28486 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 100 /Tuesday, May 26, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 87–267; FCC 98–69]

Implementation of the AM Expanded

Band Allotment Plan

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In Implementation of the AM

Expanded Band Allotment Plan, FCC

98–69, the Federal Communications

Commission denied two petitions for

reconsideration filed by Press

Broadcasting, Co. (‘‘Press’’) and Kovas

Communications, Inc. (‘‘Kovas’’). The

Commission found that the issues raised

by Press had been previously

considered and rejected, and that the

reconsideration filed by Kovas was

without merit. The intended effect of

this action is to affirm the Commission’s

previous order and the previously

reissued Expanded Band Allotment

Plan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 28, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter H. Doyle, Audio Services Division,

Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418–2720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order in

MM Docket No. 87–267, adopted on

April 14, 1998 and released on April 28,

1998. The full text of the

Implementation of the AM Expanded

Band Allotment Plan, FCC 98–69 is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Public Reference Room, Room 239,

1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

(See MM Docket 87–267). The complete

text of this order may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service

(ITS), 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, D.C., (202) 857–3800

(phone), (202) 857–3805 (facsimile).

Synopsis of MO&O: In Implementation

of the AM Expanded Band Allotment

Plan, FCC 97–68, 62 FR 23176, April 29,

1997 (‘‘Order III’’), the Commission

rescinded the second allotment plan,

modified the frequency preclusion and

allotment programs, and clarified the

harmonic interference standard used in

the frequency preclusion program. The

Commission also reaffirmed the fiveyear transition period for dual frequency

operations. Press’s request for

reconsideration sought to have the five

year transition period reduced to a sixmonth period. The Commission noted

that the issues raised by Press had been

previously considered and rejected, and

found Press’s request unwarranted. The

Commission also denied Kovas’s

challenge to the second harmonic

interference protection standard and the

staff’s determination that Kovas was

ineligible to receive an Expanded Band

Allotment. The Commission found that

Kovas failed to identify factors

warranting reconsideration of the

second harmonic standard. It also found

that Kovas’s analysis of the allotment

plan was incorrect and the argument

regarding its ineligibility to receive an

allotment was without merit.

Procedural Matters

As required by section 604 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604

(‘‘RFA’’), a Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) was incorporated

into the Implementation of the AM

Expanded Band Allotment Plan, FCC

97–68. The Petitions for

Reconsideration filed in response to

Implementation of the AM Expanded

Band Allotment Plan, FCC 97–68, did

not raise questions about FRFA. Based

on the determination not to further

amend the rules, no further Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis is necessary.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Expanded band allotment plan, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13912 Filed 5–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 252

Solicitation Provisions and Contract

Clauses

CFR Correction

In title 48 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, chapter 2, parts 201 to 299,

revised as of October 1, 1997, on page

440, section 252.223–7004 was

inadvertently reserved, the omitted text

should read as follows:

252.223–7004 Drug-Free Work Force.

As prescribed in 223.570–4, use the

following clause:

Drug-Free Work Force (Sep. 1988)

(a) Definitions. (1) Employee in a sensitive

position, as used in this clause, means an

employee who has been granted access to

classified information; or employees in other

positions that the Contractor determines

involve national security, health or safety, or

functions other than the foregoing requiring

a high degree of trust and confidence.

(2) Illegal drugs, as used in this clause,

means controlled substances included in

Schedules I and II, as defined by section

802(6) of title 21 of the United States Code,

the possession of which is unlawful under

chapter 13 of that title. The term ‘‘illegal

drugs’’ does not mean the use of a controlled

substance pursuant to a valid prescription or

other uses authorized by law.

(b) The Contractor agrees to institute and

maintain a program for achieving the

objective of a drug-free work force. While this

clause defines criteria for such a program,

contractors are encouraged to implement

alternative approaches comparable to the

criteria in paragraph (c) that are designed to

achieve the objectives of this clause.

(c) Contractor programs shall include the

following, or appropriate alternatives:

(1) Employee assistance programs

emphasizing high level direction, education,

counseling, rehabilitation, and coordination

with available community resources;

(2) Supervisory training to assist in

identifying and addressing illegal drug use by

Contractor employees;

(3) Provision for self-referrals as well as

supervisory referrals to treatment with

maximum respect for individual

confidentiality consistent with safety and

security issues;

(4) Provision for identifying illegal drug

users, including testing on a controlled and

carefully monitored basis. Employee drug

testing programs shall be established taking

account of the following:

(i) The Contractor shall establish a program

that provides for testing for the use of illegal

drugs by employees in sensitive positions.

The extent of and criteria for such testing

shall be determined by the Contractor based

on considerations that include the nature of

the work being performed under the contract,

the employee’s duties, the efficient use of

Contractor resources, and the risks to health,

safety, or national security that could result

from the failure of an employee adequately

to discharge his or her position.

(ii) In addition, the Contractor may

establish a program for employee drug

testing—

(A) When there is a reasonable suspicion

that an employee uses illegal drugs; or

(B) When an employee has been involved

in an accident or unsafe practice;

(C) As part of or as a follow-up to

counseling or rehabilitation for illegal drug

use;

(D) As part of a voluntary employee drug

testing program.

(iii) The Contractor may establish a

program to test applicants for employment

for illegal drug use.

(iv) For the purpose of administering this

clause, testing for illegal drugs may be

limited to those substances for which testing

is prescribed by section 2.1 of subpart B of

the ‘‘Mandatory Guidelines for Federal

Workplace Drug Testing Programs’’ (53 FR

11980 (April 11 1988)), issued by the

Department of Health and Human Services.

(d) Contractors shall adopt appropriate

personnel procedures to deal with employees

who are found to be using drugs illegally.