Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20913

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

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. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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 June 19, 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 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: March 30, 2000.

Nora McGee,

Acting 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.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(263)(i)(C)(2) and

(c)(273) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(263) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) Rule 464, adopted on July 23,

1998.

* * * * *

(273) New and amended regulations

for the following APCD’s were

submitted on August 21, 1998, by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 4621, amended on June 18,

1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–9542 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA095–0234; FRL–6579–3]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Ventura County

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited

approval of revisions to the Ventura

County Air Pollution Control District

(VCAPCD) portion of the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

action was proposed in the Federal

Register on February 22, 2000 and

concerns emissions of sulfur dioxide

(SO2). Under authority of the Clean Air

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act), this action approves a local rule

that regulates emissions of sulfur

compounds and directs California to

correct a rule deficiency. There will be

no sanctions clock as Ventura County

Air Pollution Control District is in

attainment for SO2.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of

the administrative record for this action

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal

business hours. You can inspect copies

of the submitted rule revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,

Washington DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Ventura County APCD, 669 County

Square Dr., 2nd Fl., Ventura, CA

93003–5417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stanley Tong, Rulemaking Office (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

On February 22, 2000 (65 FR 8676),

EPA proposed a limited approval of the

following rule that was submitted for

incorporation into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

VCAPCD ......................................................... 54 Sulfur Compounds ......................................... 6/14/94 7/13/94

We proposed a limited approval

because we determined that this rule

improves the SIP and is largely

consistent with the relevant CAA

requirements. However, we cannot grant

a full approval because the rule contains

a deficiency which was discussed in our

proposed action. Our proposed action

contains more information on the rule

and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. During this

period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing

a limited approval of the submitted rule.

This action incorporates the submitted

rule into the California SIP, including

the provision that was identified as

deficient. As stated in the proposed

rule, EPA is finalizing this action in

20914 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

order to strengthen the SIP. There is no

sanctions clock as VCAPCD is in

attainment for SO2. Note that the

submitted rule has been adopted by the

VCAPCD, and EPA’s final limited

approval does not prevent the local

agency from enforcing the rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

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 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.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. 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

affects 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. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must 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 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

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13121, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

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

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 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. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order 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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20915

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. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. 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 June 19, 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 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur Oxides.

Dated: April 3, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting 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.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(198)(i)(J)(4) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(198) * * *

(i) * * *

(J) * * *

(4) Rule 54, amended on June 14,

1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–9660 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 00–777; MM Docket No. 99–344;

RM–9709]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Lampasas and Leander, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document reallots

Channel 255C1 from Lampasas, Texas,

to Leander, Texas, and modifies the

license for Station KJFK to specify

operation on Channel 255C1 at Leander

in response to a petition filed by

Shamrock Communications, Inc. See 64

FR 71098, December 20, 1999. The

coordinates for Channel 255C1 at

Leander are 30–43–34 and 97–59–23.

With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 99–344,

adopted March 29, 2000, and released

April 7, 2000. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the Commission’s

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy

contractors, International Transcription

Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Texas, is amended by

removing Lampasas, Channel 255C1,

and adding Leander, Channel 255C1.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–9776 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 224 and 226

[Docket No. 000404093–0093–01; I.D.

121198A]

RIN 0648–AN90

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Final Rule to Remove Umpqua River

Cutthroat Trout From the Federal List

of Endangered and Threatened

Species

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that

the Umpqua River cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)

population, formerly identified as an

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of

the species, is part of a larger population

segment that previously was determined

to be neither endangered nor threatened