4514 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

which was submitted on March 27,

1996. EPA is soliciting public comments

on the issues discussed in this

document or on other relevant matters.

These comments will be considered

before taking final action. Interested

parties may participate in the Federal

rulemaking procedure by submitting

written comments to the EPA Regional

office listed in the ADDRESSES section of

this document.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to conditionally

approve this revision to the

Massachusetts SIP for an interim

enhanced I/M program. The conditions

for approvability are as follows:

Within 30 days of this document,

Massachusetts commits to submit by

April 1, 1997 a complete approvable

revised 15% plan which shows

sufficient reductions from an enhanced

I/M program utilizing emission credit

estimates agreeable to EPA as discussed

earlier in this document. This includes

MOBILE modeling with a worst case

analysis showing that the

Commonwealth will meet the needed

15% reductions if the program only

achieves reductions equivalent to ASM2

credit at ‘‘phase-in’’ cut points or the

Commonwealth must reduce the credit

claimed for the I/M program. Also,

within 30 days of this document

Massachusetts commits to submit by a

date certain within one year of final

interim approval, revised program

evaluation modeling showing

achievement of at least the low

enhanced I/M standard by 2002.

In addition, within 30 days

Massachusetts commits to submit by a

date certain within one year of final

interim approval, revisions to meet the

requirements for Enhanced I/M

Performance Standard—40 CFR 51.351,

Adequate Tools and Resources—40 CFR

51.354, Test Procedures and

Standards—40 CFR 51.357, Quality

control—40 CFR 51.359, Waivers and

Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection—

40 CFR 51.360 , Quality Assurance—40

CFR 51.363 and a revised modeling

analysis showing achievement of the

performance standard by 2002.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

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 impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

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).

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 that

includes a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated 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 has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated 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 Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

state, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

The Administrator’s decision to

approve or disapprove the SIP revision

will be based on whether it meets the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K)

and part D of the Clean Air Act, as

amended, and EPA regulations in 40

CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: January 15, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 97–2194 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CO–001–0009b; FRL–5674–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Colorado; Revisions to Regulation

No.’s 3 and 7 for Pioneer Metal

Finishing Inc. and a Revision to

Regulation No. 7 for Lexmark

International Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of

the revisions to the Colorado State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to Regulation

No. 3, ‘‘Air Contaminant Emissions

Notices,’’ and Regulation No. 7,

‘‘Regulation To Control Emissions of

Volatile Organic Compounds.’’ The

revisions to Regulations Nos. 3 and 7 for

Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc. (PMF)

consist of a source specific SIP revision

to allow PMF to purchase banked

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

emission reduction credits (ERC) from

Coors Brewing Company (Coors), to

enable PMF to come into compliance

with the VOC Reasonable Available

Control Technology (RACT)

requirements of Regulation No. 7 (Reg.

7). The revision to Reg. 7 for Lexmark

International Inc. (Lexmark) consists of

a source-specific SIP revision to allow

Lexmark to utilize the provisions of Reg.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 4515

7 to perform crossline averaging for the

purposes of meeting the VOC RACT

requirements of Reg. 7. In the Final

Rules Section of this Federal Register,

EPA is approving the State’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision as a

direct final rule without prior proposal

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial revision amendment

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this proposed rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this rule. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by March 3,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to:Richard R. Long,

Director, Air Program (8P2-A), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available for public

inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday at the following

office:

United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 8, Air

Program, 999 18th Street, suite 500,

Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Russ, Air Program (8P2-A), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466;Telephone number: (303) 312–

6479.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

action which is located in the rules

section of this Federal Register.

Dated: December 2, 1996.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–2289 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–265, RM–8913]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Dickson

and Kingston Springs, Tennessee

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition by Tuned In

Broadcasting, Inc., licensee of Station

WYYB(FM), Channel 229A, Dickson,

Tennessee, requesting the reallotment of

Channel 229A from Dickson to Kingston

Springs, Tennessee, and modification of

the license for Station WYYB(FM) to

specify Kingston Springs as its

community of license. Channel 229A

can be allotted to Kingston Springs in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance requirements with a

site restriction of 11.9 kilometers (7.4

miles) east. The coordinates for Channel

229A at Kingston Springs are 36–07–13

and 86–59–03. In accordance with

Section 1.420(i) of the Commission’s

Rules, we will not accept competing

expressions of interest in use of Channel

229A at Kingston Springs or require the

petitioner to demonstrate the

availability of an additional equivalent

class channel for use by such parties.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 3, 1997, and reply

comments on or before March 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: David D. Oxenford, Lauren

Lynch Flick, Fisher, Wayland, Cooper,

Leader & Zaragoza, L.L.P., 2001

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400,

Washington, DC 20006 (Counsel for

petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

96–265, adopted December 27, 1996,

and released January 10, 1997. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC’s Reference Center (Room 239),

1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

The complete text of this decision may

also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor, ITS, Inc.,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, NW,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–2311 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–24; RM–8973]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Midwest,

WY

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Windy

Valley Broadcasting proposing the

allotment of Channel 300A at Midwest,

Wyoming, as the community’s first local

aural transmission service. Channel

300A can be allotted to Midwest in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements at city reference

coordinates. The coordinates for

Channel 300A at Midwest are North

Latitude 43–26–36 and West Longitude

106–16–24.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 17, 1997, and reply

comments on or before April 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Victor A. Michael, Jr.,

President, Windy Valley Broadcasting,

c/o Magic City Media, 1912 Capitol

Avenue, Suite 300, Cheyenne, Wyoming

82001 (Petitioner).