12920 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’

Under Section 6 of Executive Order

13132, we may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or we consult with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. We also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law, unless we consult with State and

local officials early in the process of

developing the proposed regulation.

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. The rule will

not 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. Today’s action

does not create a mandate on State, local

or tribal governments. The amendments

to the rule do not impose any new or

additional enforceable duties on these

entities. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that the EPA determines (1)

economically significant as defined

under E.O. 12866, and (2) the

environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule has a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. These

amendments to the State and Federal

operating permits program are not

subject to E.O. 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

because it is not an economically

significant regulatory action as defined

by E.O. 12866, and the amendments do

not address an environmental health or

safety risk that would have a

disproportionate effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, we

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If we comply by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires us to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separate

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of our

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires us to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ These amendments to

parts 70 and 71 do not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. The

amendments to the rule do not impose

any new or additional enforceable

duties on these entities. Accordingly,

the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this action.

J. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Under section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113

(March 7, 1996), we are required to use

voluntary consensus standards in its

regulatory and procurement activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, business

practices, etc.) which are adopted by

voluntary consensus standard bodies.

Where we do not use available and

potentially applicable voluntary

consensus standards, the NTTA requires

us to provide Congress, through OMB,

an explanation of the reasons for not

using such standards. This action does

not involve technical standards.

Therefore, we are not considering the

use of any voluntary consensus

standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 70 and

71

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 12, 2001.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 01–4976 Filed 2–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–445; MM Docket No. 99–233; RM–

9662 & RM–9828]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Graham,

TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: Graham Tollway Broadcasting

Company proposed the allotment of

Channel 253A at Graham, Texas. See 64

FR 36322, July 6, 1999. The proposal for

Graham has been withdrawn with no

other interest expressed in an allotment

at Graham. A counterproposal was filed

by North Texas Radio Group, L.P.,

proposing changes at Bridgeport,

Bonham, Palestine, Price, Range and

Stephenville, Texas and Ardmore,

Lawton, Tecumseh and Fort Towson,

Oklahoma (RM–9828). Although the

counterproposal was placed on public

notice, it was found to be technically

unacceptable and has been dismissed.

Therefore, the petition and

counterproposal have been dismissed,

with no action taken with respect to the

above-listed communities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 99–233,

adopted February 7, 2001, and released

February 16, 2001. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 12921

contractors, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–4919 Filed 2–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–398; MM Docket No. 01–47; RM–

10063]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Valley

Mills, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed by Valley Mills Radio Broadcasting

Company seeking the allotment of

Channel 237C2 at Valley Mills, TX, as

the community’s first local aural

service. Channel 237C2 can be allotted

to Valley Mills in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements with a site

restriction of 27.8 kilometers (17.3

miles) west, at coordinates 31–44–52

NL; 97–44–33 WL, to avoid a shortspacing to proposed Channel 236C2 at

Caldwell, TX.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 9, 2001, and reply

comments on or before April 24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Robert Lewis

Thompson, Taylor Thiemann & Aitkin,

L.C., 908 King Street, Suite 300,

Alexandria, VA 22314 (Counsel to

petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

01–47; adopted February 7, 2001 and

released February 16, 2001. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Information Center (Room

CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

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

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 73 as follows:

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Texas, is amended by

adding Valley Mills, Channel 237C2.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–4917 Filed 2–28–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–399; MM Docket No. 01–48; RM–

10062]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Junction

City, MO

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed by Bishop Community Radio, Inc.,

seeking the allotment of Channel 295A

to Junction City, MO, as its first local

aural service. Petitioner is requested to

provide a showing demonstrating that

Junction City possesses the customary

factors normally associated with

community status. Channel 295A can be

allotted to Junction City in compliance

with the Commission’s minimum

distance separation requirements with a

site restriction of 9.2 kilometers (5.7

miles) northeast, at coordinates 37–37–

33 NL; 90–12–18 WL, to avoid a shortspacing to Station KAUL, Channel

294A, Ellington, MO.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 9, 2001, and reply

comments on or before April 24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC. 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: Randall Eugene

Spence, President/CEO, Bishop

Community Radio, Inc., 5918 Fleming

Drive, Evansville, IN 47711 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

01–48; adopted February 7, 2001 and

released February 16, 2001. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Information Center (Room

CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

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

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 73 as follows: