Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2781

§ 303.73 Applications to use the courts of

the United States to enforce court orders.

The IV–D agency may apply to the

Secretary for permission to use a United

States district court to enforce a support

order of a court of competent

jurisdiction against an absent parent

who is present in another State if the

IV–D agency can furnish evidence in

accordance with instructions issued by

the office.

§ 303.100 [Amended]

17. In section 303.100, reference to

‘‘October 1, 1995’’ in paragraph (g)(3) is

revised to read ‘‘October 1, 1997.’’

18–19. Section 303.105 is amended by

revising the section heading and

paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding new

paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 303.105 Procedures for periodic

reporting of information to consumer

reporting agencies.

* * * * *

(b) For cases in which the amount of

overdue support exceeds $1,000 and is

at least two months in arrears, the IV–

D agency must have in effect procedures

to periodically report the name of the

absent parent and the amount of arrears

to consumer reporting agencies.

(c) The information shall not be made

available to a consumer reporting

agency which:

(1) the State determines does not have

sufficient capability to make use of the

information in a systematic and timely

manner; or

(2) has not furnished satisfactory

evidence to the State that it is a

consumer reporting agency.

* * * * *

(f) Interstate. For cases where an

initiating State requests, in accordance

with § 303.7(b), a responding State to

enforce a support order, the responding

State will report to consumer reporting

agencies in accordance with this

section. The initiating State will not

report.

PART 304—FEDERAL FINANCIAL

PARTICIPATION

20. The authority citation for Part 304

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657,

1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o),

1396(p), and 1396(k).

§ 304.10 [Amended]

21. In section 304.10, the

parenthetical phrase ‘‘(with the

exception of Subpart G, Matching and

Cost Sharing and Subpart I, Financial

Reporting Requirements)’’ is revised to

read ‘‘(with the exception of 45 CFR

74.23, Cost Sharing or Matching and 45

CFR 74.52, Financial Reporting).’’

§ 304.20 [Amended]

22. In section 304.20, paragraph

(b)(1)(iii) introductory text is amended

by replacing ‘‘Subpart P’’ with ‘‘in

accordance with the Procurement

Standards found in 45 CFR 74.40 et

seq.’’, paragraph (b)(1)(vi) is amended

by revising the reference to ‘‘§ 302.16’’

to read ‘‘§ 304.15’’, paragraph (b)(3)(iv)

is amended by revising the term

‘‘attachment’’ to read ‘‘withholding;’’,

paragraph (b)(8) is amended by revising

the reference ‘‘§ 302.2’’ to read ‘‘§ 303.2’’

and, paragraph (b)(11) is amended by

revising ‘‘Part 306, Subpart B, of this

chapter’’ to read ‘‘sections 303.30 and

303.31’’.

§ 304.95 [Removed]

23. Section 304.95 is removed.

PART 306—OPTIONAL COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENTS FOR MEDICAL

SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT—

[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

24. Part 306 is removed and reserved.

PART 307—COMPUTERIZED

SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS

25. The authority citation for part 307

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 652 through 658, 664,

666, 667, and 1302.

§ 307.5 [Amended]

26. In section 307.5, reference to

‘‘October 1, 1995’’ in paragraph (a) is

revised to read ‘‘October 1, 1997.’’

§ 307.15 [Amended]

27. In section 307.15, reference to

‘‘October 1, 1995’’ in paragraph (b)(2) is

revised to read ‘‘October 1, 1997.’’

[FR Doc. 96–1254 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 76

[MM Docket No. 95–176, DA 96–53]

Television Services; Cable Television

Services; Closed Captioning and Video

Description of Video Programming

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Inquiry; extension of

comment and reply comment period.

SUMMARY: This action extends the

deadline for filing comments and reply

comments to the Notice of Inquiry in the

above-cited docket. It is taken in

response to requests to extend the

comment and reply comment period

made by the National Association of

Broadcasters, the Association of

Independent Stations, Inc., Capital

Cities/ABC, Inc., CBS Inc., Fox

Broadcasting, and NBC, Inc., and by The

National Association of the Deaf. The

intended effect of this action is to allow

the parties to the proceeding to have

additional time in which to file

comments and reply comments.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

February 28, 1996, and reply comments

are due on or before March 15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Somers (202–418–2130) or

Charles Logan (202–418–2130), Mass

Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Order Granting

Extension of the Time for Filing

Comments in MM Docket No. 95–176,

DA 96–53, adopted January 22, 1996

and released January 22, 1996. The

complete text of this Order is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street NW.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Order Granting Extension

of Time for Filing Comments

1. On December 1, 1995, the

Commission adopted a Notice of Inquiry

in MM Docket No. 95–176 (NOI), FCC–

95–484, 60 FR 65052 (December 18,

1995), seeking comment on a wide

variety of issues relating to closed

captioning and video description

services. Comments were initially due

to be filed by January 29, 1996, and

reply comments by February 14, 1996.

2. On January 16, 1996, a Motion to

Extend the Comment Period was filed

by the National Association of

Broadcasters, the Association of

Independent Television Stations, Inc.,

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

Broadcasting Company, and the

National Broadcasting Company, Inc.

(collectively referred to as

‘‘Broadcasters’’). Broadcasters point out

that both the House and Senate have

passed versions of telecommunications

legislation that would require the

Commission to adopt new rules

requiring closed captioning of most

television programming. See NOI at

¶¶ 7–8, 25–31. They claim that the

information the Commission will need

to gather will vary significantly

depending on whether any such
2782 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1 Broadcasters request in the alternative that the

Commission extend the comment deadlines by 30

days.

