9960 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

records. Appellate determinations,

including extensions of time on appeal,

with respect to records of the United

States Secret Service will be made by

the Deputy Director, United States

Secret Service. Appeals may be mailed

or delivered personally to: Privacy Act

Amendment Appeal, Deputy Director,

United States Secret Service, 950 H

Street, NW., Suite 8300, Washington,

DC 20373–5802.

* * * * *

5. Amend 31 CFR part 1, subpart C,

appendix D—UNITED STATES SECRET

SERVICE, paragraph 6, by removing

‘‘Room 843, 1800 G Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20223,’’ and adding in

its place, ‘‘Suite 8300, 950 H Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20373–5802.’’

Date: February 6, 2001.

W. Earl Wright, Jr.,

Chief Management and Administrative

Programs Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–3634 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–42–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL –6941–1]

RIN 2040–AC44

Water Quality Standards;

Establishment of Numeric Criteria for

Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State

of California; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final Rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to a final rule, Water Quality

Standards; Establishment of Numeric

Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for

the State of California, also know as the

California Toxics Rule, which was

published in the Federal Register on

Thursday, May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31682).

The California Toxics Rule promulgated

numeric aquatic life and human health

criteria for priority toxic pollutants and

a compliance schedule provision which

authorizes the State to issue schedules

of compliance for new or revised

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System permit limits based

on the federal criteria when certain

conditions are met.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

February 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The administrative record

for the final rule is available for public

inspection at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, Water

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105, between

the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. For

access to the administrative record, call

Diane E. Fleck, P.E., Esq. at (415) 744–

1997 for an appointment. A reasonable

fee will be charged for photocopies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diane E. Fleck, P.E., Esq. or Philip

Woods, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, Water Division, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105, (415) 744–1984 or

(415) 744–1997, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

18, 2000, EPA published a final rule in

the Federal Register titled Water

Quality Standards; Establishment of

Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic

Pollutants for the State of California (see

65 FR 31682) that contained

typographical errors. These

typographical errors consisted of

omission of units in the column

headings to a table, inadvertent

placement of a zero in one of the

numeric criteria values, an oversight in

the correct CAS number for a pollutant,

and the incorrect placement of a

parameter in a formula. This action

corrects those typographical errors.

These corrections are all minor in

nature and do not substantively alter the

final rule.

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 this action merely

corrects typographical errors in a rule

that already went through public notice

and comment. Furthermore, the

corrections in today’s rule are all minor

in nature and do not substantively alter

the final rule. Thus, notice and public

procedure are unnecessary. EPA finds

that this constitutes good cause under 5

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

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) (Pub. L.

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. 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 May 18, 2000, Federal

Register notice (65 FR 31682).

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 February

13, 2001. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9961

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

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

Environmental protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, water

pollution control.

Dated: January 19, 2001.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 131 of chapter 1 of title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 131—WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for part 131

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Subpart D—[Amended]

2. Section 131.38 is amended:

a. In the table to paragraph (b)(1)

under the column heading for ‘‘B

Freshwater’’ by revising the column

headings for ‘‘Criterion Maximum

Concentration’’ and ‘‘Criterion

Continuous Concentration’’.

b. In the table to paragraph (b)(1)

under the column heading for ‘‘C

Saltwater’’ by revising the column

headings for ‘‘Criterion Maximum

Concentration’’ and ‘‘Criterion

Continuous Concentration’’.

c. Revising entry ‘‘23.’’ to the table in

paragraph (b)(1).

d. Revising entry ‘‘67.’’ to the table in

paragraph (b)(1).

e. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 131.38 Establishment of Numeric Criteria

for priority toxic pollutants for the State of

California.

* * * * *

(b)(1) * * *

A B

Freshwater

C

Saltwater

D

Human health (10¥6) risk

for carcinogens)

For consumption of:

# Compound CAS

number

Criterion

maximum

conc. (μg/

L)d

B1

Criterion

continous

conc. (μg/

L)d

B2

Criterion

maximum

conc. (μg/

L)d

C1

Criterion

continious

conc. (μg/

L)d

C2

Water &

organisms

(μg/L)

D1

Organisms

only

(μg/L)

D2

*******

23. Chlorodibromomethane ........................................................ 124481 .................... .................... .................... .................... a,c 0.41 a,c 34

*******

67. Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether ................................................. 108601 .................... .................... .................... .................... a 1,400 a,t 170,000

*******

Footnotes to table in Paragraph (b)(1):

*******

a Criteria revised to reflect the Agency q1* or RfD, as contained in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) as of October 1, 1996. The fish tissue bioconcentration factor (BCF) from the 1980 documents was retained in each case. c Criteria are based on carcinogenicity of 10¥6 risk. d Criteria Maximum Concentration (CMC) equals the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for a short period of time without deleterious effects. Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC) equals the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period

of time (4 days) without deleterious effects. μg/L equals micrograms per liter.

*******

tThese criteria were promulgated for specific waters in California in the NTR. The specific waters to which the NTR criteria apply include: Waters of the State defined as bays and estuaries including San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; and waters of the State defined as inland (i.e., all surface waters of the State not bays or estuaries or ocean) without a MUN use designation. This section does not apply instead of the NTR

for these criteria.

* * * * *

9962 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 13, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(2) * * *

(ii) CCC = WER x (Chronic Conversion

Factor) x (exp{mc[ln(hardness)]+bc})

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–3617 Filed 2–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 21, 73, and 76

[MM Docket Nos. 94–150, 92–51, and 87–

154; FCC 00–438]

[RIN 3060–AF82]

Attribution Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document concerns rules

and policies for attributing cognizable

interests in applying the broadcast

multiple ownership rules, the broadcastcable cross-ownership rule, and the

cable-Multipoint Distribution Service

cross-ownership rule. The intended

effect of this action is to clarify and

resolve issues raised in petitions for

reconsideration pertaining to the

application of the Commission’s

attribution rules.

DATES: Effective April 16, 2001. Written

comments by the public on the

proposed information collections are

due April 16, 2001. Written comments

must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the

proposed information collection(s) on or

before April 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW,

Washington DC 20554. A copy of any

comments on the information

collections contained herein should be

submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room 1–

C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

jboley@fcc.gov, and the Edward C.

Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room

10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

edward.springer@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cyndi Thomas or Mania Baghdadi,

Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media

Bureau, at (202) 418–2120. For

additional information concerning the

information collection(s) contained in

this document, contact Judy Boley at

202–418–0214, or via the Internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order on Reconsideration

(‘‘MO&O’’) in MM Docket Nos. 94–150,

92–51, and 87–154, FCC 00–438,

adopted on December 14, 2000, and

released on January 19, 2001. The full

text of this decision is available for

inspection and copying during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW, Room

CY–A257, Washington DC, and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 445 Twelfth Street, SW,

Room CY–B402, Washington DC. The

complete text is also available under the

file name fcc00438.doc on the

Commission’s Internet site at

www.fcc.gov.

This MO&O contains either new or

modified information collection(s)

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (PRA). The general public and

other Federal agencies are invited to

comment on the proposed information

collections contained in this

proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This MO&O contains either new or

modified information collections. The

Commission, therefore, as part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

burdens, invites the general public and

the Office of Management and Budget to

comment on the information collections

contained in this MO&O as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due 60 days from date of

publication of this MO&O in the Federal

Register. Comments should address: (a)

Whether the new or modified collection

of information is necessary for the

proper performance of the functions of

the Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

OMB Approval Number: 3060–XXXX

Title: Reconsideration of Mass Media

Attribution Rules, MM Docket Nos. 94–

150, 92–51, and 87–154.