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

reference: R 336.1802 Applicability

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading

program, Rule 802; R 336.1803

Definitions for oxides of nitrogen budget

trading program, Rule 803; R 336.1804

Retired unit exemption from oxides of

nitrogen budget trading program, Rule

804; R 336.1805 Standard requirements

of oxides of nitrogen budget trading

program, Rule 805; R 336.1806

Computation of time under oxides of

nitrogen budget trading program, Rule

806; R 336.1807 Authorized account

representative under oxides of nitrogen

budget trading program, Rule 807; R

336.1808 Permit requirements under

oxides of nitrogen budget trading

program, Rule 808; R 336.1809

Compliance certification under oxides

of nitrogen budget trading program,

Rule 809; R 336.1810 Allowance

allocations under oxides of nitrogen

budget trading program, Rule 810; R

336.1811 New source set-aside under

oxides of nitrogen budget trading

program, Rule 811; R 336.1812

Allowance tracking system and transfers

under oxides of nitrogen budget trading

program, Rule 812; R 336.1813

Monitoring and reporting requirements

under oxides of nitrogen 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 of nitrogen budget trading

program, Rule 815; R 336.1816

Compliance supplement pool under

oxides of nitrogen 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]

[FR Doc. 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 Air Act 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 of California

to voluntarily reclassify under the Clean

Air Act ("CAA" or "the Act") the San

Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment

Area ("San Joaquin 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 submit by November

15, 2004 an extreme area ozone plan for

the areas within the SJVAB under the

State's jurisdiction that provides for the

attainment of the 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 of CAA section

182(e). The State must also submit

within 12 months of the effective date

of this 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: EPA has established a

docket for 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 5 pm, Monday

through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Wampler, EPA Region IX, Air

Division (AIR-3), 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, 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

On February 23, 2004 (69 FR 8126),

EPA proposed to grant a request by the

State of California 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, 2 In addition, we proposed

that the State submit, by no later than

October 1, 2004, an extreme area plan

addressing the requirements of CAA

section 182(e) and that the State submit

revised New Source Review rules and

Title V program revisions for the areas

within the District's jurisdiction within

12 months from the effective date of the

final reclassification.

There are several Indian reservations

located within the SJVAB. In our

proposed action, we noted that states

typically have no jurisdiction under the

CAA in Indian country and that

California has not been approved by

EPA to administer any CAA programs in

Indian country. We also stated that, as

a matter of EPA's federal

implementation of relevant provisions

of the CAA over Indian country within

the SJVAB, we believe these areas of

Indian country should be 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

of the seven tribes we contacted

requested consultation or submitted

comments on our proposed action.

II. Public Comments and EPA

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 of each comment

letter.

Comment #1: On behalf of the

Association of Irritated Residents

("AIR"), The Center on Race Poverty and

The Environment requested that EPA

approve the State's reclassification

request with a contingency that would

allow us to rescind the extreme

1 Letter from Catherine Witherspoon, 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 San Joaquin

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

("District") Resolution No. 03-12-10 requesting the

reclassification.

2 In the very near future, EPA expects to issue

new regulations to implement the 8-hour ozone

standard. At that time we will be able to fully

evaluate how the transition to the 8-hour standard

will impact existing requirements to implement the

1-hour ozone standard.

3 On April 5, 2004, EPA received an additional

comment letter from ChevronTexaco dated March

25, 2004 and postmarked April 1. Although that

letter is outside the comment period, EPA has

decided to include it in the docket for this rule.

ChevronTexaco makes the same comment as the

Western States Petroleum Association ("WSPA")

(discussed below) regarding additional time for the

District to submit required SIP revisions and the

extreme area plan.

