Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 25879

compensation must promptly notify the

Secretary in writing of any change

affecting entitlement in any of the

following:

(1) Income;

(2) Net worth or corpus of estate;

(3) Marital status;

(4) Nursing home patient status;

(5) School enrollment status of a child

18 years of age or older; or

(6) Any other factor that affects

entitlement to benefits under the

provisions of this part.

(b) Eligibility verification report. (1)

For purposes of this section the term

eligibility verification report means a

form prescribed by the Secretary that is

used to request income, net worth (if

applicable), dependency status, and any

other information necessary to

determine or verify entitlement to

pension or parents’ dependency and

indemnity compensation.

(2) The Secretary shall require an

eligibility verification report under the

following circumstances:

(i) If the Social Security

Administration has not verified the

beneficiary’s Social Security number

and, if the beneficiary is married, his or

her spouse’s Social Security number;

(ii) If there is reason to believe that

the beneficiary or, if the spouse’s

income could affect entitlement, his or

her spouse may have received income

other than Social Security during the

current or previous calendar year; or

(iii) If the Secretary determines that

an eligibility verification report is

necessary to preserve program integrity.

(3) An individual who applies for or

receives pension or parents’

dependency and indemnity

compensation as defined in § 3.3 or 3.5

shall, as a condition of receipt or

continued receipt of benefits, furnish

the Department of Veterans Affairs an

eligibility verification report upon

request.

(c) If VA requests that a claimant or

beneficiary submit an eligibility

verification report but he or she fails to

do so within 60 days of the date of the

VA request, the Secretary shall suspend

the award or disallow the claim.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1315(e) and 1506)

3. Section 3.277 is amended by

revising the heading and paragraphs (b)

and (c) and by adding paragraph (d) to

read as follows:

§ 3.277 Eligibility reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Obligation to report changes in

factors affecting entitlement. Any

individual who has applied for or

receives pension must promptly notify

the Secretary in writing of any change

affecting entitlement in any of the

following:

(1) Income;

(2) Net worth or corpus of estate;

(3) Marital status;

(4) Nursing home patient status;

(5) School enrollment status of a child

18 years of age or older; or

(6) Any other factor that affects

entitlement to benefits under the

provisions of this Part.

(c) Eligibility verification reports. (1)

For purposes of this section the term

eligibility verification report means a

form prescribed by the Secretary that is

used to request income, net worth,

dependency status, and any other

information necessary to determine or

verify entitlement to pension.

(2) The Secretary shall require an

eligibility verification report under the

following circumstances:

(i) If the Social Security

Administration has not verified the

beneficiary’s Social Security number

and, if the beneficiary is married, his or

her spouse’s Social Security number;

(ii) If there is reason to believe that

the beneficiary or his or her spouse may

have received income other than Social

Security during the current or previous

calendar year; or

(iii) If the Secretary determines that

an eligibility verification report is

necessary to preserve program integrity.

(3) An individual who applies for or

receives pension as defined in § 3.3

shall, as a condition of receipt or

continued receipt of benefits, furnish

the Department of Veterans Affairs an

eligibility verification report upon

request.

(d) If VA requests that a claimant or

beneficiary submit an eligibility

verification report but he or she fails to

do so within 60 days of the date of the

VA request, the Secretary shall suspend

the award or disallow the claim.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–11880 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–127; RM–8537]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Wright

City, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal of.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Texarkana Broadcasting,

Incorporated, dismisses its request to

allot Channel 277A to Wright City, OK,

as the community’s first local aural

service. See 59 FR 59744, November 18,

1994. No interest in applying for the

channel was received by the

Commission. With this action, this

proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 94–127,

adopted May 3, 1995, and released May

10, 1995. 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, NW,

Washington, D.C. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street,

NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 95–11855 Filed 5–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94–123, DA 95–1055]

Television Broadcasting; Prime Time

Access Rule

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

reply comment period.

SUMMARY: The Commission granted a

request by the Coalition to Enhance

Diversity for an extension of time for

filing reply comments in this

proceeding. The Commission

determined that the extension of time

was warranted in light of the time

necessary to compile information

critical to resolution of the numerous

and complex issues raised in this

proceeding. This action will facilitate

the development of a full and complete

record on these issues.

DATES: Reply comments are now due on

May 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alan E. Aronowitz, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 776–1653.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Adopted: May 8, 1995.

Released: May 8, 1995.

By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau:
25880 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1Hereafter, referred to as heavy vehicles.

1. On October 25, 1994, the

Commission released a Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket

No. 94–123, 59 FR 55402 (1994)

(‘‘Notice’’), soliciting comment on the

legal and policy justifications, in light of

current economic and technological

conditions, for the Prime Time Access

Rule, Section 73.658(k) of the

Commission’s Rules, and to consider the

continued need for the rule in its

current form. By an Order adopted on

December 7, 1994, the deadline for

filing comments was extended to March

7, 1995, and the deadline for filing reply

comments was extended to April 6,

1995. See Order Granting Extension of

Time for Filing Comments and Reply

Comments in MM Docket No. 94–123,

59 FR 64382 (1994). At the request of a

number of commenters in this

proceeding, the time for filing reply

comments was substantially extended to

May 12, 1995. See Order Granting

Extension of Time for Filing Comments

and Reply Comments in MM Docket No.

