Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1423

requirements as under the current

NAAQS, which are provided by section

182(c)(2)(B), except that if the NAAQS

is revised as proposed, areas should

submit ROP controls covering only the

period up to the time they submit new

SIPs to attain the revised NAAQS and

not up to their attainment date under

the current NAAQS. In addition, if the

NAAQS is revised as proposed, areas

would not be required to submit

attainment demonstrations (including

the controls) geared towards the existing

NAAQS and attainment dates; rather,

they would be required at a future time

to submit an attainment demonstration

geared to the revised NAAQS.

The IIP further proposes to require

States to submit, within 90 days after

promulgation of the final ozone

NAAQS, a preliminary estimate of the

amount of emissions reductions needed

for their ozone nonattainment area to

attain the revised NAAQS. Finally, the

IIP proposes making revisions to the

July 1996 Findings consistent with its

principles.

II. Notice of Intent To Propose

Rulemaking

In this notice, the Agency is

announcing its plans to issue SIP calls,

under section 110(k)(5) of the Act, as

needed to ensure that the necessary

regional reductions are achieved that

will allow current nonattainment areas

to prepare attainment demonstrations

for the current NAAQS. This action will

reflect the technical work done by

OTAG, as well as any OTAG

recommendations for adoption of

additional NOX and/or VOC controls.

The EPA wants to ensure that the

necessary regional reductions would be

implemented by the relevant States

within a specified timeframe. It is EPA’s

intention to review the assessments,

modeling work, and any

recommendations made by OTAG, and

to base the SIP call on this review as

well as any other information available.

In the March 1997 timeframe, EPA

intends to publish a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPR). The EPA anticipates

that the NPR will propose overall

amounts or ranges of NOX and/or VOC

emission reductions that each State

would need to achieve to reduce the

boundary condition concentrations of

ozone and its precursors within a

specified timeframe and require the

submission of SIP controls to achieve

these reductions. The EPA may or may

not identify or require specific control

measures. The SIP revision must also

contain a schedule for adoption and

implementation of these measures, and

EPA intends to set out this schedule in

more detail in the proposed rulemaking.

The EPA intends to publish the final SIP

call notice in summer 1997.

Under section 110(k)(5) of the Act,

EPA has the authority to establish the

date by which a State must respond to

a SIP call. This date can be no later than

18 months after the SIP call is issued.

The EPA believes that it is appropriate

for attainment areas to meet the same

schedule as nonattainment areas for

making SIP submittals. The EPA could

thus allow up to 18 months for these

submittals. However, EPA is

considering a more accelerated schedule

for submittals under this SIP call to

attain air quality benefits sooner and to

facilitate area specific SIP planning. The

EPA will be requesting comment on

deadlines ranging from 6 months to 18

months following the date of

publication of the notice of final

rulemaking. If EPA makes a finding under section

179(a) that the appropriate States have

not made the required complete

submittals by the date established in the

SIP call, EPA plans to provide by rule

that the offset sanction identified in

section 179(b) will be applied in the

affected areas, pursuant to section

179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31. If the States

have still not made a complete

submission 6 months after the offset

sanction is imposed, then the highway

funding sanction will apply in the

affected nonattainment areas in

accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. In

addition, section 110(c) provides that

EPA promulgate a Federal

implementation plan (FIP) no later than

2 years after a finding under section

179(a).

The EPA believes that expedited

implementation of regional control

strategies to facilitate attainment of the

current standard would also be

beneficial if the Agency makes a final

decision to revise the ozone NAAQS

standard. In fact, it is likely that regional

reductions in ozone and ozone

precursors in upwind States will be

even more critical to allow downwind

States to attain a revised standard.

Regional reductions could also

minimize the number of areas

designated nonattainment under a

revised standard and/or lessen the

severity of the nonattainment problem.

In addition, as EPA goes through the

process of developing an

implementation program for the new

standard, it will be able to take

advantage of the information gathered

by OTAG and account for emission

reductions that result from the

recommended strategy. The EPA’s authority under section

110(k)(5) to issue a SIP call will not be

changed by promulgation of a revised

NAAQS because the requirements of

section 110(a)(2)(D) will not be affected

by the revised NAAQS. Under the

revised NAAQS, upwind States must

continue to demonstrate that their

sources do not significantly contribute

to nonattainment problems downwind.

Dated: January 6, 1997.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–645 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 61

[CC Docket No. 93–55; FCC 96–108]

Metric Conversion of Tariff

Publications and Supporting

Information

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Termination of proposed

rulemaking proceeding.

SUMMARY: In a 1993 Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, the Commission sought

comment on a proposal to amend Part

61 of its rules to mandate metric

conversion of common carrier tariff

publications and supporting

information (‘‘tariff materials’’). The

Commission made this proposal to

facilitate use of these materials in light

of the increased employment of metric

units of measurement in this country

and Congressional policy that the metric

system of measurement be employed

wherever possible. Based upon the

comments received and its own

analysis, the Commission concluded, in

this Report and Order, that it would not

be in the public interest to require

common carriers to convert to the

metric system those units of measure

appearing in their tariff materials.

Specifically, the Commission found that

the benefits to carriers and their

customers of such mandatory metric

conversion—or of requiring that

conversion tables be included in such

materials—were not clear enough to

justify the carrier burdens involved.

Accordingly, the Commission declined

to adopt any of the proposed conversion

options and, instead, terminated this

proceeding.

DATES: The proposed rulemaking

proceeding is terminated February 10,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allen A. Barna, Competitive Pricing

Division, Common Carrier Bureau, (202)

418–1530.
1424 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 7 / Friday, January 10, 1997 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission opened this docket with

the release of a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking: Amendment to Part 61 of

the Commission’s Rules Requiring

Metric Conversion of Tariff Materials

and Supporting Information, CC Docket

No. 93–55, 10 FCC Rcd 6483 (1993)

(1993 NPRM), 58 FR 26087, April 30,

1993. The 1993 NPRM was one of

several actions that the Commission

took in response to the Metric

Conversion Act of 1975, Public Law 94–

168, 89 Stat. 1007 (1975), as amended

by Public Law 100–418, 102 Stat. 1107

(1988) (codified at 17 U.S.C. § 205 et

seq.) (Metric Conversion Act). This is a

summary of the Commission’s later

Report and Order in this docket adopted

March 12, 1996, and released March 29,

1996, 11 FCC Rcd 3617 (1996) (Report

and Order). The full text of this Report

and Order is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Public Reference

Room (Room 239), 1919 M St., NW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this Report and Order may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Suite 140, 2100 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Because the Commission did not

impose any of the proposed metric

conversion options on common carriers

and, instead, simply terminated this

proceeding, the Commission has

determined that Section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), does not apply to the

adoption of this Report and Order

because termination of this proceeding

does not have any significant economic

impact on small entities.

Summary of Report and Order

In the 1993 NPRM, the Commission

expressed its belief that distancesensitive units in tariff filings under Part

61 of its rules should be expressed in

metric units. Accordingly, that NPRM

proposed three options for conversion of

common carrier tariff materials to the

metric system. Under Option 1, the

Conversion Table Option, carriers

would be required to include, in the

general rules section of their tariff

materials, a table for converting nonmetric units of measurement to metric

units. Under Option 2, carriers would be

required to include—in the applicable

rate sections of their tariff materials—

the metric unit and corresponding rate

in parenthesis beside the non-metric

unit and related rate (e.g., $4.00 per mile

($2.50 per kilometer)). Under Option 3,

carriers would be required to include

only the metric unit and related rate in

the applicable rate sections of their tariff

materials. To aid tariff users not familiar

with the metric system, Option 3 would

also require carriers to include

appropriate conversion tables in their

tariff materials.

Most commenting parties urged the

Commission not to adopt any rule

requiring metric conversion of common

carrier tariff materials. Some parties

noted that the Metric Conversion Act

does not obligate the Commission to

require metric conversion of such

materials. A number of parties argued

that the anticipated costs for carriers to

convert these materials and the related

administrative burdens on each carrier

to revise tariff materials far outweigh

any benefits to those who use these

materials.

The National Institute of Standards

and Technology at the U.S. Department

of Commerce (NIST) recommended that

these tariff materials include either (a)

the metric unit and corresponding rate

followed in parenthesis by the nonmetric unit and rate, or (b) the nonmetric unit and corresponding rate

followed by the metric unit and rate.

Thus, NIST would allow carriers to

choose which measurement system

would be dominant in their tariff

materials and which would be included

in parenthesis. Should the Commission

not adopt that approach, NIST urged

that common carriers be required to

comply with Option 2 in the 1993

NPRM because, in the view of NIST,

that option most closely met the goals

of the Metric Conversion Act. In

addition, the Chairman of the Standards

and Metric Practices Subcommittee of

the Metrification Operating Committee

of the Interagency Council on Metric

Policy urged the Commission to allow

carriers to use only metric units in their

tariff materials because use of any other

option would require carriers to

continue to use two sets of units in

these materials.

The Commission found that the

carrier burdens associated with both

Option 2 and Option 3 clearly outweigh

the benefits to the public that each

offers. Although Option 1, the

Conversion Table Option, would be less

burdensome than either of the other two

options, the Commission found that it,

too, would impose additional burdens

on carriers. While the Commission

recognized that inclusion of such

conversion tables in tariff materials

would promote its metric conversion

program and would potentially benefit

some tariff users, the Commission,

nevertheless, found that the benefits

associated with such a requirement

would be outweighed by the estimated

burdens on carriers.

Thus, in light of the record

established in response to the 1993

NPRM, the Commission no longer found

that the benefits of having metric units

or metric conversion tables in tariff

materials exceeded the related burdens

on those carriers that filed these

materials. Instead, the Commission

found that the benefits to carriers and

their customers of converting tariff

materials to the metric system—or of

including conversion tables in such

materials—were not sufficiently clear to

justify the burdens involved.

Accordingly, the Commission declined

to adopt any of the conversion options

proposed in the 1993 NPRM and

terminated this proceeding.

Ordering Clause

Accordingly, It is ordered, that the

proceeding initiated in CC Docket No.

93–55 Is terminated.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 61

Communications common carriers,

Metric system, Telecommunications.

Federal Communications Commission.

LaVera F. Marshall,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–529 Filed 1–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 122396B]

New England Fishery Management

Council; Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public meeting.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

hold a 1-day public meeting to consider

actions affecting New England fisheries

in the exclusive economic zone.

DATES: The meeting will be held on

Tuesday, January 16, 1997, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at

the Tara Ferncroft Conference and

Resort, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA

01923; telephone (508) 777–2500.

Requests for special accommodations

should be addressed to the New

England Fishery Management Council, 5

Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906–1097;

telephone (617) 231–0422.