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

classification and revert the SJVAB to a

severe nonattainment area if the

California State Court of Appeal

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 it adopted 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 of the State Superior

Court decision.4

EPA Response to Comment #1: EPA

does not believe it is necessary to attach

the contingency requested by AIR to the

final reclassification of the SJVAB to

extreme. In this instance, EPA is

granting the January 9, 2004 request of

the State under CAA section 181(b)(3)

for a voluntary reclassification. In the

event that the State Court of Appeal

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, if any,

such a result would have on the State's

reclassification request. EPA, in

consultation with CARB, will evaluate

the impact of any 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 can petition EPA for

the repeal of any rule. 5 U.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 of November 15,

2004. 5

The District cited two reasons for

needing additional time to submit the

extreme area plan. First, the District

stated that 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 of the plan under

the California Environmental Quality

4 On March 22, 2004 the Kern County Superior

Court denied AIR's Petition for Writ of Mandate and

Complaint for Declaratory Relief in Association of

Irritated Residents v. San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD, Case No. S-1500-CV 252128 KCT.

5 The District also stated that they could 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 of the final

rule.

Act ("CEQA"). While the District

acknowledged uncertainty about the

extent of the CEQA review, they stated

that the timing of the 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 Response to Comment #2: EPA

understands from the District's

comment letter that the concerns

regarding the modeling runs were

resolved during the week of March 22,

2004 and that, as a result, the requested

November 15, 2004 submittal deadline

can be 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 sought by the District for

submittal of the extreme area plan to

EPA is warranted.

Comment #3: WSPA supported the

reclassification request and our

determination that the current sanction

and FIP clocks, based on requirements

for severe ozone nonattainment areas,

will stop upon the effective date of the

reclassification. WSPA, however,

questioned our proposed schedules for

submission of the extreme area ozone

plan and revised NSR and Title V rules

and stated that the schedules did not

provide adequate time for preparation

and adoption of the plan and amended

rules. Instead of the schedules we

proposed, WSPA requested that EPA

establish one deadline for all required

submittals and that the deadline be 18

months from the effective date of the

final rule.

WSPA stated more time is necessary

because EPA's proposed deadline does

not allow sufficient time for the District

to rely on the 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 it was appropriate to set the

deadline 18 months from the effective

date of the 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 if the

extreme area requirements would not

apply in the District under EPA's final

rule for transition to the 8-hour ozone

standard.

EPA Response to Comment #3: EPA

appreciates WSPA's support of the

reclassification and we acknowledge

their request that we require the extreme

area plan and the NSR and Title V

revisions be submitted 18 months from

the effective date of the rule. As

discussed below, however, we do not

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

District has been working on the

extreme area plan since 2002 and has

indicated that they can meet the

November 15, 2004 deadline. EPA

believes that development of the plan

should not be 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 as requested

by WSPA, we do believe, 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

Title V rule revisions, we do not believe

that an additional 6 months is

necessary. Again, we are not granting

WSPA's request because the District has

indicated that they can meet a deadline

of 12 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 at the pace we had expected,

but EPA does not believe this should

prevent the State and District from

moving forward with the attainment

demonstration for the SJVAB.

III. Consequences of Reclassification

A. Extreme Area Plan Requirements

Under CAA section 182(e), extreme

area plans are required to meet all the

requirements for severe area plans 6 plus

the requirements for extreme areas,

including, but not limited to: (1) A 10

ton per 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 of at least 1.5 to 1; (4) a rate

of progress demonstration of emission

reductions of ozone precursors of at

least 3 percent per year from 2005 until

6 The CAA specifically excludes certain severe

area requirements from the extreme area

requirements, e.g., section 182(c)(6),(7) and (8).

20551
Federal 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

should be based on the best information

available.

B. NSR and Title V Program Revisions

In addition to the required plan

revisions discussed above, the District

must revise its NSR rule to reflect 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. Sanctions and FIP

For the reasons stated in our proposed

rule, upon the effective date of today's

final action, the federal offset sanction

that was imposed on March 18, 2004

pursuant to CAA section 179(a) will be

terminated. In addition, our action

terminates the highway sanction and

FIP clocks. These sanction and FIP

clocks were started as a result of the

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, EPA is

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's jurisdiction that provides for the

attainment of the ozone NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

7 The CAA does not allow the 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 3 percent reduction

per year is approvable if the plan reflecting such

lesser amount includes all measures that can

feasibly be implemented in the area.

than November 15, 2010. This plan

must meet, among other general

provisions of the CAA, the specific

provisions of section 182(e), portions of

which are discussed above. The State

must also submit by 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 is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. EPA

has determined that the voluntary

reclassification would not result in any

of the effects identified in Executive

Order 12866 section 3(f). Voluntary

reclassifications under section 181(b)(3)

of the CAA are based solely upon

requests by the State and EPA is

required under the CAA to grant them.

These actions do not, in and of

themselves, impose any new

requirements on any sectors of the

economy. In addition, because the

statutory requirements are clearly

defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because those

requirements are automatically triggered

by classifications, reclassification

cannot be said to impose a materially

adverse impact on State, 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, or Use" (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 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). These actions

do 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) for the following

reasons: EPA is required to grant

requests by states for voluntary

reclassifications and such

reclassifications in and of themselves do

not impose any federal

intergovernmental mandate. Several

Indian tribes have reservations located

within the boundaries of the SJVAB.

EPA is responsible for the

implementation of federal Clean Air Act

programs in Indian country, including

reclassifications. At the time of our

proposed action, EPA notified all the

affected tribal officials, and provided

each the opportunity for consultation on

a government-to-government basis, as

provided for by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). None

of the 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 of themselves do

not impose 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 of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, 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 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). 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)

of the CAA is based solely on the

request of a state and EPA is required

to grant such a request. In this context,

it would thus be inconsistent with

applicable law for EPA, when it grants

a state's request for a voluntary

reclassification to use voluntary

consensus standards. 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. This 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.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

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

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a "major rule" as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 15, 2004.

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 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 8, 2004.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

* Part 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 81 -[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

* 2. In § 81.305 the "California-Ozone

(1-Hour Standard)" table is amended by

revising the entry for "San Joaquin

Valley Area:" to read as follows:

§81.305 California.

CALIFORNIA-OZONE [1-HOUR STANDARD]

Designation Classification

Designated area

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

San Joaquin Valley Area:

F re sn o C o u nty .............................................................

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 east to

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:

K in g s C o u n ty ...............................................................

M a d e ra C o u nty ............................................................

M e rce d C o u nty ............................................................

S an Joaquin C ounty ....................................................

S ta nisla us C o u nty ........................................................

T u la re C o u n 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

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

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

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-916; 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 of Katherine Pyeatt, allots

Channel 224C2 at Sheffield, Texas, as

the community's first local FM service.

Channel 224C2 can be 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

of Sheffield. 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. A filing 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 of the Commission's Report

and Order, MB Docket No. 02-350,

adopted April 2, 2004, and released

April 5, 2004. The full text of this

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 of this 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, or via e-mail

qualexint@aol .com.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

0 Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73-RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

m 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 Sheffield, Channel 224C2.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, 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

[DA 04-917; MM Docket No. 01 -189; RM10204]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Annona

and Mangum, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Audio Division, at the

request of Annona Broadcasting

Company, allots Channel 263A at

Annona, Texas, as the community's first

local FM service. This allotment at

Annona, Texas, was adopted in lieu of

the original proposal of Katherine

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 of 13.0 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. A filing window for Channel

263A at Annona, 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 of the Commission's Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 01-189,

adopted April 2, 2004, and released

April 5, 2004. The full text of this

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 of this 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, or via e-mail

qualexint@aol.com.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio, Radio broadcasting.

* Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73-RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

m 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 Annona, Channel 263A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media

Bureau.

[FR Doc. 04-8683 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-915; 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 of Haworth Broadcasting

Company, allots Channel 294A at

Haworth, Oklahoma, as the

community's first local FM service. This

allotment at Haworth, Oklahoma, was

adopted in lieu of the original proposal

of Katherine Pyeatt, requesting the

allotment of Channel 294A at

Clarksville, Texas. Channel 294A can be

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 of Haworth.

The coordinates for Channel 294A at

Haworth, Oklahoma, are 33-45-33

North Latitude and 94-41-06 West

Longitude. A filing window for Channel

20554