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).
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 8, 1995 / Proposed Rules 12725

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

95–30, adopted February 21, 1995, and

released March 3, 1995. 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 contractor, International

Transcription Services, 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. 95–5618 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–28; RM–8593]

Radio Broadcasting Services;

Stamping Ground, Kentucky

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Scott

County Broadcasting, Inc., proposing

the substitution of Channel 241A for

Channel 256A at Stamping Ground,

Kentucky, to enable Station WKYI(FM)

to increase its power to six kilowatts

and eliminate interference within its

protected contour. An engineering

analysis has determined that Channel

241A can be allotted to Stamping

Ground in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements at petitioner’s

requested site with a site restriction of

12.0 kilometers (7.5 miles) east to avoid

short-spacings to the application and

allotment site of Channel 242C3,

Stanford, Kentucky, and Station

WKID(FM), Channel 240A, Vevay,

Indiana. The coordinates for Channel

241A at Stamping Ground are North

Latitude 38–17–43 and West Longitude

84–33–10.

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: James P. Gray, President,

Scott County Broadcasting, Inc., 10

Trinity Place, Fort Thomas, Kentucky

41075 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

95–28, adopted February 21, 1995, and

released March 3, 1995. 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 contractor, International

Transcription Service, 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. 95–5617 Filed 3–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Office of Federal Procurement Policy

48 CFR Part 9904

Cost Accounting Standards Board;

Treatment of Gains or Losses

Subsequent to Mergers or Business

Combinations by Government

Contractors

AGENCY: Cost Accounting Standards

Board, Office of Federal Procurement

Policy, OMB.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Office of Federal

Procurement Policy, Cost Accounting

Standards Board (CASB), proposes to

amend the Cost Accounting Standards

(CAS) relating to treatment of gains or

losses attributable to tangible capital

assets subsequent to mergers or business

combinations by government

contractors.

To resolve the problems that have

been identified in this area, the Board

proposes to amend CAS 9904.404,

‘‘Capitalization of Tangible Assets’’ and

CAS 9904.409, ‘‘Depreciation of

Tangible Capital Assets’’. The proposed

amendments are based on an approach

involving a ‘‘no step-up, no step-down’’

of asset bases and no recognition of gain

or loss on a transfer of assets following

a business combination by contractors

subject to CAS.

Section 26(g)(1) of the Office of

Federal Procurement Policy Act requires

that the Board, prior to the

promulgation of any new or revised Cost

Accounting Standard, publish a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). This

NPRM addresses the Board’s proposal to

amend CAS 9904.404 and CAS 9904.409

to deal with the issue of gains and losses

subsequent to a merger or business

combination.

DATES: Comments should be received by

May 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Dr. Rein Abel, Director of

Research, Cost Accounting Standards

Board, Office of Federal Procurement

Policy, 725 17th Street, NW., room

9001, Washington, DC 20503. Attn:

CASB Docket No. 91–06N.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Rein Abel, Director of Research, Cost

Accounting Standards Board (telephone

202–395–3254).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Regulatory Process

The Cost Accounting Standards

Board’s rules and regulations are

codified at 48 CFR Chapter 99. Section