This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

25157

Vol. 61, No. 98

Monday, May 20, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–ANM–011]

Proposed Amendment of Class E

Airspace; Baker City, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

amend the Baker City, Oregon, Class E

airspace to provide additional

controlled airspace for Instrument Flight

Rules (IFR) operations at the Baker City

Municipal Airport. The area would be

depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot

reference. During an airspace review, it

was noted that the airport name and the

referenced navigational aid were

incorrectly stated in the airspace

designation for the existing Class E

airspace. This proposed rule would

correct that error.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

Operations Branch, ANM–530, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

96–ANM–011, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The official docket may be examined

at the same address.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James C. Frala, ANM–532.4, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

96–ANM–011, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone number: (206) 227–2535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96–

ANM–011.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in the

light of comments received. All

comments submitted will be available

for examination at the address listed

above both before and after the closing

date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with FAA personnel concerned

with this rulemaking will be filed in the

docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration,

Operations Branch, ANM–530, 1601

Lind Avenue S.W., Renton, Washington

98055–4056. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRM’s should also request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which

describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

amend Class E airspace at Baker City,

Oregon, to provide additional controlled

airspace for IFR operations at the Baker

City Municipal Airport. The area would

be depicted on aeronautical charts for

pilot reference. During an airspace

review, it was noted that the airport

name and the referenced navigational

aid were incorrectly stated in the

airspace designation for the existing

Class E airspace. This proposed rule

would correct that error. The

coordinates for this airspace docket are

based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas extending upward

from 700 feet or more above the surface

of the earth are published in paragraph

6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated

August 17, 1995, and effective

September 16, 1995, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as

the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389, 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace
25158 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1Misconduct by Agency employees, at any stage

of an Agency proceeding, will be dealt with under

internal disciplinary procedures.

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated August 17, 1995, and effective

September 16, 1995, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Baker City, OR

Baker City Municipal Airport, OR

(lat. 44°50′17′′ N, long. 117°48′35′′ W)

Baker City VOR/DME

(lat. 44°50′26′′ N, long. 117°48′28′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from

1,200 feet above the surface within 7 miles

northeast and 5.3 miles southwest of the

Baker City VOR/DME 138° and 317° radials

extending from 12.2 miles southeast to 14

miles northwest of the VOR/DME, and within

8.7 miles west and 4.3 miles east of the Baker

City VOR/DME 345° radial extending from

the VOR/DME to the south edge of V–298,

and that airspace east of Baker City VOR/

DME bounded on the north by the south edge

of V–121, on the southeast by the northwest

edge of V–269, and on the southwest by the

northeast edge of V–4–444; excluding the

Boise, ID, Enroute Domestic Airspace Area.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 3,

1996.

Richard E. Prang,

Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic

Division, Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 96–12638 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

BOARD

29 CFR Part 102

Rules Governing Misconduct by

Attorneys or Party Representatives

Before the Agency

AGENCY: National Labor Relations

Board.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The National Labor Relations

Board (NLRB) is proposing to revise its

rules governing misconduct by attorneys

and party representatives before the

Agency. The proposed changes

consolidate the current misconduct

rules applicable to unfair labor practice

and representation proceedings into a

single rule, clarify and revise the current

rules to cover such misconduct at any

and all stages of any Agency proceeding,

whether or not it occurs during a

hearing, and set forth the procedures for

processing allegations of misconduct. In

addition, the proposed changes revise

Section 102.21 of the Board’s rules

governing the filing of answers to unfair

labor practice complaints to make that

section’s disciplinary provisions

applicable to non-attorney party

representatives as well as attorneys.

DATES: All comments must be received

on or before June 19, 1996.

ADDRESSES: All written comments

should be sent to Office of the Executive

Secretary, National Labor Relations

Board, 1099 14th Street, NW, Room

11600, Washington, DC 20570.

