Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May, 24, 2001 / Proposed Rules 28685

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to speak at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. If you wish to

meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment, you

may request a meeting by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings

will be open to the public and, if

possible, notices of meetings will be

posted at the locations listed under

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made a part of the

Administrative Record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory

Planning and Review

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12630—Takings

This rule does not have takings

implications. This determination is

based on the analysis performed for the

counterpart federal regulation.

Executive Order 13132—Federalism

This rule does not have federalism

implications. SMCRA delineates the

roles of the federal and state

governments with regard to the

regulation of surface coal mining and

reclamation operations. One of the

purposes of SMCRA is to ‘‘establish a

nationwide program to protect society

and the environment from the adverse

effects of surface coal mining

operations.’’ Section 503(a)(1) of

SMCRA requires that state laws

regulating surface coal mining and

reclamation operations be ‘‘in

accordance with’’ the requirements of

SMCRA, and section 503(a)(7) requires

that state programs contain rules and

regulations ‘‘consistent with’’

regulations issued by the Secretary

pursuant to SMCRA.

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice

Reform

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and

has determined that, to the extent

allowed by law, this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of state regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific state, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

30 CFR 730.11, 732.15, and

732.17(h)(10), decisions on proposed

state regulatory programs and program

amendments submitted by the states

must be based solely on a determination

of whether the submittal is consistent

with SMCRA and its implementing

federal regulations and whether the

other requirements of 30 CFR Parts 730,

731, and 732 have been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

Section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C.

1292(d)) provides that a decision on a

proposed state regulatory program

provision does not constitute a major

federal action within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). A determination has

been made that such decisions are

categorically excluded from the NEPA

process (516 DM 8.4.A).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by the Office of

Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The state submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the state. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart federal regulation.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule:

a. Does not have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million.

b. Will not cause a major increase in

costs or prices for consumers,

individual industries, federal, state, or

local government agencies, or

geographic regions.

c. Does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S. based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This determination is based upon the

fact that the state submittal which is the

subject of this rule is based upon

counterpart federal regulations for

which an analysis was prepared and a

determination made that the federal

regulation was not considered a major

rule.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 14, 2001.

Allen D. Klein,

Regional Director, Appalachian Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 01–13156 Filed 5–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 224–0279b; FRL–6982–7]

Revisions to the California and Arizona

State Implementation Plans, Antelope

Valley Air Pollution Control District

and Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the Antelope Valley Air

Pollution Control District (AVAPCD)

and Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department (MCESD) portions

of the respective California and Arizona

State Implementation Plans (SIPs).

These revisions concern volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

solvent cleaning operations and

automotive windshield washer fluid

use. We are proposing to approve local

rules to regulate these emission sources

under the Clean Air Act as amended in

1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal

must arrive by June 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

28686 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 101 / Thursday, May, 24, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted SIP revisions at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue,

Phoenix, AZ 85012.

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District, 43301 Division Street, Suite

206, Lancaster, CA 93539.

Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department, Air Quality

Division, 1001 North Central Avenue,

Suite 201, Phoenix, AZ 85004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (Air–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal addresses the following local

rules: AVAPCD 1171 and MCESD 344.

In the Rules and Regulations section of

this Federal Register, we are approving

these local rules in a direct final action

without prior proposal because we

believe these SIP revisions are not

controversial. If we receive adverse

comments, however, we will publish a

timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule and address the comments in

subsequent action based on this

proposed rule. We do not plan to open

a second comment period, so anyone

interested in commenting should do so

at this time. If we do not receive adverse

comments, no further activity is

planned. For further information, please

see the direct final action.

Dated: April 27, 2001.

Michael Schulz,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–13046 Filed 5–23–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 78

[ET Docket No. 01–75; FCC 01–92]

Revisions to Broadcast Auxiliary

Service Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document the

Commission conducts an extensive

review of the Broadcast Auxiliary

Services (BAS) rules and proposes

changes to create a more efficient BAS

that can readily adapt to regulatory and

technological changes. In addition, the

Commission examines the relationship

between BAS, the Cable Television

Relay Service (CARS), and the Fixed

Microwave Service. The Commission

also examines the use of wireless assist

video devices (WAVDs) on unused

television channels.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 25, 2001, and reply

comments on or before July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All filings must be sent to

the Commission’s Secretary, Magalie

Roman Salas, Office of Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

445 12th Street, SW., TW–A325,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ira

Keltz, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–0616.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No.

01–75, adopted March 16, 2001, and

released March 20, 2001. The complete

text of this Notice of Proposed Rule

Making is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,

DC, and also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street,

NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed

Rule Making

1. The Notice of Proposed Rule

Making conducts an extensive review of

the Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS)

rules and proposes changes to create a

more efficient BAS that can readily

adapt to regulatory and technological

changes. The Notice of Proposed Rule

Making also examines the relationships

between the BAS and the radio services

that share frequency bands with the

BAS. In many cases the BAS, the Cable

Television Relay Service (CARS) (part

78), and Fixed Microwave Services (FS)

(part 101) authorize technically and

operationally similar stations (i.e., they

use the same equipment,

channelization, bandwidth, etc.) in

shared frequency bands. The technical

rules for these services are not always

consistent, which, at times, has led to

confusion regarding compliance and

difficulties when licensees in different

services have tried to operate in

common geographic areas. Because we

believe that this issue must be

addressed to ensure that shared bands

are used as efficiently as possible, we

initiate this proceeding and again seek

comment on the best way to conform

the technical rules for these services.

2. One of our main goals is to ensure

that licensees can operate in an

environment in which the potential for

interference is minimized. Interference

protections are essential to spectrum

usage rights to prevent licensees from

unduly affecting other licensees in

terms of system operation or cost.

Nonetheless, we attempt to establish

rules that are no more restrictive than

necessary to achieve our goals in order

to provide maximum flexibility to our

licensees. Therefore, we seek comment

on the extent that commenters believe

our proposals or other portions of the

rules relevant to this proceeding are

more restrictive than necessary to

achieve our goals.

3. The significant proposals made by

this NPRM concerning BAS, as well as

CARS and FS operations that share

frequency bands with BAS, are as

follows:

• We propose to permit TV and aural

BAS stations to use any available digital

modulation techniques in all BAS

frequency bands. This proposal would

allow BAS stations to take advantage of

the latest developments in technology

and to smooth the transition to digital

TV and radio.

• We propose to update the BAS

emission masks to facilitate the

introduction of digital equipment and to

provide consistency with those used in

part 101.

• We propose to modify the equation

used by BAS and CARS for determining

the maximum effective isotropic

radiated power (EIRP) for short path

lengths. This proposal would eliminate

the steep reduction in EIRP for path

lengths shorter than the minimum for

which we permit the use of full power.

• We propose to allow BAS and

CARS stations to use automatic transmit

power control (ATPC) in order to

facilitate more efficient spectrum use.

• We propose to update the

transmitter power rules for BAS and

CARS to provide EIRP limits for all

frequency bands.

• We propose to require TV BAS and

CARS services to prior coordinate their

frequency use when using shared

frequency bands. This proposal would

serve to minimize instances of harmful

interference that occur when a new

station begins transmitting.

4. In addition, we make a variety of

proposals designed to update the BAS

rules. Our initiatives include instituting

temporary conditional authority for all