4228 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, See 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–2155 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–22, RM–8953]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Waelder,

TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition by Waelder

Broadcasting Company requesting the

allotment of Channel 242A at Waelder,

Texas, as the community’s first local FM

service. Channel 242A can be allotted to

Waelder in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements with a site

restriction of 4.1 kilometers (2.7 miles)

east in order to avoid a short-spacing

conflict with the licensed operation of

Station KSJL(FM), Channel 241C1, San

Antonio, Texas. The coordinates for

Channel 242A at Waelder are 29–41–50

and 97–15–21.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 17, 1997, and reply

comments on or before April, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Henry E. Crawford, Esq.,

1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite

900, Washington, DC 20036 (Counsel for

petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–22, adopted January 17, 1997, and

released January 24, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW, Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–2156 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–31, RM–8930]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Des Arc,

AR

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed on behalf of Whippoorwill Creek

Broadcasting requesting the allotment of

Channel 284A to Des Arc, Arkansas, as

that community’s first local commercial

FM transmission service. Coordinates

used for Channel 284A at Des Arc are

34–58–24 and 91–29–54.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 17, 1997, and reply

comments on or before April 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel, as follows: Henry

E. Crawford, Esq., Law Offices of Henry

E. Crawford, 1150 Connecticut Avenue,

NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–31, adopted January 17, 1997, and

released January 24, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW. Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M

Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037, (202) 857–3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, See 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–2157 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking;

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

rulemaking.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Proposed Rules 4229

SUMMARY: This document denies Mr.

Alan F. Van Horen’s petition to amend

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective

devices, and associated equipment, to

permit an exterior lamp that would be

a visual indicator that the vehicle is in

its cruise control mode. The petition

provided no information to support the

petitioner’s contention that an exterior

lamp showing when a vehicle’s cruise

control was engaged would enhance

safety, nor does NHTSA’s experience

and judgment suggest any safety

benefits from such a lamp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Chris Flanigan, Office of Safety

Performance Standards, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. Mr. Flanigan’s telephone number

is: (202) 366–4918. His facsimile

number is (202) 366–4329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter

dated September 16, 1996, Mr. Van

Horen petitioned the agency to amend

FMVSS No. 108 to permit an exterior

lamp that would serve as a visual

indicator that a vehicle operator has

engaged the vehicle’s cruise control. Mr.

Van Horen stated that the indicator

would consist of a small green light

located in the driver-side tail light

housing and driver-side front parking

light housing. The indicator would be

illuminated when the vehicle’s cruise

control mode is activated. A silhouette

type insignia could be used for color

blind motorists. Mr. Van Horen argued

that the indicator would contribute to

highway safety by reducing

‘‘rubbernecking, accidents, and general

traffic gridlock.’’

To establish a new vehicle safety

specification, the agency decides, on the

basis of data and analyses, that there is

a significant safety problem and that the

safety problem would likely be reduced

by adopting that specification. The

petitioner asserted that an external

cruise control indicator would reduce

‘‘rubbernecking, accidents, and general

traffic gridlock.’’ However, the

petitioner did not provide any

information showing that that lack of a

cruise control indicator contributes to

crashes, nor is NHTSA aware of any

such information from other sources.

Regarding ‘‘rubbernecking,’’ the act of

observing nearby activity while driving,

the petitioner provided no information

about how this indicator would reduce

crashes occurring as a result of this act.

Absent such information, NHTSA’s

judgment is that ‘‘rubbernecking’’ would

not be reduced if vehicle operators were

aware that adjacent vehicle operators

had engaged their cruise control.

Regarding crashes, the petitioner did

not submit any information showing

how or how many crashes would be

prevented if vehicle operators had this

information about cruise control on

adjacent vehicles. The agency’s

judgment is that crashes would not be

reduced.

Finally, regarding the reduction of

traffic gridlock, the petitioner did not

submit any information as to how this

indicator would reduce gridlock. The

agency fails to see any relationship, let

alone one relating to safety, between

gridlock and vehicle operators’

knowledge of whether adjacent vehicle

operators have engaged their cruise

control.

The petitioner has submitted no

information to support the petition and

the agency’s judgment is that this

indicator would offer no discernable

safety benefit. At this time, NHTSA does

not believe that changing its agency

priorities or allocation of resources to

further investigate these types of lamps

would be beneficial to safety.

The agency also notes that the specific

solution chosen, a green lamp in the

same housing as a red tail lamp or an

amber or white front parking lamp (or

as pictured in the sample illustration

provided by the petitioner, optically

combined using a multi-color lens and

the same optical compartment), would

not be permissible under Federal rules.

There is a specific provision against any

lamp, reflective device, or other motor

vehicle equipment that impairs the

effectiveness of required motor vehicle

lighting equipment. The agency believes

that the proximity of the proposed green

lamp to the required lamps would

impair the effectiveness of required

lamps by altering the perceived color of

emitted light of the required lamp when

the auxiliary green lamp is activated.

In accordance with 49 CFR part 552,

this completes the agency’s review of

the petition. The agency has concluded

that there is no reasonable possibility

that the amendment requested by the

petitioner would be issued at the

conclusion of a rulemaking proceeding.

Accordingly, it denies Mr. Van Horen’s

petition.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30103, 30162;

delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and

501.8.

Issued on: January 22, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–2095 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD05

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Rule to List the

Northern Population of the Bog Turtle

as Threatened and the Southern

Population as Threatened Due to

Similarity of Appearance

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) proposes to list the

northern population of the bog turtle

(Clemmys muhlenbergii) as threatened

from New York and Massachusetts

south to Maryland; and the southern

population of bog turtle, which occurs

in the Appalachian Mountains from

southern Virginia to northern Georgia,

as threatened due to similarity of

appearance to the northern population,

with a special rule, pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 Act), as

amended. The bog turtle is threatened

by a variety of factors which include:

habitat degradation and fragmentation

from agriculture and urban

development; habitat succession due to

invasive exotic and native plants; and

illegal trade and collecting.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by April 29,

1997. Public hearing requests must be

received by March 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the Pennsylvania Field Office, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 315 South

Allen Street, Suite 322, State College,

Pennsylvania 16801. The complete file

for this rule is available for inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carole Copeyon, Endangered Species

Biologist, at the above address

(telephone 814/234–4090; facsimile

814/234–0748).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The bog turtle was first described and

named as Muhlenberg’s tortoise

(Testudo muhlenbergii) by Johann David

Schoepff in 1801, based on specimens

received in 1778 from Reverend

Heinreich Muhlenberg of Lancaster

County, Pennsylvania. In 1835, L.J.

Fitzinger transferred the species to the

genus Clemmys, where it remains today