Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 66491

1 60 FR 32,142 (1995).

2 The following eight parties filed comments in

response to the Notice: Representative Richard

Burr, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,

Fordham University, National Public Radio, North

Carolina Public Radio Association, Lisa Owens,

Southern Public Radio, and Wake Forest University.

3 15 CFR 2301.22(d). ‘‘Sectarian’’ is defined at 15

CFR 2301.1 as ‘‘that which has the purpose or

function of advancing or propagating a religious

belief.’’ The PTFP regulation at 15 CFR § 2301.22(d)

provides, ‘‘During the period in which the grantee

possesses or uses the Federally funded facilities

(whether or not this period extends beyond the

Federal interest period), the grantee may not use or

allow the use of the Federally funded equipment for

purposes the essential thrust of which are

sectarian.’’ NTIA considers these phrases to mean

the same thing.

4See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the

University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510 (1995);

Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills Sch. Dist. (Zobrest),

113 S.Ct. 2462 (1993); Witters v. Washington Dep’t

of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481, 487 (1986);

Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983).

5Notice, supra note 1.

6See 44 FR 30898 (1979) for explanation of

NTIA’s previous policy. PTFP’s regulation

regarding sectarian programming appears at 15 CFR

2301.22(d).

7This interpretation stems from policy statement,

infra fn. 11 and was applied in the Fordham case.

8 403 U.S. 602 (1971). The constitutional test set

forth in Lemon—and the consistency between

NTIA’s new policy interpretation and that test—are

described in section III.A. of this policy statement,

infra.

9Public Telecommunications Facilities Program;

Report and Order, 44 FR 30898, 30902 (1979)

(Report and Order).

10 Id. at 30,900–30,901. Previously, organizations

organized for primarily religious purposes were

ineligible to apply for a PTFP planning grant,

although their affiliates were eligible to apply. See

15 CFR 2301.4(b)(2). We are revising this rule to be

consistent with the new policy adopted herein,

such that applicant eligibility will be the same for

both construction and planning grants. See the

conforming amendments to § 2301.4 (a) and (b).

11 60 FR 15636 (1995); 60 FR 8156 (1995).

12The applicant ‘‘will not use or allow the use of

the facilities for essentially sectarian purposes for

as long as the Applicant possesses or uses the

facilities . . . .’’ Public Telecommunications

Facilities Program, Grant Application, Assurances,

no. 30, at 9.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on

November 29, 1995.

Richard E. Prang,

Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic

Division, Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 95–31203 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and

Information Administration

15 CFR Part 2301

[Docket Number 950613151–5304–02]

RIN 0660–XX02

Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program (PTFP), National Endowment

for Children’s Educational Television

(NECET), Telecommunications and

Information Infrastructure Assistance

Program (TIIAP)

AGENCY: National Telecommunications

and Information Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Final Policy Statement and

Conforming Rule Amendments.

SUMMARY: The National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA), U.S.

Department of Commerce, is publishing

a Final Policy Statement modifying the

interpretation of its policy on the use of

NTIA-funded equipment and materials

in connection with sectarian activities

and making conforming rule

amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jana

Gagner, (202) 482–1816.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On June 20, 1995, the National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce (NTIA), published a notice in

the Federal Register proposing to

modify NTIA’s interpretation of its

policy regarding the use of Federal grant

funds awarded by NTIA in connection

with sectarian activities.1 Eight parties

filed comments in response to the

Notice.2 Based on these comments and

current jurisprudence, NTIA is hereby

modifying its prior interpretation of its

rules, which prohibited the use of

NTIA-funded equipment, facilities, and

materials in connection with any

sectarian activities, no matter how

incidental.

Under its new interpretation, NTIA

will retain its present requirement that

grant funds not be used for purposes the

‘‘essential thrust of which are

sectarian,’’ 3 but will modify its

interpretation of this requirement as

follows. No more than an attenuated or

incidental benefit may inure to a

sectarian interest if a grantee uses NTIAfunded facilities in connection with a

sectarian activity. In addition, the use

must fall within the broad scope of a

grant program’s statutory purposes. A

grantee cannot, however, use NTIA

grant funds primarily to support

sectarian interests.

