20240 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Federal citation State analog

6. Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces,

Amendment IV, (57 FR 44999–45001) September 30, 1992. (Checklist 114).

NMSA 1978, §§ 74–4–4A and 74–4–4E (Repl. Pamp. 1993); 20 NMAC

4.1.101, Subparts I, II, V, VI and VII, .102, .201, .501, .502, .601,

.602 and .701 as amended September 23, 1994, effective September 23, 1994.

7. Chlorinated Toluene Production Waste Listing, (57 FR 47376–47386)

October 15, 1992. (Checklist 115).

NMSA 1978, §§ 74–4–4A(1) and 74–4–4E (Repl. Pamp. 1993); 20

NMAC 4.1.201 as amended September 23, 1994, effective September 23, 1994.

8. Hazardous Soil Case-By-Case Capacity Variance, (57 FR 47772–

47776) October 20, 1992. (Checklist 116).

NMSA 1978, §§ 74–4–4A and 74–4–4E (Repl. Pamp. 1993); 20 NMAC

4.1.801 as amended September 23, 1994, effective September 23,

1994.

9. Toxicity Characteristic Amendment, (57 FR 23062–23063) June 1,

1992. (Checklist 117B).

NMSA 1978, §§ 74–4–4A(1) and 74–4–4E (Repl. Pamp. 1993); 20

NMAC 4.1.201 Subparts II, V, VI, and VIII .201, .501, .502, .601,

.602 and .801 as amended September 23, 1994, effective September 23, 1994.

10. Liquids in Landfills II, (57 FR 54452–54461) November 18, 1992.

(Checklist 118).

NMSA 1978, §§ 74–4–4A and 74–4–4E (Repl. Pamp. 1993); 20 NMAC

4.1.101, Subparts I, II, V, and VI, .102, .501, .502, .601, and .602 as

amended September 23, 1994, effective September 23, 1994.

11. Wood Preserving; Amendments to Listings and Technical Requirements, (57 FR 61492–61505) December 24, 1992. (Checklist 120).NMSA 1978, §§ 74–4–4A, 74–4–4A(1) and 74–4–4E (Repl. Pamp.

1993); 20 NMAC 4.1.201 and 4.1.301, Subparts II, III, V, and VI,

.201, .501, .502, .601, and.602 as amended September 23, 1994,

effective September 23, 1994.

12. Land Disposal Restrictions; Renewal of the Hazardous Waste Debris Case-By-Case Capacity Variance, (58 FR 28506–28511) May

14, 1993. (Checklist 123).

NMSA 1978, §§ 74–4–4A and 74–4–4E (Repl. Pamp. 1993); 20 NMAC

4.1.801 as amended September 23, 1994, effective September 23,

1994.

13. Land Disposal Restrictions for Ignitable and Corrosive Characteristic Wastes Whose Treatment Standards Were Vacated, (58 FR

29860–29887) May 24, 1993. (Checklist 124).

NMSA 1978, §§ 74–4–4A and 74–4–4E (Repl. Pamp. 1993); 20 NMAC

4.1.801 as amended September 23, 1994, effective September 23,

1994.

New Mexico is not authorized to

operate the Federal program on Indian

lands. This authority remains with EPA.

C. Decision

I conclude that New Mexico’s

application for a program revision meets

the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, New Mexico is granted

authorization to operate its hazardous

waste program as revised. New Mexico

now has responsibility for permitting

treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities within its borders and for

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA

program described in its revised

program application, subject to the

limitations of the HSWA. New Mexico

also has primary enforcement

responsibilities, although EPA retains

the right to conduct inspections under

section 3007 of RCRA and to take

enforcement actions under sections

3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA.

D. Codification in Part 272

EPA uses 40 CFR part 272 for

codification of the decision to authorize

New Mexico’s program and for

incorporation by reference of those

provisions of New Mexico’s Statutes

and regulations that EPA will enforce

under section 3008, 3013, and 7003 of

RCRA. Therefore, EPA is reserving

amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart

GG until a later date.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 4 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

authorization will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This

authorization effectively suspends the

applicability of certain Federal

regulations in favor of New Mexico’s

program, thereby eliminating

duplicative requirements for handlers of

hazardous waste in the State. This

authorization does not impose any new

burdens on small entities. This rule,

therefore, does not require a regulatory

flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Administrative practice and

procedure, Confidential business

information, Hazardous materials

transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian

lands, Intergovernmental relations,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Water pollution control,

Water supply.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated: April 17, 1995.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–10143 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Public Land Order 7136

[OR–943–1430–01; GP5–083; OR–49219]

Withdrawal of Public Lands for the

Galice Creek Recreation Area; Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Public land order.

SUMMARY: This order withdraws 290.02

acres of Revested Oregon and California

Railroad Grant Lands from surface entry

and mining for a period of 20 years for

the Bureau of Land Management to

protect the Galice Creek Recreation Area

located in Josephine County. The lands

have been and remain open to mineral

leasing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Sullivan, BLM Oregon/

Washington State Office, P.O. Box 2965,

Portland, Oregon 97208–2965, 503–952–

6171.

By virtue of the authority vested in

the Secretary of the Interior by Section

204 of the Federal Land Policy and
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20241

Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C.

1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the

following described public lands are

hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale,

location, or entry under the general land

laws, including the United States

mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1988)),

but not from leasing under the mineral

leasing laws, to protect the significant

historic and recreational values along

Galice Creek:

Willamette Meridian

Revested Oregon and California Railroad

Grant Lands

T. 34 S., R. 8 W.,

Sec. 35, S1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4.

T. 35 S., R. 8 W.,

Sec. 2, lots 7 to 14, inclusive, and lots 16,

17, and 19, N1⁄2SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4,

and NW1⁄4SW1⁄4;

Sec. 3, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 and E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE1⁄4.

The areas described aggregate 290.02 acres

in Josephine County.

2. The withdrawal made by this order

does not alter the applicability of those

public land laws governing the use of

the lands under lease, license, or permit,

or governing the disposal of their

mineral or vegetative resources other

than under the mining laws.

3. This withdrawal will expire 20

years from the effective date of this

order unless, as a result of a review

conducted before the expiration date

pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act of

1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1988), the

Secretary determines that the

withdrawal shall be extended.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 95–10081 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–33–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 74

[MM Docket No. 93–24, FCC 95–51]

Experimental, Auxiliary, and Special

Broadcast and Other Program

Distributional Services; ITFS Filing

Window

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This Report and Order adopts

a window filing procedure for the

processing of applications for new

Instructional Television Fixed Service

(ITFS) stations and major changes to

existing stations. It further adopts rules

affecting the four-channel rule, receive

site interference protection, the

protected service area, and other aspects

of ITFS operation. The Report and Order

responds to the comments received in

response to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in this proceeding. Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket

No. 93–24, (Notice), Order and Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM

Docket No. 93–24 (Further Notice). The

action is required to hasten ITFS and

wireless cable service to the public by

streamlining the processing of ITFS

applications.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon approval of the

Office of Management and Budget of a

modified FCC Form 330 to effectuate the

modifications approved in this Report

and Order. The FCC will published a

document announcing the effective date

in the Federal Register when OMB

approval is imminent.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul R. Gordon, Mass Media Bureau,

Policy and Rules Division, (202) 739–

0773.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order in MM Docket No. 93–24,

adopted and released on February 7,

1995. The complete text of this Report

and Order is available for inspection

and copying in the FCC Reference

Center (room 239) at the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

St., NW, Washington, DC 20554, and

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copying contractor,

International Transcription Service, at

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M St., NW, Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Report and Order

1. By this Report and Order, the

Commission adopts rules that will

increase the efficiency of our processing

of applications for new ITFS stations,

major amendments to such applications,

and major changes to existing stations.

The Commission also considers

additional proposals intended to

increase the efficiency, and curtail

potential abuse, of the application

processes.

2. During the past decade, applicants

for new ITFS stations or major changes

in existing stations have been subject to

an A/B cut-off procedure. This

procedure involves placing the first

application(s) accepted for filing and

determined to be substantially complete

on a public notice called an ‘‘A’’ cut-off

list. This list notifies the public that the

application has been accepted and gives

interested parties 60 days to file

competing applications or petitions to

deny. An applicant placed on the ‘‘A’’

cut-off list is required to make any major

changes to its proposal before the end of

the ‘‘A’’ cut-off period. After the ‘‘A’’

period expires, the staff places all

substantially complete applications

which were filed during that period and

found to be mutually exclusive with any

listed ‘‘A’’ application on a ‘‘B’’ list.

This list notifies the public that the

specified applications have been

accepted for filing, and it provides 30

days for the filing of petitions to deny

or minor amendments to those

applications.

3. The telecommunications

environment has changed substantially

since 1985, when the Commission

instituted this procedure. Also, in more

than 90% of recently filed applications,

ITFS licensees plan to lease their excess

channel capacity to wireless cable

operators, who almost always pays for

the construction of the ITFS facilities.

These changes have fostered a

substantial increase in the rate of

applications filed for new ITFS stations

or major changes in existing stations,

creating a significant backlog of

applications. Therefore, in the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in this

proceeding, 58 FR 12011 (March 2,

1993), we proposed a filing window

procedure for the acceptance of

applications, to allow us to better

control the flow of applications and to

improve processing efficiency.

4. Pursuant to our proposal, we would

accept applications for new facilities

and applications for major changes in

existing facilities only during limited

periods (or ‘‘windows’’). We would

place applications filed in the window

that were not mutually exclusive with

any other application, and that were

found to be acceptable for filing, on a

proposed grant list. We would then

provide the immediately following 30

days for the submission of petitions to

deny. Uncontested applications would

then be granted, if in the public interest.

With regard to mutually exclusive

applications, we would similarly give

30-day Public Notice for the submission

of petitions to deny. Thereafter, we

would evaluate those applications

under the existing comparative selection

process. Any applications currently

tendered but not yet placed on an ‘‘A’’

cut-off list would be treated as having

been filed and cut off as of the close of

the first filing window.

5. Currently, simply to allow the

release of an ‘‘A’’ cut-off list, each

application must undergo a substantive

engineering analysis upon filing. No

applications are granted or denied in

this stage of processing. Subsequently,

after the ‘‘B’’ cut-off period, each