Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 48305

1For a description of the boundaries of the Owens

Valley Planning Area, see 40 CFR 81.305.

2EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

[FR Doc. 99–22933 Filed 9–2–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–221–158; FRL–6430–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California—

Owens Valley Nonattainment Area;

PM–10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) submitted by the State of

California for attaining the particulate

matter (PM–10) national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) in the

Owens Valley Planning Area, along with

the State’s request for an extension to

December 31, 2006 to attain the PM–10

NAAQS in the area. EPA is taking these

final actions under provisions of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary

standards, and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on October 4, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The rulemaking docket for

this notice, may be inspected and

copied at the following location during

normal business hours. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying parts of the

docket.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, Air Division, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901.

Copies of the SIP materials area also

available for inspection at the addresses

listed below:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA

95814; or

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 157 Short Street,

Suite 6, Bishop, CA 93514.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry A. Biland, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, Air

Division (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415)

744-1227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The 1998 PM–10 plan (1998 SIP) for

the Owens Valley Planning Area 1 was

adopted on November 16, 1998, by the

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution

Control District (GBUAPCD or the

District), and submitted as a SIP

revision by the California Air Resources

Board (CARB) on December 10, 1998.

EPA determined this submission to be

complete on February 2, 1999.2

II. Summary of EPA Action

EPA is finalizing approval of the

serious area SIP submitted by the State

of California for the Owens Valley PM–

10 nonattainment area. Specifically,

EPA is approving the 1998 SIP with

respect to the CAA requirements for

public notice and involvement under

section 110(a)(1); emissions inventories

under section 172(c)(3); control

measures under section 110(k)(3), as

meeting the requirements of sections

110(a) and 189(b)(1)(B); Reasonable

Further Progress (RFP) and rate-ofprogress milestones under section

189(c); contingency measures under

section 172(c)(9); and demonstration of

attainment under section 189(b)(1)(A).

EPA is also finalizing approval of the

State’s request for an extension of the

attainment date from December 31,

2001, to December 31, 2006, under CAA

section 188(e).

These actions were proposed on June

25, 1998 (64 FR 34173–34179). The

reader is referred to that notice for

additional detail on the affected area

and the SIP submittal, as well as a

summary of relevant CAA provisions

and EPA interpretations of those

provisions.

III. Response to Public Comments

EPA received only one comment,

from Dorothy Alther of California Indian

Legal Services, representing the Lone

Pine and Timbisha Shoshone Indian

Tribes and the Owens Valley Indian

Water Commission. The commenter

summarized the position of the Tribes

as having some concerns regarding the

1998 SIP and its implementation, but

being anxious to see work begin on the

Dry Lake. The comments did not urge

EPA disapproval of the 1998 SIP.

Ms. Alther stated that EPA erred in

stating that required controls on 16.5

square miles in the first phase of

implementation is discretionary. EPA

agrees. The Los Angeles Department of

Water and Power is mandated to place

controls on 10 square miles of the

Owens Lake bed. Implementation of

controls on an additional 3.5 square

miles in Phase 2 is required ‘‘unless the

District determines, on or before

December 31, 2001, that the Owens

Valley Planning Area (OVPA) will attain

the PM–10 NAAQS by December 31,

2006 without implementation of further

control measures.’’ Implementation of

controls on an additional 3 square miles

in Phase 3 is required unless the District

makes a similar determination by

December 31, 2002. Board Order

#981116–01, Paragraphs 2 and 3.

The commenter expressed concern

regarding the lack of certainty regarding

what measures will be implemented in

the second increment of the 1998 SIP.

EPA believes that the second increment

(Phases 4–6) of the SIP control strategy

includes an enforceable City obligation

to implement controls on additional

areas of the Owens Lake bed by

particular dates sufficient to meet

progress and attainment requirements as

determined by the District. In view of

the absence of information on largescale fugitive dust control projects at a

dry lake bed, EPA believes that it is

reasonable to allow the City and District

the discretion to identify more precisely

the specific measures that will be most

effective in achieving attainment, based

on the practical experience gained in

implementing the first increment of the

control strategy. The commenter and

other stakeholders will have an

opportunity to review the specific

strategies included in a SIP revision to

be submitted on December 31, 2003.

EPA will work with the District and City

to ensure that the selected strategies in

the second increment are adequate to

achieve progress and attainment by

2006, and that any necessary SIP

updates are prepared and adopted in a

process that provides full opportunities

for public involvement.

The commenter disagreed with EPA’s

discussion and proposed approval of the

5-year attainment date extension. The

commenter did not explain why she

believed that the SIP failed to qualify for

an extension. EPA continues to believe

that the area meets the CAA section

188(e) criteria for the extension. Despite

an expeditious schedule for

implementing all feasible and effective

control measures, the 1998 SIP provides

information showing that attainment by

2001 is impracticable. The State has

complied with all implementation

requirements and commitments

pertaining to the area in the

implementation plan. Finally, EPA

continues to conclude that the 1998 SIP

includes the most stringent measures
48306 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

that are included in the implementation

plan of any state or are achieved in

practice in any state, and can feasibly be

implemented in the area.

The commenter questioned the

adequacy of the attainment

demonstration, since the modeling

assessment shows the probable need to

control 22,400 acres and the 1998 SIP

concentrates on control of 14,400 acres.

The District has committed to a program

of continuing scientific investigation of

emission reductions and air quality

progress, and based on this refined

information will adjust the strategy as

needed to provide for attainment by

2006. If attainment has not been

achieved in the first increment of

control, the District will revise the SIP’s

control strategy in 2003 to provide

controls over the lake playa sufficient to

attain the NAAQS by 2006. EPA will

monitor the results of these strategy

assessments and work with the District

and other plan participants to ensure

that the plan is adjusted, as may be

necessary, to meet progress and

attainment deadlines.

The commenter noted that the plan

shows a design day PM–10

concentration of 149.95 μg/m3, which is

technically below the 150 μg/m3 24-

hour PM–10 NAAQS, but provides no

‘‘cushion.’’ EPA agrees that the plan

predicts that the control strategy will

reduce peak concentrations only to

levels very slightly below the 24-hour

NAAQS. While the attainment provision

meets minimal approval criteria, it will

be important for the District, State, and

EPA to verify that implementation of the

plan is having the predicted impact on

air quality.

For the reasons stated above, EPA is

finalizing the proposed plan approval.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a

regulation that is not required by statute

and that creates a mandate upon a State,

local or tribal government, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory proposals containing

significant unfunded mandates.’’

Today’s rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply

to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

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. This rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is

does not involve decisions intended to

mitigate environmental health or safety

risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, 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 by

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.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. 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 SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP 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. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 171 / Friday, September 3, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 48307

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 annual 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 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).

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 November 2,

1999. 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 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: August 18, 1999.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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.

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(247) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(267) New plan for Owens Valley PM–

10 Planning Area for the following

agency was submitted on December 10,

1998 by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Great Basin Unified APCD.

(1) Owens Valley PM–10 Planning

Area Demonstration of Attainment State

Implementation Plan, Section 7–4,

Commitment to adopt 2003 SIP Revision

and Section 8–2, the Board Order

adopted on November 16, 1998 with

Exhibit 1.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99–22930 Filed 9–2–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[FCC 99–147; MM Docket No. 91–259; RM–

7309, RM–7942, RM–7943, RM–7944, RM–

7948]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Canovanas, Culebra, Las Piedras,

Mayaguez Quebradillas San Juan and

Vieques, PR, and Christiansted and

Frederiksted, VI

ACTION: Final rule; Application for

review.

SUMMARY: This document denies an

Application for Review filed by WKJB

AM–FM, Inc. directed to the

Memorandum Opinion and Order in

this proceeding. Based upon preferential

FM allotment priorities, the

Commission finds a proposed channel

substitution, its reallotment, and the

modification of a station’s license to be

within the public’s interest. With this

action, the proceeding published

September 16, 1996 (61 FR 48638) is

terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Hayne, Mass Media Bureau (202)

418–2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order in MM Docket No. 91–259,

adopted June 17, 1999, and released

June 21, 1999. The full text of this

decision is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC’s Reference Information

Center at Portals II, CY–A257, 445 12th

Street, SW, Washington, D.C. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, (202) 857–3800,

1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

20036.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 99–23071 Filed 9–2–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE22

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Final Endangered Status

for 10 Plant Taxa From Maui Nui, HA

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),

as amended, we (the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service)) determine

endangered status for 10 plant taxa—

Clermontia samuelii (o ́ha wai), Cyanea

copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis (haha),

Cyanea glabra (haha), Cyanea

hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora (haha),

Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis

(na‘ena‘e), Hedyotis schlechtendahliana

var. remyi (kopa), Kanaloa

kahoolawensis (kohe malama malama o

Kanaloa), Labordia tinifolia var.

lanaiensis (kamakahala), Labordia

triflora (kamakahala), and Melicope

munroi (alani). All 10 taxa are endemic

to the Maui Nui group of islands in the

Hawaiian Islands. This group includes

Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe.

Clermontia samuelii, Cyanea copelandii

ssp. haleakalaensis, Cyanea glabra,

Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora,

and Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis

are endemic to the island of Maui.

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi

and Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis are