Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 74/Friday, April 16, 2004/Rules and Regulations

reference: R 336.1802 Applicability under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 802; R 336.1803 Definitions for oxides ofnitrogenbudget trading program, Rule 803; R 336.1804 Retired unit exemption from oxides of nitrogen budget trading program, Rule 804; R 336.1805 Standard requirements ofoxides ofnitrogenbudget trading program, Rule 805; R 336.1806 Computation oftime under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program, Rule 806; R 336.1807 Authorized account representative under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 807; R 336.1808 Permit requirements under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 808; R 336.1809 Compliance certification under oxides ofnitrogenbudget trading program, Rule 809; R 336.1810 Allowance allocations under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 810; R 336.1811 New source set-aside under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 811; R 336.1812 Allowance tracking system and transfers under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 812; R 336.1813 Monitoring andreporting requirements under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 813; R 336.1814 Individual opt-ins under oxides of nitrogen budget trading program, Rule 814; R 336.1815 Allowance banking under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 815; R 336.1816 Compliance supplement pool under oxides ofnitrogen budget trading program, Rule 816; R 336.1817 Emission limitations and restrictions for Portland
cement kilns, Rule 817. These rules became effective in the State on December 4, 2002. (2) [Reserved] (b) [Reserved]

[FRDoc. 04-8451 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81 [CA 112-RECLAS, FRL-7648-8]

Clean AirAct Reclassification, San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area; California; Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to grant a request by the State ofCalifornia to voluntarily reclassify under the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "the Act") the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area ("SanJoaquin Valley Air Basin" or "SJVAB") from a severe to an extreme 1- hour ozone nonattainment area.

We are also taking final action to require the State to submitby November 15, 2004 an extreme area ozone plan for the areas within the SJVAB under the State'sjurisdiction that provides for the attainment ofthe ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard ("NAAQS") as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than November 15, 2010. This plan must meet the specific provisions ofCAA section 182(e). The State must also submit within 12 months ofthe effective date ofthis rule, revised Title V and New Source Review rules that reflect the
extreme area statutory requirements.

Once effective, this reclassification of the SJVAB terminates the federal offset sanction that was imposed on March 18, 2004 and also terminates the highway sanction and federal implementation plan clocks. The sanction and FIP clocks were started under CAA section 179(a) upon EPA's 2002 finding that the State failed to submit the statutorily required severe area attainment demonstration for the area. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on May 17, 2004.

ADDRESSES: EPAhas established a docketfor this action under Docket ID No. CA 112-RECLAS. Docket materials

are available in hard copy at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. The address is U.S. EPA Region IX-Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. This Regional Office is open from 8 am to 5pm, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Wampler, EPA Region IX, Air Division (AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, CA, 94105; telephone: (415) 972-3975; fax: (415) 947-3579; email: wampler.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, "we," "us" and "our" refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

OnFebruary 23, 2004 (69 FR 8126), EPA proposed to grant a request by the State ofCalifornia to voluntarily reclassify under Clean Air Act ("CAA") section 181(b)(3), the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area ("San Joaquin Valley Air Basin" or "SJVAB") from a severe to an extreme nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard.1, 2In addition, we proposed that the State submit, byno laterthan October 1, 2004, an extreme area plan addressing the requirements ofCAA section 182(e) and that the State submit revised New Source Reviewrules and TitleV program revisionsfor the areas within the District's jurisdiction within 12 months from the effective date ofthe final reclassification.

There are several Indian reservations located within the SJVAB. In our proposed action, we notedthat states typicallyhave nojurisdiction under the CAA in Indian country and that California has notbeen approved by EPAto administer any CAAprograms in Indian country. We also stated that, as
a matter ofEPA's federal implementation ofrelevant provisions ofthe CAA over Indian country within the SJVAB, we believe these areas of Indian country shouldbe reclassified to extreme. We contacted all seven tribes with reservations located within the SJVAB to inform them that we intend to include their reservations in the reclassification and to provide the tribes the opportunity for consultation. None ofthe seventribes we contacted requested consultation or submitted comments on our proposed action.

II.Public Comments andEPA Responses

EPA's proposed action provided a 30- day public comment period. During this period, we received three comment letters. 3 Our response immediately follows our summary ofeach comment letter.

Comment#1: On behalfofthe Association ofIrritated Residents ("AIR"), The Center on Race Poverty and The Environment requested thatEPA approve the State's reclassification request with a contingency that would allow us to rescind the extreme

1Letterfrom CatherineWitherspoon, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board ("CARB"),
to Mr. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated January 9, 2004. In the letter, CARB transmits to EPA and endorses SanJoaquin ValleyUnified Air Pollution Control District ("District") Resolution No. 03-12-10 requesting the reclassification.

2Inthe very near future, EPA expects to issue

new regulations to implement the 8-hour ozone standard. Atthat time we will be able to fully evaluate how the transition to the 8-hour standard willimpact existing requirements to implement the 1-hour ozone standard.

3OnApril 5, 2004,EPA received an additional
comment letterfrom ChevronTexaco dated March 25, 2004 and postmarked April 1. Although that letteris outsidethe comment period, EPA has decided to include itin the docket for this rule. ChevronTexaco makes the same comment as the Western States Petroleum Association ("WSPA") (discussedbelow) regarding additional time forthe District to submit required SIPrevisions and the
extreme area plan. 

### 20550Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 74/Friday, April 16, 2004/Rules and Regulations

classification and revert the SJVAB to a
severe nonattainment area ifthe California State Court ofAppeal invalidates the District Board resolution requesting the reclassification (#03-12- 10, December 18, 2003), or otherwise holds that the District violated State procedural law when itadopted the resolution. AIR added that the contingency should also restart any pending sanctions and FIP clocks and re-apply sanctions already in place. To justify their request, AIR cited their anticipated appeal ofthe State Superior Court decision.4

EPA Responseto Comment#1: EPA does not believe itis necessary to attach the contingency requested by AIRto the final reclassification ofthe SJVAB to extreme. In this instance, EPAis granting the January 9, 2004 request of the State under CAA section 181(b)(3) for avoluntary reclassification. In the
event that the State Court ofAppeal overturns the March 22, 2004 Kern County Superior Court's decision and invalidates the District Board's December 2003 resolution, State law would determine what effect, ifany, such a result would have on the State's reclassification request. EPA, in consultation with CARB, will evaluate the impact ofany State appellate decision on the reclassification and the pre-existing sanctions clocks and take any appropriate action, including rescission. Moreover, under the Administrative Procedure Act, any interested person canpetition EPA for the repeal ofany rule. 5U.S.C. 553(e). Comment#2:The District asked that the submittal date for the 1-hour extreme area ozone plan be delayed 45 days from the October 1, 2004 date we proposed to a new date ofNovember 15,
2004. 5

The District cited two reasons for needing additional time to submit the extreme area plan. First, the District statedthat continued model performance concerns for Central California Ozone Study ("CCOS") ozone episodes have delayed the availability of reliable model runs predicting year 2010

ozone levels for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Second, the District said they needed additional time to conduct their environmental review ofthe plan under the California Environmental Quality

4On March 22, 2004 the Kern County Superior Court denied AIR's Petition for Writ ofMandate and Complaint for Declaratory Reliefin Associationof Irritated Residents v.SanJoaquinValley Unified APCD,Case No. S-1500-CV 252128 KCT.

5The Districtalso stated that theycould meet our proposed schedule that they submit, through CARB, necessary revisions to their Title V and NSR rules within 12 months from the effective date ofthe final rule. Act ("CEQA"). While the District acknowledged uncertainty about the
extent ofthe CEQA review, they stated that the timing ofthe CEQA approval must be dovetailed with the plan adoption which would most likely

occur in August or September 2004, with CARB approval in October 2004.

EPA Responseto Comment#2:EPA understands from the District's comment letterthat the concerns regarding the modeling runs were resolved during the week ofMarch 22, 2004 and that, as a result,the requested November 15, 2004 submittal deadline

canbe met. We also acknowledge the desirability for the CEQA review and the plan adoption to be coordinated. Therefore, we believe that the additional 45 days soughtby the District for submittal ofthe extreme area plan to EPA iswarranted. Comment#3:WSPA supported the reclassification request and our determination that the current sanction andFIP clocks, based on requirements for severe ozone nonattainment areas, will stop upon the effective date ofthe reclassification. WSPA, however, questioned our proposed schedules for submission ofthe extreme area ozone plan andrevised NSR and Title V rules and statedthat the schedules did not provide adequate time for preparation and adoption ofthe plan and amended rules. Instead ofthe schedules we proposed, WSPA requested thatEPA establish one deadline for allrequired submittals and that the deadline be 18 months from the effective date ofthe final rule.

