Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 162 / Monday, August 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 50651

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[AZ072–0085C; FRL–6852–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan and Designation of

Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes

for Carbon Monoxide; State of Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final

rule that was published in the Federal

Register on June 8, 2000 approving the

request of Arizona for the redesignation

of the Tucson Air Planning Area to

attainment for the carbon monoxide

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

and for approval of a maintenance plan.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on August 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eleanor Kaplan, Air Planning Office, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone: (415) 744–1159.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8,

2000 at 65 FR 36353, EPA published a

final rulemaking action approving the

request of Arizona for the redesignation

of the Tucson Air Planning Area to

attainment for the carbon monoxide

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

and for approval of a maintenance plan.

The final rulemaking contained

amendments to 40 CFR part 52 relating

to revised Arizona statutes and to 40

CFR part 81 relating to attainment status

designations. Two of those amendments

were incomplete. This action will

correct the listing under

§ 52.120(c)(96)(i)(A)(1) to add Sections 7

and 8 of House Bill 2254 which were

omitted. This action will also correct the

description of the boundaries for the

‘‘Tucson Area’’ contained in § 81.303

which was incomplete.

Section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),

provides that, when an agency for good

cause finds that notice and public

procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest, the agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. EPA

has determined that there is good cause

for making today’s rule final without

prior proposal and opportunity for

comment because EPA is amending the

tables in 40 CFR 52.120 and 81.303 that

were contained in the final approval of

the Arizona request for redesignation to

attainment of the carbon monoxide

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

for the Tucson Air Planning Area and

approval of a maintenance plan that was

published in the Federal Register on

June 8, 2000. That redesignation was

previously subject to notice and

comment. Thus, notice and public

procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds

that this constitutes good cause under 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Summary of Final Action

In this action EPA is correcting

amendments to 40 CFR part 52, subpart

D and 40 CFR part 81, subpart C that

were contained in the final Federal

Register Notice published on June 8,

2000 redesignating the Tucson Air

Planning Area to attainment for the

carbon monoxide National Ambient Air

Quality Standard. Specifically, this

action amends § 52.120 relating to

Arizona revised statutes and § 81.303

describing the boundaries for the

Tucson Air Planning Area.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, is therefore not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget.

Because the agency has made a ‘‘good

cause’’ finding that this action is not

subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)(Public Law

104–4). In addition, this action does not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments or impose a significant

intergovernmental mandate, as

described in sections 203 and 204 of

UMRA. 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). This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

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

economically significant.

This technical correction action does

not involve technical 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. The rule also

does not involve special consideration

of environmental justice related issues

as required by Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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, as

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

EPA has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implication 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.). EPA’s compliance

with these statutes and Executive

Orders for the underlying rule is

discussed in the June 8, 2000 Federal

Register action.

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. Section 808 allows

the issuing agency to make a rule

effective sooner than otherwise

provided by the CRA if the agency

makes a good cause finding that notice

and public procedure is impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest. This determination must be

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C.

808(2). As stated previously, EPA has

made such a good cause finding,

including the reasons therefor, and

established an effective date of August

21, 2000. 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 action is not

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate Matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

50652 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 162 / Monday, August 21, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control.

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

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter I 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 D—Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by

revising paragraph (c)(96)(i)(A)(1) to

read as follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(96) * * *

(1) House Bill 2254, Section 1: ARS

41–3009.01 (amended); Section 2: 49–

541.01 (amended); Section 3: 49–542

(amended); Section 4: 49–545

(amended); Section 5: 49–557

(amended); Section 6: 49–573

(amended); Section 7: 41–803

(amended) and Section 8: 41–401.01

(amended), adopted on May 18, 1999.

* * * * *

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—Arizona

2. In § 81.303 the table for ‘‘ArizonaCarbon Monoxide’’ is amended by

revising the entry for ‘‘Tucson area:

Pima County (part)’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.303 Arizona

* * * * *

Designated Area

Arizona—Carbon Monoxide

Designation

Classification

Date Type Attainment Date Type

*******

Tucson Area: September 20,

2000.

Pima County (part):

Township and Ranges as follows: T11–12S, R12–14E;

T13–15S, R11–16E; and T16S, R12–16e Gila and Salt

River Baseline and Meridian excluding portions of the

Saguaro National Monument and the Coronado National

Forest.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–21079 Filed 8–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[WT Docket No. 99–263; FCC 00–292]

Availability of Monetary Damages for

State Law Claims Against CMRS

Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Interpretation.

SUMMARY: In this document, the

Commission responds to a Petition for

Declaratory Ruling, and finds that

certain portions of the Communications

Act do not generally preempt the award

of monetary damages against

Commercial Mobile Radio Service

Providers by state courts based on state

consumer protection, tort, or contract

claims. The action is taken to respond

to the Petition and to clarify this issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Woytek or Susan Kimmel, 202–

418–1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order (MO&O) in WT Docket No.

99–263, FCC 00–292, adopted August 3,

2000, and released August 14, 2000. The

complete text of this MO&O is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours at the FCC

Reference Information Center, Courtyard

Level, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services (ITS, Inc.), CY–B400, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC.

Synopsis of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order

1. In this Memorandum Opinion and

Order (MO&O), the Commission

responds to a Petition for Declaratory

Ruling, filed on July 16, 1999, by

Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc.

(WCA Petition). The WCA Petition

concerns whether the provisions of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, serve to preempt state courts

from awarding monetary relief against

Commercial Mobile Radio Service

(CMRS) providers: (a) for violating state

consumer protection laws prohibiting

false advertising and other fraudulent

business practices, or (b) in the context

of contractual disputes and tort actions

adjudicated under state contract and tort

laws. In addition, the issue regarding

damage awards raised in a Petition for

Declaratory Ruling filed by Southwest

Bell Mobile Systems is incorporated

into the Commission’s response to the

WCA Petition. (FCC 99–365, 14 FCC

Rcd 19898, 1999.)

2. The Commission finds that section

332(c)(3)(A) does not generally preempt

the award of monetary damages by state

courts based on state consumer

protection, tort, or contract claims. The

Commission notes, however, that

whether a specific damage calculation is

prohibited by section 332 will depend

on the specific details of the award and

the facts and circumstances of a

particular case.

3. Specifically, the Commission

concludes that award of damages to

customers damaged by a CMRS

provider’s breach of contract or fraud

violation would not normally require a

state court to prescribe, set or fix

wireless rates. A consideration of the

price originally charged, for the

purposes of determining the extent of

harm or injury involved, is not

necessarily an inquiry into the

reasonableness of the original price and

therefore is permissible.