45328 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

that this action would not have any

effect on the quality of the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN contained

in the heading of this document can be

used to cross reference this action with

the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

23 CFR Part 140

Bonds, Claims, Grant programs—

transportation, Highways and roads,

Railroads.

23 CFR Part 646

Grant programs—transportation,

Highways and roads, Insurance,

Railroads.

Issued on: August 20, 1997.

Gloria J. Jeff,

Acting Administrator.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

FHWA amends title 23, Code of Federal

Regulations, by revising part 140,

subpart I, and part 646, subpart B, to

read as set forth below.

PART 140—REIMBURSEMENT

1. The authority citation for part 140

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101(e), 106(c), 109(e),

114(a), 120(g), 121(d), 122, 130, and 315; and

49 CFR 1.48(b).

Subpart I—Reimbursement for

Railroad Work

2. In § 140.904, paragraph (b)(1) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 140.904 Reimbursement basis.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) For work which is included in an

approved statewide transportation

improvement program.

* * * * *

3. In § 140.922, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 140.922 Billings.

* * * * *

(b) The company shall provide one

final and complete billing of all

incurred costs, or of the agreed-to lump

sum, within one year following

completion of the reimbursable railroad

work. Otherwise, previous payments to

the company may be considered final,

except as agreed to between the SHA

and the railroad.

* * * * *

PART 646—RAILROADS

4. The authority citation for part 646

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 109(e), 120(c), 130,

133(d)(1), and 315; 49 CFR 1.48(b).

Subpart B—Railroad-Highway Projects

5. In § 646.200, paragraph (f) is

removed and paragraph (c) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 646.200 Purpose and applicability.

* * * * *

(c) Additional instructions for projects

involving the elimination of hazards of

railroad/highway grade crossings

pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 130 are set forth

in 23 CFR part 924.

* * * * *

§ 646.202 [Removed and Reserved]

6. Section 646.202 is removed and

reserved.

7. Section 646.204 is amended by

removing paragraph (d); by removing

the paragraph designations; and by

placing the definitions in alphabetical

order.

8. Section 646.208 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 646.208 Funding.

(a) Railroad/highway crossing projects

may be funded through the Federal-aid

funding source appropriate for the

involved project.

(b) Projects for the elimination of

hazards at railroad/highway crossings

may, at the option of the State, be

funded with the funds provided by 23

U.S.C. 133(d)(1).

9. In § 646.212, paragraph (b) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 646.212 Federal share.

* * * * *

(b) The Federal share of railroad/

highway crossing projects may be:

(1) Regular pro rata sharing as

provided by 23 U.S.C. 120(a) and 120(b).

(2) One hundred percent Federal

share, as provided by 23 U.S.C. 120(c).

(3) Ninety percent Federal share for

funds made available through 23 U.S.C.

133(d)(1).

10. In § 646.214, paragraph (a)(2) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 646.214 Design.

(a) * * *

(2) Facilities that are the

responsibility of the highway agency for

maintenance and operation shall

conform to the specifications and design

standards and guides used by the

highway agency in its normal practice

for Federal-aid projects.

* * * * *

11. Section 646.216 is amended in

paragraph (d)(3)(ii) by replacing the

figure ‘‘$25,000’’ with the figure

‘‘$100,000’’; and by revising paragraph

(e)(1) to read as follows:

§ 646.216 General procedures.

* * * * *

(e) Authorizations. (1) The costs of

preliminary engineering, right-of-way

acquisition, and construction incurred

after the date each phase of the work is

included in an approved statewide

transportation improvement program

and authorized by the FHWA are

eligible for Federal-aid participation.

Preliminary engineering and right-ofway acquisition costs which are

otherwise eligible, but incurred by a

railroad prior to authorization by the

FHWA, although not reimbursable, may

be included as part of the railroad share

of project cost where such a share is

required.

* * * * *

Appendix to Subpart B—Horizontal

and Vertical Clearance Provisions for

Overpass and Underpass Structures—

[Amended]

12. The appendix to subpart B is amended

as follows:

A. By replacing the words ‘‘20 feet’’ with

‘‘6.1 meters’’ wherever they appear;

B. By replacing the words ‘‘20-foot’’ with

‘‘6.1-meters’’ wherever they appear;

C. By replacing the words ‘‘8 feet’’ with

‘‘2.5 meters’’ wherever they appear;

D. By replacing the words ‘‘9 feet’’ with

‘‘2.8 meters’’ wherever they appear;

E. By replacing the words ‘‘23 feet’’ with

‘‘7.1 meters’’ wherever they appear;

F. By replacing the words ‘‘24 feet 3

inches’’ with ‘‘7.4 meters’’ wherever they

appear; and

G. By replacing the words ‘‘26 feet’’ with

‘‘8.0 meters’’ wherever they appear.

F. By replacing the words ‘‘Nine feet’’ with

‘‘Two and eight tenths meters’’ wherever they

appear.

[FR Doc. 97–22797 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 206

RIN 3067–AC58

Disaster Assistance; Snow Assistance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 45329

SUMMARY: This rule describes Federal

assistance that is available to eligible

applicants as a result of an Emergency

or Major Disaster declaration based on

snowstorms.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa H. Howard, Ph.D, Infrastructure

Support Division, room 713, 500 C

Street SW., Washington DC 20472, (202)

646–3243.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 24, 1996, FEMA published in

the Federal Register at 61 FR 55122 a

proposed rule, ‘‘Disaster Assistance;

Snow Removal Assistance,’’ and invited

comments for 30 days ending on

November 25, 1996. Comments were

received from 11 sources representing a

congressional office, State and local

governments and a national association.

Three comments were made that the

proposed change clarifies and clearly

defines FEMA’s eligibility criteria for

snow assistance. A general comment

was that the proposed rule would

reduce false expectations and encourage

proper planning and self-sufficiency on

the parts of State and local governments.

Three comments were made that the

proposed rule did not address the

declaration criteria for which a

presidential disaster for a snow event

would be declared or did not take into

account the effects of a ‘‘slow

emergency’’ that may be created by the

continual accumulation of severe

weather over an extensive period of

time. While the original intent was to

describe only work and costs that would

be eligible after a presidentiallydeclared emergency or major disaster,

language was added to clarify situations

that may warrant a presidential

declaration. The basic principle guiding

presidential declarations will be that the

snowstorm must be record or near

record, as established by official

government records.

Four comments were made that costs

associated with labor, equipment and

materials for sand and salt operations to

enable safe passage over icy surfaces

should be an eligible expense. FEMA

has simplified the rule by broadening

eligible costs to include work eligible

under 44 CFR 206.225, Emergency

Work.

There were several comments about

the limited nature of the eligibility for

Federal assistance. Three comments

were made that the proposed rule

precludes snow removal from tracks and

rights-of-way of urban mass transit

systems, marine terminals and from

airport runways and connecting

taxiways and ramp areas, and four

comments were made that the list of

critical facilities should include other

types of facilities besides those

mentioned in the proposed rule. The

rule now permits all emergency work

costs eligible under 44 CFR 206.225 for

the period of time that will be specified

in the declaration.

Three comments were made that the

snow removal policy continues to

separate snowstorms from other

disasters as defined by the Robert T.

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.

The President has the authority under

the Stafford Act to declare a major

disaster or emergency or to deny a

governor’s request for a declaration. In

the event that a declaration is made, the

President has the authority to limit the

extent to which Federal disaster

assistance may be delivered. Winter

storms that cause extensive power

outages, serious safety hazards and

significant physical damage to public

infrastructure may require a declaration

authorizing several categories of

recovery assistance. The extent of

damage and needed assistance will

continue to be the basis for the extent

of the declaration.

A frequent general comment was

whether eligible costs (National Guard

snow removal assistance, selective

hauling of snow, overtime, equipment

rates, etc.) under FEMA’s past snow

removal policy would be eligible and

under what category of work, absent any

mention in the proposed rule. As noted

above, 44 CFR 206.225 governs costs

eligible for Federal assistance. Damage

survey reports will be written as

Category B, Emergency Protective

Measures.

Three comments were made that the

one lane/emergency route policy should

be expanded to provide assistance for

all roads for which the State or local

jurisdiction have responsibility. FEMA

has expanded the eligibility.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded

from the preparation of environmental

impact statements and environmental

assessments as an administrative action

in support of normal day-to-day grant

activities. No environmental assessment

or environmental impact statement has

been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Director certifies that this rule

would not be a major rule under

Executive Order 12291, and would not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, and is not expected (1)

to affect adversely the availability of

disaster assistance funding to small

entities, (2) to have significant

secondary or incidental effects on a

substantial number of small entities, nor

(3) to create any additional burden on

small entities. Hence, no regulatory

impact analysis has been prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not involve

any collection of information for the

purposes of the Paperwork Reduction

Act.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

In promulgating this rule, FEMA has

considered the Executive Order 12612,

Federalism. This rule makes no changes

in the division of governmental

responsibilities between the Federal

government and the States. Grant

administration procedures in

accordance with 44 CFR part 13,

Uniform Administrative Requirements

for Grants and Cooperative Agreements

to State and Local Governments, remain

the same. No Federalism assessment has

been prepared.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform, dated

October 25, 1991, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.,

p. 359.

Congressional Review of Agency

Rulemaking

This final rule has been submitted to

the Congress and to the General

Accounting Office under the

Congressional Review of Agency

Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

The rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ within the

meaning of that Act. It does not result

in nor it is likely to result in an annual

effect on the economy of $100,000,000

or more; it will not result in a major

increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions; and it

will not have ‘‘significant adverse

effects’’ on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises.

This final rule is exempt (1) from the

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, as certified previously,

and (2) from the Paperwork Reduction

Act.

This rule is not an unfunded Federal

mandate within the meaning of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995, Public Law 104–4. It does not

meet the $100,000,000 threshold of that
45330 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Act, and any enforceable duties are

imposed as a condition of Federal

assistance or a duty arising from

participation in a voluntary Federal

program.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206

Disaster assistance, Public assistance.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 206 is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 206

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42

U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No.