For the reasons discussed below,

NTIA believes that this approach is

consistent with current jurisprudence.4

We also discuss below in greater detail

the issues raised in the June Notice

regarding NTIA’s policy on sectarian

activities,5 NTIA’s interpretation of its

prior policy, comments received by

NTIA in response to the Notice, and the

application of NTIA’s new policy to

each of its grant programs. Our

discussion is informed by relevant First

Amendment jurisprudence, including

the recent Supreme Court holding in

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the

University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510

(1995).

II. Background

NTIA’s Prior Policy. In 1979, the

Public Telecommunications Facilities

Program (PTFP) of the NTIA adopted a

rule prohibiting funding for any

equipment, facilities, and other

materials that would be used for any

purposes the essential thrust of which is

sectarian.6 NTIA’s interpretation of this

rule has prohibited use of NTIA-funded

facilities and materials in connection

with any sectarian activity.7 In

implementing this ‘‘bright-line’’ policy

interpretation, NTIA relied upon Lemon

v. Kurtzman.8

NTIA’s policy interpretation did,

however, permit the ‘‘presentation in an

educational or cultural context of music

or art with a religious theme [or] of

programs about religion. It [also did] not

preclude distribution of instructional

programming of a secular nature to

church-related educational

institutions.’’ 9 In addition, sectarianaffiliated organizations could generally

apply for grant funds,10 subject, of

course, to the prohibition on the use of

NTIA-funded equipment, facilities, and

materials for purposes the essential

thrust of which is sectarian. NTIA’s two

newer grant programs, the National

Endowment for Children’s Educational

Television (NECET) and the

Telecommunications and Information

Infrastructure Assistance Program

(TIIAP), also adopted the same policy

and interpretation.11

In enforcing this policy over the years,

NTIA required grant applicants to

certify that they would comply with its

policy by signing an assurance to that

effect.12 By relying upon this assurance,

NTIA avoided evaluating programming

schedules for sectarian content as a

routine practice. Such evaluation

occurred only if information contained

in the application itself suggested that

the applicant would violate NTIA’s

policy, a complaint was filed with

NTIA, or NTIA otherwise became aware

of information that suggested that its

policy was being or would be violated.

By not routinely evaluating program

content and information transmitted

using NTIA-funded equipment and

materials, NTIA avoided excessive

Government entanglement with religion,
66492 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

13For a discussion of this point, see Section III.A.

of this policy statement.

14 856 F. Supp. 684 (D.D.C. 1994), appeal

docketed, No. 94–5229 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 1994).

15 Id. at 697–698.

16 115 S.Ct. 2510 (1995).

17Comments of Lisa Owens.

18Comments of National Public Radio at 2,5;

Comments of Wake Forest at 2–3.

19Comments of North Carolina Public Radio

Association at 1; Comments of Honorable Richard

Burr at 1; Comments of Southern Public Radio at

1.

20Comments of Corporation for Public

Broadcasting at 3; Comments of National Public

Radio at 3.

21Comments of Fordham University at 16–17.

22Comments of Fordham University at 9.

23 403 U.S. 602 (1971).

24 Id. at 612–613.

as proscribed by the Supreme Court in

Lemon v. Kurtzman.13

The Challenge by Fordham

University. In 1993, Fordham University

sued the Department of Commerce,

alleging that NTIA’s policy on sectarian

broadcasting violated its right to free

exercise of religion and its freedom of

speech rights under the First

Amendment of the Constitution. In

Fordham University v. Brown, the court

upheld NTIA’s bright-line approach

with respect to the PTFP as consistent

with the First Amendment.14 In dicta,

however, the court noted that it did not

consider whether there were other

acceptable interpretations of the

Establishment Clause.15

Since the Fordham decision, NTIA

has become aware that some public

broadcast stations include in their

schedules programs that might

constitute impermissible sectarian

programming, which could make them

ineligible for PTFP grants. This was

highlighted, in fact, following the

Fordham decision, when NTIA received

several requests to modify its policy.

Issuance of the Notice. As a result,

NTIA sought comment on whether it

should modify its policy regarding

sectarian programming and information.

Specifically the Notice sought comment

on: (1) Whether the current prohibition

on using NTIA grant funds in

connection with any sectarian activities

should be continued, or whether there

are alternative approaches that would

also be consistent with the First

Amendment; (2) the underlying policy

rationale for a given approach; (3) how

such policy would, as practical and

constitutional matters, be implemented

and enforced; (4) whether the same

policy could and should be applied to

all three NTIA grant programs (PTFP,

TIIAP, and NECET) and, if not, what

policy should pertain to each grant

program; and (5) whether the current

definition of ‘‘sectarian’’ would

continue to be supportable if NTIA’s

current policy were modified.

The Rosenberger Decision.

Subsequent to the issuance of NTIA’s

Notice, the Supreme Court decided

Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the

University of Virginia,16 which further

supports NTIA’s announced policy

interpretation change. The Supreme

Court held in Rosenberger that a state

university had erred in relying on the

First Amendment’s Establishment

Clause to deny grant funding to a

student group publisher of a Christian

magazine, when that student group

otherwise satisfied neutral funding

criteria applied by the university in

making financial grants to other student

organizations. As discussed in more

detail below, this decision serves as a

basis, in part, for the new policy

approach adopted by NTIA.

Comments Filed in Response to the

Notice. All but one of the eight

commenters supported a change in

NTIA’s policy interpretation. The one

commenter favoring retention of NTIA’s

long-term policy objected to a religious

organization receiving any benefit,

however incidental, from NTIA’s grant

programs.17 A majority of the supporting

commenters, however, relied upon the

recent Supreme Court case,

Rosenberger, in arguing that a policy

change was warranted. Most agreed that

Rosenberger requires that the Federal

government behave in a neutral manner

toward religion. Two commenters

recommended that NTIA adopt a

specified or maximum percentage for

the amount of permissible sectarian

programming.18 Other commenters

recommended allowing a ‘‘reasonable

minimal amount of sectarian

programming.’’ 19 Two other

commenters expressed some concern

that the proposed change in policy

could result in excessive government

entanglement with religion.20

As noted above, we solicited

comments on whether the definition of

‘‘sectarian’’ needed to be altered in light

of a possible policy change. Most

commenters agreed that no change in

the definition of ‘‘sectarian’’ was

required to allow NTIA to modify its

policy interpretation. One commenter

contended, however, that the definition

of ‘‘public telecommunications

services’’ had to be redefined because it

provides that public

telecommunications services ‘‘[do] not

include essentially sectarian

programming.’’ 21 This commenter also

maintained that NTIA’s prior policy

should be changed because it burdened

individuals’ free exercise of religion in

violation of the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act.22

III. Application of the Modified Policy

To NTIA’S Grant Programs

As indicated, NTIA’s new policy will

retain the requirement that grant funds

not be used for purposes the essential

thrust of which is sectarian. The

interpretation of that requirement will

be modified, however, such that as long

as the grant funds are used to fulfill the

statutory purposes of the grant

programs, attenuated or incidental

benefits to sectarian interests will be

permissible.

A. Constitutional Basis for Modified

Policy

We believe the alternative approach

we are now adopting passes

constitutional muster under First

Amendment case law. Having analyzed

our new approach in light of Lemon v.

Kurtzman,23 we conclude that our new

policy is consistent with Lemon and

other Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Lemon established a three-prong test to

determine whether government action

would have the ‘‘primary effect’’ of

establishing religion in violation of the

Establishment Clause. Under Lemon, the

constitutionality of a statute, regulation,

or funding policy depends on whether:

(1) it has a secular legislative purpose;

(2) its principal or primary effect is one

that neither advances nor inhibits

religion; and (3) it avoids ‘‘an excessive

government entanglement with

religion.’’ 24 If any one of these three

questions is answered in the negative,

government action is deemed

unconstitutional.

Each of NTIA’s grant programs has a

secular purpose, which remains

unchanged under the new policy, and

thus NTIA’s change in policy

interpretation passes the first prong of

the Lemon test. PTFP promotes public

broadcasting, NECET supports

development of children’s

programming, and TIIAP promotes new

telecommunications technologies. Each

grant award will be reviewed to ensure

it meets the appropriate statutory

purpose.

