33774 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: March 16, 2000.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) (131) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(131) On December 3, 1998, the

Director of the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

submitted a revision to the definition

section of the Oregon Administrative

Rules (OAR), as effective October 14,

1998.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) OAR 340–028–0110, as effective

October 14, 1998, except for the

following: (16) Capture system, (25)

Continuous compliance determination

method, (27) Control device, (29) Data,

(39)(b) Emission Limitation and

Emission Standard, (47) Exceedance,

(48) Excursion, (55) Inherent process

equipment, (67) Monitoring, (86)

Pollutant-specific emissions unit, (88)

Predictive emission monitoring system

(PEMS), Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.

(B) Remove the following provision

from the current incorporation by

reference: OAR 340–028-0110, as

effective October 6, 1995, except for

Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.

[FR Doc. 00–13070 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6704–7]

Minnesota: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: Minnesota has applied to EPA

for Final authorization of the changes to

its hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that

these changes satisfy all requirements

needed to qualify for Final

authorization, and is authorizing the

State’s changes through this immediate

final action. EPA is publishing this rule

to authorize the changes without a prior

proposal because we believe this action

is not controversial and do not expect

comments that oppose it. Unless we get

written comments which oppose this

authorization during the comment

period, the decision to authorize

Minnesota’s changes to their hazardous

waste program will take effect as

provided below. If we get comments

that oppose this action, we will publish

a document in the Federal Register

withdrawing this rule before it takes

effect and a separate document in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register will serve as a proposal to

authorize the changes.

DATES: This Final authorization will

become effective on August 23, 2000

unless EPA receives adverse written

comment by June 26, 2000. If EPA

receives such comment, it will publish

a timely withdrawal of this immediate

final rule in the Federal Register and

inform the public that this authorization

will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments

referring to Docket Number Minnesota

ARA 8, to Gary Westefer, Minnesota

Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region

5, DM–7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7450.

We must receive your comments by

June 26, 2000. You can view and copy

Minnesota’s application from 9:00 am to

4:00 pm at the following addresses:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

520 Lafayette Road, North, St. Paul,

Minnesota 55155, contact Nathan

Cooley at (651) 297–7544; or EPA

Region 5, contact Gary Westefer at the

following address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Westefer, Minnesota Regulatory

Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM–7J,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State

Programs Necessary?

States which have received final

authorization from EPA under RCRA

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

program. As the Federal program

changes, States must change their

programs and ask EPA to authorize the

changes. Changes to State programs may

be necessary when Federal or State

statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, States must

change their programs because of

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in

This Rule?

We conclude that Minnesota’s

application to revise its authorized

program meets all of the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Minnesota

Final authorization to operate its

hazardous waste program with the

changes described in the authorization

application. Minnesota has

responsibility for permitting Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)

within its borders (except in Indian

Country) and for carrying out the

aspects of the RCRA program described

in its revised program application,

subject to the limitations of the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New

federal requirements and prohibitions

imposed by Federal regulations that

EPA promulgates under the authority of

HSWA take effect in authorized States

before they are authorized for the

requirements. Thus, EPA will

implement those requirements and

prohibitions in Minnesota, including

issuing permits, until the State is

granted authorization to do so.

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s

Authorization Decision?

The effect of this decision is that a

facility in Minnesota subject to RCRA

will now have to comply with the

authorized State requirements instead of

the equivalent federal requirements in

order to comply with RCRA. Minnesota

has enforcement responsibilities under

its state hazardous waste program for

violations of such program, but EPA

maintains independent authority under

RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and

7003, which include, among others, the

authority to conduct inspections and

require monitoring, tests, analyses or

reports and to enforce RCRA

requirements and suspend or revoke

permits.

This action does not impose

additional requirements on the

regulated community because the

regulations for which Minnesota is

being authorized by today’s action are

already effective, and are not changed

by today’s action.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33775

D. Why Wasn’t There a Proposed Rule

Before Today’s Rule?

EPA did not publish a proposal before

today’s rule because we view this as a

routine program change and do not

expect comments that oppose this

approval. We are providing an

opportunity for public comment now. In

addition to this rule, in the proposed

rules section of today’s Federal

Register, we are publishing a separate

document that proposes to authorize the

state program changes.

E. What Happens If EPA Receives

Comments That Oppose This Action?

