29722 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

J. How Does Today’s Action Affect

Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 115) in

Maryland?

Maryland is not seeking authority to

operate the program on Indian lands,

since there are no Federally-recognized

Indian Lands in the State.

K. What Is Codification and Is EPA

Codifying Maryland’s Hazardous Waste

Program as Authorized in This Rule?

Codification is the process of placing

the State’s statutes and regulations that

comprise the State’s authorized

hazardous waste program into the Code

of Federal Regulations. We do this by

referencing the authorized State rules in

40 CFR part 272. We reserve the

amendment of 40 CFR 272, subpart V,

for this authorization of Maryland’s

program changes until a later date.

L. Administrative Requirements

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and,

therefore, this action is not subject to

review by OMB. This action authorizes

state requirements for the purpose of

RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, I certify that this

action 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.). Because this action authorizes

pre-existing requirements under state

law and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this action also

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of tribal governments,

as specified by Executive Order 13084

(63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This

action will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely authorizes state requirements as

part of the State RCRA hazardous waste

program without altering the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established by

RCRA. This action also is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant and it does not

make decisions based on environmental

health or safety risks.

Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a

State’s application for authorization as

long as the State meets the criteria

required by RCRA. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a State

authorization application, to require the

use of any particular voluntary

consensus standard in place of another

standard that otherwise satisfies the

requirements of RCRA. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

F.R. 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 F.R.

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the Attorney General’s

‘‘Supplemental Guidelines for the

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this document and

other required information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the United States prior to

publication in the Federal Register. A

major rule cannot take effect until 60

days after it is published in the Federal

Register. This action is not a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This

action will be effective July 31, 2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste

transportation, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: This action 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: January 17, 2001.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–13778 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 87, and 101

[WT Docket No. 99–327, FCC 01–151]

24 GHz Service; Licensing and

Operation

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document responds to

two petitions for reconsideration of a

previous decision to license the 24 GHz

band by Economic Area (EA). Both

petitions asked us to consider licensing

the 24.25–24.45 GHz and 25.05–25.25

GHz band (24 GHz band) by smaller

geographic areas, such as Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (MSA) and Rural

Statistical Areas (RSA). In this

document we deny these petitions

because we believe that licensing the 24

GHz band by EA not only offers

economies of scale, but also serves a

wider range of entities, including both

large and small service providers. We

further believe that our adoption of a

three-tiered approach to bidding credits

will enable small entities to participate

in the auction. Also, we believe that our

partitioning and disaggregation rules

will further assist small and rural

entities. This document terminates this

proceeding.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy M. Zaczek, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, Public

Safety and Private Wireless Division, at

(202) 418–7590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Order on

Reconsideration in WT Docket 99–327,

FCC 01–151, adopted May 2, 2001 and

released May 17, 2001. The full text is

also available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Information Center

(Courtyard level), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington DC 20554, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services (ITS Inc.), (202) 857–3800, 445

12th Street, SW., CY–B400, Washington

DC 20054. The full text of the Order on

Reconsideration may also be

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29723

downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/FCC–01–

151A1.doc.

Synopsis of Order on Reconsideration

1. This Order on Reconsideration

(Order) denies two petitions for

reconsideration of the Report and Order

in this proceeding (65 FR 59350,

October 5, 2000) regarding licensing the

24 GHz band by 176 EAs. In the Report

and Order, the Commission decided to

license the 24 GHz band by EAs because

EAs not only offer economies of scale,

but also serve the needs of a wider range

of entities, including both large and

small service providers. Also, the

Commission decided to adopt a threetiered approach to bidding credits,

under which very small businesses

receive a 35 percent bidding credit,

small businesses a 25 percent bidding

credit, and entrepreneurs a 15 percent

bidding credit.

2. The Rural Telecommunications

Group (RTG) and the Office of Advocacy

of the Small Business Administration

(SBA) filed petitions for reconsideration

objecting to licensing the 24 GHz band

by EA. SBA and RTG maintained that

EAs are too large and, therefore

unaffordable, for either small businesses

or rural telephone companies to

participate at auction. Both RTG and

SBA recommend that the Commission

instead license the 24 GHz band by

MSA and RSA, which are smaller than

EAs and would result in licensing rural

areas separately from urban areas. In

contrast, EAs encompass both urban and

rural areas.

3. Contrary to the position of RTG and

SBA on this issue, the Commission

believes, based on its experience with

the 39 GHz auction, that licensing the

24 GHz band by EAs will not discourage

small businesses from participating at

the 24 GHz auction. The 39 GHz auction

used EA-based service areas. In that

auction, small and very small

businesses successfully bid for 849

licenses, or almost 40 percent of the

licenses sold. In the 24 GHz auction,

bidding credits will be made available

to small businesses. Moreover, rural

telephone companies were successful at

the 39 GHz auction. All six qualified

bidders that identified themselves in

their short-form applications as rural

telephone companies were successful in

winning licenses, for a total of 52

licenses. We conclude that licensing the

24 GHz band by EA will not discourage

either small businesses or rural

telephone companies from participating

in the 24 GHz auction.

4. RTG and SBA maintain that the

Commission’s reliance on post-auction

partitioning and disaggregation is

misplaced and unworkable because of

the costs involved and the reluctance of

license holders to carve out portions of

their licenses for rural carriers. The

Commission notes that none of their

comments specifically relate to the 24

GHz band. Thus, the Commission

concludes that it is more appropriate to

address SBA’s and RTG’s concerns in

the context of the Secondary Markets

proceeding, initiated by our Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR 81475,

December 26, 2000) seeking comment

on possible changes to our rules and

policies allowing greater flexibility

through ‘‘spectrum leasing.’’

5. RTG maintains that licensing by EA

would guarantee that rural areas of the

country would not see the benefits of 24

GHz service because licensees would be

able to meet the substantial service

standard by serving the urban area

within the EA. Instead of the substantial

service standard, RTG recommends that

the Commission require licensees to

provide service to one-third of the

population within five years and twothirds of the population within ten

years. In the alternative, RTG

recommends the Commission adopt a

fill-in policy in which, at the time of

renewal, any party can apply for and

provide service to any area in which the

original licensee is not providing

service. The Commission has already

considered and rejected using minimum

coverage requirements to establish

substantial service, and RTG has

reiterated the position it took earlier in

the proceeding at the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking stage without presenting

any new information on this issue.

Consequently, the Commission affirms

its prior decision in the Report and

Order that the substantial service

standard, in lieu of specific service

requirements, best serves the public

interest. The Commission concludes

that this approach is consistent with the

approach used in other wireless services

and is sufficiently flexible to foster

expeditious development and

deployment of systems.

6. With regard to providing service to

rural areas, the Commission recognizes

that section 309(j)(4)(B) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1934, as

amended, stresses the need for the

Commission to encourage the rapid

deployment of services to rural areas

and to promulgate performance

requirements that ensure prompt

delivery of service to rural areas. In

addition, the Commission notes that the

statute includes ‘‘rural telephone

companies’’ among the wide variety of

applicants to which the Commission is

to disseminate licenses. The

Commission continues to believe,

however, that licensing the 24 GHz band

by EAs strikes the best balance among

its various policy objectives for the 24

GHz band. The Commission believes

that by adopting EA licenses for the 24

GHz band, it has achieved a means of

providing service to rural areas while

ensuring that the 24 GHz spectrum is

put to the highest and best use.

Ordering Clauses

7. Accordingly, It is Ordered that

pursuant to section 4(i) and 405 of the

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.

154(i), 405, and § 1.429 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the

Petitions for Reconsideration filed by

the Office of Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration and the Rural

Telecommunications Group are denied.

8. It is Further Ordered, pursuant to

section 4(i) of the Communications Act

of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), that the

Commission’s Consumer Information

Bureau, Reference Information Center,

Shall Send a copy of the Order on

Reconsideration to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration.

9. It is Further Ordered that this

proceeding Is Terminated.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–13717 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–1271, MM Docket No. 01–53, RM–

10040]

Television Broadcast Service;

Galesburg, IL

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Northwest Television, Inc.,

substitutes TV channel 53 for TV

channel 67 at Galesburg, Illinois. See 66

FR 12922, March 1, 2001. TV channel

53 can be allotted to Galesburg with a

zero offset in compliance with the

principle community coverage

requirements of Section 73.610 and with

the criteria set forth in the

Commission’s Public Notice released on

November 22, 1999, DA 99–2605. The

coordinates for channel 53 at Galesburg

are (41–18–45 N and 90–22–45 W.

With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

DATES: Effective July 9, 2001.