Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9211

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action converting EPA’s conditional

approval of revisions to the Delaware

SIP for NSR to a full approval must be

filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

April 9, 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, Nitrogen dioxide,

VOCs, Ozone.

Dated: January 17, 2001.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 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 I—Delaware

2. In § 52.420, the table in paragraph

(c) is amended by revising entries 1 and

2 under Regulation 25 to read as

follows:

§ 52.420 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE DELAWARE SIP

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Comments

*******

Regulation 25 Requirements for preconstruction review.

Section 1 ................... General provisions ......... 1/1/93 (as revised 5/

11/99).

[2/7/01 and FR cite] Excluding § 1.2, 1.6, 1.9(L), 1.9(M),

1.9(N), 1.9(O) which relate to Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

Section 2 ................... Emission offset provisions.1/1/93 (as revised 5/

11/99).

[2/7/01 and FR cite].

*******

3. In § 52.424, paragraph (c) is

removed and reserved.

[FR Doc. 01–3158 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS–50638A; FRL–6769–7]

RIN 2070–AB27

Significant New Uses of Certain

Chemical Substances; Delay of

Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Rule; Delay of Effective

Date.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

memorandum of January 20, 2001, from

the Assistant to the President and Chief

of Staff, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Review

Plan,’’ published in the Federal Register

on January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7701), this

action temporarily delays for 60 days

the effective date of the rule entitled

‘‘Significant New Uses of Certain

Chemical Substances; Direct Final

Rule,’’ published in the Federal Register

on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81386)

(FRL–6592–8). That rule concerns EPA’s

promulgation of significant new use

rules (SNURs) under section 5(a)(2) of

the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA) for 40 chemical substances

which were the subject of

premanufacture notices (PMNs) and

subject to TSCA section 5(e) consent

orders issued by EPA.

DATES: The new effective date of the

Significant New Uses of Certain

Chemical Substances; Direct Final Rule,

amending 40 CFR part 721 published in

the Federal Register on December 26,

2000 at 65 FR 81386 (FRL–6592–8),

from February 26, 2001, to a new

effective date of April 27, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Alwood, Chemical Control

Division (7405), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone number: (202) 260–1857; email address: alwood.jim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To the

extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this

action, it is exempt from notice and

comment because it constitutes a rule of

procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).

Alternatively, the Agency’s

implementation of this action without

opportunity for public comment,

effective immediately upon publication

today in the Federal Register, is based

on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). Seeking public

comment is impracticable, unnecessary

and contrary to the public interest. The

temporary 60–day delay in effective

date is necessary to give Agency

officials the opportunity for further

review and consideration of new

regulations, consistent with the

Assistant to the President’s

memorandum of January 20, 2001.

Given the imminence of the effective

date, seeking prior public comment on

this temporary delay would have been

impractical, as well as contrary to the

public interest in the orderly

promulgation and implementation of

regulations. The imminence of the

effective date is also good cause for

making this rule immediately effective

upon publication.

9212 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: February 1, 2001.

David Kling,

Acting Director, Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 01–3181 Filed 2–6–01 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 95

[WT Docket No. 98–169; FCC 00–411]

Regulatory Flexibility in the 218–219

MHz Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document the

Commission denies seven petitions for

reconsideration and affirms the 218–219

MHz Order which modified the

regulations governing the licensing of

the 218–219 MHz Service (formerly

known as the Interactive Video and Data

Service (‘‘IVDS’’)) to maximize the

efficient and effective use of the band.

The petitions fall into four general

categories. The first category includes

requests to change the options available

under the 218–219 MHz service,

restructuring plan. The second category

includes requests to expand the

definition of entities eligible to

participate in the 218–219 MHz service,

restructuring plan. The third category

consists of miscellaneous requests

relating to the 218–218 MHz Service

restructuring plan. The fourth category

consists of requests to expand the

remedial bidding credit to all current

and former licensees. Additionally, the

item makes several technical

modifications to conform the rules to

the 218–219 MHz Order.

DATES: Effective April 9, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrea Kelly, Auctions and Industry

Analysis Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)

418–0660.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of a Second Order on

Reconsideration of the Report and Order

and Memorandum Opinion and Order

(Order) in WT Docket No. 98–169,

adopted on November 22, 2000, and

released on December 13, 2000. The

complete text of the Order is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room CY–A257), 445

12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. It may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 445 12th Street, SW,

Room CY–B400, Washington, DC 20554,

(202) 314–3070. The Order is also

available on the Internet at the

Commission’s web site: http://

www.fcc.gov/wtb/documents.html.

I. Introduction

1. On September 10, 1999, the Federal

Communications Commission

(‘‘Commission’’) issued the 218–219

MHz Order, which modified the

regulations governing the licensing of

the 218–219 MHz Service (formerly

known as the Interactive Video and Data

Service (‘‘IVDS’’)) to maximize the

efficient and effective use of the band.

See 64 FR 59656 (November 3, 1999).

The 218–219 MHz Order, among other

things, modified service and technical

rules for the band and extended the

license term from five to ten years,

eliminated the three- and five-year

construction benchmarks, and adopted a

‘‘substantial service’’ analysis to be

assessed at the expiration of the 218–

219 MHz license term as a condition of

renewal. The Commission also adopted

a restructuring plan for existing

licensees that had participated in the

installment payment program and that:

(i) Were current in installment

payments as of March 16, 1998; (ii) were

less than ninety days delinquent on the

last payment due before March 16, 1998;

or (iii) had properly filed grace period

requests under the former installment

payment rules (‘‘Eligible Licensees’’).

Those licensees that had paid in full are

not eligible to participate in the

restructuring plan as they no longer owe

a debt to the Commission and no public

policy goal would be served by allowing

them to participate. Pursuant to the

restructuring plan, Eligible Licensees

must make elections on a per license

basis, choosing among three options: (i)

Reamortization and Resumption of

Payments; (ii) Amnesty; or (iii)

Prepayment (Prepayment-Retain or

Prepayment-Return). If an Eligible

Licensee elects Reamortization and

Resumption of Payments the licensee

retains one or more of its licenses and

remains in the installment payment

plan. The loan will be ‘‘reamortized’’

over the remaining term of the license.

If an Eligible Licensee elects Amnesty

its license is returned to the

Commission in exchange for debt

forgiveness of the outstanding principal

balance and all interest payments due

thereon. The Commission retains the

down payment. If an Eligible Licensee

elects Prepayment it may return or

retain as many licenses as it wishes. The

Prepayment option applies to all of the

licenses held by a licensee and cannot

be combined with Amnesty or

Reamortization/Resumption.

2. ‘‘Ineligible Entities’’ are those

entities that made first and second

down payments and: (i) Made some

installment payments, but were not

current in their installment payments as

of March 16, 1998, and did not have a

grace period request on file in

conformance with the former

installment payment rules; or (ii) never

made any installment payments and did

not have a timely filed grace period

request on file, in conformance with the

former rules. See 47 CFR 95.816 (d)(3)

(1994). Ineligible Entities are not eligible

to make elections, but will be granted

debt forgiveness for any outstanding

balances owed and have previously paid

installment payments refunded.

3. On November 24, 1999, on our own

motion, we adopted the 218–219 MHz

Reconsideration Order, 64 FR 72956

(December 29, 1999), which modified

our 218–219 MHz Order. We eliminated

the provision allowing an Eligible

Licensee electing the Amnesty option to

obtain a credit for seventy percent of its

down payment and forego, for a period

of two years from the start date of the

next auction of the 218–219 MHz

Service, eligibility to reacquire the

surrendered licenses through either

auction or any secondary market

transaction.

4. In response to the rulings in the

218–219 MHz Order, we received seven

petitions for reconsideration, one

opposition to the petitions, and no

replies. We note that we did not receive

any petitions for reconsideration in

response to our sua sponte 218–219

MHz Reconsideration Order. After

considering the arguments raised in the

filings, we affirm the 218–219 MHz

Order, as modified by the 218–219 MHz

Reconsideration Order, in its entirety.

Additionally, we respond to certain

requests for clarification contained in

the filings and we make technical

modifications to the rules.

II. Executive Summary

5. The following is a synopsis of the

major actions we adopt. In this Second

Order on Reconsideration of the Report

and Order and Memorandum Opinion

and Order, we:

(i) Affirm that the restructuring plan

is limited to existing licensees that: (i)

Were current in installment payments as

of March 16, 1998; (ii) were less than

ninety days delinquent on the last

payment due before March 16, 1998; or

(iii) had properly filed grace period

requests under the former installment

payment rules;