31554 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by July 12, 2001.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 13, 2001.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Sulfur oxides.

Dated: May 18, 2001.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 et seq.

Subpart KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(124) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(124) On November 9, 2000, Ohio

submitted Director’s Final Findings and

Orders revising sulfur dioxide emissions

regulations for the Lubrizol Corporation

facility in Lake County, Ohio. The

revisions include the adjustment of six

short-term emissions limits, the

addition of an annual emissions limit,

and the addition of a continuous

emissions monitoring system (CEMS).

These state implementation plan

revisions do not increase allowable

sulfur dioxide emissions.

(i) Incorporated by reference.

Emissions limits for the Lubrizol

Corporation facility in Lake County

contained in Director’s Final Findings

and Orders. The orders were effective

on November 2, 2000 and entered in the

Director’s Journal on November 9, 2000.

[FR Doc. 01–14608 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 242–0280a; FRL–6990–9]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay

Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve a revision to the

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the

control of emissions from Oxides of

Nitrogen ( NOX) and sulfur compounds.

We are approving a local rule that

regulates these emissions under the

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA

or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August

13, 2001 without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comments by July

12, 2001. If we receive such comment,

we will publish a timely withdrawal in

the Federal Register to notify the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revision and EPA’s

technical support document (TSD) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted SIP revision at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District, Rule Development,

24580 Silver Cloud Ct., Monterey, CA

93940–6536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rule revision?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action.

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. Public comment and final action.

III. Background information.

A. Why was this rule submitted?

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving

with the date that it was adopted by the

local air agency and submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB).

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted

MBUAPCD .................................. 404 Sulfur Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides ....................................... 03/22/00 05/26/00

On October 6, 2000, this rule

submittal was found to meet the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51

Appendix V, which must be met before

formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of this

Rule?

We approved a version of Rule 404

into the SIP on August 11, 1998.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rule Revision?

MBUAPCD submitted Rule 404,

Sulfur Compounds and Nitrogen

Oxides, includes the following

administrative changes from the current

SIP-approved rule:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31555

• Clarification of existing exemption

for electric power boilers.

• Incorporation of existing

exemptions for certain types of open

burning and agricultural operations

from District Rule 405, Exceptions.

• Update of the reference section to

incorporate related District Rules.

The TSD has more information about

this rule.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

Generally, SIP rules for SO2 and NO2

must be enforceable (see section 110(a)

of the Act) and must not relax existing

requirements (see sections 110(l) and

193). MBUAPCD is listed as being

attainment for the national ambient air

quality standards (see 40 CFR 81) for

SO2 and NO2. Therefore, for purposes of

controlling SO2 and NO2, Rule 404

needs only comply with the general

provisions of Section 110 of the Act.

Guidance and policy documents that

we used to define specific enforceability

requirements include the following:

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the

General Preamble; Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 Implementation of

Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX

Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November

25, 1992.

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;

Clarification to Appendix D of

November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of

availability published in the May 25,

1988 Federal Register.

3. ‘‘SO2 Guideline Document,’’ EPA–

452/R–94–008.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

We believe this rule is consistent with

the relevant policy and guidance

regarding enforceability and SIP

relaxations.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of

the Act, EPA is fully approving the

submitted rule because we believe it

fulfills all relevant requirements. We do

not think anyone will object to this

approval, so we are finalizing it without

proposing it in advance. However, in

the Proposed Rules section of this

Federal Register, we are simultaneously

proposing approval of the same

submitted rule. If we receive adverse

comments by July 12, 2001, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that the direct final approval will not

take effect and we will address the

comments in a subsequent final action

based on the proposal. If we do not

receive timely adverse comments, the

direct final approval will be effective

without further notice on August 13,

2001. This will incorporate this rule

into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

NOX helps produce ground-level

ozone, smog and particulate matter,

which harm human health and the

environment. Sulfur dioxide is formed

by the combustion of fuels containing

sulfur compounds and causes harm to

human health and the environment.

This rule is designed to reduce SO2 and

NO2 emissions.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

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.). Because this rule approves preexisting 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).

This rule also does not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it 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

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. 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

FR 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 FR

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. section 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 rule 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 of the rule 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. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by August 13, 2001.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

31556 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Jane Diamond,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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 et seq.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(279)(i)(B) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(279) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 404, Monterey Bay Unified

APCD, adopted on March 22, 2000.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–14606 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–60–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[ET Docket 99–231; FCC 01–158]

Spread Spectrum Devices; and WiLAN, Inc. Application

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document denies WiLAN’s Application for Review and

grants a waiver request for equipment

certification for Wi-LAN’s Wideband

Orthogonal Frequency Division

Multiplexing (W–OFDM) system and

similar systems that operate in the 2.4–

2.483 GHz band if they meeting the

existing rules for direct sequence spread

spectrum systems. We take this action to

serve the public interest.

DATES: Effective June 12, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neal

McNeil, Office of Engineering and

Technology, (202) 418–2408, TTY (202)

418–2989, e-mail: nmcneil@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making and

Order, ET Docket 99–231, FCC 01–158,

adopted May 10, 2001 and released May

11, 2001. The full text of this document

is available for inspection and copying

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–A257),

445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC

20554. The complete text of this

document also may be purchased from

the Commission’s duplication

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Summary of Order

1. Wi-LAN Application for Review.

On February 17, 2000, Wi-LAN filed an

application for equipment certification

for its Wideband Orthogonal Frequency

Division Multiplexing (W–OFDM)

transmitter under the rules for direct

sequence spread spectrum systems. The

Commission’s Office of Engineering and

Technology (‘‘OET’’) denied that

application on the basis that Wi-LAN’s

W–OFDM device did not meet the

definition of a direct sequence spread

spectrum system as set forth in § 2.1 of

the rules. Subsequently, OET denied

Wi-LAN’s Petition for Reconsideration

of that decision for the same reasons.

Wi-LAN filed an Application for Review

of the staff action. In this filing, Wi-LAN

argues that its device meets all the

technical requirements explicitly stated

in the rules for direct sequence spread

spectrum systems and should be granted

certification. We find that OET acted

properly in denying Wi-LAN’s

application for certification. In this

regard, we agree with OET that WiLAN’s W–OFDM device does not meet

the definition of a direct sequence

spread spectrum system as set forth in

§ 2.1 of the rules. The Wi-LAN system

does however, resemble a spread

spectrum system in its spectrum

characteristics. Notwithstanding our

finding that Wi-LAN’s W–OFDM system

is not a spread spectrum system as

defined in our rules, we find that it will

serve the public interest to allow grant

of equipment certification now for this

system and similar systems that operate

in the 2.4–2.483 GHz band if they meet

the existing rules for direct sequence

spread spectrum systems in 47 CFR

15.247(a), (b), (c), and (d), conditioned

on their compliance with any final rules

that may be adopted in this proceeding.

Accordingly, the Commission will

waive, on an interim basis, the

restriction of 47 CFR 15.247(a) that

limits operation pursuant to the

remaining portions of 47 CFR 15.247 to

frequency hopping and direct sequence

spread spectrum systems. We find that

there is good cause to waive the cited

rule during the pendency of this

proceeding because such devices have

generally the same emission mask as

currently authorized devices and thus

will not undermine the existing rules.

Digital modulation systems closely

resemble spread spectrum systems in

terms of their spectrum occupancy

characteristics, and therefore are not

likely to pose any increased risk of

interference over that posed by spread

spectrum systems. We believe that

compliance with the rules, which

address spectrum occupancy, power,

out-of-band emissions, and antennas,

will ensure that digital modulation

systems operating in the 2.4 GHz band

will operate with the same spectrum

occupancy characteristics as spread

spectrum systems. We also observe that

such systems appear to offer capabilities

in terms of broadband data transmission

capacity that are likely to make them

more desirable than traditional spread

spectrum systems for many users.

Allowing authorization of digital

modulation systems now will avoid the

delays otherwise imposed by our

rulemaking process and thereby

substantially speed the process for

implementation of these new system

designs. In this regard, our decision to

waive the restrictions which prevent

authorization of such systems reflects

our view that it is appropriate and

desirable to take steps wherever

possible to facilitate the timely and

efficient introduction of new

technologies and equipment, and

particularly those that will support the

development and deployment of

broadband infrastructure without threat

to incumbent operations and devices.

For the reasons indicated in this Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making and

Order (FNPRM and Order) that the

Commission released on May 11, 2001,

we believe that authorization of WiLAN’s device and other digital

modulation systems prior to our

adoption of final rules will not result in

harm to other radio operations.

Consistent with Wi-LAN’s application

for equipment certification, we will

require that any devices granted prior to

the adoption of new rules pursuant to

the provisions of paragraph 26 of the