4020 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(5) The Commonwealth must perform

and submit the final modeling

demonstration that its program will

meet the relevant enhanced

performance standard, within twelve

months of EPA’s final interim

rulemaking.

(b) In addition to the above conditions

for approval, the Commonwealth must

correct several minor, or de minimus

deficiencies related to CAA

requirements for enhanced I/M.

Although satisfaction of these

deficiencies does not affect the

conditional approval status of the

Commonwealth’s rulemaking granted

under the authority of section 110 of the

Clean Air Act, these deficiencies must

be corrected in the final I/M SIP

revision prior to the end of the 18-

month interim period granted under the

National Highway Safety Designation

Act of 1995:

(1) The final I/M SIP submittal must

detail the number of personnel and

equipment dedicated to the quality

assurance program, data collection, data

analysis, program administration,

enforcement, public education and

assistance, on-road testing and other

necessary functions as per 40 CFR

51.354;

(2) The definition of light duty truck

in the definitions section of the final

Pennsylvania I/M regulation must

provide for coverage up to 9,000 pounds

GVWR;

(3) The final Pennsylvania I/M

regulation must require implementation

of the final full stringency emission

standards at the beginning of the second

test cycle so that the state can obtain the

full emission reduction program credit

prior to the first program evaluation

date;

(4) The final Pennsylvania I/M

regulation must require a real-time data

link between the state or contractor and

each emission inspection station as per

40 CFR 51.358(b)(2);

(5) The final I/M SIP submittal must

provide quality control requirements for

one-mode ASM (or two-mode ASM if

the Commonwealth opts for it);

(6) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation

must only allow the Commonwealth or

a single contractor to issue waivers as

per 40 CFR 51.360(c)(1);

(7) The final I/M SIP submittal must

include the RFP, or other legally

binding document, which adequately

addresses how the private vendor

selected to perform motorist compliance

enforcement responsibilities for the

Commonwealth’s program will comply

with the requirements as per 40 CFR

51.362;

(8) The final I/M SIP submittal must

include the RFP that adequately

addresses how the private vendor will

comply with 40 CFR 51.363, a

procedures manual which adequately

addresses the quality assurance program

and a requirement that annual auditing

of the quality assurance auditors will

occur as per 40 CFR 51.363(d)(2);

(9) The final I/M SIP submittal must

include provisions to maintain records

of all warnings, civil fines, suspensions,

revocations, violations and penalties

against inspectors and stations, per the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.364;

(10) The final I/M SIP submittal must

include a RFP, or other legally binding

document, which adequately addresses

how the private vendor selected by the

Commonwealth to perform data

collection and data analysis and

reporting will comply with all the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.365 and

51.366;

(11) The final Pennsylvania I/M

regulation must require that emissions

inspectors complete a refresher training

course or pass a comprehensive skill

examination prior to being recertified

and the final SIP revisions must include

a commitment that the Commonwealth

will monitor and evaluate the inspector

training program delivery, per the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.367;

(12) The final I/M SIP submittal must

include a RFP, or other legally binding

document, which adequately addresses

how the Commonwealth’s selected

contractor will comply with the public

information requirements of 40 CFR

51.368;

(13) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation

must include provisions that meet the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.368(a)and

51.369(b) for a repair facility

performance monitoring program plan

and for providing the motorist with

diagnostic information based on the

particular portions of the test that were

failed; and

(14) The final I/M SIP submittal must

contain sufficient information to

adequately address the on-road test

program resource allocations, methods

of analyzing and reporting the results of

the on-road testing and information on

staffing requirements for both the

Commonwealth and the private vendor

for the on-road testing program.

[FR Doc. 97–1846 Filed 1–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 20, 22, 24, 80, and 90

[GEN Docket No. 93–252, FCC 96–473]

Implementation of Sections 3(n) and

332 of the Communications Act

Regarding Regulatory Treatment of

Mobile Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule, petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This Order on partial

reconsideration of the Second Report

and Order implementing Sections 3(n)

and 332 of the Communications Act of

1934 denies two petitions for

reconsideration concerning the right of

cellular resellers to interconnect their

switching facilities with those of

facilities-based cellular carriers, the

Commission’s authority to defer

decision on these matters to a separate

proceeding, and interim relief with

respect to the reseller switch issue. The

action is taken to resolve these petitions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane

Phillips, (202) 418–1310, Policy

Division, Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Partial Reconsideration of

Second Report and Order in GN Docket

No. 93–252, FCC 96–473, adopted

December 11, 1996, and released

December 20, 1996. The complete text

of this Memorandum Opinion and

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, at

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

Synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order

1. In the CMRS Second Report and

Order (59 FR 18493, April 19, 1994), the

Commission determined that it did not

have a sufficient record to consider

adequately the circumstances in which

CMRS providers may be required to

provide interconnection to other

carriers, including resellers.

Recognizing the conflicting claims of

affected parties, the complexity of the

issues relating to interconnection, and

the need to develop a more thorough

record on those issues, the Commission
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 4021

deferred consideration of such issues

and committed to begin a new

rulemaking proceeding to examine them

in depth.

