Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28763

some investor-owned or municipal

utilities) of participating in direct sales

or applying for written guarantees.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not provide for any

new collection of information and, in

fact, removes some information

requirements of the current regulations.

The removal of these requirements

reduces the estimated burden, as

compared to the burden under the

current regulations, by an average of

48.5 hours per IPP guarantee application

and 1.5 hours per direct sale application

for an overall burden reduction from the

original estimation of 4,850 hours.

These estimates include time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information. An Information

Collection Request document and

estimates of the public reporting burden

were prepared in connection with the

current regulations establishing the

direct sale and guarantee programs. 56

FR 65601.

Send comments regarding this

collection of analysis or any other

aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing the

burden, to Chief, Information Policy

Branch, EPA, 401 M Street, SW. (Mail

Code 2136), Washington, DC 20460; and

to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk

Officer for EPA.’’

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601, et seq., requires each federal

agency to consider potential impacts of

its regulations on small business

‘‘entities.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 604(a), an

agency issuing a notice of proposed

rulemaking must prepare and make

available for public comment a

regulatory flexibility analysis. Such an

analysis is not required if the head of an

agency certifies that a rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

In the preamble of the current

regulations establishing the direct sale

and guarantee programs, the

Administrator certified that those

regulations, including the provisions

revised by today’s final rule, would not

have a significant impact. 56 FR 65601.

The final rule revisions adopted today

are not significant enough to change the

economic impact addressed in that

preamble. Pursuant to the provisions of

5 U. S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that the

revised rule will not have a significant,

adverse impact on a substantial number

of small entities.

E. Miscellaneous

In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, issuance of this rule was preceded

by consultation with any appropriate

advisory committees, independent

experts, and federal departments and

agencies.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 73

Environmental protection, Acid rain,

Air pollution control, Electric utilities,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, and Sulfur dioxide.

Dated: May 24, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S.C. 7601 and 7651, et

seq.

2. Section 73.70 is amended by

revising table I of paragraph (a) as

follows: § 73.70 Auctions.

(a) * * *

TABLE I.—ALLOWANCE SCHEDULE FOR

AUCTIONS

Year of purchaseSpot

auction

Advance

auction

Advance

auction*

1993 .......... 50,000 a 100,000 b

1994 .......... 50,000 a 100,000 b 25,000 c

1995 .......... 50,000 a 100,000 b 25,000 c

1996 .......... 150,000 100,000 b 25,000 c

1997 .......... 150,000 125,000 b 25,000 c

1998 .......... 150,000 125,000 b

1999 .......... 150,000 125,000 b

2000 and

after ........ 125,000 125,000 b

a Not usable until 1995.

b Not usable until 7 years after purchase.

c Not usable until 6 years after purchase.

*These are unsold advance allowances from

the direct sale program for 1993, 1994, 1995,

and 1996 respectively.

* * * *

3. Section 73.72 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 73.72 Direct sales.

Allowances that were formerly part of

the direct sale program, which has been

terminated under § 73.73(b), will be

included in the annual allowance

auctions in accordance with § 73.70(a).

4. Sections 73.74, 73.75, 73.76, and

73.77 are removed from subpart E.

[FR Doc. 96–14114 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 80

[FRL–5513–3]

RIN 2060–AD55

Prohibition on Gasoline Containing

Lead or Lead Additives for Highway

Use

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA published a direct final

rule and an associated notice of

proposed rulemaking of the same title

on February 2, 1996 (61 FR 3832 and 61

FR 3894, respectively). Both actions

were to revise EPA regulations to reflect

the Clean Air Act’s statutory prohibition

of the introduction into commerce of

gasoline containing lead or lead

additives for use as a motor vehicle fuel

after December 31, 1995. EPA received

adverse comment on 40 CFR 80.24(b) as

published in both the direct final rule

and associated notice of proposed

rulemaking. In response to that

comment, EPA withdrew 40 CFR

80.24(b) from the direct final rule on

March 4, 1996 (61 FR 8221). All other

actions of the direct final rule became

effective on March 4, 1996. In today’s

action, EPA is finalizing the revised 40

CFR 80.24(b) based on the February 2,

1996 notice of proposed rulemaking.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become

effective on July 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

rulemaking and written comments on

the direct final rule and notice of

proposed rulemaking have been placed

in Public Docket No. A–95–13,

Waterside Mall (Room M–1500),

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket Section, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Documents may

be inspected between the hours of 8

a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged

for copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Babst, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air and

Radiation, (202) 233–9473.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Regulated Entities

Regulated categories and entities

potentially affected by this action

include:
28764 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1 This comment has been included in docket no.

A–95–13.

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ...................... Manufacturers of

motor vehicles.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could be potentially regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

entity is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the provision

at 40 CFR 80.24(b) dealing specifically

with specifications for fuel filler inlet

restrictors. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Introduction

A. Background

As amended in 1990, the Clean Air

Act prohibits the introduction of

gasoline containing lead or lead

additives into commerce for use as a

motor vehicle fuel after December 31,

1995. On February 2, 1996, EPA

published in the Federal Register a

direct final rule and associated notice of

proposed rulemaking revising its

regulations for consistency with this

Clean Air Act prohibition.

Among other actions, the direct final

rule and associated notice of proposed

rulemaking revised 40 CFR 80.24(b).

This paragraph had contained size

specifications for the gasoline tank filler

inlet of motor vehicles equipped with

an emission control device that would

be significantly impaired by the use of

leaded gasoline. The purpose of the tank

filler inlet restriction was to allow the

insertion of an unleaded gasoline pump

nozzle, but not a leaded gasoline pump

nozzle. Specifically, paragraph 80.24(b)

required that a manufacturer of motor

vehicles ‘‘equipped with an emission

control device which the Administrator

has determined will be significantly

impaired by the use of leaded gasoline’’

(per the former introductory language of

paragraph 80.24) shall ‘‘[m]anufacture

such vehicle with each gasoline tank

filler inlet having a restriction which

prevents the insertion of a nozzle with

a spout as described in § 80.22(f)(1) and

allows the insertion of a nozzle with a

spout as described in § 80.22(f)(2).’’

Section 80.22(f)(1), which was deleted

by the February 2, 1996 direct final rule,

specified that ‘‘[e]ach pump from which

leaded gasoline is introduced into motor

vehicles shall be equipped with a nozzle

spout having a terminal end with an

outside diameter of not less than 0.930

inch (2.363 centimeters).’’ Section

80.22(f)(2), which the February 2, 1996

direct final rule left intact, specifies that

‘‘[e]ach pump from which unleaded

gasoline is introduced into motor

vehicles shall be equipped with a nozzle

spout which meets the following

specifications: (I) The outside diameter

of the terminal end shall not be greater

than 0.840 inch (2.134 centimeters); (ii)

. . .’’

Paragraph 80.24(b) contained

additional specifications to prevent

misfueling of motor vehicles with

leaded gasoline. Section 80.24(b)(1)

required that the filler inlet restrictor

must ‘‘pool’’ gasoline at the restrictor’s

opening, if fueling is attempted when

the spout of a pump nozzle is not

inserted into the restrictor opening.

Historically, this has been accomplished

by a spring-loaded door on the inside of

the restrictor opening, which would be

pushed open by inserting the spout of

an unleaded gasoline nozzle. Since

leaded gasoline nozzle spouts are larger

than the inlet restrictor opening, they

would not fit into the restrictor opening

or push open the spring loaded door.

Fueling with leaded gasoline would

require the nozzle spout to be

positioned in front of the restrictor

opening and spring-loaded door. If

fueling were attempted in this manner,

the gasoline would pool at the restrictor

opening and cause the nozzle’s

automatic shut-off device to activate.

The related paragraph 80.24(b)(2)

exempted motorcycle manufacturers

from meeting the ‘‘pooling’’

requirements of paragraph 80.24(b)(1).

In the February 2, 1996 direct final

rule and associated notice of proposed

rulemaking, EPA removed various

portions of section 80.24, including the

introductory text, and modified section

80.24(b) to make the size requirements

of the tank filler inlet applicable to all

new motor vehicles, and not just to

those equipped with an emission

control device that would be

significantly impaired by the use of

leaded gasoline. EPA reasoned that

retaining the tank filler inlet restrictor

requirements would conform with the

statutory ban prohibiting the use of

gasoline containing lead or lead

additives as a motor vehicle fuel. The

restrictor requirements for motor

vehicles would match the nozzle size

requirement for dispensing unleaded

gasoline, which EPA had retained in

paragraph 80.22(f)(2). Further, General

Motors and several gasoline pump

nozzle manufacturers had requested that

the specification for the fuel filler inlet

size be retained so that automobile

equipment will continue to be

compatible with Stage II vapor recovery

pump nozzles. EPA simplified the

applicability language of paragraph

80.24(b) to refer to all motor vehicles,

instead of motor vehicles equipped with

an emission control device that would

be significantly impaired by the use of

leaded gasoline, because it thought that

all motor vehicles are currently

manufactured with tank filler inlet

restrictors. The agency did not intend to

broaden the applicability of 80.24(b).

In the February 2, 1996 direct final

rule and associated notice of proposed

rulemaking, EPA also removed sections

80.24(b)(1) and 80.24(b)(2). As stated in

the February 2, 1996 direct final rule

(see discussion of sections 80.24 and

80.22(d) and (e)), EPA believes

misfueling is unlikely, making the

paragraph 80.24(b)(1) ‘‘pooling’’

safeguard against misfueling

unnecessary. Once section 80.24(b)(1) is

removed, it is appropriate to remove

section 80.24(b)(2) as well, since

80.24(b)(2) exempts motorcycle

manufacturers from the requirements of

80.24(b)(1).

On February 22, 1996, EPA received

an adverse comment from Harley

Davidson, Inc. (Harley) on the revised

language of 40 CFR 80.24(b).1 In its

comment, Harley states that motorcycles

generally do not use emission control

devices that would be significantly

impaired by the use of leaded gasoline

(e.g., catalytic converters) and are

therefore not manufactured with tank

filler inlet restrictors matching the

requirements of the existing paragraph

80.24(b). The February 2, 1996 direct

final rule and associated notice of

proposed rulemaking would require

these motorcycles to meet the fuel inlet

size requirements of 40 CFR 80.24(b),

thereby causing additional economic

burden and manufacturing complexity

for Harley.

EPA did not intend or foresee that it

would be expanding the applicability of

80.24(b) by revising the applicability

language. Because of this adverse

comment, EPA published in the Federal

Register a ‘‘Partial Withdrawal of Direct

Final Rule’’ on March 4, 1996 (61 FR

8221). That action removed 40 CFR

80.24(b) from the direct final rule. All

other provisions of the direct final rule

became effective on March 4, 1996, as

planned.

In addition to the above issue, EPA

has determined that the version of 40

CFR 80.24(b) in the February 2, 1996

direct final rule and related notice of

proposed rulemaking inadvertently
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28765

2The phrase ‘‘leaded gasoline’’ in the former

introductory text is changed to ‘‘gasoline other than

unleaded gasoline’’, because the term ‘‘leaded

gasoline’’ has been deleted from the regulations.

This textual change does not change the scope of

the regulation, because the deleted term ‘‘leaded

gasoline’’ encompassed all gasoline which did not

qualify as unleaded gasoline.

3 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

4 Id. at section 3(f)(1)-(4).

tightened the specifications for the

motor vehicle fuel inlet restrictor. The

existing regulations at 40 CFR 80.24(b)

require that the restrictor must prevent

‘‘the insertion of a nozzle with a spout

as described in § 80.22(f)(1).’’ 40 CFR

80.22(f)(1) specified a nozzle spout

having a terminal end with an ‘‘outside

diameter of not less than 0.930 inch

(2.363 centimeters).’’ Because the

February 2, 1996 direct final rule and

associated notice of proposed

rulemaking deleted 40 CFR 80.22(f)(1),

the text of the proposed 40 CFR 80.24(b)

was changed. As proposed, 80.24(b)

would specify that the restrictor must

prevent the insertion of a nozzle of

‘‘greater size than prescribed in

§ 80.22(f)(2).’’ 40 CFR 80.22(f)(2)

specifies a spout terminal end having an

‘‘outside diameter . . . not . . . greater

than 0.840 inch (2.134 centimeters).’’

Thus, the proposed regulation would

require that the fuel inlet restrictor

prevent the insertion of a smallerdiameter nozzle spout than that allowed

in the existing regulation.

B. Statutory Authority

EPA promulgates this final rule

pursuant to its authority under Sections

211(c), 211(n), and 301(a) of the Clean

Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(c), 7545(n),

7601(a).