NTIA’s new policy interpretation also

satisfies the second prong of the Lemon

test as NTIA grant funds still may not

be used primarily to advance or inhibit

religion. As recently underscored by the

Rosenberger court, programs that

neutrally extend benefits to recipients

pass Establishment Clause muster, if

religious interests are only incidentally

served:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 66493

25The PTFP regulation at 15 C.F.R. § 2301.22(d)

provides: ‘‘During the period in which the grantee

possesses or uses the Federally funded facilities

(whether or not this period extends beyond the

Federal interest period), the grantee may not use or

allow the use of the Federally funded equipment for

purposes the essential thrust of which are

sectarian.’’ The assurance contained in the PTFP

application kit provides that the applicant certify

that he/she ‘‘will not use or allow the use of the

facilities for essentially sectarian purposes for as

long as the Applicant possesses or uses the

facilities, whether or not this period extends

beyond the ten-year Federal interest period

following completion of this project.’’ NTIA

considers these phrases to mean the same thing. See

also n. 3, supra.

26To be eligible for a construction or planning

grant, an applicant must be one of the following: a

public broadcast station; a noncommercial

telecommunications entity; a system of public

telecommunications entities; a nonprofit

foundation, corporation, institution, or association

organized primarily for educational or cultural

purposes; or a state or local government (or any

agency thereof), or a political or special purpose

subdivision of a state. See 15 CFR § 2301.4(a), (b).

27 47 U.S.C. 390–393; 15 CFR Part 2301 et seq.

28For definitions of eligible organizations and

projects, see 15 CFR 2301.4.

29While this example uses one program, we wish

to emphasize that we are not setting any percentage

or hourly maximum on the amount of sectarian

programming that would be considered allowable.

30See 15 CFR 2301.1; 15 CFR 2301.5(d)(2)(xvi); 15

CFR 2301.22(d). The PTFP regulation at 15 CFR

2301.22(d) provides: ‘‘During the period in which

the grantee possesses or uses the Federally funded

facilities (whether or not this period extends

beyond the Federal interest period), the grantee may

not use or allow the use of the Federally funded

equipment for purposes the essential thrust of

which are sectarian.’’ The assurance contained in

the PTFP application kit provides that the applicant

certify that he/she ‘‘will not use or allow the use

of the facilities for essentially sectarian purposes for

as long as the Applicant possesses or uses the

facilities, whether or not this period extends

beyond the ten-year Federal interest period

following completion of this project.’’ NTIA

considers these phrases to mean the same thing.

31 15 CFR 2301.1.

32 47 U.S.C. 394.

33 47 U.S.C. 394(i)(2).

34 47 U.S.C. 394 (a).

[T]he [constitutional] guarantee of

neutrality [toward religion] is respected, not

offended, when the government, following

neutral criteria and evenhanded policies,

extends benefits to recipients whose

ideologies and viewpoints, including

religious ones, are broad and diverse. . . .

More than once have we rejected the position

that the Establishment Clause even justifies,

much less requires, a refusal to extend free

speech rights to religious speakers who

participate in broad-reaching government

programs neutral in design. 115 S.Ct. at

2521–22 (emphasis added).

NTIA’s new policy interpretation will

ensure both that the program funds are

neutrally provided and that any benefit

to religion will be attenuated or

incidental. NTIA will behave neutrally

toward all grant applicants. All grant

applicants (including sectarian

organizations) will be eligible for

funding (assuming they meet NTIA’s

other eligibility requirements), provided

they comply with the policy that NTIA

grant funds will not be used for

purposes the essential thrust of which is

sectarian.25 If, as we discuss further

below, questions arise regarding

compliance, however, NTIA will

determine whether the recipients’ use of

grant funds has the primary, and thus

impermissible, effect of advancing or

inhibiting religion. Where some benefit

appears to inure to a sectarian interest,

further analysis of the potential benefit

will be undertaken to determine

whether it is merely incidential or

attenuated and thus permissible.

With regard to the third prong of the

Lemon test—avoiding excessive

entanglement of goverment with

religion—NTIA’s administrative

procedures will remain esssentially the

same as before. NTIA will avoid

analyzing individual programs unless a

compliance problem comes to NTIA’s

attention. Thus, under the new policy,

excessive government entanglement

with religion will continue to be

avoided as under our prior policy.

B. Application of New Interpretation to

Particular NTIA Programs

Specific application of this new

interpretation to each of the three NTIA

grant programs is discussed below.

1. The Public Telecommunications

Facilities Program (PTFP).

