32398 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the State’s program for receiving

delegation of section 112 standards that

are unchanged from Federal standards

as promulgated. This program for

delegations only applies to sources

covered by the part 70 program.

As outlined in subpart II.A.4.b., EPA

is also proposing to grant approval of

Michigan’s preconstruction permit

program, found in R 336.1201, under

the authority of title V and part 70

solely for the purpose of implementing

section 112(g) to the extent necessary

during the transition period between

promulgation of the Federal section

112(g) rule and adoption of any

necessary State rules to implement

EPA’s section 112(g) regulations. The

EPA proposes to limit the duration of

this approval to 18 months following

promulgation by EPA of section 112(g)

regulations, to provide Michigan

adequate time to adopt any necessary

regulations consistent with the Federal

requirements.

C. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

If EPA were to finalize this proposed

interim approval, it would extend for 2

years following the effective date of

final interim approval, and could not be

renewed. During the interim approval

period, Michigan would be protected

from sanctions, and EPA would not be

obligated to promulgate, administer and

enforce a Federal permits program for

the State. Permits issued under a

program with interim approval have full

standing with respect to part 70, and the

1-year time period for submittal of

permit applications by subject sources

begins upon the effective date of interim

approval, as does the 3-year time period

for processing the initial permit

applications.

Following final interim approval, if

the State failed to submit a complete

corrective program for full approval by

the date 6 months before expiration of

the interim approval, EPA would start

an 18-month clock for mandatory

sanctions. If the State then failed to

submit a corrective program that EPA

found complete before the expiration of

that 18-month period, EPA would be

required to apply one of the sanctions

in section 179(b) of the Act, which

would remain in effect until EPA

determined that the State had corrected

the deficiency by submitting a complete

corrective program. Moreover, if the

Administrator found a lack of good faith

on the part of the State, both sanctions

under section 179(b) would apply after

the expiration of the 18-month period

until the Administrator determined that

the State had come into compliance. In

any case, if, 6 months after application

of the first sanction, the State still had

not submitted a corrective program that

EPA found complete, a second sanction

would be required.

If, following final interim approval,

EPA were to disapprove the State’s

complete corrective program, EPA

would be required to apply one of the

section 179(b) sanctions on the date 18

months after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless prior to that date the

State had submitted a revised program

and EPA had determined that it

corrected the deficiencies that prompted

the disapproval. Moreover, if the

Administrator found a lack of good faith

on the part of the State, both sanctions

under section 179(b) would apply after

the expiration of the 18-month period

until the Administrator determined that

the State had come into compliance. In

all cases, if, 6 months after EPA applied

the first sanction, the State had not

submitted a revised program that EPA

had determined corrected the

deficiencies that prompted disapproval,

a second sanction would be required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after the end of an interim approval

period if a State has not timely

submitted a complete corrective

program or EPA has disapproved a

submitted corrective program.

Moreover, if EPA has not granted full

approval to a State program by the

expiration of an interim approval and

that expiration occurs after November

15, 1995, EPA must promulgate,

administer and enforce a Federal

permits program for that State upon

interim approval expiration.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed interim

approval. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed interim approval are

contained in an informal docket

maintained at the EPA Regional Office.

This docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

proposed interim approval. The

principal purposes of this docket are:

(1) to allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

approval process, and

(2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by July 24,

1996.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into

law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may 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, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed action promulgated today

does not include a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: June 13, 1996.

Margaret McCue,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–15886 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32399

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 25

[IB Docket No. 96–111; CC Docket No. 93–

23; FCC 96–210]

Satellite Application and Licensing

Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed Rules.

SUMMARY: The Commission has

proposed a uniform legal framework

permitting users in the United States

greater access to satellites licensed by

other countries. In so doing, the

Commission proposes to collect certain

legal, financial, and technical

information from the applicant. The

Commission also proposes to eliminate

its license requirement for receive-only

earth stations in the fixed satellite

service operating with U.S.-licensed

space stations for the reception of

transmissions from foreign countries

and allow them to voluntarily register

their stations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 15, 1996; reply comments

must be submitted on or before August

16, 1996. Written comments by the

public on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due July 15,

1996. OMB’s Notice of Action on the

proposed and/or modified information

collections must be submitted no later

than August 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the Secretary, a

copy of any comments on the

information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the

Internet to dconway@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula Ford, International Bureau,

Satellite Policy Branch, (202) 418–0760;

Virginia Marshall, International Bureau,

Satellite Policy Branch, (202) 418–0778;

Kathleen Campbell, International

Bureau, Satellite Policy Branch (202)

418–0753. For additional information

concerning the information collection

contained in this NPRM contact Dorothy

Conway at (202) 418–0217, or via the

Internet at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket No.

96–111; CC Docket No. 93–23; FCC 96–

210, adopted May 9, 1996 and released

May 14, 1996. The complete text of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., and

also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.

This NPRM contains proposed or

modified information collections subject

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Pub. L. No. 104–13 (PRA). It has been

submitted to the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) for review under the

PRA. OMB, the general public, and

other Federal agencies are invited to

comment on the proposed or modified

information collections contained in

this proceeding. Comments are

requested on all aspects of the

proposals. Public and agency comments

are due at the same time as other

comments on this NPRM; OMB

notification of action is due no later

than August 23, 1996. Comments should

address: (a) Whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Commission, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

Commission’s burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information collected; and

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Title: Amendment of the

Commission’s Regulatory Policies to

Allow Non-U.S.-Licensed Space

Stations to Provide Domestic and

International Satellite Service in the

United States and Amendment of

§ 25.131 of the Commission’s rules and

regulations to Eliminate the Licensing

Requirement for Certain International

Receive-Only Earth Stations.

Form No.: FCC Form 312.

Type of Review: Revision of existing

collections.

Respondents: Businesses or other for

profit, including small businesses.

Number of Respondents: 800.

Estimated Time Per Response: The

Commission estimates all respondents

will hire an attorney or legal assistant to

complete the form. The time to retain

these services is 2 hours per respondent.

Total Annual Burden: 1,600 hours.

Estimated Costs Per Respondent:

$900. This includes the charges for

hiring an attorney or legal assistant @

150 an hour to complete the application.

The estimated time to complete the form

is 6 hours per response.

Needs and Uses: In accordance with

the Communications Act, the

information collected will be used by

the Commission in evaluating U.S.-

licensed earth stations applications

requesting authority to operate with

space stations licensed by other

administrations. The information will

be used to determine the legal,

technical, and financial ability of the

non-U.S. licensed space station to serve

the United States and will assist the

Commission in determining whether

such authorization is in the public

interest.

As required by section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the expected impact on small entities

of the proposals suggested in this

document.

Summary of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. The Commission has long pursued

a procompetitive policy that relies on

the entry of as many independent

service providers as possible. In keeping

with this policy, we recently allowed

foreign carriers to enter the U.S.

telecommunications market to provide

international common carrier service if

effective competitive opportunities exist

for U.S. carriers in the destination

markets of dominant foreign carriers

seeking to enter the U.S. market. See

Market Entry and Regulation of ForeignAffiliated Entities, 11 FCC Rcd. 3873, 60

FR 67332 (December 29, 1995). We also

eliminated the distinction between

domestic and international fixed

satellite services over U.S.-licensed

satellite systems allowing U.S. satellite

systems to provide domestic and/or

international service. See Amendment

of Commission’s Regulatory policies

governing Domestic Fixed Satellites and

Separate International Satellite Systems,

11 FCC Rcd. 2429, 61 FR 09946 (March

12, 1996).

2. Similarly, this NPRM reflects the

Commission’s continued efforts to

promote competition in the U.S.

satellite services market which, in turn,

will increase service options, lower

prices, and improve quality. With this

NPRM, we propose a uniform

framework for evaluating applications

by users in the United States for

authority to access satellites licensed by

other countries. Under our proposed

rules, non-U.S.-licensed satellite

systems will be able to provide satellite

service to, from, and within the United
32400 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

States to the extent that foreign markets

allow effective competitive

opportunities for U.S. satellite systems

to provide analogous services. Our

proposal will facilitate much greater

access to non-U.S. satellites, thus

benefitting users within the United

States and will encourage foreign

governments to open their satellite

communications markets, thereby

enhancing competition in the global

market for satellite services.

3. In implementing this policy, we

will not require satellite systems already

licensed by other countries to obtain

space station licenses from the United

States. Rather, we propose to permit

these systems access to the U.S. market

by licensing earth stations to operate

with non-U.S. satellite systems as we

have done in the past. When reviewing

applications, the Commission proposes

to apply an ‘‘effective competitive

opportunities for satellites’’ or ‘‘ECOSat’’ test to determine whether the

entrance of a non-U.S. satellite system

will promote ‘‘effective competitive

opportunities’’ for U.S. satellites in

foreign markets. Under the ECO-Sat test,

the Commission will determine whether

there are any de jure or de facto barriers

that inhibit U.S. satellite systems from

providing services similar to those

requested by the non-U.S. satellite. The

Commission proposes to apply the ECOSat test to determine whether U.S. fixed

satellite systems have effective

competitive opportunities in: (1) The

licensing jurisdiction or ‘‘home market’’

of the foreign satellite system that seeks

to serve the United States; and (2) the

‘‘route market’’ the applicant seeks to

serve from the United States over the

non-U.S. satellite. When evaluating the

entrance of a foreign mobile satellite

system, we propose to apply a modified

version of the ECO-Sat test in which the

Commission would determine whether

some ‘‘critical mass’’ of foreign

countries, globally or regionally, are

open to U.S. satellite operators before

allowing a foreign mobile satellite

system to serve the United States.

4. We will also consider other public

interest factors which may dictate a

result different from that indicated by

applying the ECO-Sat test. We may

consider, with appropriate guidance

from the Executive Branch, other public

interest factors including national

security, law enforcement, foreign

policy, or trade issues. Issues of

spectrum availability and coordination

may also be considered.

5. The Commission proposes to apply

the ECO-Sat test and larger public

interest analysis when an intergovernmental organization such as

Inmarsat or Intelsat seeks to provide

U.S. domestic service and when

subsidiaries, affiliates, or successors of

an inter-governmental organization seek

access to the U.S. market. International

service from the U.S. is already being

provided to virtually every market in

the world by Intelsat and Inmarsat and

the Commission does not intend to

apply its rules retroactively. Thus, the

Commission proposes to continue

licensing international communications

over the Intelsat and Inmarsat systems

without applying the ECO-Sat test.

6. In addition, the Commission

proposes to retain the licensing

requirement for receive-only earth

stations in the fixed satellite service that

communicate with non-U.S. satellites.

Retaining the licensing requirement for

these earth stations ensures that the

related radio communications

conducted within the United States, are

consistent with U.S. competition and

spectrum management policies. Also,

we believe it is no longer necessary to

license receive-only earth stations

operating with U.S. satellite systems for

the reception of service from foreign

countries. Instead, we propose that they

be subject to a voluntary registration

process. Finally, in an attempt to

diminish regulatory burden and speed

processing, we propose to allow receiveonly earth station applicants operating

with U.S. or non-U.S. satellites to

request blanket authority to operate

multiple technically identical receiveonly earth stations.

7. To ensure that the non-U.S. systems

can provide service in a fast and

efficient manner, the Commission will

require certain legal, technical, and

financial information concerning the

non-U.S. system. Also, to prevent

interference to U.S. satellite systems and

to facilitate responsible spectrum

management in the United States, we

propose to require all non-U.S. satellite

systems serving the United States to

comply with the technical and reporting

requirements we impose on U.S.

satellite systems.

8. This proposal is likely to enhance

competition in the global

communication services marketplace,

prevent anticompetitive conduct in the

provision of satellite services, and

encourage foreign governments to open

their communications market.

Ordering Clauses

9. Accordingly, it is ordered that

pursuant to the authority contained in

sections 1, 4(i), 303, and 308 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303,

and 308, NPRM is hereby given of our

intent to adopt the policies and rules set

forth in this NPRM and that comment is

sought on all the proposals in this

NPRM.

10. It is further ordered that the

Secretary shall send a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

including the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, Pub. L. No. 96–354, 94

Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601 ET SEQ. (1981).

Administrative Matters

11. This is a non-restricted notice and

comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex

parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided they are disclosed as

provided in the Commission’s rules. See

generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and

1.1206(a). The Sunshine Agenda period

is the period of time that commences

with the release of public notice that a

matter has been placed on the Sunshine

Agenda and terminates when the

Commission (1) releases the text of a

decision or order in the matter; (2)

issues a public notice stating that the

matter has been deleted from the

Sunshine Agenda; or (3) issues a public

notice stating that the matter has been

returned to the staff for further

consideration, whichever occurs first.

47 CFR 1.1202(f). During the Sunshine

Agenda period, no presentations, ex

parte or otherwise, are permitted unless

specifically exempted. 47 CFR 1.1203.

12. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before July 15, 1996

and reply comments on or before

August 16, 1996. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

and five copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments send

additional copies to Office of the

Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

Comments and reply comments will be

available for public inspection during

regular business hours in the Federal

Communications Commission,

Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20554. For

further information concerning this

rulemaking contact Paula Ford at

(202)418–0760 or Virginia Marshall

(202)418–0778.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Statement

13. As required by section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared an Initial
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32401

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(‘‘IRFA’’) of the expected impact on

small entities of the proposals suggested

in this document. The IRFA is set forth

in Appendix A of the NPRM. Written

public comments are requested on the

IRFA. These comments must be filed in

accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the rest of the

NPRM, but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall

send a copy of this NPRM, including the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration in

accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law

No. 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq. (1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

Satellites

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Rule Changes

Part 25 of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations, Chapter I of Title 47 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 25—SATELLITE

COMMUNICATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 25

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 25.101 to 25.601 issued

under Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47

U.S.C. 154. Interpret or apply secs. 101–104,

76 Stat. 419–427; 47 U.S.C. 701–744; 47

U.S.C. 554.

2. Section 25.113 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(b) to read as follows:

§ 25.113 Construction permits.

* * * * *

(b) Construction permits are not

required for satellite earth stations that

operate with U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.-

licensed space stations. * * *

* * * * *

3. Section 25.115 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

§ 25.115 Applications for earth station

authorizations.

* * * * *

(c) Large Networks of Small Antennas

operating in the 12/14 GHz frequency

bands with U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.-

licensed satellites for domestic services.

* * *

* * * * *

4. Section 25.130 is amended by

revising the first sentence of paragraph

(d) to read as follows:

§ 25.130 Filing requirements for

transmitting earth stations.

* * * * *

(d) Transmissions of signals or

programming to non-U.S.-licensed

satellites, and to and/or from foreign

points by means of U.S.-licensed fixed

satellites may be subject to restrictions

as a result of international agreements or

treaties. * * *

* * * * *

5. Section 25.131 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b) and (j) to read as

follows:

§ 25.131 Filing requirements for receiveonly earth stations.

* * * * *

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (j)

of this section, receive-only earth

stations in the fixed-satellite service that

operate with U.S.-licensed satellites

may be registered with the Commission

in order to protect them from

interference from terrestrial microwave

stations in bands shared co-equally with

the fixed service in accordance with the

procedures of §§ 25.203 and 25.251–

25.256.

* * * * *

(j) Receive-only earth stations

operating with non-U.S.-licensed space

stations shall file an FCC Form 493

requesting a license or modification to

operate such station. Receive-only earth

stations used to receive INTELNET I

service from Intelsat space stations need

not file for licenses. See Deregulation of

Receive-Only Satellite Earth Stations

Operating with the INTELSAT Global

Communications Satellite System,

Declaratory Ruling, RM No. 4845, FCC

86–214 (released May 19, 1986).

6. Section 25.137 is added to read as

follows:

§ 25.137 Application requirements for

earth stations operating with non-U.S.-

licensed space stations.

(a) Earth stations requesting authority

to operate with a non-U.S.-licensed

space station to participate in the U.S.

satellite service market must attach an

exhibit with their FCC Form 493

application with information

demonstrating that U.S.-licensed

satellite systems have effective

competitive opportunities to provide

analogous services in:

(1) The country in which the nonU.S.-licensed space station is licensed;

and

(2) All countries in which

communications with the U.S. earth

station will originate or terminate. The

applicant bears the burden of showing

that there are no de jure or legal

constraints that limit or prevent access

of the U.S. satellite system in the

relevant foreign markets. The exhibit

required by this paragraph must also

include a statement of why grant of the

application is in the public interest.

(b) Earth stations requesting authority

to operate with a non-U.S.-licensed

space station must attach to their FCC

Form 493 an exhibit providing legal,

financial, and technical information for

the non-U.S.-licensed space station in

accordance with this Part 25 and Part

100 of this chapter. If the non-U.S.-

licensed space station is in orbit and

operating, the applicant need not

include the financial information.

(c) A non-U.S.-licensed satellite

system seeking to serve the United

States can be considered

contemporaneously with other U.S.

satellite systems if it is:

(1) In orbit and operating;

(2) Has a license from another

administration; or

(3) Has been submitted for

coordination to the International

Telecommunication Union and is

pursuing a license in another

administration.

[FR Doc. 96–15857 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

48 CFR Parts 1602, 1604, 1615, 1616,

1622, 1631, 1644, 1652, and 1653

RIN 3206–AH45

Federal Employees Health Benefits

Program Acquisition Regulation; Truth

in Negotiations Act and Related

Changes

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) is issuing a

proposed regulation that would amend

the Federal Employees Health Benefits

Acquisition Regulation (FEHBAR) to

implement those portions of the Federal

Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994

(FASA) that impact on the FEHB

Program.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

sent to Lucretia F. Myers, Assistant

Director for Insurance Programs,

Retirement and Insurance Service,

Office of Personnel Management, P.O.