If EPA receives appropriate comments

that oppose this authorization, we will

withdraw this rule by publishing a

document in the Federal Register before

the rule becomes effective. EPA will

base any further decision on the

authorization of the state program

changes on the proposal mentioned in

the previous paragraph. We will then

address all public comments in a later

final rule. You may not have another

opportunity to comment. If you want to

comment on this authorization, you

must do so at this time.

If we receive comments that oppose

only the authorization of a particular

change to the State hazardous waste

program, we will withdraw that part of

this rule, but the authorization of the

program changes that the comments do

not oppose will become effective on the

date specified above. The Federal

Register withdrawal document will

specify which part of the authorization

will become effective, and which part is

being withdrawn.

F. What Has Minnesota Previously Been

Authorized For?

Minnesota initially received Final

authorization on January 28, 1985,

effective February 11, 1985 (50 FR

3756), to implement the RCRA

hazardous waste management program.

We granted authorization for changes to

their program on July 20, 1987, effective

September 18, 1987 (52 FR 27199), on

April 24, 1989, effective June 23, 1989

(54 FR 16361), amended June 28, 1989

(54 FR 27170), on June 15, 1990,

effective August 14, 1990 (55 FR 24232),

on June 24, 1991, effective August 23,

1991 (56 FR 28709), on March 19, 1992,

effective May 18, 1992 (57 FR 9501), on

March 17, 1993, effective May 17, 1993

(58 FR 14321), and on January 20, 1994,

effective March 21, 1994 (59 FR 2998).

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing

With Today’s Action?

On March 7, 2000, Minnesota

submitted a final complete program

revision application, seeking

authorization of program changes in

accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA

reviewed Minnesota’s application, and

we now make an immediate final

decision, subject to receipt of adverse

written comments that oppose this

action, that Minnesota’s hazardous

waste program revision satisfies all of

the requirements necessary to qualify

for Final authorization. Therefore, we

grant Minnesota Final authorization for

the following program changes:

Description of Federal requirement Federal Register date and page [and/or

RCRA statutory authority] Analogous State authority

Petroleum Refinery Primary and Secondary Oil/

Water/Solids Separation Sludge Listings

(F037 and F038) Checklist 81 as amended

Checklist 81.1.

November 2, 1990, 55 FR 46354 ....................

December 17, 1990, 55 FR 51707

Minnesota Rules 7045.0135, 7045.0139; effective March 1, 1994.

Wood Preserving Listings Checklist 82 ............. December 6, 1990, 55 FR 50450 .................... Minnesota Rules 7045.0020, 7045.0120,

7045.0135, 7045.0139, 7045.0141,

7045.0145, 7045.0292, 7045.0528,

7045.0541, 7045.0552, 7045.0623,

7045.0628, 7045.0644; effective January

31, 1994, as amended October 2, 1995.

Organic Air Emission Standards for Process

Vents and Equipment Leaks; Technical

Amendment Checklist 87.

April 26, 1991, 56 FR 19290 ........................... Minnesota Rules 7001.0625, 7001.0626,

7045.0547, 7045.0548, 7045.0564,

7045.0584, 7045.0647, 7045.0648; effective

March 1, 1994.

Revision to F037 and F038 Listings Checklist

89.

May 13, 1991, 56 FR 21955 ............................ Minnesota Rules 7045.0135 effective March

1, 1994.

Wood Preserving Listing: Technical Correction

Checklist 92.

July 1, 1991, 56 FR 30192 .............................. Minnesota Rules 7001.0623 7045.0120,

7045.0145, 7045.0292, 7045.0541,

7045.0644; effective January 31, 1994 as

amended October 2, 1995.

Second Correction to the Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions Checklist 102.March 6, 1992, 57 FR 8086 ............................. Minnesota Rules 7045.0458, 7045.0564,

7045.1305, 7045.1355, 7045.1360; effective

March 1, 1994.

Hazardous Debris Case-by-Case Capacity

Variance Checklist 103.

May 15, 1992, 57 FR 20766 ............................ Minnesota Rules 7045.1335; effective March

1, 1994.

Lead-Bearing Hazardous Materials Case-byCase Capacity Variance Checklist 106.June 26, 1992, 57 FR 28628 ........................... Minnesota Rules 7045.1335; effective March

1, 1994.

Wood Preserving: Amendments to Listings and

Technical Requirements Checklist 120.

December 24, 1992, 57 FR 61492 .................. Minnesota Rules 7045.0541, 7045.0644; effective January 31, 1994, as amended October 2, 1995.

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules

Different From the Federal Rules?

In the changes currently being made

to Minnesota’s program, we consider the

following State requirement to be more

stringent than the Federal requirements:

• Minnesota Rules 7001.0623,

because the State does not allow for an

exemption to Subpart F of 40 CFR part

264, as provided for in 40 CFR

270.26(b), making the State

requirements more stringent.

More stringent rules are part of

Minnesota’s authorized program and are

Federally enforceable.

Broader-in-scope requirements are not

part of the authorized program and EPA

cannot enforce them. Although you

must comply with these requirements in

accordance with state law, they are not

RCRA requirements. There are no

broader-in-scope provisions in these

changes.

33776 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

I. Who Handles Permits After This

Authorization Takes Effect?

Minnesota will issue permits for all

the provisions for which it is

authorized, and will administer the

permits that it issues. EPA will continue

to administer any RCRA hazardous

waste permits, or portions of permits,

that we issued prior to the effective date

of this authorization until they expire or

are terminated. We will not issue any

more new permits or portions of permits

for the provisions listed in the Table

above after the effective date of this

authorization. EPA will continue to

implement and issue permits for HSWA

requirements for which Minnesota is

not yet authorized.

J. How Does Today’s Action Affect

Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in

Minnesota?

Minnesota is not authorized to carry

out its hazardous waste program in

Indian country within the State, as

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This

includes:

1. All lands within the exterior

boundaries of the following Indian

Reservations, located within or abutting

the State of Minnesota:

a. Bois Forte Indian Reservation

b. Fond Du Lac Indian Reservation

c. Grand Portage Indian Reservation

d. Leech Lake Indian Reservation

e. Lower Sioux Indian Reservation

f. Mille Lacs Indian Reservation

g. Prairie Island Indian Reservation

h. Red Lake Indian Reservation

i. Shakopee Mdewankanton Indian

Reservation

j. Upper Sioux Indian Reservation

k. White Earth Indian Reservation

2. Any land held in trust by the U.S.

for an Indian tribe, and

3. Any other land, whether on or off

a reservation that qualifies as Indian

country.

Therefore, this action has no effect in

Indian country where EPA will continue

to implement and administer the RCRA

program in these lands.

K. What Is Codification and Is EPA

Codifying Minnesota’s Hazardous

Waste Program as Authorized in This

Rule?

Codification is the process of placing

the State’s statutes and regulations that

comprise the State’s authorized

hazardous waste program into the Code

of Federal Regulations. We do this by

referencing the authorized State rules in

40 CFR part 272. The authorized

Minnesota RCRA program was

incorporated by reference into 40 CFR

part 272 on May 15, 1989, effective July

14, 1989 (54 FR 20851). Minnesota’s

Incorporation by Reference was

amended on March 16, 1990, effective

May 15, 1990 (55 FR 9880), on October

15, 1992, effective December 14, 1992

(57 FR 47265), and on September 6,

1994, effective November 7, 1994 (59 FR

45986).

We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR

part 272, subpart Y for this

authorization of Minnesota’s program

changes until a later date.

L. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before

promulgating an EPA rule for which a

written statement is needed, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that section 202

and 205 requirements do not apply to

today’s action because this rule does not

contain a Federal mandate that may

result in annual expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and/or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

the private sector. Costs to State, local

and/or tribal governments already exist

under the Minnesota program, and

today’s action does not impose any

additional obligations on regulated

entities. In fact, EPA’s approval of State

programs generally may reduce, not

increase, compliance costs for the

private sector. Further, as it applies to

the State, this action does not impose a

Federal intergovernmental mandate

because UMRA does not include duties

arising from participation in a voluntary

federal program.

The requirements of section 203 of

UMRA also do not apply to today’s

action because this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Although small

governments may be hazardous waste

generators, transporters, or own and/or

operate TSDFs, they are already subject

to the regulatory requirements under the

existing State laws that are being

authorized by EPA, and, thus, are not

subject to any additional significant or

unique requirements by virtue of this

program approval.

Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute, unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s action on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) a small business

as specified in the Small Business

Administration regulations; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of this authorization on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

This action does not impose any new

requirements on small entities because

small entities that are hazardous waste

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33777

generators, transporters, or that own

and/or operate TSDFs are already

subject to the regulatory requirements

under the State laws which EPA is now

authorizing. This action merely

authorizes, for the purpose of RCRA

section 3006, those existing State

requirements.

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. The 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 today’s

Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Compliance With Executive Order

13132 (Federalism)

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This authorization does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

a substantial direct effect on 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, because this

rule affects only one State. This action

simply approves Minnesota’s proposal

to be authorized for updated

requirements of the hazardous waste

program that the State has voluntarily

chosen to operate. Further, as a result of

this action, newly authorized provisions

of the State’s program now apply in

Minnesota in lieu of the equivalent

Federal program provisions

implemented by EPA under HSWA.

Affected parties are subject only to those

authorized State program provisions, as

opposed to being subject to both Federal

and State regulatory requirements.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply.

Compliance With Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks,’’ applies to any

rule that: (1) the Office of Management

and Budget determines is ‘‘economically

significant,’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045

as applying only to those regulatory

actions that are based on health or safety

risks, such that the analysis required

under section 5–501 of the Order has

the potential to influence the regulation.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it authorizes a

State program.

Compliance With Executive Order

13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies

with consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13084 because it does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Minnesota is not

authorized to implement the RCRA

hazardous waste program in Indian

country. This action has no effect on the

hazardous waste program that EPA

implements in the Indian country

within the State.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by any information request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

33778 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Confidential business information,

Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste

transportation, Indian lands,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: This action is issued under the

authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and

7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Elissa Speizman,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 00–12953 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Part 102–36

[FPMR Amendment H–205]

RIN 3090–AF39

Disposition of Excess Personal

Property; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide

Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects an

error contained in a final rule appearing

in Part III of the Federal Register of

Tuesday, May 16, 2000 (64 FR 31218).

The rule revised the Federal Property

Management Regulations (FPMR) by

moving coverage on the disposition of

excess personal property into the

Federal Management Regulation (FMR)

and adding a cross-reference to the

FPMR to direct readers to the coverage

in the FMR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martha Caswell, Director, Personal

Property Management Policy Division

(MTP), 202–501–3828.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In rule

document 00–11921 beginning on page

31218 in the issue of Tuesday, May 16,

2000, make the following correction:

§ 102–36.170 [Corrected]

1. On page 31225, in the first column,

in the second line, ‘‘in’’ should read

‘‘is’’.

Dated: May 19, 2000.

Sharon A. Kiser,

Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office

of Governmentwide Policy.

[FR Doc. 00–13147 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–24–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–866; MM Docket No. 90–466; RM–

7327, RM–7987, RM–7988, RM–8705].

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Pleasanton, Bandera, Hondo,

Hollywood Park, and Dilley, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The Commission dismisses as

moot the Application for Review filed

by Reding Broadcasting Company,

requesting reconsideration of a

dismissal of its proposal to substitute

Channel 252A for Channel 253C2 at

Pleasanton, TX, substitute Channel

253A for Channel 290A at Hondo, TX

and Channel 252A for Channel 276A at

Bandera, TX. Petitioner received

requested relief in MM Docket No. 98–

55.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Order,

MM Docket No. 90–466 adopted April

12, 2000, and released April 14, 2000.

The full text of this Commission

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Information Center (Room

CY–A257), 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–13138 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–945; MM Docket No. 99–83; RM–

9500; RM–9722]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Saranac

Lake and Westport, NY

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Dana Puopolo, allots Channel

296A to Saranac Lake, NY, as the

community’s third local FM service. See

64 FR 14422, March 25, 1999. At the

request of Westport Broadcasting, the

Commission substitutes Channel 275A

for Channel 273A at Westport, NY, and

modifies the license of Station WCLX to

specify the alternate Class A channel.

Channel 296A can be allotted to Saranac

Lake in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements, with respect to

all domestic allotments, without the

imposition of a site restriction, at

coordinates 44–19–48 NL; 74–08–00

WL. Channel 275A can be allotted to

Westport in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements, with respect to

all domestic allotments, with a site

restriction of 4.6 kilometers (2.9 miles)

northeast, at coordinates 44–13–16 NL;

73–24–42 WL, to accommodate WB’s

desired transmitter site. Both Saranac

Lake and Westport are located within

320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-

Canadian border and thus Canadian

concurrence in the allotments is

required. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

DATES: Effective June 12, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 99–83,

adopted April 19, 2000, and released

April 28, 2000. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036. In

addition, Channel 296A at Saranac Lake

will be short-spaced to Station CITE–

FM, Channel 297C1, Montreal, Quebec,