Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37331

applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This

proposed rule is not subject to E.O.

13045 because it is does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s proposed rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because disapprovals of SIP

revisions under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not affect any existing requirements

applicable to small entities. Federal

disapproval of the State SIP submittal

will not affect State-enforceability.

Moreover, EPA’s disapproval of the

submittal would not impose any new

Federal requirements. Therefore, I

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the

proposed disapproval action does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. The proposed

disapproval will not change existing

requirements and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing new

regulations. To comply with NTTAA,

the EPA must consider and use

‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS)

if available and applicable when

developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this proposed action.

Today’s proposed action does not

require the public to perform activities

conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: June 5, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–15032 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL–6715–5]

RIN 2040–AA97

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations; Ground Water Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Extension of Public

Comment Period for the Proposed

Ground Water Rule.

SUMMARY: Today, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is providing

notice to extend the public comment

period for the proposed Ground Water

Rule (GWR). The proposed GWR was

published in the Federal Register on

May 10, 2000 (65 FR 30194). The

proposed GWR requirements provide a

meaningful opportunity to reduce

public health risk associated with the

consumption of waterborne pathogens

from fecal contamination for a

substantial number of people served by

ground water sources.

DATES: EPA must receive public

comments, in writing, on the proposed

regulations by August 9, 2000.

Comments provided electronically will

be considered timely if they are

submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m.

(Eastern time), August 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You may send written

comments to the GWR, W–98–23

Comments Clerk, Water Docket (MC–

4101); U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments

may be hand-delivered to the Water

Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; 401 M Street, SW., East Tower

37332 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Basement, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments may be submitted

electronically to owdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII, WP6.1, or WP8 file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Electronic comments

must be identified by the docket number

W–98–23. Comments and data will also

be accepted on disks in WP6.1, WP8, or

ASCII format. Electronic comments on

this action may be filed online at many

Federal Depository libraries.

Please submit a copy of any references

cited in your comments. Facsimiles

(faxes) cannot be accepted. EPA would

appreciate one original and three copies

of your comments and enclosures

(including any references). Commenters

who would like EPA to acknowledge

receipt of their comments should

include a self-addressed, stamped

envelope.

The proposed rule and supporting

documents, including public comments,

are available for review in the Water

Docket at the address listed previously.

For information on how to access

Docket materials, please call (202) 260–

3027 between 9 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical inquiries regarding the

proposed regulations, contact the Office

of Ground Water and Drinking Water,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(mailcode 4607),1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington DC, 20460.

Phone: (202) 260–3309. For general

information, contact the Safe Drinking

Water Hotline, phone (800) 426–4791.

The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30

p.m. Eastern Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

10, 2000 EPA published the proposed

GWR, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 (65 FR

30194). The May 10, 2000 notice

provided a deadline of 60 days from the

date of publication for receipt of public

comments. Since the publication date,

EPA has received requests to extend the

comment period to allow sufficient time

for all parties potentially impacted by

this proposal to consider and provide

comprehensive comments. In response

to these requests, EPA has decided to

extend the public comment period by an

additional 30 days to August 9, 2000.

Dated: June 8, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–15031 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket No. 98–153; FCC 00–163]

Revision of the Rules Regarding UltraWideband Transmission Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document is proposing

regulations that would permit the

operation of ultra-wideband (UWB)

radio systems on an unlicensed basis

under the Commission’s rules.

Comments are requested on the

standards and operating requirements

that are proposed to be applied to UWB

systems to prevent interference to other

radio services.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before September 12, 2000, and reply

comments on or before October 12,

2000.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to

the Commission’s Secretary, Magalie

Roman Salas, Office of Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 12th Street, SW, TW–A325,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

A. Reed, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2455.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No.

98–153, adopted May 10, 2000, and

released May 11, 2000. The complete

text of this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,

DC, and also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street,

NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed

Rule Making

1. This Notice of Proposed Rule

Making responds to an earlier Notice of

Inquiry in this proceeding, 63 FR 50184,

September 21, 1998. We are proposing

to amend 47 CFR 15 to permit products

incorporating ultra-wideband (UWB)

technologies. While comprehensive

tests have not been completed, UWB

devices appear to be able to operate on

spectrum already occupied by existing

radio services without causing

interference. This would permit scarce

spectrum resources to be used more

efficiently. Further testing and analysis

is needed before the risks of interference

are completely understood. Such testing

is being planned by a number of

organizations, and an ample

opportunity will be provided to ensure

that the test results are submitted into

the record for public comment.

2. Most near-term applications

involve relatively low powers and short

operating ranges. Further, it appears that

UWB devices are intended to be mass

marketed to businesses and consumers

such that individual licensing of each

device would be impractical.

Accordingly, it is proposed that UWB

devices be regulated under part 15 of

the rules.

3. UWB definition. We propose to

employ the definition established by the

OSD/DARPA UWB radar review panel

with some modifications. The OSD

definition states that the ¥20 dB

fraction bandwidth of an UWB emission

must be at least 0.25, i.e., the ¥20 dB

bandwidth must be at least 25% of the

center frequency. We propose to define

a UWB device as any device where the

¥10 dB fractional bandwidth is greater

than 0.25 or the ¥10 dB bandwidth is

greater than 1.5 GHz. The center

frequency is proposed to be defined as

the average of the upper and lower ¥10

dB points. We also propose that the

bandwidth be determined using the

antenna designed to be used with the

UWB device. Comments are requested

on the following: (1) Should the

fractional bandwidth be changed to

account for the narrower bandwidth that

would be measured using the ¥10 dB

emission points instead of the ¥20 dB

points. (2) Should some other method

be used to determine the emission

bandwidth, such as a calculated

bandwidth based on pulse width. (3)

Should UWB be defined as limited to

devices that solely use pulsed emissions

where the bandwidth is directly related

to the narrow pulse width. (4) Should

extremely high speed data systems that

comply with the UWB bandwidth

requirements only because of the high

data rate employed, as opposed to

meeting the definition solely from the

narrow pulse width, be permitted. (5)

What alternative definitions should be

considered?

4. Frequency bands of operation. We

observe that ground penetrating radars

(GPRs) must operate at frequencies

below 2 GHz in order to obtain the

penetration depth and resolution

necessary to detect and obtain the

images of buried objects. GPRs can

neither avoid nor notch out the

restricted frequency bands. However, it

appears that the risk of interference

from GPRs is negligible because the

overwhelming majority of their energy