III. Description of Today’s Action

Today’s final rule revises 40 CFR

80.24(b) to complete the regulatory

revisions contemplated by the February

2, 1996 direct final rule. Those

regulatory revisions were rendered

incomplete by the March 4, 1996 (61 FR

8221) partial withdrawal of the direct

final rule.

Section 80.24(b)(1) and (2). As

proposed, this rule deletes section

80.24(b)(1) and 80.24(b)(2), because EPA

believes these ‘‘pooling’’ safeguards

against misfueling are no longer

necessary (see ‘‘Background’’ above).

Section 80.24(b). As finalized today,

40 CFR 80.24(b) differs from the

proposal in two respects. First, the text

of 40 CFR 80.24(b) has been changed

from the proposal to retain its previous

applicability. Specifically, EPA has

incorporated into the revised paragraph

80.24(b) the introductory text previously

contained in section 80.24 that

described which motor vehicle

manufacturers are subject to 80.24(b)

fuel inlet restrictor specifications.2

EPA has changed the proposed

language of 80.24(b) in this way to avoid

creating additional compliance burdens

for manufacturers of motorcycles and

other motor vehicles currently produced

without the fuel inlet restrictors. In its

February 2, 1996 notice of proposed

rulemaking, EPA proposed to expand

the requirement for fuel inlet restrictors

to all motor vehicles. EPA reasoned that

retaining the fuel inlet restrictor

requirement would conform with the

statutory ban, and did not realize that

some motor vehicles continue to be

produced without fuel inlet restrictors.

EPA therefore proposed to retain the

fuel inlet restrictor requirement and

simplify the applicability language to

refer to all motor vehicles.

After reviewing the comment

submitted by Harley, EPA now

recognizes that the proposed revisions

to the applicability language would

impose additional burden for motor

vehicles that are not required to have

the fuel inlet restrictor under the

previous regulations. The Agency

believes that expansion of the

applicability of the restrictor

requirement is not appropriate. The

economic burden of applying the

restrictor requirement to motorcycles

and any other motor vehicles not

previously subject to the requirement

outweighs the benefit of facilitating the

statutory ban by installing restrictors on

these vehicles.

Second, the text of 80.24(b) finalized

today has been changed from the

proposal to retain the size specifications

for the fuel inlet restrictor set forth in

the previous version of this regulation.

As explained above (see ‘‘Background’’),

that previous version referenced the

specification set forth in section

80.22(f)(1), which was deleted by the

February 2, 1996 direct final rule. The

proposed text of 80.24(b) failed to

incorporate the nozzle specification set

forth in deleted 80.22(f)(1). In today’s

final rule, EPA has incorporated the

nozzle specification contained in the

previous section 80.22(f)(1). EPA makes

this change to insure that the Agency

does not increase the burden of

complying with the fuel inlet restrictor

size specifications of section 80.24(b).

IV. Environmental Impact

This rule is expected to have no net

environmental impact.

V. Economic Impact

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Act), 5

U.S.C. 601–612, requires that Federal

Agencies examine the impacts of their

regulations on small entities. The Act

requires an Agency to prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis in

conjunction with notice and comment

rulemaking, unless the Agency head

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C.

605(b). The Administrator certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Because this rule deletes a

previous requirement and retains

another requirement without

substantive change, it is not expected to

result in any additional compliance cost

to regulated parties, and in fact, is

expected to reduce compliance cost to

regulated parties.

VI. Effective Date

This action will become effective on

July 8, 1996.

VII. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866,3 the

Agency must determine whether a

regulation is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more, or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local or tribal governments of

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof, or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in this Executive Order.4

It has been determined that this rule

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘UMRA’’), Pub. L. 104–4, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any general notice of

proposed rulemaking or final rule that

includes a Federal mandate which may
28766 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

result in estimated costs to State, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more. Under Section 205, for any rule

subject to Section 202 EPA generally

must select the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Under Section

203, before establishing any regulatory

requirements that may significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, EPA

must take steps to inform and advise

small governments of the requirements

and enable them to provide input.

EPA has determined that the final rule

promulgated today does not trigger the

requirements of UMRA. The rule does

not include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated annual costs to State,

local or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more, and it does not

establish regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments.

IX. Judicial Review

Because this action promulgates a

control or prohibition under Section 211

of the Clean Air Act and is nationally

applicable, under Section 307(b)(1) of

the Clean Air Act judicial review of this

action is available only by the filing of

a petition for review in the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit within

sixty days of publication of this action

in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

Environmental Protection, Air

Pollution Control, Fuel Additives,

Gasoline, Leaded Gasoline, Unleaded

Gasoline, and Motor Vehicle Pollution.

Dated: May 24, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS

AND FUEL ADDITIVES

1. The authority citation for part 80

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Section 114, 211 and 301(a) of

the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C.

7414, 7545, and 7601(a)).

2. Section 80.24 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 80.24 Controls applicable to motor

vehicle manufacturers.

* * * * *

(b) The manufacturer of any motor

vehicle equipped with an emission

control device which the Administrator

has determined will be significantly

impaired by the use of gasoline other

than unleaded gasoline shall

manufacture such vehicle with each

gasoline tank filler inlet having a

restriction which prevents the insertion

of a nozzle with a spout having a

terminal end with an outside diameter

of 0.930 inch (2.363 centimeters) or

more and allows the insertion of a

nozzle with a spout meeting the

specifications of § 80.22(f)(2).

[FR Doc. 96–14307 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[FCC 96–218]

Implementation of Section 403(l) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

(Silent Station Authorizations)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission is

implementing Section 403(l) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, which

provides for the accelerated expiration

of broadcast station licenses upon a

broadcast station’s failure to broadcast

for 12 consecutive months. The action is

necessary in order to conform the

Commission’s rules to section 403(l) of

the Telecommunications Act, and the

intended effect of the action is to

conform the rules to those statutory

provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Irene Bleiweiss, Mass Media Bureau,

Audio Services Division (202) 418–

2780.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Order (In

the Matter of Implementation of section

403(l) of the Telecommunications Act of

1996 (Silent Station Authorizations)),

adopted May 14, 1996, and released

May 17, 1996. The complete text of this

Order is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW, Washington,

DC, and also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, NW,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Order

1. This Order implements section

403(l) of the Telecommunications Act of

1996 (‘‘Telecom Act’’) [Pub. L. No. 104–

104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996)], which adopts

a new section 312(g) of the

Communications Act providing for

accelerated expiration of broadcast

station licenses upon failure to

broadcast for 12 consectuive months.

2. New Section 312(g) states:

If a broadcasting station fails to transmit

broadcast signals for any consecutive 12-

month period, then the station license

granted for the operation of that broadcast

station expires at the end of that period,

notwithstanding any provision, term, or

condition of the license to the contrary.

47 U.S.C. 312(g).

3. The Order provides that the first

date of such license expiration will be

February 9, 1997. The following

broadcast stations will be affected:

Commercial and noncommercial AM,

FM, and TV stations, International

Broadcast Stations, Low Power

Television Stations, FM and TV

Translator and Booster stations,

broadcast experimental stations, and

other classes of broadcast stations that

may be established in the future. With

the expiration of any AM, FM, or TV

broadcasting station license, the

licensee’s associated remote pickup and

auxiliary stations authorized in

connection with the operation of the

broadcast station would also necessarily

expire. A station’s other FCC

applications and authorizations will not

toll or extend the 12-month period,

notwithstanding any provision in any

authorization to the contrary.

4. Administrative Matters. We are

revising the rules as detailed below

without providing prior notice and an

opportunity for comment. We find that

notice and comment procedures are

unnecessary, and that this action

therefore falls within the ‘‘good cause’’

exception of the Administrative

Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’). See 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) (notice requirements

inapplicable ‘‘when the agency for good

cause * * * finds that notice and public

procedure thereon are impracticable,

unnecessary, or contrary to the public

interest’’). We further find for the same

reasons that good cause exists to make

the rule changes adopted herein

effective upon publication of this Order

in the Federal Register. See id. at

section 553(d)(3). The rule changes

adopted in this Order do not involve

discretionary action by the Commission.

Rather, they simply codify provisions of

the Telecom Act.

5. Effective Dates. The rules adopted

in the Order will become effective upon

publication in the Federal Register. The

‘‘clock’’ for periods of continued silence

triggering automatic expiration began to

run on the date of enactment of the

Telecom Act (February 8, 1996). The

first date of accelerated license