26018 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Legislature must revise the Health and

Safety Code to eliminate the exemption

of agricultural production sources from

the requirement to obtain a permit.

The above described program and

legislative deficiencies must be

corrected before Monterey can receive

full program approval. For additional

information, please refer to the TSD,

which contains a detailed analysis of

Monterey’s operating permits program

and California’s enabling legislation.

3. District Preconstruction Permit

Program Implementing Section 112(g)

The EPA has published an

interpretive notice in the Federal

Register regarding section 112(g) of the

Act (60 FR 8333; February 14, 1995).

The interpretive notice explains that

EPA is considering whether the effective

date of section 112(g) should be delayed

beyond the date of promulgation of the

federal rule so as to allow states time to

adopt rules implementing the federal

rule, and that EPA will provide for any

such additional delay in the final

section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and

until EPA provides for such an

additional postponement of section

112(g), Monterey must be able to

implement section 112(g) during the

period between promulgation of the

federal section 112(g) rule and adoption

of implementing District regulations.

For this reason, EPA is proposing to

approve the use of Monterey’s

preconstruction review program as a

mechanism to implement section 112(g)

during the transition period between

promulgation of the section 112(g) rule

and adoption by Monterey of rules

specifically designed to implement

section 112(g).

However, since the sole purpose of

this approval is to confirm that the

District has a mechanism to implement

section 112(g) during the transition

period, the approval itself will be

without effect if EPA decides in the

final section 112(g) rule that there will

be no transition period. The EPA is

limiting the duration of this proposed

approval to 12 months following

promulgation by EPA of the section

112(g) rule.

4. Program for Delegation of Section 112

Standards as Promulgated

Requirements for approval, specified

in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section

112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a

program for delegation of section 112

standards as promulgated by EPA as

they apply to part 70 sources. Section

112(l)(5) requires that the state’s

program contain adequate authorities,

adequate resources for implementation,

and an expeditious compliance

schedule, which are also requirements

under part 70. Therefore, EPA is also

proposing to grant approval under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of

Monterey’s program for receiving

delegation of section 112 standards that

are unchanged from federal standards as

promulgated. California Health and

Safety Code section 39658 provides for

automatic adoption by CARB of section

112 standards upon promulgation by

EPA. Section 39666 of the Health and

Safety Code requires that districts then

implement and enforce these standards.

Thus, when section 112 standards are

automatically adopted pursuant to

section 39658, Monterey will have the

authority necessary to accept delegation

of these standards without further

regulatory action by the District. The

details of this mechanism and the

means for finalizing delegation of

standards will be set forth in a

Memorandum of Agreement between

Monterey and EPA, expected to be

completed prior to approval of

Monterey’s section 112(l) program for

delegation of unchanged federal

standards. This program applies to both

existing and future standards but is

limited to sources covered by the part

70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed interim

approval. Copies of the District’s

submittal and other information relied

upon for the proposed interim approval

are contained in a docket maintained at

the EPA Regional Office. The docket is

an organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development

of this proposed interim approval. The

principal purposes of the docket are:

(1) To allow interested parties a

means to identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the approval process, and

(2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by June 15,

1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

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 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 costeffective 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

proposed approval action promulgated

today 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 2, 1995.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–11794 Filed 5–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–62, RM–8601]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Linden,

TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Cass
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 16, 1995 / Proposed Rules 26019

County Radio proposing the allotment

of Channel 257C3 to Linden, Texas, as

the community’s first local aural

transmission service. Channel 257C3

can be allotted to Linden without the

imposition of a site restriction. The

coordinates for Channel 257C3 at

Linden are 33–00–44 and 94–21–55.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before July 3, 1995, and reply comments

on or before July 18, 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: William J. Pennington, III,

5519 Rockingham Road-East,

Greensboro, North Carolina 27407

(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.

95–62, adopted May 3, 1995, and

released May 11, 1995. 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, D.C. 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. 95–11977 Filed 5–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F