Telephone: (202) 273–1940. The

comments should be filed in eight

copies, double spaced, on 81⁄2 by 11

inch paper and shall be printed or

otherwise legibly duplicated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

J. Toner, Executive Secretary,

Telephone: (202) 273–1940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

NLRB’s rules governing misconduct by

attorneys and party representatives

before the Agency are currently set forth

in two separate sections of the Board’s

rules and regulations: Section 102.44

(unfair labor practice proceedings) and

102.66(d) (representation proceedings).

These sections, which are virtually

identical, currently provide that

misconduct at a hearing shall be

grounds for summary exclusion from

the hearing, and that ‘‘such misconduct

of an aggravated character’’ may also be

grounds for suspension or disbarment

by the Board from further practice

before it after due notice and hearing.

Applying these rules, the Board in

several cases has suspended or

disbarred attorneys or non-attorney

party representatives from further

practice before the Agency for engaging

in misconduct during the course of

unfair labor practice or representation

hearings. See, e.g., Joel Kieler, 316 NLRB

763 (1995); Sargent Karch, 314 NLRB

482 (1994); In re An Attorney, 307 NLRB

913 (1992); Kings Harbor Health Care,

239 NLRB 679 (1978); Roy T. Rhodes,

152 NLRB 912 (1965); Herbert J. Nichol,

111 NLRB 447 (1955); and Robert S.

Cahoon, 106 NLRB 831 (1953).

As currently written, however, the

Board’s rules have several deficiencies.

First, they do not specifically cover

misconduct that does not occur during

the course of a hearing. As a result, the

Board has been unable to take effective

and appropriate disciplinary action

against attorneys or party

representatives who are alleged to have

engaged in misconduct in the prehearing, investigative and/or

compliance stages of its proceedings.

Thus, for example, the Board recently

held that it was without authority under

its current rules to institute disciplinary

proceedings against an attorney who

allegedly suborned perjury during the

pre-complaint investigation of an unfair

labor practice charge. See H.P.

Townsend Mfg. Co., 317 NLRB 1169

(1995). The Board in that case instead

transferred the record to the State Bar

Association with a request that it

investigate whether disciplinary action

was warranted.

Second, the Board has found that the

language in the current rules,

‘‘misconduct of an aggravated

character,’’ has sometimes caused

confusion about what types of conduct

would be subject to suspension or

disbarment. See, e.g., Sargent Karch,

supra, 314 NLRB at 486. The courts

often consider both ‘‘aggravating’’ and

‘‘mitigating’’ factors in determining the

appropriate sanction for attorney

misconduct under the ABA Model Rules

of Professional Conduct and the various

state rules of professional conduct. See

ABA/BNA Lawyers Manual on

Professional Conduct 101:3101–3102

(1995). However, the phrase

‘‘aggravated’’ misconduct is not often

used as in the Board’s rules. This has

raised questions about whether the

Board’s rules are intended to cover the

same type of conduct covered by those

rules.

Third, the Board’s rules fail to set

forth the procedures to be followed in

processing allegations of misconduct.

Thus, the Board’s current rules fail to

advise parties how or where to file

allegations of misconduct or how such

allegations will be processed or what

their rights are.

The proposed changes are intended to

address each of these problems. First,

the Board is proposing to revise the

rules to cover misconduct at any and all

stages of any Agency proceeding,

whether or not it occurs during a

hearing. Unlike under the current rules,

under the new rule misconduct by

attorneys or party representatives will

be subject to disciplinary sanction even

if the misconduct occurs during the prehearing, investigative or compliance

stage of the proceeding.1

Second, the Board is proposing to

delete the phrase ‘‘aggravated’’

misconduct from the rules, and to

substitute the phrase ‘‘misconduct

including unprofessional or improper

behavior’’. By substituting this language

it is not the Board’s intent to make any

change in the kind of conduct currently

covered by the Board’s misconduct

rules. Rather, the Board is simply

attempting to make the current rule

more understandable by using language

that is more familiar to attorneys and

party representatives who practice

before the Board. The Board will