Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28803

the appropriate presiding official(s). The

Executive Director, or the appropriate

presiding official(s) will, as a matter of

course, cause a copy of the petition to

revoke to be served on the party on

whose behalf the subpoena was issued,

but shall not be deemed to assume

responsibility for such service. The

Panel, Executive Director, or any other

person designated by the Panel, as

appropriate, shall revoke the subpoena

if the evidence the production of which

is required does not relate to any matter

under consideration in the proceedings,

or the subpoena does not describe with

sufficient particularity the evidence the

production of which is required, or if for

any other reason sufficient in law the

subpoena is invalid. The Panel,

Executive Director, or any other person

designated by the Panel, as appropriate,

shall make a simple statement of

procedural or other ground for the

ruling on the petition to revoke. The

petition to revoke, any answer thereto,

and any ruling thereon shall not become

part of the official record except upon

the request of the party aggrieved by the

ruling.

(f) Upon the failure of any person to

comply with a subpoena issued, upon

the request of any party to the

proceeding, the Solicitor of the FLRA

shall, on behalf of such party, institute

proceedings in the appropriate district

court for the enforcement thereof,

unless, in the judgment of the Solicitor

of the FLRA, the enforcement of such

subpoena would be inconsistent with

law and the policies of the Federal

Service Labor-Management Relations

Statute. The Solicitor of the FLRA shall

not be deemed thereby to have assumed

responsibility for the effective

prosecution of the same before the court

thereafter.

(g) All papers submitted to the

Executive Director under this section

shall be filed in duplicate, along with a

statement of service showing that a copy

has been served on the other party to the

dispute.

(h)(1) Witnesses (whether appearing

voluntarily or under a subpoena) shall

be paid the fee and mileage allowances

which are paid subpoenaed witnesses in

the courts of the United States:

Provided, that any witness who is

employed by the Federal Government

shall not be entitled to receive witness

fees in addition to compensation

received in conjunction with official

time granted for such participation,

including necessary travel time, as

occurs during the employee’s regular

work hours and when the employee

would otherwise be in a work or paid

leave status.

(2) Witness fees and mileage

allowances shall be paid by the party at

whose instance the witnesses appear

except when the witness receives

compensation in conjunction with

official time as described in paragraph

(h)(1) of this section.

Dated: May 31, 1996.

By direction of the Panel.

Linda A. Lafferty,

Executive Director, Federal Service Impasses

Panel.

[FR Doc. 96–14098 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6727–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Chapter I

[Summary Notice No. PR–96–2]

Petition for Rulemaking; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

rulemaking received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for rulemaking (14 CFR Part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions requesting the initiation of

rulemaking procedures for the

amendment of specified provisions of

the Federal Aviation Regulations and of

denials or withdrawals of certain

petitions previously received. The

purpose of this notice is to improve the

public’s awareness of, and participation

in, this aspect of FAA’s regulatory

activities. Neither publication of this

notice nor the inclusion or omission of

information in the summary is intended

to affect the legal status of any petition

or its final disposition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. D. Michael Smith, Office of

Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267–7470.

This notice is published pursuant to

paragraphs (b) and (f) of § 11.27 of Part

11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, D.C. on June 3,

1996.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Disposition of Petitions

Docket No.: 23755.

Petitioner: Mr. John G. Rutty.

Regulations Affected: 14 CFR 91.131

and 91.205.

Description of Rulechange Sought: To

require antiblocking and ‘‘stuck’’

microphone relief circuitry in aircraft

voice communication radios employed

in certain high-density air traffic areas,

referred to as Group I terminal control

areas (TCA’s), later reclassified as Class

B airspace.

Petitioner’s Reason for the Request:

The petitioner feels antiblocking device

(ABD) circuitry would provide

significant safety benefits to the public.

In addition, the petitioner contends that

ABD circuitry would improve

communication efficiency and reduce

air traffic controller workload; the

necessity of ‘‘go-arounds,’’ deviations,

and delays resulting in less wastage of

fuel; and pilot fatigue and frustration

caused by blocked messages.

Denial; May 17, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96–14265 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–ASW–07]

Proposed Establishment of Class E

Airspace; Sonora, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: This action withdraws a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

that proposed to establish the Class E

airspace at Canyon Ranch Airport,

Sonora, TX. The proposal was to

establish the controlled airspace

extending upward from 700 feet above

the ground (AGL) needed to contain

aircraft executing a Very High

Frequency Omnidirectional Range

(VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment

(DME) standard instrument approach

procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 32.

The Class E airspace dimensions

described in the NPRM contained a

significant error; therefore, the proposal

is withdrawn.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn

June 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Operations Branch,

Federal Aviation Administration,

Southwest Region, Fort Worth, TX

76193–0530; telephone: (817) 222–5593.
28804 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1The criteria common to all modernization

actions requiring certification is a subset of the

criteria that will be used to certify closure actions.

