Radio Broadcasting Services; Goldthwaite, TX, 26310-26311 [06-4120]

Download as PDF mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS 26310 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to affect the status of a geographical area, does not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid adopting or implementing other requirements, and VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 May 03, 2006 Jkt 208001 does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under the executive order. This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the SNP area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the Charleston area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 requirements, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April 24, 2006. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E6–6754 Filed 5–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06–849; MM Docket No. 01–154; RM– 10163] Radio Broadcasting Services; Goldthwaite, TX Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document dismisses an Application for Review filed by Charles Crawford directed to the Report and Order in this proceeding. With this action, the proceeding is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau (202) 418– 2177. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission’s Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 01–154, adopted April 12, 2006, and released April 14, 2006. The full text of this decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC’s Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission’s copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1– 800–378–3160 or https:// www.BCPIWEB.com. This document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. The Commission is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the proposed rule published at 66 FR 38410, July 24, 2001 is withdrawn. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM 04MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 86 / Thursday, May 4, 2006 / Proposed Rules Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 06–4120 Filed 5–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018–AT93 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis. AGENCY: SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) and the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. The draft economic analysis identifies potential costs of approximately $532 million over a 20year period, or approximately $47 million per year, as a result of the proposed designation of critical habitat, including those costs coextensive with listing. If this cost is annualized (adjusted for inflation and value over the time period to equate to an annual cost) over the 20 year period, the potential costs are predicted to be approximately $47 million per year. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record as part of this comment period, and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule. We will accept public comments until June 5, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any one of the following methods: 1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; mstockstill on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS DATES: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:42 May 03, 2006 Jkt 208001 2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address. 3. You may fax your comments to 916/414–6712; or 4. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to: alameda_whipsnake@fws.gov, or to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https:// www.regulations.gov. For directions on how to file comments electronically, see the ‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’ section. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by one of the alternate methods mentioned above. Copies of the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule for critical habitat designation are available on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/sacramento or from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office at the address and contact numbers above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Roessler, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address listed in ADDRESSES (telephone 916/414–6600; facsimile 916/414–6712). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Comments Solicited We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We solicit comments on the original proposed critical habitat designation (70 FR 60608; October 18, 2005) and on our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly interested in comments concerning: (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat, as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of including such area as part of critical habitat; (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Alameda whipsnake, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of this species and why; (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on proposed habitat; (4) Information on whether, and, if so, how many of, the State and local environmental protection measures referenced in the draft economic analysis were adopted largely as a result of the listing of the Alameda whipsnake, and how many were either already in place or enacted for other reasons; PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 26311 (5) Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies all State and local costs attributable to the proposed critical habitat designation, and information on any costs that have been inadvertently overlooked; (6) Information on whether the draft economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the designation of critical habitat; (7) Information on whether the draft economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat; (8) Information on areas that could potentially be disproportionately impacted by an Alameda whipsnake critical habitat designation. The draft economic analysis indicates potentially disproportionate impacts to areas within Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin, and Santa Clara counties. Based on this information, we are considering excluding portions of these areas from the final designation per our discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; (9) Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families; the reasons why our conclusion that the proposed designation of critical habitat will not result in a disproportionate effect to small businesses should or should not warrant further consideration; and other information that would indicate that the designation of critical habitat would or would not have any impacts on small entities or families; (10) Information on whether the draft economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation; and (11) Information on whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments. An area may be excluded from critical habitat if it is determined that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of including a particular area as critical habitat, unless the failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We may exclude an area from designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, national security, or any other relevant impact. All previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the October 18, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR 60608) need E:\FR\FM\04MYP1.SGM 04MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26310-26311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4120]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 06-849; MM Docket No. 01-154; RM-10163]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Goldthwaite, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document dismisses an Application for Review filed by 
Charles Crawford directed to the Report and Order in this proceeding. 
With this action, the proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau (202) 418-
2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order in MM Docket No. 01-154, adopted April 12, 
2006, and released April 14, 2006. The full text of this decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision 
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy 
and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or https://www.BCPIWEB.com. This 
document is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. The Commission 
is, therefore, not required to submit a copy of this Report and Order 
to GAO, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A), because the proposed rule published at 66 FR 38410, July 
24, 2001 is withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.


[[Page 26311]]


Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 06-4120 Filed 5-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.