WSPA stated more time is necessary because EPA'sproposed deadline does
not allow sufficient time for the District to rely onthe best possible information in completing the plan development and adoption process. WSPA cited existing performance problems associated with ozone episodes assessed in the CCOS program and concerns regarding the emissions inventory.

WSPA also requested that the same 18-month submittal date for the plan be established for the necessary NSR and Title V rule revisions. WSPA claimed that itwas appropriate to set the deadline 18 months from the effective date ofthe rule because doing so would: (1)Be consistent with the suggested timeline for the extreme area plan submittal; and (2)help assure the District is not saddled with unnecessarily stringent federal NSR and Title V applicability provisions ifthe extreme area requirements would not apply in the District under EPA's final rule for transition tothe 8-hour ozone standard. EPA Responseto Comment#3:EPA appreciates WSPA's support ofthe reclassification and we acknowledge theirrequest that we require the extreme

area plan and the NSR andTitle V revisionsbe submitted 18 months from the effective date ofthe rule. As discussed below, however, we donot believe that the additional time is warranted.

First, regarding the plan submittal, WSPA's request for the full 18 months is not warranted in this case because the Districthas been working onthe
extreme area plan since 2002 and has indicated that they can meet the November 15, 2004 deadline. EPA believes that development ofthe plan should notbe slowed or delayed any further than absolutely necessary and should remain a priority for all involved agencies. Thus, although we are not granting the full 18 months asrequested by WSPA, we dobelieve, based on the District's comments above, that the 45 additional days requested by the District to submit the attainment demonstration

are warranted.

In response to WSPA's request to extend the due date for the NSR and TitleV rule revisions, we donot believe that an additional 6 months is necessary. Again, we are notgranting WSPA's request because the District has indicated that they can meet a deadline of12 months from the effective date of the reclassification.

Regarding WSPA's comment that additional data analysis is needed to confirm possible performance problems associated with the CCOS program, we recognize that CCOS data may not have advanced atthe pace we had expected, but EPA does not believe this should preventthe State and District from moving forward with the attainment demonstration for the SJVAB.

III. Consequences ofReclassification

A. ExtremeAreaPlanRequirements

Under CAA section 182(e), extreme

area plans are required to meet allthe requirements for severe area plans 6plus the requirements for extreme areas, including,but notlimited to: (1)A 10
tonper year major source definition; (2) additional reasonably available control technology (RACT)rules for sources subject to the new lower major source cutoff; (3) a new source review offset requirement ofat least 1.5 to 1; (4) arate ofprogress demonstration ofemission reductions of ozone precursors ofat least 3percent per year from 2005 until

6TheCAA specificallyexcludes certain severe

arearequirements from the extreme area requirements, e.g., section 182(c)(6),(7) and (8). 20551Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 74/Friday, April 16, 2004/Rules and Regulations

the attainment date;7 (5)clean fuels for boilers as required for at CAA section 182(e)(3); and contingency measures. The plan must address the general nonattainment plan requirements in CAA section 172(c). The extreme area plan for the SJVAB must also contain adopted regulations and may also contain enforceable commitments to the extent consistent with Agency guidance, sufficient to make the required rate of progress and to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than November 15, 2010. The new attainment demonstration shouldbe based on the best information available.

B. NSR andTitle VProgramRevisions

In addition tothe required plan revisions discussed above, the District
must revise its NSR rule toreflect the extreme area definitions for major new
sources and major modifications and to increase the offset ratio for these sources from the ratio for severe areas in CAA section 182(d)(2) to 1.5 to 1.CAA section 182(e)(1) and (2). The District must also make any changes in its Title V operating permits program necessary to reflect the change in the threshold from 25 tpy for severe areas to 10 tpy for extreme areas.
C.SanctionsandFIP

For the reasons stated in our proposed rule, upon the effective date oftoday's final action, the federal offset sanction that was imposed on March 18, 2004 pursuant to CAA section 179(a) willbe terminated. In addition, our action terminates the highway sanction and FIP clocks. These sanction and FIP clocks were started as a result ofthe Agency's October 2, 2002 finding that the State failed to submit the severe area attainment demonstration.
IV. EPA Action

After fully considering all comments received on the proposed rule, EPAis taking final action to grant the State of California's request to voluntarily reclassify the SJVAB from a severe to an extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment

area. We are also taking final action to require the State to submit by November 15, 2004, an extreme area ozone plan for the areas within the SJVAB under the State'sjurisdiction that provides for the attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later

7 The CAA does not allowthe state to use the provision at CAA section 182(c)(2)(B)(ii) that would allow the state to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that less than 3percent reduction per yearis approvable ifthe plan reflecting such lesser amount includes all measures that can feasibly beimplemented in the area. than November 15, 2010. This plan must meet, among other general provisions ofthe CAA, the specific provisions ofsection 182(e), portions of which are discussed above. The State must also submitby May 16, 2005, revised Title V and New Source Review rules that reflect the extreme area requirements.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore isnot subject toreview bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. EPA has determined that the voluntary reclassification wouldnot result in any ofthe effects identified in Executive Order 12866 section 3(f). Voluntary reclassifications under section 181(b)(3) ofthe CAA are based solely upon requests bythe State and EPAis required under the CAA to grant them. These actions donot, in and of themselves, impose any new requirements on any sectors ofthe economy. In addition, because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect tothe differently classified areas, and because those requirements are automatically triggered by classifications, reclassification cannot be said to impose amaterially adverse impact onState, local, or tribal governments or communities.

For the aforementioned reasons, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 et seq.). These actions donot contain any unfunded mandate

or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104-4) for the following

reasons: EPA is required to grant requests by states for voluntary reclassifications and such reclassifications in and ofthemselves do not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate. Several Indian tribes have reservations located within the boundaries ofthe SJVAB. EPA isresponsible for the implementation offederal Clean Air Act programs inIndian country, including reclassifications. Atthe time ofour proposed action, EPA notified allthe affected tribal officials, and provided each the opportunity for consultation on
agovernment-to-government basis, as provided for by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). None ofthe tribes we contacted requested consultation or submitted comments on
our proposed action.

Because EPA is required to grant requests by states for voluntary reclassifications and such reclassifications in and ofthemselves do notimpose any federal intergovernmental mandate, this rule also does not have Federalism implications as it does not have substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). For these same reasons, this rule also does not have Federalism implications because itdoes nothave substantial direct effects onthe States, on the relationship between the national government andthe States, or
on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). These actions are also
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because they

are not economically significant.

As discussed above, a voluntary reclassification under section 181(b)(3) ofthe CAA is based solely onthe request of a state and EPAis required
to grant such arequest. Inthis context, itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable lawfor EPA, when it grants

a state's request for a voluntary reclassification to use voluntary

consensus standards. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does notimpose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

### 20552Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 74/Friday, April 16, 2004/Rules and Regulations

is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a "majorrule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by June 15, 2004.

Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does itextend the time within which a petition forjudicial review maybe filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 81

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 8,2004. Laura Yoshii, ActingRegional Administrator, RegionIX. * Part81 ofchapter I, title40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended

asfollows: PART 81-[AMENDED]



### m1.The authoritycitation forpart 81 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.

* 2.In §81.305 the "California-Ozone (1-Hour Standard)" table is amended by revising the entry for "San Joaquin Valley Area:" toread as follows:

§81.305 California.

CALIFORNIA-OZONE [1-HOUR STANDARD]

Designation Classification Designated area Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

San Joaquin Valley Area: Fresno County

............................................................. Kern County (part). That portion of Kern County that lies west and north of a

line described below: Beginning at the Kern-Los Angeles County boundary and

running north and east along the northwest boundary of the Rancho La Pliebre Land Grant to the point of intersection with the range line common to Range 16 West and Range 17 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; north along the range line to the point of intersection with the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then southeast, northeast, and northwest along the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Grant to the northwest corner of Section 3, Township 11 North, Range 17 West; then west 1.2 miles; then north to the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant boundary; then northwest along the Rancho El Tejon line to the southeast corner of Section 34, Township 32 South, Range 30 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; then north to the northwest corner of Section 35, Township 31 South, Range 30 East; then northeast along the boundary of the Rancho El Tejon Land Grant to the southwest corner of Section 18, Township 31 South, Range 31 East; then east to the southeast corner of Section 13, Township 31 South, Range 31 East; then north along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range 32 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 32 East; then eastto the southwest corner of Section 31, Township 28 South, Range 32 East; then north along the range line
common to Range 31 East and Range 32 East to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 28 South, Range 32 East, then west to the southeast corner of Section 36, Township 27 South, Range 31 East, then north along the range line common to Range 31 East and Range 32 East to the Kern-Tulare County boundary:

Kings Coun ty

............................................................... M

adera County

............................................................ M

erced County

............................................................ San Joaquin County

.................................................... Stanislaus County

........................................................ Tulare Coun ty

.............................................................. 11/15/90 Nonattainment

........
11/15/90 Nonattainment

........

11/15/90 11/15/90 11/15/90 11/15/90 11/15/90 11/15/90 Nonattainment

........ Nonattainment

........ Nonattainment

........ Nonattainment

........ Nonattainment

........ Nonattainment

........ 05/17/04 Extreme

05/17/04 Extreme

05/17/04 05/17/04 05/17/04 05/17/04 05/17/04 05/17/04 Extreme Extreme Extreme Extreme Extreme Extreme 20553Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 74/Friday, April 16, 2004/Rules and Regulations

[FRDoc. 04-8677 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73
[DA04-916; MB Docket No. 02-350; RM10600]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Sheffield, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the request ofKatherine Pyeatt, allots Channel 224C2 at Sheffield, Texas, as the community's first local FM service. Channel 224C2 canbe allotted to Sheffield, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 15.7 km (9.8 miles) south ofSheffield. The coordinates for Channel 224C2 at Sheffield, Texas, are 30-33-15 North Latitude and 101-52- 09 West Longitude. The Mexican government has concurred in this allotment. Afiling window for Channel 224C2 at Sheffield, Texas, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of opening this allotment for auction will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent Order. DATES: Effective May 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis ofthe Commission's Report and Order, MB Docket No. 02-350, adopted April 2, 2004, and released April 5, 2004. The full text ofthis Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text ofthis decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, orvia e-mail qualexint@aol .com. List ofSubjects in 47 CFRPart73

Radio, Radio broadcasting. 0 Part 73 oftitle47 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 73-RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

m 1.The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read asfollows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336. §73.202 [Amended]
* 2.Section 73.202(b), the Table ofFM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Sheffield, Channel 224C2.
Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, AssistantChief, AudioDivision, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 04-8682 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73 [DA04-917; MM Docket No. 01-189; RM10204]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Annona and Mangum, TX
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the request ofAnnona Broadcasting Company, allots Channel 263A at Annona, Texas, asthe community's first local FM service. This allotment at Annona, Texas, was adopted in lieu of the original proposal ofKatherine Pyeatt, requesting the allotment of Channel 263A at Winnsboro, Texas. Channel 263A can be allotted to Annona, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of13.0 km (8.1 miles) west of Annona. The coordinates for Channel 263A at Annona, Texas, are 33-34-53 North Latitude and 95-03-19 West Longitude. Afiling window for Channel 263A at Annona, Texas, will not be opened atthis time. Instead, the issue of opening this allotment for auction will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent Order. DATES: Effective May 20, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Dupont, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis ofthe Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-189, adopted April 2, 2004, and released April 5, 2004. The full text ofthis Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Information Center, PortalsII, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text ofthis decision may alsobe purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.
List ofSubjects in 47 CFR Part73

Radio, Radio broadcasting. * Part 73 oftitle 47 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 73-RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

m1.The authoritycitation forPart 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 ofFM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Annona,Channel 263A. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, AssistantChief, AudioDivision, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 04-8683 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47CFR Part 73 [DA04-915; MM Docket No. 01-182; RM10202]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Clarksville,TX, and Haworth, OK AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the request ofHaworth Broadcasting Company, allots Channel 294A at Haworth, Oklahoma, as the community's first local FM service. This allotment atHaworth, Oklahoma, was adopted inlieu ofthe original proposal ofKatherine Pyeatt, requesting the allotment ofChannel 294A at Clarksville, Texas. Channel 294A canbe allotted to Haworth, Oklahoma, in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 10.1 km (6.3 miles) south ofHaworth. The coordinates for Channel 294A at Haworth, Oklahoma, are 33-45-33 North Latitude and 94-41-06 West Longitude. Afiling window for Channel 20554