Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1871

Polymers and Resins NESHAP

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ within

the meaning of the Executive Order. The

EPA submitted those actions to the

OMB for review. Changes made in

response to suggestions or

recommendations from the OMB were

documented and included in the public

record.

These proposed amendments to those

NESHAP provide affected sources more

time in which to comply with the

equipment leaks provisions of those

rules. These proposed revisions do not

add any additional control

requirements. Therefore, these

amendments were classified ‘‘nonsignificant’’ under Executive Order

12866 and were not required to be

reviewed by OMB.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to prepare a regulatory

flexibility analysis in connection with

this proposed rule. The EPA has also

determined that this proposed rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. See the September 5, 1996

Federal Register (61 FR 46906) and the

September 12, 1996 Federal Register (61

FR 48208) for the basis for this

determination. The compliance date

changes to the two rules do not impose

any economic burden for any regulated

entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), the EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed

or final rule that includes a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, the 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 the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that these

proposed amendments do not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. Therefore, the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates

Act do not apply to this action.

E. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. §801(a)(1)(A), as

added by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

EPA submitted a report containing this

proposed rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of this proposed rule in the Federal

Register. This is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. §804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 9, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–987 Filed 1–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 87–268; DA 97–23]

Advanced Television Systems and

Their Impact on the Existing Television

Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

time.

SUMMARY: The Commission is extending

the time for filing reply comments

relating to the Sixth Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in this

proceeding until January 24, 1997. This

action will allow the development of a

complete record on the matter of

channel allotments for operation of

digital TV service.

DATES: Reply comments are due on or

before January 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bruce Franca (202–418–2470), Alan

Stillwell (202–418–2470) or Robert

Eckert (202–428–2470), Office of

Engineering and Technology.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. On July

25, 1996, the Commission adopted a

Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule

Making (Sixth FNPRM) in MM Docket

No. 87–268, 61 FR 43209, August 21,

1996, that proposed policies for

developing the initial channel

allotments for digital TV (DTV) service,

proposed procedures for assigning DTV

allotments, and plans for spectrum

recovery. The Sixth FNPRM also

contains a draft DTV Table of

Allotments. Comments responding to

the Sixth FNPRM initially were due

November 22, 1996. On November 20,

1996, we issued an Order, 61 FR 63811,

December 2, 1996, extending the date

for filing reply comments in response to

the Sixth FNPRM to January 10, 1997.

2. On January 2, 1997, Sinclair

Broadcast Group and Sullivan

Broadcasting Company, Inc. (Group

Owners) requested that we extend the

date for filing reply comments in

response to the Sixth FNPRM an

additional 60 days. The Group Owners

submit that this additional time is

needed for themselves and other UHF

station licensees to finalize and present

to the Commission a technically and

commercially reasonable solution that

creates better coverage parity between

UHF and VHF stations and also

ameliorates certain seriously adverse

effects on UHF television stations

inherent in the primary allotment plans

now under consideration by the

Commission. They argue that any delay

in adopting the DTV Table of

Allotments that is occasioned by the

requested extension would be

outweighed by the need for the

Commission to have a full record on the

effects that its actions in this proceeding

have on UHF broadcasters.

3. The Association for Maximum

Service Television (MSTV) opposes the

Group Owners’ request for an extension

of the time for filing reply comments.

MSTV states that while it is sympathetic

with the concerns expressed in the

Group Owners request, it believes that

those concerns may be addressed

without further delaying the DTV

allotment proceeding. It argues that it is

critical that the Commission conclude

this proceeding as promptly as possible

so that the transition to DTV may begin.

MSTV argues that an across-the-board

60-day extension would delay our rule

making action, and that the submission

of any proposal could require still

another round of comments that would

cause further delay. MSTV therefore

urges that we deny the Group Owners

extension request. As an alternative, it

suggests that we state that we will

accept late-filed reply comments for

four weeks after the current January 10,

1997, due date for reply comments to

afford broadcasters the opportunity to

evaluate and respond to questions

concerning this issue.

4. In comments responding to the

Group Owners’ request, Motorola
1872 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 14, 1997 / Proposed Rules

submits that we have already provided

interested parties sufficient time to

prepare responses to the comments on

the Sixth FNPRM and that an additional

60 days would constitute an

unwarranted delay. It states that

expedited decision making on the initial

DTV Table of Allotments will facilitate

the introduction of DTV services to the

public and clarify the status of the

broadcast television spectrum and its

availability for reallocation. Motorola

also submits that while it can appreciate

the Group Owners’ concerns regarding

the permissible transmitting powers

provided for their DTV stations, the

ramifications of ‘‘service replication’’

have been apparent since the release of

the Sixth FNPRM in mid-August. It

therefore argues that a further delay of

two months to address DTV planning

factors is unnecessary. Motorola further

states that it would not, however, be

adverse to a more modest extension of

perhaps 15 days, given the intervening

holiday season and the large number of

comments received in this proceeding.

5. On January 7, 1997, the Association

of Federal Communications Consulting

Engineers (AFCCE) requested that we

extend the date for filing reply

comments for at least six weeks. The

AFCCE expressed a similar request for

extension of time in its comments

responding to the Sixth FNPRM. The

AFCCE states that its objective is not to

unduly delay this proceeding, but to

request that sufficient time be allotted to

the study of major technical issues prior

to the adoption of technical standards

for the allotment of DTV channels by

the Commission. It also submits that it

is reviewing the filings of other entities

and plans to respond to technical

comments where it deems appropriate.

6. In its comments responding to the

Sixth FNPRM, the engineering

consulting firm of du Treil, Lundin and

Rackley (DLR) also expresses concerns

regarding the significantly higher power

that would be authorized for the DTV

operations of existing VHF stations that

would operate in the UHF band. DLR

submits that it is not practical to try to

replicate superior VHF propagation

characteristics with brute force UHF

power. To address this concern, it

submits an alternative transition plan

that would provide existing stations

with DTV facilities that would replicate

their existing Grade A contours and

would return stations to their existing

channels for permanent DTV operation

after the transition. DLR requests that

we consider a further extension of the

date for filing reply comments of not

less than 45 days in view of the

complexity of these issues and the

intervening holiday season. It further

states that, due to the extraordinary

nature of this proceeding, we should

designate a formal period in which to

file comments responding to reply

comments.

7. We agree with MSTV and Motorola

that it is in the public interest to

complete this proceeding and license

DTV stations without unnecessary

delay. At the same time, we believe that

it is desirable to provide some

additional time for the Group Owners,

the AFCCE, DLR, and other interested

parties to address in more detail the

issues they have raised. We do not

believe the approach suggested by

MSTV that we accept late-filed

comments for up to four weeks beyond

the current date for filing reply

comments is advisable. Rather, we

believe that a two-week additional

extension of the date for filing reply

comments would provide an adequate

period of time for broadcasters to submit

additional information addressing the

issues discussed in the Group Owners’

and AFCCE’s extension requests and

DLR’s comments without delaying our

decision in this matter. This two week

period will allow the development of a

complete record on the matter of

channel allotments for operation of

digital TV service. We therefore are

extending the date for filing reply

comments to January 24, 1997. We also

agree with MSTV that providing an

additional period for parties to respond

to reply comments would create

unnecessary delay and therefore will

not provide for acceptance of replies to

reply comments, as requested by DLR.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

requests for extension of the time for

filing reply comments submitted by the

Group Owners, the AFCCE, and DLR

ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated

herein and that the date for filing reply

comments relating to the Sixth FNPRM

IS EXTENDED to January 24, 1997. This

action is taken pursuant to authority

provided in Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. §§154(i) and 303(r),

and Sections 0.31, 0.241 and 1.46 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.31,

0.241 and 1.46.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–832 Filed 1–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 678

[I.D. 010897B]

Atlantic Shark Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public hearings; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: NMFS will hold public

hearings to receive comments from

fishery participants and other members

of the public on a proposed rule that

was published in the Federal Register

on December 20, 1996. NMFS is also

extending the comment period for the

proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before January 24, 1997.

All hearings will begin at 7 p.m., as

follows:

1. January 22, 1997, in Tampa, FL.

2. January 22, 1997, in Fort

Lauderdale, FL.

3. January 23, 1997, in Manteo, NC.

4. January 23, 1997, in Key West, FL.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests for special accommodation

should be sent to William T. Hogarth,

Chief, Highly Migratory Species

Management Division (F/SF1), Office of

Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Room 14853, Silver Spring,

MD 20910.

The hearings will be held at the

following locations:

1. Tampa—Radisson Bay Harbor Inn

(Chart Room), 7700 Courtenay Campbell

Causeway, Tampa, FL 33607.

2. Fort Lauderdale—Holiday Inn

Beach Galleria (Coral Ballroom), 999

North Atlantic Blvd., Fort Lauderdale,

FL 33304.

3. Manteo—North Carolina Aquarium

(Auditorium), Airport Road, Manteo, NC

27954.

4. Key West—Holiday Inn La Concha

(The Top Room), 430 Duval Street, Key

West, FL 33040.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: C.

Michael Bailey or John Kelly, 301-713-

2347; fax 301–713–1917.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS has

determined that it is necessary to

conduct public hearings and that

commenters have additional time to

submit their comments on the proposed

rule (61 FR 67295, December 20, 1996).

Therefore, NMFS is extending the