Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21047

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP-approval does not impose

any new requirements, I certify that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2). The OMB has exempted this

action from review under Executive

Order 12866.

V. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan revision, the State

and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under sections

110 and 182(b) of the Clean Air Act.

These rules may bind State, local, and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the

extent that the rules being approved by

this action will impose any mandate

upon the State, local, or tribal

governments either as the owner or

operator of a source or as a regulator, or

would impose any mandate upon the

private sector, EPA’s action will impose

no new requirements; such sources are

already subject to these requirements

under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this direct final action

does not include a mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Jeff Zelikson,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of part 52, chapter I, title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(211) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(211) Revised Clean Air Plans for

ozone for the following APCDs

submitted on November 14, 1994, by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Santa Barbara Air Pollution

Control District

(1) TCM–5, Improve Commuter Public

Transit Service, adopted on November

2, 1994

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10613 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5200–1]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the

Kenmark Textile Corporation site from

the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region II announces the

deletion of the Kenmark Textile

Corporation site from the National

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is

appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and

the State of New York have determined

that all appropriate Hazardous

Substance Response Trust Fund

(Fund)—financed responses under

CERCLA have been implemented and

that no further cleanup is appropriate.

Moreover, EPA and the State of New

York have determined that remedial

actions conducted at the site to date

have been protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Garbarini, Section Chief, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor,

New York, NY 10007–1866, (212) 637–

4263.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is the Kenmark

Textile Corporation site, Farmingdale,

Suffolk County, New York. A notice of

intent to delete for this site was

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 64644) on December 15, 1994. The

closing date for comments on the Notice

of Intent to Delete was January 17, 1995.

EPA received no verbal or written

comments of the proposed deletion.

EPA identifies sites which appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of Fund-financed remedial

actions. Any site deleted from the NPL

remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action. Section 300.66(c)(8) of the NCP

states that Fund-financed actions may

be taken at sites deleted from the NPL.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not

affect responsible party liability or

impede EPA efforts to recover costs

associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 300 is amended as

follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp. p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp. p. 193.
21048 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. In appendix B, table 1 is amended

by removing the site for Kenmark

Textile Corporation, Farmingdale, New

York.

[FR Doc. 95–10623 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Part 421

[BPO-083-F]

RIN 0938-AF84

Medicare Program; Revisions to

Criteria and Standards for Evaluating

Intermediaries and Carriers

CFR Correction

In title 42 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 400 to 429, revised as

of October 1, 1994, on page 617,

§ 421.120 was inadvertently omitted.

The section should have appeared as set

forth below:

§ 421.120 Performance criteria.

(a) Application of performance

criteria. As part of the intermediary

evaluations authorized by section

1816(f) of the Act, HCFA periodically

assesses the performance of

intermediaries in their Medicare

operations using performance criteria.

The criteria measure and evaluate

intermediary performance of functional

responsibilities such as—

(1) Correct coverage and payment

determinations;

(2) Responsiveness to beneficiary

concerns; and

(3) Proper management of

administrative funds.

(b) Basis for criteria. HCFA will base

the performance criteria on—

(1) Nationwide intermediary

experience;

(2) Changes in intermediary

operations due to fiscal constraints; and

(3) HFCA’s objectives in achieving

better performance.

(c) Publication of criteria. The

development and revision of criteria for

evaluating intermediary performance is

a continuing process. Therefore, before

the beginning of each evaluation period,

HCFA will publish the performance

criteria as a notice in the Federal

Register.

[48 FR 7178, Feb. 18, 1983]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 2

[ET Docket No. 92–28; FCC 95–70]

Mobile-Satellite Service at 1610–1626.5

and 2483.5–2500 Mhz

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; clarification and

correction of typographical errors.

SUMMARY: This Memorandum Opinion

and Order (MO&O) affirms the decision

in the Report and Order (R&O) in this

proceeding to allocate the 1610–1626.5

MHz (1.6 GHz) and 2483.5–2500 MHz

(2.4 GHz) bands for geostationary orbit

(GSO) and non-geostationary orbit (lowEarth orbit or LEO) mobile-satellite

service (MSS) use, and clarifies that the

Commission made no finding in that

decision as to whether both types of

systems would be authorized. We also

clarify the meaning of international

footnotes RR753F and RR731E, but defer

to the International Telecommunication

Union (ITU) 1995 World

Radiocommunications Conference

(WRC–95) action on modification of

these footnotes. Finally, we note that we

will explore with the National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration (NTIA) the possibility of

Government or shared Government/nonGovernment bands being made available

to assist in satisfying MSS/

radiodetermination satellite service

(RDSS) feeder link requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ray LaForge, Office of Engineering and

Technology, telephone (202) 739–0598.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order in ET

Docket No. 92–28 adopted on February

24, 1995 and released on March 20,

1995. The complete text of this

Memorandum Opinion and Order is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Public Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20554. The complete text of this

Memorandum Opinion and Order also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s duplication contractor,

International Transcription Service,

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

Washington DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

Summary of Memorandum Opinion

and Order

1. In the R&O, (See ET Docket No. 92–

28, 9 FCC Rcd 536, 59 FR 9413 (1993))

we allocated the 1.6 and 2.4 GHz bands

for LEO and GSO MSS on a primary

basis. We stated that this allocation

supports the growing demand for

mobile communications, permits the

introduction of new satellite services,

and conforms to the 1992 World

Administrative Radio Conference

(WARC–92) spectrum allocation for

these bands.

2. On March 30, 1994, Loral

Qualcomm Satellite Services, Inc.

(LQSS) filed a Petition for Clarification

and Partial Reconsideration of the R&O

requesting that the Commission (1)

clarify that the R&O was intended only

to allocate spectrum for MSS but did not

establish eligibility requirements for

MSS licensees; (2) increase the power

flux density (PFD) values in RR753F

and clarify that these values represent

thresholds that determine when

coordination with terrestrial users is

required, rather than absolute limits; (3)

modify RR731E to apply a ¥15 dBW/4

kHz EIRP limit to all MSS uplinks and

eliminate the requirement for protection

of aeronautical radionavigation systems;

and (4) identify spectrum below 15 GHz

that can be used for MSS feeder links.

3. We concur with LQSS that the R&O

made no finding on the desirability of

LEO versus GSO systems. In the Notice

of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) (see

ET Docket 92–28, 7 FCC Rcd 6414, 57

FR 43434 (September 21, 1992)) we

proposed to require MSS systems

licensed in the 1.6 and 2.4 GHz bands

to operate in non-geostationary orbits.

The R&O did not make any

determination of this issue. However,

the recent Report and Order in the

service rules proceeding decided this

issue in favor of LEO satellite systems.

See CC Docket No. 92–166, 9 FCC Rcd

5936, 59 FR 53294 (1994).

4. Further in regard to footnote

RR753F, in the R&O, we concluded that

the international footnotes adopted for

the 1.6 and 2.4 GHz bands by WARC–

92 were intended to form the basis for

international notification and

coordination of various satellite

systems, and to ensure that new and

existing systems are afforded protection

from harmful interference. We therefore

adopted footnote RR753F domestically.

While the PFD values prescribed by

RR753F may be viewed by LQSS as

excessively conservative, we believe

that the proper forum for modifying

these values is WRC–95. However, we

concur with LQSS and commenting

parties that these values were not

intended as absolute limits. We thus

clarify that the PFD values prescribed by

RR753F are coordination thresholds that

may be exceeded with the consent of all

affected parties.