76294 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

■ As stated in the preamble, the Federal 

Communications Commission amends 

47 CFR part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Arizona, is amended 

by adding Channel 281C3 at Peach 

Springs. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30853 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 10–2236; MB Docket No. 10–108] 

Radio Broadcasting Services: Pacific 

Junction, IA 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The staff deletes FM Channel 

299C2 at Pacific Junction, Iowa, because 

the record in this proceeding reveals 

that there is no site to activate this 

allotment that would meet Federal 

Aviation Administration criteria 

regarding electromagnetic interference 

to instrument landing system 

configurations and the Commission’s 

spacing requirements Further, there are 

no other FM channels that could be 

substituted for Channel 299C2 at Pacific 

Junction and no alternate FAA 

frequencies to remedy this problem. 

DATES: Effective January 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 10–108, 

adopted November 22, 2010, and 

released November 24, 2010. The full 

text of this Report and Order is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the FCC 

Reference Information Center (Room 

CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this decision may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. 

On the Commission’s own motion, the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this 

proceeding solicited comment on 

deleting the Pacific Junction allotment 

due to difficulties encountered by 

Connoisseur Media LLC, the permittee 

of Station KGGG(FM), Channel 299C2, 

Pacific Junction, in overcoming 

objections raised by the FAA to the 

activation of this allotment. See 75 FR 

30756 (June 2, 2010). No parties filed 

comments expressing an interest in 

retaining this allotment or suggested a 

site that would be technically feasible 

and meet FAA criteria. Accordingly, the 

allotment was deleted. In addition, 

Connoisseur’s construction permit (File 

No. BNPH–20041228AAI, as modified 

by BMPH–20061019AAM) was 

cancelled and the KGGG(FM) call sign 

was deleted. 

Although the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking proposed the deletion of 

Channel 299C2, Pacific Junction, Iowa, 

from Section 73.202(b), the FM Table of 

Allotments, the channel is no longer 

listed in Section 73.202(b) due to its 

authorization and is included instead in 

the Media Bureau’s Consolidated Data 

Base System (‘‘CDBS’’) as a reserved 

assignment for Station KGGG(FM). 

Accordingly, the staff deleted Channel 

299C2 from the Media Bureau’s CDBS 

instead of from Section 73.202(b). 

The Report and Order does not 

contain proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden ‘‘for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). The Commission will send a 

copy of the Report and Order in this 

proceeding in a report to be sent to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30856 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 10–2211; MB Docket No. 10–81; RM– 

11600] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Fairbanks, AK 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the 

request of Educational Media 

Foundation, LLC, allots Channels 224C2 

and 232C2 at Fairbanks, Alaska, as the 

community’s tenth and eleventh 

potential local FM services. Channels 

224C2 and 232C2 can be allotted to 

Fairbanks, Alaska, in compliance with 

the Commission’s minimum distance 

separation requirements with a site 

restriction of 9.4 kilometers (5.9 miles) 

north of Fairbanks. The coordinates for 

Channel 224C2 and 232C2 at Fairbanks, 

Alaska, are 64–55–20 North Latitude 

and 147–42–49 West Longitude. The 

Government of Canada has concurred in 

these allotments, which are located 

within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the 

U.S.-Canadian border. 

DATES: Effective January 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 10–81, 

adopted November 17, 2010, and 

released November 19, 2010. The full 

text of this Commission decision is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this decision also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

(800) 378–3160, or via the company’s 

Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com. This 

document does not contain proposed 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76295 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506 (c)(4). The Commission will send 

a copy of this Report and Order in a 

report to be sent to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Alaska, is amended 

by adding Fairbanks, Channels 224C2 

and 232C2. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30851 Filed 12–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Acquisition Regulations 

System 

48 CFR Parts 222 and 252 

RIN 0750–AG70 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Restrictions 

on the Use of Mandatory Arbitration 

Agreements (DFARS Case 2010–D004) 

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System, Department of 

Defense (DoD). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: DoD is converting an interim 

rule to a final rule with changes. The 

interim rule implemented section 8116 

of the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 to restrict the use of 

mandatory arbitration agreements when 

awarding contracts that exceed $1 

million when using Fiscal Year 2010 

funds appropriated or otherwise made 

available by the DoD Appropriations 

Act. It allows the Secretary of Defense 

to waive applicability to a particular 

contractor or subcontractor, if 

determined necessary to avoid harm to 

national security. 

DATES: Effective date: December 8, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Julian E. Thrash, 703–602–0310. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

An interim rule was published in the 

Federal Register at 75 FR 27946 on May 

19, 2010, to implement section 8116 of 

the DoD Appropriations Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Pub. L. 111–118). This 

section prohibits the use of funds 

appropriated or otherwise made 

available by the DoD Appropriations 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 for any contract 

(including task or delivery orders and 

bilateral modifications adding new 

work) in excess of $1 million, if the 

contractor restricts its employees to 

arbitration for claims under title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or torts 

related to or arising out of sexual assault 

or harassment, including assault and 

battery, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, false imprisonment, 

or negligent hiring, supervision, or 

retention (hereinafter the ‘‘covered 

areas’’). 

This rule does not apply to the 

acquisition of commercial items, 

including commercially available offthe-shelf items. After June 17, 2010, 

section 8116(b) requires the contractor 

to certify compliance by subcontractors. 

Additionally, enforcement of this rule 

does not affect the enforcement of other 

aspects of an agreement that is not 

related to the covered areas. 

This rule allows the Secretary of 

Defense to waive applicability to a 

particular contract or subcontract, if 

determined necessary to avoid harm to 

national security. 

The public comment period for the 

interim rule closed July 19, 2010. Four 

respondents submitted comments to the 

interim rule. A discussion of the 

comments and the changes made to the 

rule as a result of those comments is 

provided below. 

1. Definition of a ‘‘contractor.’’ One 

respondent objected to the interim rule’s 

application of the term ‘‘contractor’’ only 

to the entity that has the contract. In the 

Federal Register Notice, the term 

‘‘contractor’’ was used in one of several 

examples provided to help determine 

rule applicability. In the particular 

example, the term ‘‘contractor’’ was 

described as being narrowly applied 

only to the entity that has the contract. 

Unless a parent or subsidiary 

corporation is a party to the contract, 

they are not affected. The respondent 

stated that there was no justification for 

using such a narrow definition of a 

‘‘contractor’’ and there is good reason to 

use a broader definition. The 

respondent suggested that the narrow 

definition of ‘‘contractor’’ heightens the 

potential for contractors to establish 

shell companies to circumvent the law. 

The respondent stated that in past 

regulations, different contexts have led 

to different definitions of ‘‘contractor’’— 

sometimes broader, sometimes 

narrower, and that the definition used 

in the Federal Register is not absolutely 

determined by fixed precedent or other 

controlling authority. 

Response: Expanding the definition of 

‘‘contractor’’ to include parents and 

subsidiaries would require a change to 

the language of section 8116, which by 

its terms, is limited to employees of the 

contractor who was awarded the 

contract. The text of the statute does not 

provide a basis for making a broader 

application. With respect to the concern 

regarding the potential for the 

establishment of shell companies as a 

means of circumventing the 

requirement, such practices would be 

noted in responsibility determinations. 

In addition, guidance will be included 

in Procedures Guidance and 

Information which cautions contracting 

officers that, if they believe that, in fact, 

there is evidence that a contractor has 

created a shell company for the purpose 

of obviating section 8116, the 

contracting officer shall not award the 

contract and shall report such a 

condition to the Director, Defense 

Procurement and Acquisition Policy. 

2. Definition of a ‘‘covered contract.’’ 

One respondent recommended that 

252.222–7006, Restrictions on the Use 

of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements, 

be amended to include a definition of a 

‘‘covered contract.’’ 

Response: DoD does not agree. DFARS 

222.7401, Policy, and 222.7404, 

Contract Clause, provide sufficient 

detail on the use of 252.222–7006, 

Restrictions on the Use of Mandatory 

Arbitration Agreements, and make it 

clear what constitutes a ‘‘covered 

contract.’’ There is no additional benefit 

to be derived from repeating the 

language set forth at either 222.7401 or 

222.7404 in a separate definition of a 

‘‘covered contract.’’ 

3. Definition of ‘‘subcontract.’’ One 

respondent recommended that the final 

rule should delete the definition of 

‘‘subcontract’’ at 222.7401, Policy. The 

respondent stated that since FAR 44.101 

already defines the term ‘‘subcontract,’’ 

an additional definition is unnecessary. 

Response: DoD does not agree. It 

appears that the respondent incorrectly 

referenced 222.7401, Policy. The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES