Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 12723

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by April 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Kay T.

Prince, at the EPA Regional Office listed

below.

Copies of the documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta,

Georgia 30365.

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull

Street, Columbia, South Carolina

29201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kay T. Prince, Regulatory Planning and

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365. The telephone number is 404/

347–3555 x4221. Reference file SC19–1–

5031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: January 26, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5575 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–5168–3]

RIN 2060–AD02

Federal Standards for Marine Tank

Vessel Loading and Unloading

Operations and National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Marine Vessel Loading and

Unloading Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Reopening of public comment

period.

SUMMARY: On May 13, 1994 (59 FR

25004), the EPA proposed standards to

regulate the emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOC) and

hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from

new and existing marine tank vessel

loading and unloading operations which

are part of major sources under section

112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The

initial public comment period closed on

July 18, 1994. With this document, the

EPA reopens the comment period on the

marine tank vessel loading and

unloading operations to request

comment on extending the proposed

compliance dates of 2 years and 3 years

for sections 183(f) and 112 of the CAA

respectively.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate if

possible) to the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (6102),

ATTN. Docket Number A–90–44, Room

M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

Dockets. Docket Number A–90–44

contains supporting information used in

developing the proposed provisions.

This docket is available for public

inspection and copying between 8:00

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, at the EPA’s Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 410 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Mr. David Markwordt, Policy,

Planning and Standards Group,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, U. S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone

number (919) 541–0837.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

13, 1994 (59 FR 25004), the EPA

proposed standards to regulate the

emissions of VOC and HAP from new

and existing marine tank vessel loading

and unloading operations which are

part of major sources under sections

183(f) and 112 of the CAA. The

comment period on the proposed rule

ended on July 18, 1994. This notice

reopens the public comment period for

the proposed rule. However, only

comments limited to the subject

described below will be considered at

this time.

The docket for the proposed rule for

marine vessel loading and unloading

operations received many comments

concerning the 2 and 3 year compliance

dates for section 183(f) and 112 of the

CAA respectively (see Docket Number

A–90–44 items IV–D6, 7, 8, 23, 24, 28,

30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 47, 50, 51,

55, 56, 58, 68, 71, 75, 78, 86, and 103).

These comments provide information

that, according to the commenters, show

that the deadlines provided in the

proposed rule are not practicable. The

commenters also suggest that there are

provisions in sections 112 and 183(f)

which would allow the Agency to revise

its deadline for compliance.

Section 183(f)

The American Petroleum Institute

(API) suggests that, as the controls

required under section 183(f) must be

‘‘reasonably available,’’ the Agency

cannot require implementation of

controls within 2 years if such controls

can not reasonably be completed in the

2-year time frame. API suggests that

EPA should delay the compliance date

to a date that is ‘‘reasonable.’’ API also

suggests a possible phase-in of the

compliance date (see Docket Number A–

90–44 item IV–D–103).

In addition, API notes that section

183(f)(1)(B) provides that a regulation

issued pursuant to Section 183(f)

shall take effect after such period as the

Administrator finds * * * necessary to

permit the development and application of

the requisite technology, * * * except that

the effective date shall not be more than 2

years after promulgation of such regulation.

According to API, this requirement that

the ‘‘effective date’’ be no more than 2

years from promulgation does not

necessarily mean that facilities

necessarily must complete installation

of control equipment within that period.

Indeed, API notes that section 112(d)

regulations are effective upon

promulgation, but the Agency is free to

establish a compliance date for existing

sources of up to 3 years from the

effective date.

According to API, the use of the term

‘‘reasonably available control

technology’’ and imprecision of the term

‘‘effective date’’ in section 183(f)(1)(B),

as well as the provision’s directive that

the Agency consider the ‘‘development

and application of the requisite

technology,’’ would appear to provide

EPA with the latitude to fashion a

solution similar to the one the Agency

arrived at arising under section 211. In

a rulemaking pursuant to section 211(b),

the Agency prescribed testing

requirements for fuels and fuel

additives. The Agency initially took the

position that all testing had to have been

completed and submitted to the Agency

within 3 years of the Section 211 rule’s

promulgation date. API presented

evidence demonstrating that it would be
12724 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules

impossible for the industry to meet this

deadline primarily because ‘‘the number

of laboratory facilities currently

available to conduct the required

emission-based toxicological tests is

very limited.’’ 59 FR 33046 (June 27,

1994). The Agency added:

[W]hile EPA believes that some groups

could complete the testing required by the

rule in 3 years, it is likely that not all of the

fuels and fuel additives to be tested could

complete the requirements in the 3-year time

frame.

Id. The Agency resolved the issue in the

final rule by requiring complete ‘‘Tier

2’’ test data submittal within 3 years of

the rule’s promulgation and a literature

search, characterization of emissions,

exposure analysis, and evidence of a

contractual obligation, ‘‘a qualified

laboratory to conduct the required

tests,’’ and submittal of complete Tier 2

test data within 6 years of promulgation.

59 FR 33046.

For the section 211(b) rulemaking, the

Agency interpreted the term, ‘‘requisite

information’’ as ‘‘either data required by

Tier 1 and 2 or data required by Tier 1

and commitment to conduct Tier 2

testing.’’ 59 FR 33047. Similarly,

according to API, the 2-year ‘‘effective

date’’ of Section 183(f) could be

construed to require that facilities

subject to the control requirements have

contracts in place for the installation of

equipment within 2 years of the rule’s

promulgation. Installation of equipment

could be required by a reasonable date

after the 2 year deadline. (API suggests

3 years after that date.)

Section 112

One option for extending the

compliance date for the Section 112 rule

is to utilize the authority of Section

112(i)(3)(B), which authorizes a 1-year

extension ‘‘if * * * necessary for the

installation of controls.’’ As is noted in

API’s July 18, 1994 comments (see

Docket Number A–90–44 item IV-D34),

the Agency could use the precedent of

the Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP

to announce, in the final rule, that all

facilities subject to control requirements

will be afforded 4 years from the

promulgation date to achieve

compliance. 55 FR 8332 (March 7,

1990). According to API, because of the

very large number of facilities that are

likely to need extensions, an EPA

requirement for individual

applications—and processing of those

applications—would be unnecessarily

burdensome on both the facilities and

the permitting authorities.

Another option for extending the

compliance date for the section 112

rule, according to API, is based on the

Agency’s experience with the section

211 testing rule described above. The

Agency could define ‘‘compliance’’ as

having contracts in place for the

installation of equipment.

Finally, the Agency has concluded, in

the final hazardous organic NESHAP

(HON) rule, that phasing in compliance

with a section 112(d) regulation is

warranted in circumstances where

requiring simultaneous compliance by a

large number of facilities would strain

existing contractors. 59 FR 19402 (April

22, 1994). In the HON rule, the Agency

allowed a phasing-in of the compliance

date for equipment leaks for existing

sources. 40 CFR 63.100(k). Process units

subject to the rule were divided into five

groups; Group V’s compliance date is 1

year later than Group I’s. Similarly, the

Agency has proposed to allow phasing

in of the compliance date for equipment

leaks in thirds, over an 18-month period

in the Refinery MACT rule. 59 FR 36130

(June 30, 1994).

The Agency could use a similar

approach in the final marine loading

and unloading rules. API suggested that

one of several possible phase-in

approaches would be to require

compliance in the following order:

(1) facilities subject to the section

183(f) rule that are located in ozone

nonattainment areas;

(2) facilities subject to the section

183(f) rule that are located in ozone

attainment areas;

(3) facilities subject to the section 112

rule only.

The Agency requests comments on

whether the rule can legally go beyond

the 2 and 3 year compliance dates. And

if extension of compliance dates beyond

the 2 and 3 year requirements is legal,

should the Agency extend the

compliance schedules?

Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Address: Docket. Docket No. A–90–

44, containing supporting information

used in developing the notice, is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the

Agency’s Air Docket, Room M1500, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

B. Executive Order 12866 Review

The Agency has determined that this

action is not ‘‘significant’’ under the

terms of the Executive Order 12866 and

is therefore not subject to OMB review.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain any

information collection requirements

subject to OMB review under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 55 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Compliance

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(6), I hereby

certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it imposes no new

requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations.

Dated: March 1, 1995.

Mary D. Nichols.

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5658 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–30, RM–8599]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Harwood, North Dakota

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Conway

Broadcasting seeking the allotment of

Channel 264C3 to Harwood, ND, as the

community’s first local aural broadcast

service. Channel 264C3 can be allotted

to Harwood in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements with a site

restriction of 14.7 kilometers (9.1 miles)

southwest, at coordinates 47–05–00

North Latitude; 97–00–00 West

Longitude, to avoid a short-spacing to

Station KIKV-FM, Channel 264C1,

Alexandria, Minnesota. Canadian

concurrence in this allotment is

required since Harwood is located

within 320 kilometers of the U.S.-

Canadian border.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before April 24, 1995, and reply

comments on or before May 10, 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: Lars Conway, Conway

Broadcasting, 4415 Fremont Avenue,

South, Minneapolis, MN 55409

(Petitioner).