37052 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, E.O. 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.’’ Today’s rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect

the communities of Indian tribal

governments. This action does not

involve or impose any requirements that

affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because part 70

approvals under section 502 of the Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because this approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. 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

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).

H. 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 August 14, 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 70

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Environmental protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Operating

permits, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 2, 2000.

Rebecca W. Hanmer,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

40 CFR part 70, is amended as

follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In appendix A to part 70 the entry

for Montana is amended by adding

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Montana

* * * * *

(b) The Montana Department of

Environmental Quality submitted an

operating permits program on March 29,

1994; effective on June 12, 1995; revised

January 15, 1998, and March 17, 2000;

full approval effective on August 14,

2000.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–14768 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL–6715–4]

Revisions to the Interim Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants

and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

(Stage 1 DBPR) and Revisions to State

Primacy Requirements to Implement

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Amendments.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: Because we received adverse

comments, EPA is withdrawing the

direct final rule regarding the Interim

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule, the Stage 1 Disinfectant and

Disinfection Byproducts Rule, and the

Primacy Rule that published on April

14, 2000 (65 FR 20304).

In the direct final rule, we stated that

if we received adverse comments by

May 15, 2000, we would publish a

timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register. EPA subsequently received

adverse comments. We will address

those comments in a final rule based

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37053

upon the proposed rule also published

on April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20314).

Because of the degree of public

interest in the rule, we are reopening the

comment period on the proposed rule.

For additional information, see the

document that reopens the comment

period, which is published in the

‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this issue

of the Federal Register.

DATES: The direct final rule amending

40 CFR parts 141 and 142, published on

April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20304), is

withdrawn as of June 13, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Melch, Implementation and

Assistance Division, Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water (MC–4606),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460, (202) 260–7035. Information may

also be obtained from the EPA Safe

Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within

the United States may reach the Hotline

at (800) 426–4791. The Hotline is open

Monday through Friday, excluding

Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30

p.m. EST.

Dated: June 8, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

[FR Doc. 00–14886 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Chapter 301

[FTR Amendment 87]

RIN 3090–AH18

Federal Travel Regulation; Maximum

Per Diem Rates and Other Travel

Allowances; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Governmentwide

Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects

entries listed in the prescribed

maximum per diem rates for locations

within the continental United States

(CONUS) contained in a final rule

appearing in part III of the Federal

Register of Thursday, December 2, 1999

(64 FR 67670). The rule, among other

things, increased/decreased the

maximum lodging amounts in certain

existing per diem localities, added new

per diem localities, and removed a

number of previously designated per

diem localities. A correction published

on Friday, May 19, 2000 (65 FR 31823),

corrected the seasonal dates and lodging

rates for Aspen, Colorado but failed to

show changes this caused in the

amounts of the maximum per diem

rates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joddy P. Garner, Office of

Governmentwide Policy (MTT),

Washington, DC 20405; telephone 202–

501–4857.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In rule

document 00–12340 beginning on page

31823 in the issue of Friday, May 19,

2000 make the following corrections:

Appendix A to Chapter 301 [Corrected]

On page 31825, under the State of

Colorado, city of Aspen, the maximum

per diem rates in column five are

corrected as follows:

1. For the entry ‘‘April 1–May 31,’’

correct ‘‘186’’ to read ‘‘114’’.

2. For the entry ‘‘June 1–December

31,’’ correct ‘‘114’’ to read ‘‘186’’.

Page 31825, as corrected, reads as

follows:

Appendix A to Chapter 301—

Prescribed Maximum Per Diem Rates

for CONUS

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 6820–34–P