Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules 25183

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(Pub. L. 96–511, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et

seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2050–0053.

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),

Public Law 104–4, which was signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA

generally must prepare a written

statement for rules with Federal

mandates that may result in estimated

costs to State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year. When such a statement

is required for EPA rules, under section

205 of the UMRA, the EPA must

identify and consider alternatives,

including the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The EPA must select that alternative,

unless the Administrator explains in the

final rule why it was not selected or it

is inconsistent with law. Before the EPA

establishes regulatory requirements that

may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including tribal

governments, it must develop under

section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, giving them

meaningful and timely input in the

development of the EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising them

on compliance with the regulatory

requirements. The UMRA generally

defines a Federal mandate for regulatory

purposes as one that imposes an

enforceable duty upon state, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

The EPA finds that today’s proposed

delisting decision is deregulatory in

nature and does not impose any

enforceable duty upon state, local or

tribal governments or the private sector.

In addition, the proposed delisting does

not establish any regulatory

requirements for small governments and

so does not require a small government

agency plan under UMRA section 203.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

§ 6921(f).

Dated: May 3, 1996.

Jane N. Saginaw,

Regional Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

1. The authority citation for Part 261

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

6922, and 6938.

2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX of Part

261 it is proposed to add the following

waste stream in alphabetical order by

facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes

Excluded Under § 260.20 and 260.22.

TABLE 2.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

* * * * * * *

Giant Refining Company, Inc ......... Bloomfield, New Mexico ................ Waste generated during the excavation of soils from two wastewater

treatment impoundments (referred to as the South and North Oily

Water Ponds) used to contain water outflow from an API separator

(EPA Hazardous Waste No. K051). This is a one-time exclusion for

approximately 2,000 cubic yards of stockpiled waste. This exclusion

was published on [insert publication date of the final rule].

Notification Requirements:

Giant Refining Company must provide a one-time written notification

to any State Regulatory Agency to which or through which the

delisted waste described above will be transported for disposal at

least 60 days prior to the commencement of such activities. Failure

to provide such a notification will result in a violation of the delisting

petition and a possible revocation of the decision.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–12607 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1 and 73

[MM Docket No. 96–16, FCC 96–198]

Revision of Broadcast EEO Policies

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period; dismissal of petition

for reconsideration.

SUMMARY: In Streamlining Broadcast

EEO Rules and Policies, FCC 96–198,

released April 26, 1996 (Streamlining),

the Commission dismisses a Petition for

Reconsideration, grants a Petition for

Clarification in part and denies it in

part, and grants a motion for extension

of time concerning the Commission’s

Order and Notice of Proposed Rule

Making, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), MM

Docket No. 96–16, 61 FR 9964 (March

12, 1996) (NPRM). The Commission

finds that the public interest favors

grant of the motion for extension of

time.

DATES: Initial comments due July 1,

1996; reply comments due July 31,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hope G. Cooper, Mass Media Bureau,

Enforcement Division. (202) 418–1450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of Streamlining, FCC 96–198,

adopted and released April 26, 1996.

The complete text of Streamlining is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, NW., Washington, DC, and

also may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,
25184 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Inc., at (202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street,

NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Order and Notice of

Proposed Rule Making

The Commission responds to two

pleadings, a Petition for Reconsideration

and Clarification, and a Motion for

Extension of Time, filed by twenty

organizations (including the Minority

Media and Telecommunications

Council), concerning the Commission’s

Order and Notice of Proposed Rule

Making, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), MM

Docket No. 96–16, 61 FR 9964 (March

12, 1996). In the Petition for

Reconsideration and Clarification,

among other things, Petitioners argue

that, because the NPRM has the effect of

rejecting proposals previously

submitted to the Commission, the

NPRM is a final action against which

petitions for reconsideration may be

filed pursuant to Section 1.429 of the

Commission’s Rules. They also argue

that the Commission should amend the

NPRM to include various proposals set

forth in the Petition, as well as revise

language in the NPRM to clarify that it

is soliciting comment in support of

increased, as well as reduced, EEO

requirements. In the Motion for

Extension of Time, Petitioners request

that the Commission extend the date for

submission of comments in response to

the NPRM to two months following the

issuance of an order reconsidering and/

or clarifying the NPRM. They contend

that without such an order they would

be unable to develop thorough and

meaningful comments to the NPRM. In

addition, Petitioners assert that their

present resources are severely limited

by, among other things, their

involvement in proceedings concerning

the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

2. The Commission rejects Petitioners’

argument that the NPRM is a final

action, finding that the NPRM did not

implement any rule or reject any

proposals presently pending before the

Commission, and, accordingly,

dismisses the Petition for

Reconsideration. See 47 CFR 1.429. The

Commission grants the Petition for

Clarification in part and otherwise

denies it. The Commission states that

‘‘[t]he proposals in the NPRM sought to

further the objectives of our EEO Rule

and policies while minimizing undue

regulatory burdens on broadcasters. We

encourage Petitioners to submit with

their comments any alternatives to the

proposals that further these goals.’’

Finally, the Commission finds that the

public interest favors grant of the

motion for extension of time, and,

therefore, the Commission extends the

comment and reply comment dates to

July 1, 1996, and July 31, 1996,

respectively.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12588 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96–112; FCC 96–214]

Allocation of Costs Associated With

Local Exchange Carrier Provision of

Video Programming Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In the NPRM, the Commission

would define the goals of our cost

allocation rules and of the 1996 Act.

Guided by these goals, the NPRM would

seek specific comment on allocating

certain categories of incumbent local

exchange carriers’ plant between

regulated Title II and nonregulated

(non-Title II) activities. Particular

attention would be directed to the

allocation of loop facilities, all of which

have been allocated to regulated

activities in the past. The intended

effect of this action is to revise the

Commission’s rules regarding cost

allocation to accommodate the

provision of nonregulated and non-Title

II services that share outside plant

facilities with regulated services.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before May 28, 1996. Reply

comments are due on or before June 7,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M St., N. W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Mulitz, Attorney/Advisor

Accounting and Audits, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–0850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. This is a summary of the

Commission’s Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking adopted May 10, 1996, and

released May 10, 1996. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Dockets Branch (Room 239), 1919 M St.,

N.W., 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, 1990 M

Street, N.W., Suite 246, Washington,

D.C. 20554.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

2. We have determined that Section

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act

of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b) does not apply

to this rulemaking proceeding because if

promulgated, it would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The definition of a ‘‘small entity’’ in

Section 3 of the Small Business Act

excludes any business that is dominant

in its field of operation. Although some

of the local exchange carriers that will

be affected are very small, local

exchange companies do not qualify as

small entities because they have a

nationwide monopoly on ubiquitous

access to the subscribers in their service

area. The Commission has found all

exchange carriers to be dominant in the

Competitive Carrier proceeding. 85 FCC

2d 1, 23–24 (1980). To the extent that

small telephone companies will be

affected by these rules, we hereby

certify that these rules will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of ‘‘small entities.’’

Although we do not find that the

Regulatory Flexibility Act is applicable

to this proceeding, this Commission has

an ongoing concern with the effect of its

rules and regulations on small business

and the customers of the regulated

carriers as is evidenced by this

proceeding.

Ordering Clause

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,

pursuant to Sections 302 and 703 of the

1996 Act, and sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201,

215, 218 and 220 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),

201, 215, 218, 220), a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking is hereby

ADOPTED.

It is further ordered that the Secretary

shall send a copy of this Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, including the

Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration, in

accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq. (1981).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Communications common carriers,

Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12586 Filed 5–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P