, portions of the West
Coast, and nearly the entire East Coast. Because most of the nation's
coastline has or will be covered by the present licensees, it is
unlikely that a large number of additional licenses will be authorized
in the future. Therefore, for purposes of our evaluations and
conclusions in this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we estimate
that there are three AMTS licensees which are small businesses, as that
term is defined by the Small Business Administration.
V. Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
In order to facilitate operation of LPRS devices without individual
licenses, we are imposing four separate regulatory burdens that may
affect small businesses.
(1) Prior to marketing an LPRS device in the U.S., a manufacturer
must have the unit type accepted by the Commission under the technical
criteria set forth in the final rules. The criteria include channel
specifications and emission limitations that will facilitate the shared
use of the 216-217 MHz band by a diverse group of users. All classes of
small businesses could potentially be affected by this requirement. In
order to have a unit type accepted, a small entity would have to test
the radio equipment and provide clerical support to file the requisite
FCC application forms. Both of these functions could be handled by a
third party.
(2) Each LPRS transmitter sold must have included with it the
following statement: ``This transmitter is authorized by rule under the
Low Power Radio Service (47 C.F.R. Part 95) and must not cause harmful
interference to TV reception or United States Navy SPASUR
installations. You do not need an FCC license to operate this
transmitter. This transmitter may only be used to provide: auditory
assistance to persons with disabilities, persons who require language
translation, or persons in educational settings; health care services
to the ill; law enforcement tracking services under agreement with a
law enforcement agency; or automated maritime telecommunications system
(AMTS) network control communications Two-way voice communications and
all other types of uses are expressly prohibited.'' All classes of
small businesses could potentially be affected. Because the Commission
is providing specific language to be included with each device, a small
business would need clerical support to add this language to the
instruction manual for the device.
(3) Unless the transmitter is so small as to make this requirement
impractical, each LPRS transmitter sold must bear the following
statement in a conspicuous location on the device: ``This device may
not interfere with TV reception or federal government radar, and must
accept any interference received, including interference that may cause
undesired operation.'' The Commission does not specifiy whether this
statement must be inscribed into
[[Page 46566]]
the unit or attached via a label or sticker.
(4) AMTS licensees must notify, in writing, each television station
that may be affected by these new low power operations. There is no
need, however, for AMTS licensees to renotify television stations that
were previously alerted concerning AMTS operations in their areas.
VI. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities
The Commission in this proceeding has considered comments on ways
to implement a new LPRS. In doing so, the Commission has adopted
alternatives which minimize burdens placed on small entities. First, it
has decided not to require LPRS transmitters to be individually
licensed, as proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this
proceeding. This approach eliminates the need for small entities and
individuals to apply for a license and remit processing fees. Second,
as the small business commenters point out, dividing the 216-217 MHz
band into forty, twenty-five kilohertz channels will allow existing
equipment designs (e.g., 72-76 MHz band equipment) to be converted to
permit operation in the higher band. This approach promotes the rapid
delivery of LPRS devices to the public with a minimum negative impact
on manufacturers who are small businesses. Third, it has decided not to
require LPRS transmitter stability to be controlled by crystal
oscillators. This approach permits manufacturers to use other
technologies that may be cheaper to implement and can provide
equivalent, if not better, control of a unit's operating frequency.
Fourth, it has decided not to require AMTS licensees to renotify
broadcast licensees prior to commencing point-to-point operations under
the LPRS. Renotification is unnecessary because AMTS applicants already
notify affected broadcast licensees prior to licensing. Further, it is
unlikely that AMTS point-to-point operations will affect broadcast
licensees that have not already been notified. This action eliminates
unnecessary economic and administrative burdens for AMTS providers that
are also small businesses. Fifth, the Commission has taken steps to
minimize the economic burdens associated with the labeling requirement
found in Sec. 95.1017. The Commission minimized the number of words to
be included in the label (half the number of words required for similar
devices under Part 15 of our rules) and did not require the words to be
engraved or molded into the transmitter unit. This action reduces
burdens and increases flexibility for manufacturers that are also small
entities.
VII. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected
The Commission considered and rejected several significant
alternatives. The Commission rejected the alternative of requiring LPRS
transmitters to be licensed individually because it determined that
such a procedure would not further spectrum management or enforcement
goals and would place administrative and economic burdens on the
public. The Commission also rejected the alternative of permitting one-
watt transmissions in the 216-217 MHz band because of the potential for
harmful interference to TV reception. Finally, the Commission rejected
the alternative of requiring the use of crystal oscillators because
there are other technologies that can control frequency stability that
may be cheaper and just as efficient to implement. By rejecting these
alternatives, the Commission seeks to provide flexibility in the
licensing and design of these low power transmitters while eliminating
unnecessary regulatory burdens for small entities.
VIII. Report to Congress
The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, along with this Report and Order, in a report to
Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will also
be published in the Federal Register.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 80
Communications equipment, Radio, Vessels.
47 CFR Part 95
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Parts 80 and 95 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 80--STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 80 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat.
1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 UST
3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.
2. Section 80.385 is amended by revising footnote 2 to the table in
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 80.385 Frequencies for automated systems.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
\2\ Coast station operation on frequencies in Groups C and D are
not currently assignable and are shared on a secondary basis with
the Low Power Radio Service in part 95 of this chapter. Frequencies
in the band 216.750-217.000 MHz band are available for low power
point-to-point network control communications by AMTS coast stations
under the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS). LPRS operations are
subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused to
the United States Navy's SPASUR radar system (216.88-217.08 MHz) or
to TV reception within the Grade B contour of any TV channel 13
station or within the 68 dBu predicted contour of any low power TV
or TV translator station operating on channel 13.
* * * * *
PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303.
2. Section 95.401 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 95.401 (CB Rule 1) What are the Citizens Band Radio Services?
* * * * *
(c) The Low Power Radio Service (LPRS)--a private, short-distance
communication service providing auditory assistance to persons with
disabilities, persons who require language translation, and persons in
educational settings, health care assistance to the ill, law
enforcement tracking services in cooperation with law enforcement, and
point-to-point network control communications for Automated Marine
Telecommunications System (AMTS) coast stations licensed under part 80
of this chapter. The rules for this service are listed under subpart G
of this part. Two-way voice communications are prohibited.
3. Section 95.601 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.601 Basis and purpose.
This section provides the technical standards to which each
transmitter (apparatus that converts electrical energy received from a
source into RF (radio frequency) energy capable of
[[Page 46567]]
being radiated) used or intended to be used in a station authorized in
any of the Personal Radio Services must comply. This section also
provides requirements for obtaining type acceptance or type
certification for such transmitters. The Personal Radio Services are
the GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service)--subpart A, the Family Radio
Service (FRS)--subpart B, the R/C (Radio Control Radio Service)--
subpart C, the CB (Citizens Band Radio Service)--subpart D, and the Low
Power Radio Service (LPRS)--subpart G.
4. Section 95.603 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 95.603 Type acceptance or certification required.
* * * * *
(e) Each Low Power Radio Service transmitter (a transmitter that
operates or is intended to operate in the LPRS) must be type accepted.
5. Section 95.605 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.605 Type acceptance and certification procedures.
Any entity may request type acceptance for its transmitter when the
transmitter is used in the GMRS, R/C, CB, IVDS, or LPRS following the
procedures in part 2 of this chapter.
Any entity may request certification for its transmitter when the
transmitter is used in the FRS following the procedures in part 2 of
this chapter.
6. Sections 95.629 through 95.671 are redesignated as 95.631
through 95.673 respectively, and a new Section 95.629 is added to read
as follows:
Sec. 95.629 LPRS transmitter frequencies.
(a) LPRS transmitters may operate on any frequency listed in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. Channels 19, 20, 50, and
151-160 are available exclusively for law enforcement tracking
purposes. AMTS transmissions are limited to the 216.750-217.000 MHz
band for low power point-to-point network control communications by
AMTS coast stations. Other AMTS transmissions in the 216-217 MHz band
are prohibited.
(b) Standard band channels.
(1) The following table indicates standard band frequencies. The
channel bandwidth is 25 kHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center
Channel No. frequency
(MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................................... 216.0125
2......................................................... 216.0375
3......................................................... 216.0625
4......................................................... 216.0875
5......................................................... 216.1125
6......................................................... 216.1375
7......................................................... 216.1625
8......................................................... 216.1875
9......................................................... 216.2125
10......................................................... 216.2375
11......................................................... 216.2625
12......................................................... 216.2875
13......................................................... 216.3125
14......................................................... 216.3375
15......................................................... 216.3625
16......................................................... 216.3875
17......................................................... 216.4125
18......................................................... 216.4375
19......................................................... 216.4625
20......................................................... 216.4875
21......................................................... 216.5125
22......................................................... 216.5375
23......................................................... 216.5625
24......................................................... 216.5875
25......................................................... 216.6125
26......................................................... 216.6375
27......................................................... 216.6625
28......................................................... 216.6875
29......................................................... 216.7125
30......................................................... 216.7375
31......................................................... 216.7625
32......................................................... 216.7875
33......................................................... 216.8125
34......................................................... 216.8375
35......................................................... 216.8625
36......................................................... 216.8875
37......................................................... 216.9125
38......................................................... 216.9375
39......................................................... 216.9625
40......................................................... 216.9875
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) LPRS transmitters operating on standard band channels must be
maintained within a frequency stability of 50 parts per million.
(c) Extra band channels.
(1) The following table indicates extra band frequencies. The
channel bandwidth is 50 kHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center
Channel No. frequency
(MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41......................................................... 216.025
42......................................................... 216.075
43......................................................... 216.125
44......................................................... 216.175
45......................................................... 216.225
46......................................................... 216.275
47......................................................... 216.325
48......................................................... 216.375
49......................................................... 216.425
50......................................................... 216.475
51......................................................... 216.525
52......................................................... 216.575
53......................................................... 216.625
54......................................................... 216.675
55......................................................... 216.725
56......................................................... 216.775
57......................................................... 216.825
58......................................................... 216.875
59......................................................... 216.925
60......................................................... 216.975
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) LPRS transmitters operating on extra band channels must be
maintained within a frequency stability of 50 parts per million.
(d) Narrowband channels.
(1) The following table indicates narrowband frequencies. The
channel bandwidth is 5 kHz and the authorized bandwidth is 4 kHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center
Channel No. frequency
(MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
61........................................................ 216.0025
62........................................................ 216.0075
63........................................................ 216.0125
64........................................................ 216.0175
65........................................................ 216.0225
66........................................................ 216.0275
67........................................................ 216.0325
68........................................................ 216.0375
69........................................................ 216.0425
70........................................................ 216.0475
71........................................................ 216.0525
72........................................................ 216.0575
73........................................................ 216.0625
74........................................................ 216.0675
75........................................................ 216.0725
76........................................................ 216.0775
77........................................................ 216.0825
78........................................................ 216.0875
79........................................................ 216.0925
80........................................................ 216.0975
81........................................................ 216.1025
82........................................................ 216.1075
83........................................................ 216.1125
84........................................................ 216.1175
85........................................................ 216.1225
86........................................................ 216.1275
87........................................................ 216.1325
88........................................................ 216.1375
89........................................................ 216.1425
90........................................................ 216.1475
91........................................................ 216.1525
92........................................................ 216.1575
93........................................................ 216.1625
94........................................................ 216.1675
95........................................................ 216.1725
96........................................................ 216.1775
97........................................................ 216.1825
98........................................................ 216.1875
99........................................................ 216.1925
100........................................................ 216.1975
101........................................................ 216.2025
102........................................................ 216.2075
103........................................................ 216.2125
104........................................................ 216.2175
105........................................................ 216.2225
106........................................................ 216.2275
107........................................................ 216.2325
108........................................................ 216.2375
109........................................................ 216.2425
110........................................................ 216.2475
111........................................................ 216.2525
112........................................................ 216.2575
113........................................................ 216.2625
114........................................................ 216.2675
115........................................................ 216.2725
116........................................................ 216.2775
117........................................................ 216.2825
118........................................................ 216.2875
119........................................................ 216.2925
120........................................................ 216.2975
121........................................................ 216.3025
122........................................................ 216.3075
123........................................................ 216.3125
124........................................................ 216.3175
[[Page 46568]]
125........................................................ 216.3225
126........................................................ 216.3275
127........................................................ 216.3325
128........................................................ 216.3375
129........................................................ 216.3425
130........................................................ 216.3475
131........................................................ 216.3525
132........................................................ 216.3575
133........................................................ 216.3625
134........................................................ 216.3675
135........................................................ 216.3725
136........................................................ 216.3775
137........................................................ 216.3825
138........................................................ 216.3875
139........................................................ 216.3925
140........................................................ 216.3975
141........................................................ 216.4025
142........................................................ 216.4075
143........................................................ 216.4125
144........................................................ 216.4175
145........................................................ 216.4225
146........................................................ 216.4275
147........................................................ 216.4325
148........................................................ 216.4375
149........................................................ 216.4425
150........................................................ 216.4475
151........................................................ 216.4525
152........................................................ 216.4575
153........................................................ 216.4625
154........................................................ 216.4675
155........................................................ 216.4725
156........................................................ 216.4775
157........................................................ 216.4825
158........................................................ 216.4875
159........................................................ 216.4925
160........................................................ 216.4975
161........................................................ 216.5025
162........................................................ 216.5075
163........................................................ 216.5125
164........................................................ 216.5175
165........................................................ 216.5225
166........................................................ 216.5275
167........................................................ 216.5325
168........................................................ 216.5375
169........................................................ 216.5425
170........................................................ 216.5475
171........................................................ 216.5525
172........................................................ 216.5575
173........................................................ 216.5625
174........................................................ 216.5675
175........................................................ 216.5725
176........................................................ 216.5775
177........................................................ 216.5825
178........................................................ 216.5875
179........................................................ 216.5925
180........................................................ 216.5975
181........................................................ 216.6025
182........................................................ 216.6075
183........................................................ 216.6125
184........................................................ 216.6175
185........................................................ 216.6225
186........................................................ 216.6275
187........................................................ 216.6325
188........................................................ 216.6375
189........................................................ 216.6425
190........................................................ 216.6475
191........................................................ 216.6525
192........................................................ 216.6575
193........................................................ 216.6625
194........................................................ 216.6675
195........................................................ 216.6725
196........................................................ 216.6775
197........................................................ 216.6825
198........................................................ 216.6875
199........................................................ 216.6925
200........................................................ 216.6975
201........................................................ 216.7025
202........................................................ 216.7075
203........................................................ 216.7125
204........................................................ 216.7175
205........................................................ 216.7225
206........................................................ 216.7275
207........................................................ 216.7325
208........................................................ 216.7375
209........................................................ 216.7425
210........................................................ 216.7475
211........................................................ 216.7525
212........................................................ 216.7575
213........................................................ 216.7625
214........................................................ 216.7675
215........................................................ 216.7725
216........................................................ 216.7775
217........................................................ 216.7825
218........................................................ 216.7875
219........................................................ 216.7925
220........................................................ 216.7975
221........................................................ 216.8025
222........................................................ 216.8075
223........................................................ 216.8125
224........................................................ 216.8175
225........................................................ 216.8225
226........................................................ 216.8275
227........................................................ 216.8325
228........................................................ 216.8375
229........................................................ 216.8425
230........................................................ 216.8475
231........................................................ 216.8525
232........................................................ 216.8575
233........................................................ 216.8625
234........................................................ 216.8675
235........................................................ 216.8725
236........................................................ 216.8775
237........................................................ 216.8825
238........................................................ 216.8875
239........................................................ 216.8925
240........................................................ 216.8975
241........................................................ 216.9025
242........................................................ 216.9075
243........................................................ 216.9125
244........................................................ 216.9175
245........................................................ 216.9225
246........................................................ 216.9275
247........................................................ 216.9325
248........................................................ 216.9375
249........................................................ 216.9425
250........................................................ 216.9475
251........................................................ 216.9525
252........................................................ 216.9575
253........................................................ 216.9625
254........................................................ 216.9675
255........................................................ 216.9725
256........................................................ 216.9775
257........................................................ 216.9825
258........................................................ 216.9875
259........................................................ 216.9925
260........................................................ 216.9975
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) LPRS transmitters operating on narrowband channels must be
maintained within a frequency stability of 1.5 parts per million.
7. Section 95.631 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 95.631 Emission types.
* * * * *
(g) An LPRS station may transmit any emission type appropriate for
communications in this service. Two-way voice communications, however,
are prohibited.
8. Section 95.633 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 95.633 Emission bandwidth.
* * * * *
(d) For transmitters in the LPRS:
(1) The authorized bandwidth for narrowband frequencies is 4 kHz
and the channel bandwidth is 5 kHz
(2) The channel bandwidth for standard band frequencies is 25 kHz.