2. Petitioners challenge this decision.

One argues that Section 6002(d)(3)(C) of

the Budget Act requires the Commission

to promulgate regulations governing

CMRS-to-CMRS interconnection no later

than August 10, 1994. Both request that

questions concerning the right of

cellular resellers to interconnect their

own switches to the facilities of licensed

cellular carriers and their right to obtain

such interconnection under reasonable

terms and conditions be resolved on

reconsideration, rather than deferred for

resolution in other proceedings. They

argue that resellers’ interconnection

rights must be determined under

Section 201 of the Act, and that cellular

resellers satisfy criteria established

under Section 201 to justify an order for

interconnection, i.e., that the request be

from a common carrier, and that the

request be ‘‘necessary or desirable to

serve the public interest.’’

3. The Order rejects the contention

that the Budget Act requires the

Commission to adopt rules mandating

CMRS-to-CMRS interconnection by

August 10, 1994. It states further that

the express language of the statute

undercuts the Petitioners’ claim that

CMRS providers have an unqualified

right to interconnect with CMRS

providers. Section 332(c)(1)(B) provides

that the Commission act ‘‘upon

reasonable request’’ and states further

that nothing in that section ‘‘shall be

construed as a limitation or expansion

of the Commission’s authority to order

interconnection pursuant to [Section

201 of] the Act.’’ Under Section 201, the

Commission is authorized to grant

requests for interconnection where,

‘‘after opportunity for hearing, [it finds]

such action necessary or desirable in the

public interest.’’ The Order points out

that nothing in this language gives

anyone an absolute right to

interconnection. It concludes therefrom

that, even if the Commission were

required to adopt rules to implement

Section 332(c)(1)(B) with respect to

CMRS-to-CMRS interconnection, those

rules would not have to mandate such

interconnection in all cases.

4. The Order also states that the

Commission’s decision in the CMRS

Second Report and Order to review the

public interest aspects of CMRS-toCMRS interconnection in a separate

proceeding is not only consistent with

the language of Sections 332 and 201,

but also is wholly in accord with its

responsibility and authority to structure

and conduct proceedings efficiently.

The Order notes that the Commission

initiated a comprehensive examination

of interconnection less than four months

after releasing the CMRS Second Report

and Order, and that it later issued a

Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(59 FR 37734, July 25, 1994) in the same

docket, examining a broad range of

issues concerning CMRS

interconnection and CMRS resale,

including the reseller switch issue. The

Order denies the request for interim

relief implementing the reseller switch

proposal. The Order notes that, during

the period in which the Commission is

developing broad interconnection

policies in these proceedings, it has

explicitly provided resellers (and

others) the opportunity to file factspecific complaints concerning CMRSto-CMRS interconnection disputes,

should such disputes arise.

Ordering Clauses

5. Accordingly, it is ordered, that the

Petition for Reconsideration of the

Second Report and Order,

Implementation of Sections 3(n) and

332 of the Communications Act,

Regulatory Treatment of Mobile

Services, GN Docket No. 93–252, filed

jointly by Cellular Service, Inc., and

ComTech, Inc., and that portion of the

Petition for Reconsideration filed by the

National Wireless Resellers Association

that relates to the right of cellular

resellers to interconnect with facilitiesbased cellular carriers, are denied. This

action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i),

4(j), 7(a), 201, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),

303(r), 332(c) and 332(d) of the

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.

§§ 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 201, 303(c),

303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 332(c), 332(d).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 20

Commercial mobile radio services,

Radio.

47 CFR Part 22

Public mobile services, Radio.

47 CFR Part 24

Personal communications services,

Radio.

47 CFR Part 80

Maritime services, Radio.

47 CFR Part 90

Private land mobile services, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–2008 Filed 1–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 961114317–7008–02; I.D.

102596B]

RIN 0648–XX70

Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog

Fisheries; 1997 Fishing Quotas

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final 1997 fishing quotas for

surf clams and ocean quahogs.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues final quotas for

the Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog

fisheries for 1997. These quotas are

selected from a range defined as

optimum yield (OY) for each fishery.

The intent of this action is to establish

allowable harvests of surf clams and

ocean quahogs from the exclusive

economic zone in 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1997,

through December 31, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Mid-Atlantic

Fishery Management Council’s analysis

and recommendations and

environmental assessment are available

from David R. Keifer, Executive

Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, Room 2115,

Federal Building, 300 South New Street,

Dover, DE 19901–6790.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,

508–281–9104.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Fishery Management Plan for the

Atlantic Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog

Fisheries (FMP) directs NMFS, acting on

behalf of the Secretary of Commerce

(Secretary) and in consultation with the

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council (Council), to specify quotas for

surf clams and ocean quahogs on an

annual basis from a range defined by the

FMP as the OY for each fishery. For surf

clams, the quota must fall within the OY

range of 1.85 million bushels (mil. bu.)

(652,000 hectoliters (hL)) to 3.4 mil. bu.

(1.2 mil. hL). For ocean quahogs, the

quota must fall within the OY range of

4 mil. bu. (1.4 mil. hL) to 6 mil. bu. (2.1

mil. hL). Further, the Council follows

the policy that the quotas selected

should allow fishing to continue at that

level for at least 10 years for surf clams

and 30 years for ocean quahogs. While

staying within these constraints, the

quotas are also to be set at a level that