6508 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules

1Stand-alone costing is part of the Constrained

Market Pricing framework.

37°55′00′′ N, long. 122°31′04′′ W; to lat

38°02′00′′ N, long, 122°40′04′′ W. That the

airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet

above the surface bounded on the north by

lat. 38°02′00′′ N, on the east by a line

extending from lat 38°02′00′′ N, long.

121°37′04′′ W; to lat. 37°38′00′′ N, long.

121°37′04′′ W; to lat. 37°38′00′′ N, long.

121°50′04′′ W; to lat. 37°30′00′′ W, long.

121°50′04′′ W; on the south by lat. 37°30′00′′

N, and on the west by the east edges of V–

27 and V–199.

* * * * *

Issued in Los Angeles, California, on

January 24, 1997.

Sabra W. Kaulia,

Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Western Pacific Region.

[FR Doc. 97–3507 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–AWP–35]

Proposed Establishment of Class E

Airspace; Fallbrook, CA; Correction

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;

correction.

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error

in the airspace description and allows

for an extension of the comment period

of a proposed notice of rulemaking that

was published in the Federal Register

on January 8, 1997, Airspace Docket No.

96–AWP–35.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Buck, Airspace Specialist,

Operations Branch, AWP–530, Air

Traffic Division, Western-Pacific

Region, Federal Aviation

Administration, 15000 Aviation

Boulevard, Lawndale, California, 90261,

telephone (310) 725–6556.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

Federal Register Document 97–395,

Airspace Docket No. 96–AWP–35,

published on January 8, 1997, (62 FR

1072), revised the description of the

Class E airspace area at Fallbrook, CA.

An error was discovered in the airspace

description for the Fallbrook, CA, Class

E airspace area. This action corrects that

error and extends the comment period

until March 11, 1997.

Corrections to Proposed Notice of

Rulemaking

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, the airspace

description for the Class E airspace area

at Fallbrook CA, as published in the

Federal Register on January 8, 1997 (62

FR 1072), (Federal Register Document

97–395); page 1073, column 1 is

corrected as follows:

§ 71.1 [Corrected]

By removing ‘‘(Paragraph 6004 Class

E airspace areas designated as an

extension to a Class D or Class E surface

area)’’ and substituting ‘‘(Paragraph

6005 Class E airspace areas extending

upward from 700 feet or more above the

surface of the earth).’’

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Fallbrook, CA [Corrected]

Fallbrook Community Airpark, CA

(Lat. 33°21′15′′ N, long. 117°15′03′′ W)

On page 1073, in the first column, the

airspace description for Fallbrook, CA, is

corrected to read as follows:

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius

of the Fallbrook Community Airpark and

within 4 miles west and 5.3 miles east of the

014° bearing from the Fallbrook Community

Airpark, extending from the 6-mile radius to

20.5 miles north of the airport, excluding the

portion within the Camp Pendleton, CA,

Class E airspace area.

* * * * *

Issued in Los Angeles, California, on

February 7, 1997.

Michael Lammes,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Western-Pacific Region.

[FR Doc. 97–3508 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

Surface Transportation Board

49 CFR Part 1111

[STB Ex Parte No. 527 (Sub-No. 1)]

Expedited Procedures for Processing

Simplified Rail Rate Reasonableness

Proceedings

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board (Board) issued a decision on

December 31, 1996, in Rate

Guidelines—Non-Coal Proceedings, Ex

Parte No. 347 (Sub-No. 2), adopting

simplified guidelines for determining

the reasonableness of rail rates in

proceedings where the Constrained

Market Pricing guidelines cannot

practicably be applied. The Board

solicits comments on how the complaint

and investigation procedures at 49 CFR

Part 1111 should be modified to

incorporate a general procedural

schedule to govern the processing of

proceedings using the simplified

guidelines.

DATES: Comments are due March 14,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments referring to

STB Ex Parte No. 527 (Sub-No. 1) to:

Surface Transportation Board, Office of

the Secretary, Case Control Branch,

1201 Constitution Ave., N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Stilling, (202) 927–7312.

[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)

927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the

ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L.

104–88, 109 Stat. 803 (1995)(ICCTA),

new 49 U.S.C. 10704(c), the Board is

required to decide the reasonableness of

a challenged rate within 9 months after

the record closes if the determination is

based on stand-alone cost evidence, and

within 6 months if it is based upon a

simplified methodology. By decision

served on October 1, 1996 in Expedited

Procedures for Processing Rail Rate

Reasonableness, Exemption and

Revocation Proceedings, Ex Parte No.

527, published in the Federal Register

on October 8, 1996 (61 FR 52710)

(October decision) the Board adopted

final rules to expedite the handling of

challenges to the reasonableness of

railroad rates including the adoption of

a procedural schedule applicable in

stand-alone cost cases. The general

procedural schedule requires

completion of the evidentiary phase of

a stand-alone cost case in 7 months and

the issuance of a final decision within

16 months of the filing of the complaint.

49 CFR 1111.8. The rules became

effective November 16, 1996.

In the October decision, we did not

adopt a procedural schedule to govern

the filing of evidence in cases using the

simplified rate evaluation procedures.

Rather, we indicated that we would

consider the adoption of regulations

covering such cases following

completion of the Ex Parte No. 347

(Sub-No. 2).

On December 31, 1996, we adopted

simplified evidentiary guidelines to

determine the reasonableness of rail

rates on captive traffic where the

Constrained Market Pricing guidelines 1

cannot be practicably applied.

Consequently, we are now soliciting

comments to assist us in establishing a

general procedural schedule to be used

in cases processed under the simplified

rate evaluation procedures of Ex Parte

No. 347 (Sub-No. 2). Interested parties

are asked to comment on whether a

general procedural schedule applicable

to cases processed under the simplified

guidelines can be promulgated at this

time, and if so, what that schedule

should be, or whether we should delay
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 6509

the adoption of a general procedural

schedule and proceed on a case-by-case

basis until the Board and the industry

have had some experience utilizing the

new guidelines.

This action will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1111

Administrative practice and

procedure, Investigations.

Decided: February 3, 1997.

By the Board, Chairman Morgan and Vice

Chairman Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–3388 Filed 2–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P