94–123, 60 FR 18793 (April 13, 1995).

2. On May 3, 1995, a motion for a

further extension of time for filing reply

comments in this proceeding was filed

by the Coalition to Enhance Diversity,

which states that it is authorized to

represent the Association of

Independent Television Stations, Inc.,

Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., CBS Inc., King

World Productions, Inc., the Media

Access Project, the Motion Picture

Association of America, Inc., the

National Broadcasting Company, Inc.,

the Network Affiliated Stations

Alliance, and Viacom, Inc. (‘‘Joint

Petitioners’’) in this request. The motion

requests that the deadline for filing

reply comments be extended from May

12, 1995, to May 26, 1995.

3. The Joint Petitioners contend that

the comments filed in this proceeding

include detailed economic studies on all

sides of the issues raised in the Notice.

In order to properly evaluate these

various economic studies, the parties

have agreed to make available certain

data underlying those studies, which

information has recently become

available and accessible for review at

the Commission. (To accommodate the

parties, this information is available at

the Commission’s Washington, D.C.,

headquarters and at the field office in

Hayward, California.) These parties,

who take differing views on the

continued need for the Prime Time

Access Rule, state that a brief extension

of time will permit the completion of

the evaluations and critiques of the

comprehensive economic analyses

submitted in this proceeding as called

for in the Notice. These parties maintain

that the grant of this request for a short

extension of time will serve the public

interest by permitting a more thorough

public and industry review of the

economic data, which would, in turn,

facilitate the submission of reply

comments that will prove more useful

in generating the comprehensive record

that the Commission seeks in this

proceeding.

4. As set forth in § 1.46 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.46, it is

our policy that extensions of time for

filing comments in rulemaking

proceedings shall not be routinely

granted. However, under the

circumstances described above, we

believe that the requested extension of

time to file reply comments is

warranted. This extension of time

should facilitate the development of a

full and complete record on the issues

raised in the Notice and, thus, it appears

reasonable to provide the commenting

parties additional time to analyze and

address these issues.

5. Accordingly, It is Ordered that the

above-mentioned motion for an

extension of time Is Granted, and that

the time for filing reply comments in

this proceeding is Extended to May 26,

1995.

6. This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in Sections 4(i) and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, and § 0.204(b), 0.283,

and 1.45 of the Commission’s Rules.

Federal Communications Commission.

Roy J. Stewart,

Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 94–11856 Filed 5–12–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 70–27, Notice 33 and Docket

No. 83–07, Notice 7]

RIN 2127–AF13

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Burnish Procedures for

Heavy Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking

proceeding.

SUMMARY: This notice terminates

rulemaking to amend Standard No. 105,

Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard

No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with

respect to the burnish procedures for

medium and heavy vehicles. The agency

has determined that it would be

unnecessary to extend the period during

which a manufacturer may choose

between two burnish procedures since

manufacturers have been certifying

compliance to the brake standards based

on the ‘‘new’’ more representative

burnish procedure since September

1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Richard C. Carter, Office of Vehicle

Safety Standards, National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration, 400

Seventh Street, SA., Washington, DC

20590. (202–366–5274).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake

Systems, and Standard No. 121, Air

Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121), specify

tests to measure whether medium and

heavy vehicles 1 equipped with

hydraulic or air brakes comply with the

standards’ performance requirements.

These vehicles are subject to ‘‘burnish’’

procedures conducted at the outset of

road testing and dynamometer testing.

The burnish procedures serve to

simulate the breaking-in of the brakes

on new vehicles under normal driving

conditions.

Until September 1, 1994, the

standards contained old and new

burnish procedures, identified in the

standards as option ‘‘a’’ and option ‘‘b,’’

respectively. The old burnish procedure

consisted of a series of brake

applications, known as ‘‘snubs,’’ that

result in the brakes being heated to not

more than the specified maximum

temperature of 550 °F.

In response to a petition from

International Harvester, the agency

amended the burnish procedures in a

final rule published on March 14, 1988

(49 FR 8191). The agency initiated

rulemaking because the temperature

limit, which was established with drum

brake designs in mind, appeared

inappropriate for disc brake designs.

Disc brake systems are designed to

operate at appreciably higher

temperatures than are drum brake

systems. As a result, it had been

difficult to avoid exceeding the

specified maximum temperature during

the burnish of vehicles with disc brake

systems.

After issuing several notices, the

agency added a new burnish procedure

in 1988 providing that the brakes on

heavy duty vehicles are to be burnished

by 500 snubs slowing the vehicle from

40 mph to 20 mph, without regard to