Radio Broadcasting Services; Kiowa, KS, 19447-19448 [E7-7289]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules TABLE 5.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION described in the Unfunded Mandates BUDGETS FOR COLUMBIANA, Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). MAHONING AND TRUMBULL Executive Order 13132: Federalism COUNTIES, OHIO This action also does not have Mahoning, Trumbull, and Columbiana Counties Ohio budgets Year 2009 Year 2018 VOC (tons/day) ..................... NOX (tons/day) ..................... 19.58 33.71 10.36 13.29 VII. What Action Is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Youngstown area is attainment the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and EPA is proposing to approve Ohio’s maintenance plan for assuring that the area will continue to attain this standard. The maintenance plan demonstrates maintenance to the year 2018 and includes contingency measures to remedy possible future violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establishes 2009 and 2018 MVEBs for these Counties. EPA is proposing to approve the 2018 MVEBs submitted by Ohio in conjunction with the redesignation request. VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 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.). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:14 Apr 17, 2007 Jkt 211001 Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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). Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ 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). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 19447 In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA do not apply. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds. 40 CFR Part 81 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Dated: April 6, 2007. Walter W. Kovalick, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E7–7352 Filed 4–17–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 07–1448, MB Docket No. 05–228; RM– 11255] Radio Broadcasting Services; Kiowa, KS Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document dismisses a pending petition for rulemaking filed by Charles Crawford to allot Channel 233A at Kiowa, Kansas for failure to state a continuing interest in the requested allotment. The document therefore terminates the proceeding. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen McLean, Media Bureau (202) 418–2738. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission’s Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05–228, adopted March 28, 2007, and released March 30, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM 18APP1 19448 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 18, 2007 / Proposed Rules business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be purchased from the Commission’s duplicating contractors, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–800–378–3160 or 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 Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. Section 801(a)(1)(A) because the proposed rule is dismissed). Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. E7–7289 Filed 4–17–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712–01–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 76 [MB Docket No. 07–51; FCC 07–32] Exclusive Service Contracts for Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate Developments Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission takes steps to encourage greater competition in the market for the delivery of multichannel video programming by soliciting comment on the use of exclusive contracts for the provision of video services to multiple dwelling units (‘‘MDUs’’) or other real estate developments. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the use of exclusive contracts in the MDU video provider market unreasonably impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal goals of enhanced multichannel video competition and accelerated broadband deployment and, if so, how the Commission should act to address that problem. DATES: Comments for this proceeding are due on or before June 18, 2007; reply comments are due on or before July 18, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 07–51, by any of the following methods: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:14 Apr 17, 2007 Jkt 211001 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission’s Web site: https:// www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 418–0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this proceeding, contact Holly Saurer, Holly.Saurer@fcc.gov of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418– 2120. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 07– 32, adopted on March 22, 2007, and released on March 27, 2007. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS (https://www.fcc.gov/ cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden ‘‘for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Summary of the NPRM of Proposed Rulemaking I. Introduction In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’), we solicit comment on the use of exclusive contracts for the provision of video services to multiple dwelling units (‘‘MDUs’’) or other real estate developments. Greater competition in the market for the delivery of multichannel video programming is one of the primary goals of Federal communications policy. Moreover, for many participants in the marketplace, the ability to offer video to consumers and the ability to deploy broadband networks rapidly are linked intrinsically. However, potential competitors seeking to enter the multichannel video programming distributor (‘‘MVPD’’) marketplace have alleged that the use of exclusive contracts for the provision of video services to MDUs or other real estate developments serves as a barrier to entry. Accordingly, this NPRM is designed to solicit comment on whether the use of exclusive contracts in the MDU video provider market unreasonably impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal goals of enhanced multichannel video competition and accelerated broadband deployment and, if so, how the Commission should act to address that problem. II. Background 1. In 1997, the Commission issued an NPRM regarding the use of exclusive access arrangements in MDUs. The Commission stated that exclusive service contracts between MDU owners and MVPDs could be considered procompetitive or anti-competitive, depending upon the circumstances involved. Commenters who were effectively prohibited from providing service due to the existence of exclusive contracts argued that those contracts were anti-competitive. Other commenters argued that exclusive contracts were necessary to enhance their ability to recover investment costs. In the corresponding Report and Order, the Commission declined to take any action regarding exclusive agreements, concluding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to determine the extent of use of such exclusive contracts, and whether or not such contracts had significantly impeded access by competitive providers into the MDU market. 2. We note that the Commission is considering MDU access with respect to other services. In the context of E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM 18APP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19447-19448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7289]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 07-1448, MB Docket No. 05-228; RM-11255]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Kiowa, KS

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; dismissal.

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

SUMMARY: This document dismisses a pending petition for rulemaking 
filed by Charles Crawford to allot Channel 233A at Kiowa, Kansas for 
failure to state a continuing interest in the requested allotment. The 
document therefore terminates the proceeding.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen McLean, Media Bureau (202) 418-
2738.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MB Docket No. 05-228, adopted March 28, 2007, and 
released March 30, 2007. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal

[[Page 19448]]

business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractors, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 
20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or 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 Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. Section 801(a)(1)(A) because the 
proposed rule is dismissed).

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. E7-7289 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.