Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 13229 

includes provisions for light-duty, 

medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, 

by incorporating the California LEV II 

regulations into the New Jersey 

Administrative Code by reference. 

New Jersey is requesting that EPA 

approve its LEV program regulations as 

submitted in its SIP submission. EPA’s 

approval would make the program 

federally enforceable, further ensuring 

that planned emissions reductions will 

continue to take place. 

II. Proposed EPA Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portion of New Jersey’s low emission 

vehicle program that is identical to the 

California standards for which a waiver 

has been granted. However, because the 

waiver granted for the ZEV portion of 

the program is limited to model year 

2011 and earlier vehicles, EPA is 

proposing to take no action on the ZEV 

component. In addition, EPA is 

proposing to take no action on the 

greenhouse gas component of the 

program. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. This proposed rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 8, 2007. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E7–5157 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 07–951; MB Docket No. 07–39, RM–

11360] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Prineville, OR 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document requests 

comments on a petition for rule making 

filed by Terry A. Cowan (‘‘Petitioner’’) 

proposing the allotment of Channel 

226C3 at Prineville, Oregon. The 

proposed coordinates are 44–26–17 NL 

and 120–57–12 WL with a site 

restriction of 11.4 km (7.1 miles) north 

of city reference. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before April 23, 2007, and reply 

comments on or before May 8, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to 

filing comments with the FCC, 

interested parties should serve the 

Petitioner’s counsel, as follows: William 

D. Silva, Esquire, Law Offices of 

William D. Silva, 5335 Wisconsin 

Avenue, NW., Suite 400, Washington, 

DC 20015–2003. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen McLean, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2738. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 

07–39, adopted February 28, 2007, and 

released March 2, 2007. The full text of 

this Commission decision is available 

for inspection and copying during 

normal business hours in the 

Commission’s Reference Center, 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. This document may also be 

purchased from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractors, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., 

Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 1–800–378–3160 or http:// 

www.BCPIWEB.com. This document 

does not contain proposed information 

collection requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

therefore, it does not contain any 

proposed information collection burden 

‘‘for small business concerns with fewer 

than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

The Provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
13230 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

this proceeding. Members of the public 

should note that from the time a Notice 

of Proposed Rule Making is issued until 

the matter is no longer subject to 

Commission consideration or court 

review, all ex parte contacts are 

prohibited in Commission proceedings, 

such as this one, which involve channel 

allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for 

rules governing permissible ex parte 

contact. 

For information regarding proper 

filing procedures for comments, see 47 

CFR 1.415 and 1.420. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. 

§ 73.202 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM 

Allotments under Oregon, is amended 

by adding Channel 226C3 at Prineville. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E7–5073 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 05–311; FCC 06–180] 

Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of 

the Cable Communications Policy Act 

of 1984 as Amended by the Cable 

Television Consumer Protection and 

Competition Act of 1992 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on its 

proposal to apply the findings in 

Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of 

the Cable Communications Policy Act of 

1984 as amended by the Cable 

Television Consumer Protection and 

Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket 

No. 05–311, FCC 06–180, Report & 

Order, (‘‘Order’’) to cable operators that 

have existing franchise agreements as 

they negotiate renewal of those 

agreements with LFAs. The Commission 

also seeks comment on the tentative 

conclusion that it cannot preempt State 

or local customer service laws that 

exceed the Commission’s standards, nor 

can it prevent LFAs and cable operators 

from agreeing to more stringent 

standards. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before April 20, 2007; 

reply comments are due on or before 

May 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 05–311, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Holly Saurer, 

Holly.Saurer@fcc.gov or Brendan 

Murray, Brendan.Murray@fcc.gov of the 

Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 

418–2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), FCC 06–180, adopted on 

December 20, 2006, and released on 

March 5, 2007. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). 

(Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

In this present document, we have 

assessed the effects of the application 

filing requirements used to calculate the 

time frame in which a local franchising 

authority shall make a decision, and 

find that those requirements will benefit 

companies with fewer than 25 

employees by providing such 

companies with specific application 

requirements of a reasonable length. We 

anticipate this specificity will 

streamline this process for companies 

with fewer than 25 employees, and that 

these requirements will not burden 

those companies. 

Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

1. As discussed above, this 

proceeding is limited to competitive 

applicants under Section 621(a)(1). Yet, 

some of the decisions in this Order also 

appear germane to existing franchisees. 

We asked in the Local Franchising 

NPRM whether current procedures and 

requirements were appropriate for any 

cable operator, including existing 

operators. NCTA argues that if the 

Commission establishes franchising 

relief for new entrants, we should do the 

same for incumbent cable operators 

because imposing similar franchising 

requirements on new entrants and 

incumbent cable operators promotes 

competition. Somewhat analogously, 

the BSPA argues that any new franchise 

regulatory relief should extend to all 

current competitive operators and new 

entrants equally; otherwise, the 

inequities would effectively penalize 

existing competitive franchisees simply 

because they were the first to risk 

competition with the incumbent cable 

operator. The record does not indicate 

any opposition by new entrants to the 

idea that any relief afforded them also 

be afforded to incumbent cable 

operators. Some incumbent cable 

operators discussed the potential impact 

of Commission action under Section 621 

on incumbent cable operators. For 

example, Charter argues that granting 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS