27036 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

This rule also does not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it 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. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

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

economically significant. In reviewing

SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to

approve state choices, provided that

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air

Act. In this context, in the absence of a

prior existing requirement for the State

to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS), EPA has no authority to

disapprove a SIP submission for failure

to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. 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. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), 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. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications 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.).

B. 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action making a determination that

the Weirton, West Virginia PM–10

nonattainment area has attained the

PM–10 NAAQS by its applicable

attainment date must be filed in the

United States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 16, 2001.

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 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 1, 2001.

William C. Early,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–12349 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[FRL–6980–7]

Final Effective Date Modification for

the Determination of Nonattainment as

of November 15, 1996, and

Reclassification of the St. Louis Ozone

Nonattainment Area; States of

Missouri and Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rulemaking; delay of

effective date.

SUMMARY: On March 19, 2001, EPA

published a final rule entitled

‘‘Determination of Nonattainment as of

November 15, 1996, and Reclassification

of the St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment

Area; States of Missouri and Illinois’’

(66 FR 15578). The effective date for the

final rule was May 18, 2001. At the

same time, EPA also published its

proposal to delay the effective date of

the determination and reclassification

until June 29, 2001. The 30-day

comment period on our March 19, 2001,

proposal to extend the effective date has

ended and EPA received no adverse

comments. Today EPA is finalizing the

modification of the effective date of our

March 19, 2001, rule from May 18, 2001,

until June 29, 2001. Section 553(d) of

the Administrative Procedure Act

generally provides that rules may not

take effect earlier than 30 days after they

are published in the Federal Register.

However, if an Agency identifies a good

cause, section 553(d)(3) allows a rule to

take effect earlier, provided that the

Agency publishes its reasoning in the

final rule. EPA is making this action

effective immediately because the

effective date of the underlying

nonattainment determination and

reclassification is imminent, and

delaying the effective date of this action

would negate the purpose of this rule.

In addition, EPA finds good cause for

making this action effective

immediately because it relieves a

restriction that would otherwise go into

effect.

DATES: The effective date of the final

rule amending 40 CFR part 81 published

at 66 FR 15578, March 19, 2001, is

delayed for six weeks, from May 18,

2001, to a new effective date of June 29,

2001. The amendments in this final rule

are effective June 29, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lynn M. Slugantz, EPA Region 7, (913)

551–7883; or Edward Doty, EPA Region

5, (312) 886–6057.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27037

1See section 182(c) in conjunction with section

182(f) of the Act for the serious area major source

thresholds for these pollutants.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever

‘‘we, us, or our’’ is used, we mean EPA.

Throughout this document, whenever

‘‘St. Louis Area,’’ ‘‘St. Louis

Nonattainment Area,’’ ‘‘St. Louis NAA,’’

or ‘‘St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment

Area’’ is used, we mean the interstate

area which includes Madison, Monroe,

and St. Clair Counties in Illinois; and

Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, St. Louis

Counties and the City of St. Louis in

Missouri.

In November 1998, the Sierra Club

and the Missouri Coalition for the

Environment filed a complaint in the

United States District Court for the

District of Columbia against EPA

((Sierra Club v. Browner (now Sierra

Club v. Whitman), No. 98–2733 (CKK)),

alleging, in part, that EPA failed to

publish a determination of

nonattainment and notice of the

reclassification of the St. Louis Area to

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment. With respect

to the reclassification issue, the Court in

an opinion and Order dated January 29,

2001, stated that it would require EPA

to ‘‘reach its statutorily required

determination promptly,’’ and ordered

EPA to make its determination no later

than March 12, 2001, ‘‘whether the St.

Louis NAA attained the requisite ozone

standards.’’ It also ordered EPA to

publish a notice of the determination, as

required by the Act, by March 12, 2001.

EPA subsequently requested and the

Court granted an extension to March 20,

2001, for publishing the notice. Court

Order of February 14, 2001. EPA

published its determination on March

19, 2001, in response to the Court’s

Order.

On March 8, 2001, in its Motion Re:

Alternative Planned Response to

Comply with the Court’s Order of

January 29, 2001, EPA informed the

Court of its planned course of action to

comply with the Court’s Order, should

the Court deny a request for a stay filed

by another party. This course of action

included issuing the ‘‘Determination of

Nonattainment as of November 15,

1996, and Reclassification.’’ EPA also

advised the Court that it intended to

propose to postpone the effective date of

that Determination and Notice until

June 29, 2001, and of EPA’s intent to

withdraw the determination and

reclassification if EPA approves an

attainment date extension for the St.

Louis Area before the determination

becomes effective.

The Court, in a limited review to

determine whether EPA’s planned

course of action would contravene the

Court’s Order, indicated that EPA, by

signing a determination by March 12,

and publishing the required Notice by

March 20, would comply with the

Court’s Order. The Court noted that it

lacked jurisdiction to assess the

propriety of the remainder of EPA’s

planned course of action.

On March 19, 2001, EPA published its

proposal to delay the effective date of

the determination and reclassification

until June 29, 2001 (66 FR 15591). EPA

received letters from 39 commenters in

support of the proposal to delay the

effective date. We did not receive any

adverse comments. EPA has determined

that the additional delay of the effective

date of the determination of

nonattainment and reclassification is

necessary to allow regulated entities in

the St. Louis Area a period of time to

prepare for the new requirements that

are applicable to serious nonattainment

areas. In the March 19 proposal, EPA

noted that on the effective date of the

reclassification to serious, the cutoff for

‘‘major sources’’ under the Illinois SIP

will be reduced from 100 tons of

emissions on an annual basis to 50 tons.

Thus, a number of facilities with

volatile organic compound or nitrogen

oxide emission levels between 50 and

100 tons per year may become subject

to major source requirements for the

first time.1 As one commenter pointed

out in support of EPA’s proposal,

extending the date to June 29, 2001, will

provide sufficient notice to the

regulated entities given that the

reclassification proposal on which the

March 19, 2001, rule was based was

published two years ago (64 FR 13384,

March 18, 1999). In that proposal, EPA

announced its intent not to finalize the

nonattainment determination and

reclassification if it granted an

attainment date extension. EPA has

determined that sources possibly subject

to these new requirements should have

additional time to prepare for the

impact of these requirements.

In addition, as EPA stated in its

March 19, 2001, proposal, we will

continue to work on completing a

separate rulemaking on the issue of

whether the St. Louis Area should be

granted an extension of its attainment

date pursuant to EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on

Extension of Air Quality Attainment

Dates for Downwind Transport Areas’’

(64 FR 14441, March 25, 1999), and

remain classified as a moderate

nonattainment area. By taking this final

action to extend the effective date for

the nonattainment determination, EPA

is in a position to take final action on

the proposal to extend the attainment

date for the St. Louis Area before the

nonattainment determination becomes

effective. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act

requires that EPA determine attainment

within six months of the attainment

date. If the attainment date were

extended, there would be a new

deadline for the determination that

would arise only in the future. See

Guidance. Thus, if the attainment date

were extended, EPA’s obligation to

determine attainment would not yet

have occurred. If EPA were to extend

the attainment date for the St. Louis

Area, EPA would withdraw the

published nonattainment determination

and the consequent reclassification,

which would not yet have gone into

effect.

In light of the fact that Missouri and

Illinois have submitted their final SIP

submissions, EPA believes that it will be

able to complete rulemaking on the

attainment date extension request by

June 29, 2001. On April 3, 2001, EPA

published its proposal to: (1) Approve

the St. Louis nonattainment area ozone

attainment demonstration for both

Missouri and Illinois, contingent on

Illinois’ submittal of a final attainment

demonstration and motor vehicle

emission budgets, and of an adopted

rule requiring EGUs to achieve a NOX

emission rate of 0.25 pounds per mmBtu

of heat input or less. (The Illinois NOX

rule is the subject of a separate April 3,

2001, proposed rulemaking, 66 FR

17641. Illinois submitted its final

adopted EGU rule to EPA on April 24,

2001); (2) find that the transportation

conformity motor vehicle emission

budgets submitted by Illinois and

Missouri are adequate for conformity

purposes; (3) extend the attainment date

to November 15, 2004. If, prior to the

reclassification delayed effective date of

June 29, 2001, EPA finalizes an

extension to the attainment date for the

St. Louis Area, pursuant to EPA’s policy

regarding extension of attainment dates

for downwind transport areas, then EPA

would rescind its determination of

nonattainment and notice of

reclassification of the area and the area

would retain its classification as a

moderate nonattainment area for ozone;

and (4) withdraw its March 19, 2001,

rulemaking determining nonattainment

and reclassifying the St. Louis

nonattainment area as a serious

nonattainment area for ozone (66 FR

15578).

Such a course would allow the

Agency to fulfill its duty to take into

account upwind transport and allow an

opportunity for the St. Louis Area to

qualify for an extension under the

attainment date extension policy which

EPA has applied in other areas affected

by transport. EPA recently issued final

27038 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2A petition for review of the Washington, D.C.

rulemaking is pending in the Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia (Sierra Club v. EPA, No.

01–1070).

rulemakings granting requests for

attainment date extensions based on its

policy in four ozone nonattainment

areas: Washington, D.C.; Greater

Connecticut; Springfield,

Massachusetts; 66 FR 568 (January 3,

2001), 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001), 66

FR 666 (January 3, 2001) and Beaumont/

Port Arthur, Texas (rulemaking signed

on April 30, 2001).2

Final Action

For the reasons stated above, and in

the March 19, 2001, proposal, EPA is

taking final action to extend to June 29,

2001, the effective date of the final rule

entitled ‘‘Determination of

Nonattainment as of November 15,

1996, and Reclassification of the St.

Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area; States

of Missouri and Illinois’’ (66 FR 15591).

Section 553(d) of the Administrative

Procedure Act generally provides that

rules may not take effect earlier than 30

days after they are published in the

Federal Register. However, if an Agency

identifies a good cause, section

553(d)(3) allows a rule to take effect

earlier, provided that the Agency

publishes its reasoning in the final rule.

EPA is making this action effective

immediately because the effective date

of the underlying nonattainment

determination and reclassification is

imminent, and delaying the effective

date of this action would negate the

purpose of this rule. In addition, EPA

finds good cause for making this action

effective immediately because it relieves

a restriction that would otherwise go

into effect.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), EPA is

required to determine whether

regulatory actions are significant and

therefore should be subject to Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review,

economic analysis, and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Executive Order defines a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may

meet at least one of the four criteria

identified in section 3(f), including,

under paragraph (1), that the rule may

‘‘have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely

affect, in a material way, the economy,

a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or state, local, or

tribal governments or communities.’’

The Agency has determined that this

effective date modification would result

in none of the effects identified in

section 3(f) of the Executive Order. This

final rulemaking merely delays the

effective date of EPA’s determination of

nonattainment and would not impose

any new requirements on any sectors of

the economy, or on state, local, or tribal

governments or communities.

B. Executive Order 13045

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 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

proposed action is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because this is

not an economically significant

regulatory action as defined by

Executive Order 12866.

C. Executive Order 13175

On November 6, 2000, the President

issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR

67249) entitled, ‘‘Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175

took effect on January 6, 2001, and

revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal

Consultation) as of that date. This

rulemaking does not affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of Executive Order 13175

do not apply.

D. 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 rulemaking to delay the effective

date of EPA’s nonattainment

determination does not create any new

requirements. Instead, this rulemaking

only delays the effective date of a

factual determination, and would not

regulate any entities. Therefore,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that

today’s proposal would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities within the

meaning of those terms for RFA

purposes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

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 the

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 believes, as discussed above, that

the delay of the effective date of a

determination of nonattainment does

not constitute a Federal mandate, as

defined in section 101 of the UMRA,

because it does not impose an

enforceable duty on any entity.

F. Executive Order 13132

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 27039

preempts state law unless the Agency

consults with state and local officials

early in the process of developing the

proposed regulation.

This delay of the effective date of a

nonattainment determination does 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 this action

does not impose any new requirements

on any sectors of the economy, and does

not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the CAA.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of

the Executive Order do not apply to this

final action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, section 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.

This final action does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did

not consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

List of Subjects for Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: May 7, 2001.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 81.314 is amended by

revising the ozone table entry for the St.

Louis Area to read as follows:

§ 81.314 Illinois.

* * * * *

ILLINOIS—OZONE

[1-hour standard]

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

*******

St. Louis Area:

Madison County ................. June 29, 2001 .......................... Nonattainment ......................... June 29, 2001 .......................... Serious.

Monroe County .................. June 29, 2001 .......................... Nonattainment ......................... June 29, 2001 .......................... Serious.

St. Clair County .................. June 29, 2001 .......................... Nonattainment ......................... June 29, 2001 .......................... Serious.

*******

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * * 3. Section 81.326 is amended by

revising the ozone table entry for the St.

Louis area to read as follows:

§ 81.326 Missouri.

* * * * *

MISSOURI—OZONE

[1-hour standard]

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

*******

St. Louis Area:

Franklin County .................. June 29, 2001 .......................... Nonattainment ......................... June 29, 2001 .......................... Serious.

Jefferson County ................ June 29, 2001 .......................... Nonattainment ......................... June 29, 2001 .......................... Serious.

St. Charles County ............. June 29, 2001 .......................... Nonattainment ......................... June 29, 2001 .......................... Serious.

St. Louis ............................. June 29, 2001 .......................... Nonattainment ......................... June 29, 2001 .......................... Serious.

St. Louis County ................ June 29, 2001 .......................... Nonattainment ......................... June 29, 2001 .......................... Serious.

*******

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

27040 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–12353 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3200

[WO–310–1310–PB–01–24 1A]

RIN 1004–AB18

Geothermal Resources Leasing and

Operations; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the current regulations for

geothermal resources leasing and

operations published in the Federal

Register on September 30, 1998 (63 FR

52356).

DATES: Effective October 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You

may contact Richard Hoops, Bureau of

Land Management (BLM), Nevada State

Office, (775) 861–6568 (Commercial or

FTS) or Shirlean Beshir, Regulatory

Affairs Group (WO–630), (202) 452–

5033 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who

use a telecommunication device for the

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8330, 24 hours a day, seven

days a week, to contact Mr. Hoops or

Ms. Beshir.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

We need to clarify the current

regulations that are the subject of this

correction. In paragraph (a) of § 3261.18,

we clarify that the amount of the surety

or personal bond listed in this section

is the minimum bond amount you must

hold by adding the word ‘‘minimum.’’

As written, the bond amount of the

surety or personal bond BLM requires

appears to be fixed. BLM indicates in

§§ 3214.13 and 3214.14 that the bond

amounts indicated in § 3261.18 and

other sections are minimum bond

amounts. § 3214.14 makes clear that

BLM has the authority to raise the bond

amount if necessary. Today’s action

removes any ambiguity or inconsistency

between § 3261.18 and other sections.

Need for Correction

As published, the current regulations

may confuse or mislead the public.

In paragraph (a) of § 3261.18, we

added the word ‘‘minimum’’ to clarify

the minimum bond amount for a surety

or personal bond to be consistent with

the language of § 3214.13.

List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3200

Environmental protection, geothermal

energy, government contracts, public

lands-mineral resources, reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, surety

bonds.

Dated: April 12, 2001.

Piet deWilt,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and

Minerals Management.

Accordingly, 43 CFR Part 3200 is

corrected by making the following

amendment:

PART 3200—GEOTHERMAL

RESOURCE LEASING

1. The authority citation for part 3200

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 25 U.S.C. 396d,

2107; 30 U.S.C. 1023.

2. Revise paragraph (a) introductory

text of § 3261.18 to read as follows:

§ 3261.18 Do I need a bond before I build

a well pad or drill a well?

* * * * *

(a) Send us either a surety or personal

bond in the following minimum

amount:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–12276 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–1149; MM Docket No. 01–35; RM–

10054]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Young

Harris, GA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel

236A to Young Harris, Georgia, as that

community’s first local FM transmission

service, in response to a petition for rule

making filed by M. Terry Carter and

Douglas Sutton, Jr. d/b/a Tugart

Communications. See 66 FR 12449,

February 27, 2001. This allotment is

made without a site restriction utilizing

city reference coordinates at 34–56–00

NL and 83–50–54 WL. With this action,

this docketed proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective June 22, 2001. A filing

window for Channel 236A at Young

Harris, Georgia, will not be opened at

this time. Instead, the issue of opening

the allotment for auction will be

addressed by the Commission in a

subsequent Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180. Questions related to the

application process should be addressed

to the Audio Services Division, (202)

418–2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 01–35,

adopted April 25, 2001, and released

May 8, 2001. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC’s Reference

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 Twelfth

Street, SW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036,

(202) 857–3800.

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—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 73.202 [Amended]

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

Allotments under Georgia, is amended

by adding Young Harris, Channel 236A.

Federal Communicatiions Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–12272 Filed 5–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01–1151; MM Docket No. 01–4; RM–

10020]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Willow

Creek, California

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots FM

Channel 253A to Willow Creek,