3 of 1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.,

p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979

Comp., p. 376; E.O. 12148, 44 FR 43239, 3

CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412; and E.O. 12673, 54

FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214.

2. Section 206.227 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 206.227 Snow assistance.

Emergency or major disaster

declarations based on snow or blizzard

conditions will be made only for cases

of record or near record snowstorms, as

established by official government

records. Federal assistance will be

provided for all costs eligible under 44

CFR 206.225 for a specified period of

time which will be determined by the

circumstances of the event.

Dated: August 18, 1997.

James L. Witt,

Director.

[FR Doc. 97–22679 Filed 8–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–02–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 94–124; FCC 97–267]

Use of Radio Frequencies Above 40

GHz for New Radio Applications

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By this Memorandum

Opinion and Order the Commission

grants the petition for reconsideration of

Cutler-Hammer by amending the

regulations to permit operation of lower

power fixed radar systems in the 59–64

GHz band, permits interim equipment

approval and operation of unlicensed

services in the 59–64 GHz band

provided that the equipment complies

with the proposed spectrum etiquette

contained in the Fourth Notice or

Proposed Rule Making, denies Vorad

Safety Systems, Inc.’s petition for

reconsideration requesting relaxation of

the spurious emission limits for vehicle

radar systems operating in the 46.7–46.9

GHz band, and corrects two

typographical errors contained in the

First Report and Order (‘‘Order’’) in this

proceeding.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

A. Reed (202) 418–2455 or Rodney P.

Conway (202) 418–2904. Via electronic

mail: jreed@fcc.gov or rconway@fcc.gov,

Office of Engineering and Technology,

Federal Communications Commission.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET

Docket 94–124, FCC 97–267 adopted

July 28, 1997, and released August 14,

1997. The full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from

the Commission’s duplication

contractor, International Transcription

Service, (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order

1. Cutler-Hammer, a manufacturer of

sensors used in industrial applications,

filed a petition for reconsideration

requesting the Commission amend its

rules to permit the operation of lower

power, fixed field disturbance sensors

(radar) in the 59–64 GHz frequency

band. Cutler-Hammer states that lower

frequency sensors of the type currently

being manufactured have performance

limitations that millimeter wave sensors

can overcome and improve on sensor

performance with the 5 GHz of

frequency bandwidth.

2. Cutler-Hammer recognizes that a

number of parties participating in this

proceeding expressed concern about

suggestions that vehicle radar systems

be permitted to operate in the 60–61

GHz band. It agrees that the potential for

interference from mobile field

disturbance sensors to fixed operations

is hard to predict and to avoid. Fixed

field disturbance sensors operating

characteristics are much more

predictable and the potential for causing

and receiving interference is more easily

determined, while the operating

characteristics of mobile field

disturbance sensors are very difficult to

predict due to the inherently variable

nature of the system, which results in

unpredictable radiation patterns and

potentials for causing and receiving

interference. Cutler-Hammer indicates

that, in contrast, the low power fixed

field disturbance sensors it desires to

employ would operate with very little

power and would create a predictable

radiation pattern, permitting them to be

designed and installed in such a way

that they would neither be susceptible

to, nor likely to cause, interference.

Accordingly, Cutler-Hammer believes

that the prohibition against the use of

fixed field disturbance sensors is

unnecessarily broad and is not

supported by the record.

3. The Commission agrees with

Cutler-Hammer that fixed field

disturbance sensors at the proposed

output level of 9 nW/cm2 as measured

at 3 meters from the transmit antenna

would not be likely to be a source of

interference to other communications

systems operating with an output level

of up to 9 μW/cm2 as measured at 3

meters from the transmit antenna in the

59–64 GHz band. This is the only

unlicensed frequency band under the

Commission’s regulations that provides

a bandwidth this wide and at a power

level that makes operation practical.

Accordingly, the Commission is

granting the request from CutlerHammer to remove the prohibition

against fixed field disturbance sensors.

The Commission also recognizes that, in

many cases, the manufacturing process

may require that the sensor be capable

of movement, even though the

equipment in which the sensor is

installed is fixed. Thus, the Commission

will clarify in its rules that the

permission to operate fixed field

disturbance sensors applies to sensors

installed in fixed equipment, even if the

sensor itself moves within the

equipment. However, this action does

not affect the Commission’s existing

prohibition on mobile field disturbance

sensors in the 59–64 GHz frequency

band.

4. Although the Commission stated

previously in this proceeding that

operation in the 59–64 GHz band would

be permitted only after adoption of a

spectrum etiquette, we now believe that

this prohibition no longer is necessary

and would be detrimental to the

introduction of new products and

services. Therefore, the Commission

will permit operation in the 59–64 GHz

band, of any authorized, unlicensed

communications devices, including

fixed field disturbance sensors, on an

interim basis pending consideration of

the Spectrum Etiquette proposed in the

Fourth Notice of Proposed Rule Making.

The Commission believes that

permitting interim operation will serve

the public interest by permitting early

rollout of new and innovative

technologies and services. The

Commission will require, however, that