2 NAD also supports its request with the

argument that ‘‘many individuals were out of town

or otherwise unavailable’’ during the Christmas

holidays. We do not believe that this fact provides

any justification for an extension of the comment

period.

legislation is enacted. They argue that

‘‘the resources of both Broadcasters and

the Commission would be poorly used

in preparing and considering comments

raised in the [NOI] when a second set

of comments would almost certainly

have to be sought on similar issues if

Congress adopts the captioning

legislation.’’ Accordingly, Broadcasters

request the Commission to extend the

filing date for comments in this

proceeding until 30 days after the date

of enactment of the

Telecommunications Act of 1995, or—if

Congress fails to adopt a bill—until a

further order of the Commission.1

3. On January 17, 1996, The National

Association of the Deaf (NAD) requested

that the Commission extend the due

date for filing comments and reply

comments in this proceeding by 30

days. In support of its request, NAD

argues that the occurrence of certain

events make meeting the existing

deadlines extremely difficult, if not

impossible. First, NAD notes that

Gallaudet University announced the

closing of the National Center for Law

and Deafness (Law Center), effective

January 19, 1996. The Law Center,

which NAD states has played a key role

in coordinating and preparing

comments on Commission proceedings

affecting telecommunications and

television access, was given only seven

weeks notice of its closing date after

being in operation for twenty years.

NAD claims that because the time

allotted for shutting down the Law

Center and transferring its operations

was so short, the Law Center had little

or no time to begin to address the

matters raised in the NOI. NAD states

that it will be assuming the role

formerly filled by the Law Center in

addressing telecommunications matters

raised by the Commission. Second, NAD

notes that the severe winter snow storm

that struck the Northeast forced closure

of many private and governmental

offices for approximately the entire

week of January 8–12, 1996, impeding

NAD’s ability to gather the information

needed for a proper response to the NOI.

Finally, the partial closure of the

Federal government resulted in a

furlough of employees at several

governmental agencies, including the

Department of Education, which may

have relevant information to file in

connection with this proceeding.2

4. We decline to grant Broadcasters’

request for an indefinite extension

pending developments on the pending

telecommunications reform legislation.

While we understand that further

comments may ultimately be necessary,

we believe that submission of the

information sought by the NOI will

provide a useful foundation for further

Commission action whether or not that

legislation is enacted. The Commission

will be able to expedite the

implementation of any legislation that

becomes law and accelerate completion

of any further proceedings the

Commission may be required by the

legislation to conduct on both closed

captioning and video description.

Further, the comments submitted

should provide us with information that

would be useful in preparing any Notice

of Proposed Rule Making that might be

necessary to implement the legislation.

If the legislation is not enacted, the

record in this proceeding will enable the

Commission to ‘‘assess the possibility of

adopting regulatory requirements in this

area under its existing statutory

authority.’’ NOI at ¶ 26.

5. With regard to NAD’s request for an

extension, we are mindful that Section

1.46 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR

§ 1.46, articulates a Commission policy

that extensions of time for filing

comments in rulemaking proceedings

are not to be routinely granted.

Nevertheless, we find that good cause

exists for granting a short extension of

the comment and reply comment

deadlines. We take note of the following

factors which, viewed in their totality,

we believe warrant grant of a 30-day

extension: (1) the abrupt closing of the

Law Center at Gallaudet University, and

the need for its successor organization,

NAD, to gather comprehensive

information on short notice; (2) the

unusually severe winter storms, which

have recently stalled mail deliveries,

disrupted transit, and forced many

workplaces to close for up to a week,

and have therefore complicated efforts

to prepare comments, particularly for

those parties whose comments required

coordination among multiple entities or

persons; and (3) the partial federal

government closure, which has made it

difficult for parties to gather from

agencies relevant information regarding

closed captioning and video description

services.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered, that the

request filed by the National

Association of the Deaf for an extension

of time in which to file comments and

reply comments in response to the

Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 95–

176 IS GRANTED to the extent

indicated herein. It is further ordered

that the request of the National

Association of Broadcasters, et al., for

an extension contingent on the passage

of the pending telecommunications

legislation is denied.

7. It is further ordered, that the time

for filing comments in the abovecaptioned proceeding is extended to

February 28, 1996, and the time for

filing reply comments is extended to

March 15, 1996.

8. This action is taken pursuant to

authority found in Sections 4(i) and

303(r) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i)

and 303(r), and Sections 0.204(b), 0.283

and 1.45 of the Commission’s Rules, 47

CFR §§ 0.204(b), 0.283 and 1.45.

Federal Communications Commission.

Renee Licht,

Deputy Chief, Policy Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–1498 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 960111003–6003–01; I.D.

121895B]

RIN 0648–AI48

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch

Sharing Plan

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule and proposed

catch sharing plan.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve

and implement revisions to the Catch

Sharing Plan (Plan) for harvests of

Pacific halibut off Washington, Oregon,

and California under authority of the

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982

(Halibut Act). This action is necessary to

revise the Plan to address the needs of

fisheries in varying geographical areas.

Proposed changes to the Plan would

affect sport fisheries and the incidental

catch of halibut in the salmon troll

fishery. NMFS also proposes sport

fishery regulations to implement the

Plan in 1996. The proposed rule is

intended to carry out the objectives of

the International Pacific Halibut

Commission (IPHC) and the Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council).