Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 25449

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves 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. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing Plan 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 Plan submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a Plan

submission, to use VCS in place of a

Plan submission that otherwise satisfies

the provisions of the Clean Air Act.

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 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 does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 July 3, 2000.

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 62

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hospital/medical/

infectious waste incineration,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 31, 2000.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator Region 6.

40 CFR part 62 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7617q.

Subpart LL—Oklahoma

2. Section 62.9100 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(5), (c)(4), and

(c)(5) to read as follows:

§ 62.9100 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Control of air emissions from

designated hazardous/medical/

infectious waste incinerators, submitted

by the Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality on November 17,

1999 (OAC 252:100–17, Part 7).

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) Municipal solid waste landfills.

(5) Hazardous/medical/infectious

waste incinerators.

3. Subpart LL is amended by adding

a new § 62.9170 and a new

undesignated center heading to read as

follows:

Air Emissions From Hazardous/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

§ 62.9170 Identification of sources.

The plan applies to existing

hazardous/medical/infectious waste

incinerators for which construction,

reconstruction, or modification was

commenced before June 20, 1996, as

described in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce.

4. Subpart LL is amended by adding

a new § 62.9171 and a new

undesignated center heading to read as

follows:

Effective Date

§ 62.9171 Effective date.

The effective date for the portion of

the plan applicable to existing

hazardous/medical/infectious waste

incinerators is July 3, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–10761 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

43 CFR Part 4

RIN 1090–AA75

Summary Distribution

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals,

Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Technical amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Hearings and

Appeals (OHA) today is making a

technical change to its rules regarding

summary distribution of decedents

estates as published on August 24, 1999,

(64 FR 46152). Under the existing

regulations, Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA) Superintendents are identified as

the authority to make summary

distributions when an Indian dies

intestate leaving only trust personal

property or cash valued at less than

$5,000. The appeals procedure for OHA

acknowledges appeals from summary

distribution decisions made by BIA

superintendents. The technical change

now refers only to ‘‘the Bureau of Indian

Affairs’’ as the authority for making

summary distribution decisions (and

against whom an aggrieved party may

appeal to OHA), recognizing the

authority of the BIA to designate the

superintendent, or other officials as may

25450 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

be appropriate, to make such summary

distribution decisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles E. Breece, Deputy Director,

Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S.

Department of the Interior, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Telephone: 703/235–3810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

technical amendment is being published

pursuant to the revised High Level

Implementation Plan (HLIP) filed with

the U.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia in connection with the Cobell

v. Babbitt case. Among other

representations in the HLIP, the

Department of the Interior has

committed to making a technical

amendment to the summary distribution

regulations at 43 CFR 4.271. The

Department has further committed to

promulgate this technical amendment

by April 30, 2000. The technical

amendments to sections 4.271 and 4.320

of 43 CFR do not impact the substance

of the regulations but increase the

flexibility of the Department to direct

resources as appropriate to the caseload

of pending summary distribution cases.

Consequently, the technical amendment

acknowledges the authority of the BIA

to delegate its authority to make such

summary distribution decision to other

BIA officials as deemed qualified to

perform this function. Pursuant to 5

U.S.C. 553(b), public comment is not

required for this technical amendment

as this amendment does not make any

substantive regulatory change and

simply promotes administrative

efficiency. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d),

the rulemaking will take effect

immediately for good cause as the

caseload of the BIA for summary

distribution of Indian decedents’ estates

and the HLIP require, as may be

appropriate, the delegation of certain

other qualified officials of the BIA other

than its agency superintendents.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 4

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Indians, Public

lands.

PART 4—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 4

continues to read as follows:

Authority: R.S. 2478, as amended, 43

U.S.C. sec. 1201, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 4.271 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 4.271 Summary distribution.

When an Indian dies intestate leaving

only trust personal property or cash of

a value of less than $5,000, not

including any interest that may have

accrued after the death of the decedent,

the Bureau of Indian Affairs will

assemble the apparent heirs and hold an

informal hearing to determine the

proper distribution of the estate, unless

it appears that the decedent left a last

will and testament intending to devise

his estate, and/or the decedent dies

possessed of an interest in trust or

restricted real property. A memorandum

covering the hearing will be retained in

the agency files showing the date of the

decedent’s death, the date of the

hearing, the persons notified and

attending the hearing, the amount on

hand, and its disposition. In the

disposition of such funds, the Bureau of

Indian Affairs will credit the balance, if

any, to the legal heirs. When requested

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, an

administrative law judge may assume

jurisdiction to dispose of creditors’

claims or to make distribution

determinations if the administrative law

judge finds that exceptional

circumstances exist. A party in interest

may appeal a distribution determination

in accordance with 43 CFR 4.320.

3. Section 4.320 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 4.320 Who may appeal.

A party in interest has a right to

appeal to the Board of Indian Appeals

from an order from an administrative

law judge on a petition for rehearing,

petition for reopening, or regarding

tribal purchase of interests in a deceased

Indian’s trust estate, and also from a

summary distribution order made by the

Bureau of Indian Affairs or an

administrative law judge pursuant to

§ 4.271.

* * * * *

Dated: April 26, 2000.

John Berry,

Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and

Budget.

[FR Doc. 00–10869 Filed 5–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RK–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 22

[PR Docket No. 92–115; FCC 00–131]

Revision of the Commission’s Rules

Governing the Public Mobile Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; dismissal.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission dismisses in part, and

grants in part thirty-seven petitions for

reconsideration filed against an earlier

Federal Communications Commission

(Commission) order. The Commission

also dismisses a petition for declaratory

ruling filed by Graceba Total

Communications, Inc. (Graceba)

regarding Basic Exchange Telephone

Radio Systems (BETRS). These actions

are taken because most of the issues

raised on reconsideration have either

been resolved or rendered moot by the

transition to geographic area licensing

in the paging services. The other issues

were rendered moot by the Universal

Licensing System (ULS) proceeding

which streamlined the application,

assignment, and transfer processes

according to the Commission’s rules to

facilitate the development and use of

the ULS. The Commission also grants

various petitions because any

disadvantages to permitting shared use

are outweighed by the cost efficiencies

to licensees and creates a potential cost

savings to the public. With regards to

the Graceba petition, this action was

taken because the issue was resolved in

a previous Commission order.

DATES: Effective May 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don

Johnson, Policy and Rules Branch,

Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)

418–7444.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Memorandum Opinion and Order on

Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 92–

115, adopted April 6, 2000 and released

April 17, 2000 is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,

Washington D.C. The complete text may

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20036

(202) 857–3800. The document is also

available via the internet at http://

www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/

2000/index2.html.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration: In

(MO&O on Reconsideration), the

Commission disposes of 37 petitions for

reconsideration (petitions) regarding

various issues addressed in the Part 22

Rewrite Order. We grant various

petitions to the extent they seek

reconsideration of our policy

prohibiting the use of shared

transmitters by Part 22 licensees. With

respect to all other issues addressed, we

dismiss or deny the petitions.

Additionally, we dismiss a petition for