Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 19447 

TABLE 5.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION

BUDGETS FOR COLUMBIANA, 

MAHONING AND TRUMBULL

COUNTIES, OHIO

Mahoning, Trumbull, and 

Columbiana Counties Ohio 

budgets 

Year 

2009 

Year 

2018 

VOC (tons/day) ..................... 19.58 10.36 

NOX (tons/day) ..................... 33.71 13.29 

VII. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to make a 

determination that the Youngstown area 

is attainment the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

and EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s 

maintenance plan for assuring that the 

area will continue to attain this 

standard. The maintenance plan 

demonstrates maintenance to the year 

2018 and includes contingency 

measures to remedy possible future 

violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

and establishes 2009 and 2018 MVEBs 

for these Counties. EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2018 MVEBs submitted by 

Ohio in conjunction with the 

redesignation request. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, September 30, 1993), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

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.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

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 Clean 

Air Act. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

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). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

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. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ 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). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 

requires Federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior 

existing requirement for the state to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use such 

standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: April 6, 2007. 

Walter W. Kovalick, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E7–7352 Filed 4–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 07–1448, MB Docket No. 05–228; RM–

11255] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; Kiowa, 

KS 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. 

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a 

pending petition for rulemaking filed by 

Charles Crawford to allot Channel 233A 

at Kiowa, Kansas for failure to state a 

continuing interest in the requested 

allotment. The document therefore 

terminates the proceeding. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen McLean, Media Bureau (202) 

418–2738. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

synopsis of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 05–228, 

adopted March 28, 2007, and released 

March 30, 2007. The full text of this 

Commission decision is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
19448 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center (Room CY–A257), 

445 12th 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 

www.BCPIWEB.com. 

This document is not subject to the 

Congressional Review Act. (The 

Commission, is, therefore, not required 

to submit a copy of this Report and 

Order to Government Accountability 

Office, pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. Section 

801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule 

is dismissed). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

John A. Karousos, 

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media 

Bureau. 

[FR Doc. E7–7289 Filed 4–17–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 76 

[MB Docket No. 07–51; FCC 07–32] 

Exclusive Service Contracts for 

Provision of Video Services in Multiple 

Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate 

Developments 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission takes steps to encourage 

greater competition in the market for the 

delivery of multichannel video 

programming by soliciting comment on 

the use of exclusive contracts for the 

provision of video services to multiple 

dwelling units (‘‘MDUs’’) or other real 

estate developments. The Commission 

also seeks comment on whether the use 

of exclusive contracts in the MDU video 

provider market unreasonably impedes 

the achievement of the interrelated 

federal goals of enhanced multichannel 

video competition and accelerated 

broadband deployment and, if so, how 

the Commission should act to address 

that problem. 

DATES: Comments for this proceeding 

are due on or before June 18, 2007; reply 

comments are due on or before July 18, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 07–51, 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 detailed instructions for submitting 

comments and 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 of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418–

2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 07–

32, adopted on March 22, 2007, and 

released on March 27, 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 

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). 

Summary of the NPRM of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

I. Introduction 

In this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’), we solicit 

comment on the use of exclusive 

contracts for the provision of video 

services to multiple dwelling units 

(‘‘MDUs’’) or other real estate 

developments. Greater competition in 

the market for the delivery of 

multichannel video programming is one 

of the primary goals of Federal 

communications policy. Moreover, for 

many participants in the marketplace, 

the ability to offer video to consumers 

and the ability to deploy broadband 

networks rapidly are linked 

intrinsically. However, potential 

competitors seeking to enter the 

multichannel video programming 

distributor (‘‘MVPD’’) marketplace have 

alleged that the use of exclusive 

contracts for the provision of video 

services to MDUs or other real estate 

developments serves as a barrier to 

entry. Accordingly, this NPRM is 

designed to solicit comment on whether 

the use of exclusive contracts in the 

MDU video provider market 

unreasonably impedes the achievement 

of the interrelated federal goals of 

enhanced multichannel video 

competition and accelerated broadband 

deployment and, if so, how the 

Commission should act to address that 

problem. 

II. Background 

1. In 1997, the Commission issued an 

NPRM regarding the use of exclusive 

access arrangements in MDUs. The 

Commission stated that exclusive 

service contracts between MDU owners 

and MVPDs could be considered procompetitive or anti-competitive, 

depending upon the circumstances 

involved. Commenters who were 

effectively prohibited from providing 

service due to the existence of exclusive 

contracts argued that those contracts 

were anti-competitive. Other 

commenters argued that exclusive 

contracts were necessary to enhance 

their ability to recover investment costs. 

In the corresponding Report and Order, 

the Commission declined to take any 

action regarding exclusive agreements, 

concluding that there was insufficient 

evidence in the record to determine the 

extent of use of such exclusive 

contracts, and whether or not such 

contracts had significantly impeded 

access by competitive providers into the 

MDU market. 

2. We note that the Commission is 

considering MDU access with respect to 

other services. In the context of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS