3098 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

program. Consequently, EPA does not

view the change in roles of the SRB and

the MDNR Director as a transfer of

authorities between agencies under the

purview of 40 CFR 271.21(c).

The third comment made by NWF is

not related in any way to EO 1991–31.

The commenter suggested that

Michigan’s program has wrongfully

failed to eliminate the exemption for

municipal waste combustion ash

addressed in Chicago v. Environmental

Defense Fund, 114 S.Ct. 1588 (1994).

According to the commenter,

Michigan’s reorganized RCRA program

is therefore not in conformance with the

Federal RCRA program, and authority

for it should be withdrawn pursuant to

40 CFR 271.22. In the present matter,

EPA requested that Michigan submit

information to EPA pursuant to 40 CFR

271.21(d) on whether any revisions

occurred in Michigan’s Federally

authorized hazardous waste

management program as a result of EO

1991–31. EPA has not requested

information pertaining to any other

issues regarding Michigan’s hazardous

waste management program. Therefore,

EPA is limiting its review to the effects

of EO 1991–31.

EPA appreciates the comments

received on these matters, has

forwarded them to Michigan, and will

consider them in the context of EPA’s

ongoing oversight of Michigan’s

hazardous waste management program.

If, in the course of its ongoing oversight,

EPA determines that additional program

revisions have occurred, EPA will take

the appropriate steps as set forth at 40

CFR 271.21 to review and approve or

disapprove of the revisions.

C. Decision

I conclude that Michigan’s

application for final authorization meets

all of the statutory and regulatory

requirements established by RCRA.

Accordingly, Michigan is granted final

authorization to operate its hazardous

waste program as revised. Michigan

now has responsibility for permitting

treatment, storage, and disposal

facilities within its borders and carrying

out other aspects of the RCRA program

described in its revised program

application, subject to the limitations of

the HSWA. Michigan 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. Incorporation by Reference

EPA incorporates by reference

authorized State programs in 40 CFR

part 272 to provide notice to the public

of the scope of the authorized program

in each State. Incorporation by reference

of these revisions to the Michigan

program will be completed at a later

date.

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 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, nor will it

impose any new burdens on small

entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by any information request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

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: January 4, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–823 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Public Land Order 7110

[AK–932–1410–00; AA–6649]

Withdrawal of Public Lands for Atka

Village Selection; Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

SUMMARY: This order withdraws

approximately 13,968.61 acres of public

lands located within the Alaska

Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge or

the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife

Refuge, from all forms of appropriation

under the public land laws, including

the mining and mineral leasing laws,

pursuant to section 22(j)(2) of the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act. This

action also reserves the lands for

selection by the Atxam Corporation, the

village corporation for Atka. This

withdrawal is for a period of 120 days;

however, any lands selected shall

remain withdrawn by the order until

they are conveyed. Any lands described

herein that are not selected by the

corporation will remain withdrawn as

part of the Alaska Peninsula National

Wildlife Refuge or the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge, pursuant to

the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, and will be subject to

the terms and conditions of any

withdrawal of record.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue

A. Wolf, BLM Alaska State Office, 222

W. 7th Avenue, No. 13, Anchorage,

Alaska 99513–7599, 907–271–5477.

By virtue of the authority vested in

the Secretary of the Interior by Section

22(j)(2) of the Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1621(j)(2)

(1988), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the

following described public lands

located within the Alaska Peninsula

Wildlife Refuge or the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge, are hereby

withdrawn from all forms of

appropriation under the public land

laws, including the mining and mineral

leasing laws, and are hereby reserved for

selection under Section 12 of the Alaska

Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C.

1611 (1988), by the Atxam Corporation,

the village corporation for Atka:

Seward Meridian

T. 52 S., R. 72 W.,

Secs. 15 to 34, inclusive.

T. 75 S., R. 121 W.,

Secs. 28, 33, 34, and 35.

T. 76 S., R. 121 W.,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 3099

1Pub. L. No. 102–385, 106 Stat. 1460 section 19

(1992), amending Communications Act of 1934,

section 628.

Secs. 3 and 4.

T. 93 S., R. 177 W., (Unsurveyed)

Sec. 8.

T. 93 S., R. 179 W., (Unsurveyed)

Sec. 28.

The areas described aggregate

approximately 13,968.61 acres.

2. Prior to conveyance of any of the

lands withdrawn by this order, the

lands shall be subject to administration

by the Secretary of the Interior under

applicable laws and regulations, and his

authority to make contracts and to grant

leases, permits, rights-of-way, or

easements shall not be impaired by this

withdrawal.

3. This order constitutes final

withdrawal action by the Secretary of

the Interior under section 22(j)(2) of the

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43

U.S.C. 1621(j)(2) (1988), to make lands

available for selection by the Atxam

Corporation, to fulfill the entitlement of

the village for Atka under Section 12

and Section 14(a) of the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1611

and 1613 (1988).

4. This withdrawal will terminate 120

days from the effective date of this

order; provided, any lands selected shall

remain withdrawn pursuant to this

order until conveyed. Any lands

described in this order not selected by

the corporation shall remain withdrawn

as part of the Alaska Peninsula National

Wildlife Refuge or the Alaska Maritime

National Wildlife Refuge, pursuant to

Sections 302(1), 303(1) and 304(c) of the

Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 668(dd)

(1988); and will be subject to the terms

and conditions of any other withdrawal

of record.

5. It has been determined that this

action is not expected to have any

significant effect on subsistence uses

and needs pursuant to Section 810 of

the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 3120(c)

(1988) and this action is exempted from

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 note (1988), by

Section 910 of the Alaska National

Interest Lands Conservation Act, 43

U.S.C. 1638 (1988).

Dated: January 4, 1995.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 95–973 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–JA–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[MM Docket No. 92–265; FCC 94–326]

Cable Television Act of 1992—Program

Distribution and Carriage Agreements

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; Petition for

reconsideration; denial.

SUMMARY: In this Memorandum Opinion

and Order (MO&O) the Commission

denies a petition for reconsideration of

its rule that prohibits exclusive

programming contracts between cable

operators and satellite cable or satellite

broadcast programming vendors in

which a cable operator has an

attributable interest, in areas unserved

by cable. The rule was promulgated to

implement section 19 of the Cable

Television Consumer Protection and

Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable

Act). The Commission held that the rule

is a reasonable interpretation of the

1992 Cable Act and that there are other

provisions in the Act under which a

distributor can challenge a non-cable

distributor’s exclusive contract.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Markowitz or Maura Cantrill,

Cable Services Bureau, (202) 416–0800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commissions

Memorandum Opinion and Order

adopted December 15, 1994 and

released December 23, 1994. A synopsis

of the First Report and Order (First

R&O) that was reconsidered in the

MO&O may be found at 58 FR 27658

(May 11, 1993). This action will not add

or decrease the public reporting burden.

The full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and

copying during regular business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (room 239),

1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC.

The complete text of this decision also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s duplication contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and

Order

I. Introduction

1. By this action, the Commission

denies National Rural

Telecommunications Cooperative’s

(NRTC) petition for reconsideration of

the Commission’s rule implementing

section 628(c)(2)(C) of the Cable

Television Consumer Protection and

Competition Act of 1992 (1992 Cable

Act).1 The rule was adopted in the First

Report and Order in MM Docket 92–265

(First R&O), 8 FCC Rcd 3359 (1993); 58

FR 27658 (May 11, 1993).

2. The 1992 Cable Act amended the

Communications Act of 1934, in part, by

adding a new section 628. Section 628

is intended to foster the development of

competition to traditional cable systems

by providing greater access by

competing multichannel systems to

cable programming services. Section

628(b) of the 1992 Cable Act generally

prohibits ‘‘unfair’’ or ‘‘deceptive’’

practices the purpose or effect of which

is to prevent a distributor from

providing programming to subscribers

or consumers and section 628(c)

proscribes specific conduct that the

Commission shall prohibit in its rules.

The Act provides that the regulations

promulgated to implement section

628(c)(2)(C) must:

Prohibit practices, understandings,

arrangements, and activities, including

exclusive contracts for satellite cable

programming or satellite broadcast

programming between a cable operator and a

satellite cable programming vendor or

satellite broadcast programming vendor, that

prevent a multichannel video programming

distributor from obtaining such programming

from any satellite cable programming vendor

in which a cable operator has an attributable

interest or any satellite broadcast

programming vendor in which a cable

operator has an attributable interest for

distribution to persons in areas not served by

a cable operator as of the date of enactment

of this section.

Section 76.1002(c)(1) of the

Commission’s rules adopted in the First

R&O to implement this section of the

1992 Cable Act prohibits exclusive

contracts between cable operators and

vertically integrated programmers in

areas that are not served by cable

operators. NRTC filed a petition for

reconsideration of the First R&O,

requesting the Commission to amend its

implementing rule to include any

behavior of a vertically integrated

programmer that prevents any

distributor from obtaining programming

in areas not served by cable, and

specifically exclusive contracts for the

distribution of programming between

direct broadcast satellite (‘‘DBS’’)

distributors and vertically integrated

satellite cable programming vendors.

II. Background

3. The 1992 Cable Act and its

legislative history indicate that Congress