(3) The channel bandwidth for extra band frequencies is 50 kHz.
(4) AMTS stations may use the 216.750-217.000 MHz band as a single
250 kHz channel so long as the signal is attenuated as specified in
Sec. 95.635(c).
9. Section 95.635 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 95.635 Unwanted radiation.
* * * * *
(c) For transmitters designed to operate in the LPRS, emissions
shall be attenuated in accordance with the following:
(1) Emissions for LPRS transmitters operating on standard band
channels (25 kHz) shall be attenuated below the unmodulated carrier in
accordance with the following:
(i) Emissions 12.5 kHz to 22.5 kHz away from the channel center
frequency: at least 30 dB; and
(ii) Emissions more than 22.5 kHz away from the channel center
frequency: at least 43 + 10log(carrier power in watts) dB.
(2) Emissions for LPRS transmitters operating on extra band
channels (50 kHz) shall be attenuated below the unmodulated carrier in
accordance with the following:
(i) Emissions 25 kHz to 35 kHz from the channel center frequency:
at least 30 dB; and
(ii) Emissions more than 35 kHz away from the channel center
frequency: at least 43 + 10log(carrier power in watts) dB.
(3) Emissions for LPRS transmitters operating on narrowband
channels (5 kHz) shall be attenuated below the power (P) of the highest
emission, measured in peak values, contained within the authorized
bandwidth (4 kHz) in accordance with the following:
(i) On any frequency within the authorized bandwidth: Zero dB;
(ii) On any frequency removed from the center of the authorized
bandwidth by a displacement frequency (fd in kHz)
[[Page 46569]]
of more than 2 kHz up to and including 3.75 kHz: The lesser of 30 +
20(fd-2) dB, or 55 + 10 log(P), or 65 dB; and
(iii) On any frequency beyond 3.75 kHz removed from the center of
the authorized bandwidth: At least 55 + 10 log(P) dB.
(4) Emissions from AMTS transmitters using a single 250 kHz channel
shall be attenuated below the unmodulated carrier in accordance with
the following:
(i) Emissions from 125 kHz to 135 kHz away from the channel center
frequency; at least 30 dB; and
(ii) Emissions more than 135 kHz away from the channel center
frequency; at least 43 + 10log(carrier power in watts) dB.
10. Section 95.639 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 95.639 Maximum transmitter power.
* * * * *
(e) The maximum transmitter output power authorized for LPRS
stations is 100 mW.
11. Section 95.649 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.649 Power capability.
No CB, R/C, LPRS transmitter, or FRS unit shall incorporate
provisions for increasing its transmitter power to any level in excess
of the limits specified in Sec. 95.639.
12. Section 95.651 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 95.651 Crystal control required.
All transmitters used in the Personal Radio Services must be
crystal controlled, except an R/C station that transmits in the 26-27
MHz frequency band, a FRS unit, and a LPRS unit.
13. A new Subpart G is added to Part 95 to read as follows:
Subpart G--Low Power Radio Service (LPRS).
General Provisions
Sec.
95.1001 Eligibility.
95.1003 Authorized locations.
95.1005 Station identification.
95.1007 Station inspection.
95.1009 Permissible communications.
95.1011 Channel use policy.
95.1013 Antennas.
95.1015 Disclosure policies.
95.1017 Labeling requirements.
95.1019 Marketing limitations.
Subpart G--Low Power Radio Service (LPRS).
General Provisions
Sec. 95.1001 Eligibility.
An entity is authorized by rule to operate a LPRS transmitter and
is not required to be individually licensed by the FCC if it is not a
representative of a foreign government and if it uses the transmitter
only in accordance with Sec. 95.1009. Each entity operating a LPRS
transmitter for AMTS purposes must hold an AMTS license under part 80
of this chapter.
Sec. 95.1003 Authorized locations.
LPRS operation is authorized:
(a) Anywhere CB station operation is permitted under
Sec. 95.405(a); and
(b) Aboard any vessel or aircraft of the United States, with the
permission of the captain, while the vessel or aircraft is either
travelling domestically or in international waters or airspace.
Sec. 95.1005 Station identification.
An LPRS station is not required to transmit a station
identification announcement.
Sec. 95.1007 Station inspection.
All LPRS system apparatus must be made available for inspection
upon request by an authorized FCC representative.
Sec. 95.1009 Permissible communications.
LPRS stations may transmit voice, data, or tracking signals as
permitted in this section. Two-way voice communications are prohibited.
(a) Auditory assistance communications (including but not limited
to applications such as assistive listening devices, audio description
for the blind, and simultaneous language translation) for:
(1) Persons with disabilities. In the context of the LPRS, the term
``disability'' has the meaning given to it by section 3(2)(A) of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A)), i.e,
persons with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more of the major life activities of such individuals;
(2) Persons who require language translation; or
(3) Persons who may otherwise benefit from auditory assistance
communications in educational settings.
(b) Health care related communications for the ill.
(c) Law enforcement tracking signals (for homing or interrogation)
including the tracking of persons or stolen goods under authority or
agreement with a law enforcement agency (federal, state, or local)
having jurisdiction in the area where the transmitters are placed.
(d) AMTS point-to-point network control communications.
Sec. 95.1011 Channel use policy.
(a) The channels authorized to LPRS systems by this part are
available on a shared basis only and will not be assigned for the
exclusive use of any entity.
(b) Those using LPRS transmitters must cooperate in the selection
and use of channels in order to reduce interference and make the most
effective use of the authorized facilities. Channels must be selected
in an effort to avoid interference to other LPRS transmissions.
(c) Operation is subject to the conditions that no harmful
interference is caused to the United States Navy's SPASUR radar system
(216.88-217.08 MHz) or to TV reception within the Grade B contour of
any TV channel 13 station or within the 68 dBu predicted contour of any
low power TV or TV translator station operating on channel 13.
Sec. 95.1013 Antennas.
(a) The maximum allowable ERP for a station in the LPRS is 100 mW.
(b) AMTS stations must employ directional antennas.
(c) Antennas used with LPRS units must comply with the following:
(1) For LPRS units operating entirely within an enclosed structure,
e.g., a building, there is no limit on antenna height;
(2) For LPRS units not operating entirely within an enclosed
structure, the tip of the antenna shall not exceed 30.5 meters (100
feet) above ground. In cases where harmful interference occurs the FCC
may require that the antenna height be reduced; and
(3) The height limitation in paragraph (c)(2) of this section does
not apply to LPRS units in which the antenna is an integral part of the
unit.
Sec. 95.1015 Disclosure policies.
(a) Manufacturers of LPRS transmitters used for auditory
assistance, health care assistance, and law enforcement tracking
purposes must include with each transmitting device the following
statement: ``This transmitter is authorized by rule under the Low Power
Radio Service (47 C.F.R. Part 95) and must not cause harmful
interference to TV reception or United States Navy SPASUR
installations. You do not need an FCC license to operate this
transmitter. This transmitter may only be used to provide: auditory
assistance to persons with disabilities, persons who require language
translation, or persons in educational settings; health care services
to the ill; law enforcement tracking services under agreement with a
law enforcement agency; or automated maritime telecommunications system
(AMTS) network control communications. Two-
[[Page 46570]]
way voice communications and all other types of uses not mentioned
above are expressly prohibited.''
(b) Prior to operating a LPRS transmitter for AMTS purposes, an
AMTS licensee must notify, in writing, each television station that may
be affected by such operations, as defined in Sec. 80.215(h) of this
chapter. The notification provided with the station's license
application is sufficient to satisfy this requirement if no new
television stations would be affected.
Sec. 95.1017 Labeling requirements.
(a) Each LPRS transmitting device shall bear the following
statement in a conspicuous location on the device: ``This device may
not interfere with TV reception or federal government radar, and must
accept any interference received, including interference that may cause
undesired operation.''
(b) Where an LPRS device is constructed in two or more sections
connected by wires and marketed together, the statement specified in
this section is required to be affixed only to the main control unit.
(c) When the LPRS device is so small or for such use that it is not
practicable to place the statement specified in the section on it, the
statement must be placed in a prominent location in the instruction
manual or pamphlet supplied to the user or, alternatively, shall be
placed on the container in which the device is marketed.
Sec. 95.1019 Marketing limitations.
Transmitters intended for operation in the LPRS may be marketed and
sold only for those uses described in Sec. 95.1109.
[FR Doc. 96-21583 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.