Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules 89

1Maximum theoretical emissions (MTE) is

defined in 40 CFR 52.741(a)(3) as the quantity of

volatile organic material emissions that

theoretically could be emitted by a stationary

source before add-on controls based on the design

capacity or maximum production capacity of the

source and 8760 hours per year. The design

capacity or maximum production capacity includes

use of coating(s) or ink(s) with the highest volatile

material content actually used in practice by the

source.

2The term ‘‘volatile organic material’’ (VOM) is

used in the Chicago FIP, in which it has the

identical definition as VOC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Regulation Development

Branch, 18th Floor Southwest, 77

West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois,

60604, and

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Docket No. A–94–40, Air Docket (LE–

131), Room M1500, Waterside Mall,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Regulation

Development Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 40

CFR 52.741(x) in the Chicago FIP,

sources located in Cook, DuPage, Kane,

Lake, McHenry and Will Counties with

total Maximum Theoretical Emissions 1

(MTE) of more than 100 tons per

calendar year of VOC2 and which are

not covered by a Control Techniques

Guideline document, must comply with

certain requirements. The rule provides

an exemption, however, for sources

which are limited to 100 tons or less of

VOC emissions per calendar year, before

the application of capture systems and

control devices, through production or

capacity limitations contained in a

federally enforceable construction

permit or a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) or FIP.

On February 24, 1992, FDLC

requested a FIP revision that would

impose the identical limitations on its

plant operations as those specified in a

December 16, 1991, Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) operating permit. A copy of the

IEPA operating permit was submitted to

USEPA on April 13, 1992. If granted,

this FIP revision would restrict its use

of inks, overvarnish, fountain solution,

acrylic coating, washes, conditioners,

and other solvents with the intent of

keeping its VOC emissions below 100

tons per year.

FDLC’s requested FIP revision is not

approvable for the following reasons.

1. FDLC’s permit assumes that only 5

percent of the VOC in its overvarnish is

capable of being emitted. Credit was

taken for 95 percent retention in the

substrate for overvarnish without any

documentation in support of this

assumption. Without such

documentation, it must be assumed that

100 percent of the VOC is emitted.

Without credit for overvarnish

retention, FDLC’s operating restrictions

limit FDLC to 126.6 tons VOC per year,

well over the 100 tons per year

applicability cutoff.

2. FDLC’s permit does not require that

records of VOC-containing material

usage be kept. Without such records it

is not possible to determine FDLC’s

yearly (for each consecutive 12 month

interval) VOC emissions.

These deficiencies were discussed

with a representative of FDLC on May

20, 1992.

Proposed Rulemaking Action and

Solicitation of Public Comment

For the reasons stated above, USEPA

is proposing to disapprove FDLC’s

request for a FIP revision in the form of

operating restrictions on the amount of

VOC containing materials used. Public

comment is solicited on FDLC’s

requested revision and on USEPA’s

proposed rulemaking action.

Additionally, if requested, USEPA will

provide an opportunity for a public

hearing on this proposal. All comments

received by the close of the public

comment period will be considered in

the development of USEPA’s final rule.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with populations of less than

50,000.

This action involves only one source,

FDLC. Therefore, USEPA certifies that

this promulgation does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Furthermore,

as explained in this notice, the request

does not meet the requirements of the

Act and USEPA cannot approve the

request.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 23, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94–32296 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300363A; FRL–4928–3]

RIN No. 2070–AC18

Proposed Tolerance Revocation for

Folpet; Extension of Comment Period

and Request for Additional Information

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of Comment Period

and Request for Additional Information.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the

comment period for ‘‘Revocation of

Folpet Tolerances; Proposed Rule’’ from

January 3, 1995 until March 3, 1995,

and is requesting additional information

from interested parties.

DATES: Written comments, identified by

the OPP document control number

OPP–300363, must be received on or

before March 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments

to Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. In person, deliver comments

to Room 201, Crystal Mall #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Jeff Morris, Special Review and

Reregistration Division (7508W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location and telephone number:

Special Review Branch, Crystal Station

#1, 3rd floor, 2800 Crystal Drive,

Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308–8029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Comment Period Extension

On December 2, 1994, EPA published

in the Federal Register a notice

proposing to revoke all folpet tolerances

except for the tolerance on avocados (59

FR 61859). The original due date for

comments to the Proposed Rule was

January 3, 1995. EPA is extending the

comment period until March 3, 1995 for

the following reasons: (1) due to a move,

the OPP docket was unavailable for a

short period of time during the initial

30–day comment period provided by

the proposed rule; (2) EPA received a

request for an extension due to the

docket problem and due to the need to

collect specific information that may be

responsive to the proposal (see letters
90 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 1 / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Proposed Rules

from Weinberg dated 12/20/94 and 12/

9/94: OPP Docket); and (3) a commenter

identified additional issues on which

EPA is requesting comments (see letter

from Weinberg dated 12/19/94: OPP

Docket).

B. Request for Additional Information

EPA is requesting the following: (1)

that any interested parties identify

which tolerances the interested parties

are willing to support by providing the

data necessary to maintain the

tolerances; and (2) that any interested

parties identify specific existing data

that the interested parties are prepared

to submit to support these tolerances.

Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)

requirements for studies submitted in

support of import tolerances are the

same as for domestic uses; i.e., the

studies are required to either fully meet

GLP standards, or have sufficient

justification presented to show that

deviations from GLP requirements do

not significantly affect the results of the

study. Interested parties should submit

this information to the address listed

under ADDRESSES by March 3, 1995.

For those tolerances for which

interested parties do not indicate

support during the comment period,

EPA proposes to take final revocation

action.

Dated: December 23, 1994.

Louis P. True,

Director, Special Review and Reregistration

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 94–32285 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94-155, RM–8468]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Big Pine

Key, Key Colony Beach, Naples & Tice,

Florida

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition by Gulf

Communications Partnership, permittee

of Station WAAD(FM), Channel 229A,

Tice, Florida, seeking the substitution of

Channel 229C2 for Channel 229A at

Tice, Florida, and the modification of

Station WAAD(FM)’s construction

permit to specify Channel 229C2. This

proposal also requires the substitution

of Channel 283C for Channel 284C at

Big Pine Key, Florida; the substitution

of Channel 267C2 for Channel 280C2 at

Key Colony Beach, Florida, and the

substitution of Channel 284A for

Channel 228A at Naples Florida. The

coordinates for Channel 229C2 at Tice

are North Latitude 26–36–21 and West

Longitude 81–57–10. The coordinates

for Channel 284A at Naples presently

licensed site are North Latitude 26–07–

21 and West Longitude 81–43–22. The

coordinates for Channel 283C at Big

Pine Key’s presently licensed site are

North Latitude 24–39–38 and West

Longitude 81–25–10. The coordinates

for Channel 267C2 at the construction

permit site for Key Colony Beach are

North Latitude 24–42–25 and West

Longitude 81–06–17.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before February 17, 1995, and reply

comments on or before March 6, 1995.

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: Kathleen Victory, Howard M.

Weiss, Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, 1300

N. 17th Street, 11th Floor, Rosslyn, VA

22209 (Counsel for Gulf

Communications Partnership).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy J. Walls, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 634–6530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

94-155, adopted December 15, 1994, and

released December 27, 1994. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC 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 contractors, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1919 M Street, NW, Room 246, or

2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of l980 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. 94–32273 Filed 12–30–94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 94-156; RM–8564]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Hawesvillle, Kentucky and Tell City,

Indiana

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by WLME,

Inc., proposing the substitution of

Channel 246A for Channel 289A at

Hawesville, Kentucky, and the

modification of Station WKCM-FM’s

license accordingly. To accommodate

the substitution, petitioner also

proposes the substitution of Channel

289A for Channel 245A at Tell City,

Indiana, and the modification of Station

WXSC(FM)’s construction permit

accordingly. An engineering analysis

has determined that Channel 246A can

be allotted to Hawesville, Kentucky, in

compliance with the Commission’s

minimum distance separation

requirements with a site restriction of

3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles) northeast at

petitioner’s licensed site. The

coordinates for Channel 246A at

Hawesville are North Latitude 37–55–33

and West Longitude 86–43–19.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before February 17, 1995 and reply

comments on or before March 6, 1995.

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: John J. Garziglia, Esq.,

Pepper & Corazzini, L.L.P., 1776 K

Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington,

D.C. 20006 (Counsel for Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 634–6530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

94-156, adopted December 15, 1994, and

released December 27, 1994. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the