Under the PTFP rules, a sectarian

organization is eligible to apply as long

as it meets the general PTFP eligibility

requirements.26 The purpose of PTFP is

to make public telecommunications

services available to U.S. citizens. PTFP

funds the construction and planning of

public telecommunications services,27

subject to the eligibility requirements

for applicants.28

To determine whether a grant would

have the primary effect of establishing

religion, NTIA will apply the Lemon

test. To determine eligibility and the

overall purpose of the planning and

construction of public

telecommunications facilities, NTIA

will examine the applicant’s proposal

and its organizational purposes, as

required by the statutory criteria. This

approach ensures that grant awards will

neither advance nor inhibit religion.

To avoid Government entanglement

in religion and programming decisions,

NTIA will continue its policy of

reviewing the project narrative and

supporting documents, while also

relying on the applicants’ assurances

that they comply with NTIA’s policy on

sectarian activities. General monitoring

of grantees’ activities will continue

under the normal administrative process

pertaining to Federal assistance

programs.

Accordingly, as under our prior

policy, submission of broadcast

schedules and program listings will not

generally be required. We will not

review the content of all programs or

activities for sectarian content unless

NTIA receives a complaint or otherwise

becomes aware that an applicant or

grantee may be using NTIA-funded

equipment or materials in connection

with a project the essential thrust of

which is sectarian. For example, under

the prior approach, a single sectarian

program in a broadcast schedule would

have rendered the project ineligible for

funding. Under our new approach, a

single program with sectarian aspects

will not necessarily render the project

ineligible.29 In such instances, NTIA

will examine the overall purpose of the

project to determine if it is consistent

with the PTFP’s statutory purposes.

Further inquiry may be made as

necessary to ensure that any benefit to

a sectarian interest is merely attenuated

or incidental as permitted under current

jurisprudence.

To implement this new approach, we

do not need to revise the language in the

PTFP regulation, assurance or definition

of ‘‘sectarian’’ as it pertains to our

policy on sectarian activities.30 We

shall, however, revise the definition of

‘‘public telecommunications services’’

to delete the last sentence which

provides, ‘‘It does not include

essentially sectarian programming.’’ 31

2. National Endowment for Children’s

Educational Television (NECET)

Pursuant to NECET’s enabling

legislation,32 in order to be eligible to

apply for a grant, an applicant must be

one of the following: an individual,

corporation (for-profit or not-for-profit),

partnership, association, joint stock

company, trust, or state or local

governmental entity.33 A sectarian

organization is eligible to apply, as long

as it meets these eligibility

requirements. NECET funds are

available ‘‘to enhance the education of

children through the creation and

production of television programming

specifically directed toward the

development of fundamental

intellectual skills.’’ 34 Presently, in

making a NECET grant, NTIA must, as

a part of its evaluation and review

process, review program proposals and
66494 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

35 Each award will contain a special award

condition which requires that: ‘‘The grantee will

neither use nor allow the NTIA-funded equipment,

facilities or programming to be used for purposes

the essential thrust of which is sectarian.’’ There are

often special award conditions attached to each

award which provide conditions on the Federal

funds in addition to those required by OMB

Circulars. As noted above in n. 30, supra, NTIA

considers this language to mean the same thing as

not allowing the NTIA-funded equipment, facilities

or programming to be used for essentially sectarian

purposes.

36Pub. L. No. 103–317, 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. (108

Stat.) 1724, 1747; 47 U.S.C. § 390–393.

37The special award condition for the TIIAP

awards will read as follows: ‘‘During the Federal

interest period, to the extent that the grantee

maintains control over network transmissions, the

grantee will neither use nor allow the NTIA-funded

network to be used for purposes the essential thrust

of which is sectarian.’’ As noted in fn. 35, supra,

NTIA considers this language to mean the same

thing as not allowing the NTIA-funded network to

be used for essentially sectarian purposes.

content to determine whether it would

meet these requirements.

Accordingly, review under our new

policy interpretation will be essentially

the same as before. The policy will be

applied to each individual program for

which a grant is sought, and the grantee

must comply with the policy that NTIA

grant funds will not be used for

purposes the essential thrust of which is

sectarian.35 If the essential purpose of a

program is to advance or inhibit

religion, its funding would not be

permissible. We do not believe the

likelihood of entanglement is any

greater than it was under our prior

policy.

Under our prior policy interpretation,

if, for example, part of a program

encompassed a Catholic mass, the entire

project would have been considered

ineligible for funding. In contrast, under

the new approach, we will make a

determination on eligibility based on

the test that any benefit to a sectarian

interest resulting from the receipt of

NTIA funds must be attenuated or

incidental.

3. Telecommunications and Information

Infrastructure Assistance Program

(TIIAP)

To be eligible for a TIIAP grant, an

applicant must be one of the following:

a state or local government, an

accredited college or university, or a

non-profit entity. Individuals and forprofit organizations are not eligible to

apply. A sectarian organization is

eligible to apply, as long as the

organization meets these requirements.

TIIAP funds are provided for the

‘‘planning and construction of

telecommunications networks for the

provision of educational, cultural,

health care, public information, public

safety or other social services.’’ 36

In contrast to PTFP, however, where

the broadcaster maintains editorial

control, a TIIAP grantee may sometimes,

but not always, exercise editorial

control over the content of its

communications network. For example,

a network may involve a bulletin board

where the operator does not have

control of messages sent among

individuals. In some cases, therefore, it

could be difficult for a TIIAP applicant

to certify that facilities will not be used

for essentially sectarian purposes.

Accordingly, TIIAP awards will be

subject to the policy which requires that

the NTIA-funded facilities will not be

used for essentially sectarian purposes

to the extent that the applicant controls

the content of network

communications.37

To avoid excessive entanglement in

religion, we will not review the content

of information transmitted over TIIAPfunded networks unless NTIA receives

a complaint or otherwise becomes aware

that an applicant or grantee is using

NTIA funded equipment or materials in

connection with sectarian activities. In

such instances, rather than examining

only the questioned activity, NTIA will

examine the overall purpose of the

project to determine whether NTIA

funding provides an attenuated or

incidental benefit to the sectarian

interest and thus whether it is

permissible.

For example, TIIAP might provide

funding to a local organization to

establish a public computer bulletin

board. As part of this bulletin board, a

church-affiliated youth group might

post information regarding meetings and

meeting times, which includes a

meeting time for a worship service.

Under NTIA’s prior policy, this project

might have been ineligible for funding

because the information regarding the

sectarian meetings and meeting times

would have appeared on the network.

Applying NTIA’s new policy

interpretation, we would examine the

overall purpose of the project to

determine whether it fell within the

TIIAP’s statutorily authorized purposes

and whether any benefit to religion was

merely incidental or attenuated. If the

answer to both questions was yes, such

a grant would be permissible under the

new policy interpretation.

IV. Conclusion

NTIA’s modified policy interpretation

appropriately harmonizes the First

Amendment’s Free Exercise and

Establishment Clauses, consistent with

current jurisprudence. The new

interpretation of our policy concerning

use of NTIA grant funds in connection

with sectarian activities will provide

grant applicants greater flexibility,

while continuing to avoid unwarranted

government entanglement with religion.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. It has been determined that this

rule is not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

2. Because this rule relates to public

property, loans, grants, benefits, or

contracts, it is exempt from the notice

and comment and delayed effective date

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA).

3. Because a notice of proposed

rulemaking is not required by the APA

or any other law, a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis is not required and

was not prepared.

4. This rule contains information

collection requirements subject to the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act. This collection has clearance from

the Office of Management and Budget

under OMB Approval No. 0660–0003.

5. This policy does not contain

policies with federalism implications

sufficient to warrant preparation of a

federalism assessment under E.O.

12612.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 2301

Administrative procedure, Grant

programs—communications, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Telecommunications.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

11.550)

Dated: December 15, 1995.

Larry Irving,

Assistant Secretary of Communications and

Information.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 15 CFR part 2301 is amended

as follows:

PART 2301—PUBLIC

TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

PROGRAM

1. The authority for part 2301

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Public Telecommunications

Financing Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–567, 92

Stat. 2405, codified at 47 U.S.C. 390–394,

397–399b; the Public Broadcasting

Amendments Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97–35, 95

Stat. 725; the Consolidated Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99–272,

section 5001, 100 Stat. 117; and the Public

Telecommunications Act of 1988, Pub. L.

100–626, 102 Stat. 3207.

2. Section 2301.1 is amended by

revising the definition of public

telecommunications services to read as

follows:

§ 2301.1 Definitions.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 246 / Friday, December 22, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 66495

Public telecommunications services

means noncommercial educational and

cultural radio and television programs,

and related noncommercial

instructional or informational material

that may be transmitted by means of

electronic communications.

* * * * *

3. Section 2301.4(a) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 2301.4 Eligible organizations and scope

of projects.

(a) Eligible applicants (Construction

and Planning Grants). In order to apply

for and receive a PTFP Construction or

Planning Grant, an applicant must be:

(1) A public or noncommercial

educational broadcast station;

(2) A noncommercial

telecommunications entity;

(3) A system of public

telecommunications entities;

(4) A nonprofit foundation,

corporation, institution, or association

organized primarily for educational or

cultural purposes; or

(5) A state or local government (or

agency thereof), or a political or special

purpose subdivision of a state.

* * * * *

4. Section 2301.4 is further amended

by removing paragraph (b),

redesignating paragraph (c) as (b), and

revising the newly designated paragraph

(b) to read as follows:

* * * * *

(b) Scope of projects. An applicant

that is eligible under paragraph (a) of

this section may file an application with

the agency for a planning or

construction grant to achieve the

following:

(1) The provision of new public

telecommunications facilities to extend

service to areas currently not receiving

public telecommunications services;

(2) The expansion of the service areas

of existing public telecommunications

entities;

(3) The establishment of new public

telecommunications entities serving

areas currently receiving public

telecommunications services; or

(4) The improvement of the

capabilities of existing licensed public

broadcast stations to provide public

telecommunications services.

* * * * *

5. Paragraphs (d) through (f) of

§ 2301.4 are redesignated paragraphs (c)

through (e) respectively.

[FR Doc. 95–31089 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. 88P–0030]

RIN 0910–AA11

Beverages: Bottled Water; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is correcting a

final rule that appeared in the Federal

Register of November 13, 1995 (60 FR

57076). The document established a

standard of identity for bottled water;

recodified the standard of quality for

bottled water; revised the definition of

bottled water to include mineral water

and ingredient uses of this product; and

defined ‘‘artesian water,’’ ‘‘ground

water,’’ ‘‘mineral water,’’ ‘‘purified

water,’’ ‘‘sparkling bottled water,’’

‘‘spring water,’’ ‘‘sterile water,’’ and

‘‘well water.’’ The document was

published with some errors. This

document corrects those errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 13, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shellee A. Davis, Center for Food Safety

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–306), Food

and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20204,202–205–4681.

In FR Doc. 95–27798, appearing on

page 57076 in the Federal Register of

Monday, November 13, 1995, the

following corrections are made in

§ 165.110 Bottled water:

§ 165.110 [Corrected]

1. On page 57124, in the third

column, in paragraph (a)(2)(v), in the

fourth line, the phrase ‘‘amount of

carbon dioxide that’’ is corrected to read

‘‘amount of carbon dioxide from the

source that’’.

2. On page 57126, in the first column,

in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(C)(4), beginning in

the third line, ‘‘Method 501.2’’ is

removed.

Dated: December 15, 1995.

William K. Hubbard,

Associate Commissioner for Policy

Coordination.

[FR Doc. 95–31200 Filed 12–21–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

21 CFR Part 558

New Animal Drugs For Use In Animal

Feeds; Zoalene

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

animal drug regulations to reflect

approval of a supplemental new animal

drug application (NADA) filed by A. L.

Pharma, Inc. The supplemental NADA

provides for wider assay limits for

zoalene Type A medicated articles. FDA

is amending the regulation concerning

medicated feed applications to reflect

the approval.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 22, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William G. Marnane, Center for

Veterinary Medicine (HFV–143), Food

and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish

Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301–594–

2701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. L.

Pharma, Inc., One Executive Dr., P.O.

Box 1399, Fort Lee, NJ 07024, filed

supplemental NADA 11–116, which

provides for widening the current assay

limits for zoalene Type A medicated

articles. FDA reviewed the data and

information submitted and is amending

21 CFR 558.4 to provide for an assay

range of 92 to 104 percent for zoalene

Type A medicated articles.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558

Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21

CFR part 558 is amended as follows:

PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR

USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 558 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 512, 701 of the Federal

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.

360b, 371).

§ 558.4 [Amended]

2. Section 558.4 Medicated feed

applications is amended in paragraph

(d) in the ‘‘Category I’’ table in the entry

for ‘‘Zoalene’’ in the second column by

removing ‘‘98–104’’ and adding in its

place ‘‘92–104’’.