This section of the previously published criteria is

attached for reference (Attachment 1).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

17, 1995, an NPRM was published in

the Federal Register (60 FR 36371) to

establish Class E airspace at Canyon

Ranch Airport, Sonora, TX. The

intended effect of the proposal was to

provide adequate Class E airspace to

contain aircraft executing the VOR/DME

SIAP to RWY 32 at Canyon Ranch

Airport. After publication of the NPRM,

a significant error in the description of

the proposed Class E airspace was

discovered. Accordingly, the proposed

rule is withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal of Proposed Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, Airspace

Docket No. 95–ASW–07, as published in

the Federal Register on July 17, 1995

(60 FR 36371), is withdrawn.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120;

E.O. 10854; 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963

Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR

11.69.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX on May 15, 1996.

Albert L. Viselli,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 96–13928 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

15 CFR Part 946

[Docket No. 960418114–6137–02]

RIN 0648–AF72

Weather Service Modernization Criteria

AGENCY: National Weather Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Department of

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed amendment; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Weather Service Modernization Act, 15

U.S.C. 313n. (the Act), the National

Weather Service (NWS) is proposing to

amend its criteria governing the taking

of certain modernization actions. This

amendment would add criteria unique

to closing a field office to ensure that

closure actions will not result in any

degradation of service.

DATES: Comments are requested by July

8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of

documents stated in the preamble as

being available upon request and

comments should be sent to Julie

Scanlon, NOAA/NWS, SSMC2, Room

9332, 1325 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, Maryland 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nicholas Scheller, 301–713–0454.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

704(a) of the Act requires the NWS to

contract with the National Research

Council (NRC) for a review of the

scientific and technical criteria for

specified modernization actions. The

NRC conducted this review and

submitted the required report assessing

the criteria to the Secretary of

Commerce on July 28, 1993. Readers

may obtain a copy of this Report from

the contact and at the address provided

above.

Section 704(b) of the Act requires the

NWS to publish the criteria in the

Federal Register, based on the NRC

Report, after providing an opportunity

for public comment and after consulting

with the NRC and the Modernization

Transition Committee (the Committee)

established by section 707 of the Act.

The NWS has already published all of

the required criteria except those for

closing a field office, the final step in

the modernization process. These

existing criteria are, or will be, set forth

in Appendices A and B to the basic

modernization regulations at 15 CFR

part 946.

On March 2, 1994, the NWS

published many of the required criteria

as Appendix A to the general

modernization regulations at 15 CFR

part 946 (see 59 FR 9921). These criteria

were published in four categories as

follows:

(1) Those for modernization actions that do

not require prior certification of no

degradation of service, i.e., commissioning

new weather observation systems and

decommissioning outdated NWS radars

(Appendix A, Section I.);

(2) Those for modernization actions that do

require certification and are common to all

such actions, e.g. providing appropriate

notification in the National Implementation

Plan; describing local weather characteristics

and related weather concerns; and comparing

services before and after the action

(Appendix A, Section II.A.); 1

(3) Those for modernization actions that

require certification and that are unique to

consolidating field offices (Appendix A,

Section II.B.); and

(4) Those for modernization actions that

require certification and that are unique to

relocating field offices (Appendix A, Section

II.C.).

On May 2, 1996, the NWS published

proposed criteria unique to automation

(see 61 FR 19594). The comment period

closes on June 1, 1996. These criteria

will be added as Section II.D. to

Appendix A and a new Appendix B,

after the NWS has time to respond to the

public comments, consult with the NRC

and the Committee, and publish the

final version.

The present Notice proposes to

further amend Appendix A to add the

remaining criteria, those for final

closure of a field office, as Section II.E.

The proposed criteria are based on the

July 28, 1993 NRC report.

Summary of NWS Modernization

The proposed closure criteria can

better be understood within the context

of the overall NWS modernization

program. A total of 118 Weather

Forecast Offices (WFO) supported by

the National Centers for Environmental

Prediction (NCEP) and 13 modernized

River Forecast Centers (RFC) will exist

in the modernized and restructured

NWS. Each WFO will have

responsibility for all warnings and

forecasts within its assigned area of

responsibility which, on average, will be

half a state. Modernized operations will

allow forecasters to comprehensively

address the air-sea environment in their

assigned area. Observation and analysis

of current and expected weather

conditions can be quickly and reliably

completed, critical decisions made, and

immediate warnings and forecasts

issued.

The concept of the local data base is

central to modernized operations at the

WFO. The high volume of data from the

local Doppler weather surveillance

radar and Geostationary Operational

Environmental Satellites combined with

the high frequency observations from

the Automated Surface Observing

Systems will flow directly to the WFO.

The most complete data sets will only

be available to the local WFO. The

modernization is allowing NWS to

convert its pre-modernization network

of 52 Weather Service Forecast Offices,

about 200 smaller Weather Service

Offices, and about 35 meteorological

observatories into the modernized

network of WFOs, RFCs and NCEP. For

more information, see the Strategic Plan

for the Modernization and Associated

Restructuring of the National Weather

Service, March 1989.

Transition Process

Closing a field office is the final step

in an often complex transition process

in which a field office is carefully