41392 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 13, 1999, EPA proposed effluent

limitations guidelines, pretreatment

standards, and new source performance

standards for the Centralized Waste

Treatment (CWT) Point Source Category

(64 FR 2280). The comment period for

the proposal closed on March 15, 1999.

These comments may be reviewed in

the Water Docket at EPA Headquarters

(see address above).

In the January 1999 Federal Register

notice, EPA discussed the use of

modified versions of EPA Methods 625

and 1625 for the determination of all

CWT semivolatile organic pollutants,

including some analytes not currently

listed in these methods, which are

published at 40 CFR part 136, Appendix

A. The proposed modifications to EPA

Methods 625 and 1625 were included in

the EPA Water Docket at proposal. The

modified versions of these methods

would allow the analysis of all CWT

semivolatile organic pollutants in the

proposed rule. In the preamble to the

CWT proposal, the Agency noted its

plans to conduct further validation of

these method modifications and also

noted plans to promulgate these method

modifications in the final rulemaking

for CWT.

Following proposal, EPA conducted a

validation study to demonstrate the

performance of the methods and to use

the data gathered during the study to

develop quality control (QC) acceptance

criteria for the target pollutants. The

resulting modifications to EPA Methods

625 and 1625 consist of text,

performance data, and quality control

(QC) acceptance criteria for the

additional target analytes. The eleven

CWT target analytes are acetophenone,

aniline, benzoic acid, 2,3-

dichloroaniline, o-cresol, p-cresol,

pyridine, alpha-terpineol, carbazole, ndecane, and n-octadecane. This

information would allow a laboratory to

practice the methods with the

additional analytes as an integral part.

In addition to the CWT pollutants, the

study included five pollutants for which

EPA had proposed and then

promulgated effluent limitations in the

Landfills Point Source Category (see 63

FR 6425, February 6, 1998 and 65 FR

3007, January 19, 2000, respectively).

The five Landfill analytes (aniline,

benzoic acid, o-cresol, p-cresol, and

pyridine) are among the CWT target

analytes. The data collected in support

of both CWT and Landfills were

published in a validation study report

dated October 1999, and that report is

available for review in EPA’s Water

Docket. EPA will review the public

comments received on the study and

may, based on those comments, amend

the 40 CFR part 136 revisions made in

the Landfills rule to revise the list of

analytes subject to Methods 625 and

1625.

Today’s notice solicits comments only

on the new data which support the use

of Methods 625 and 1625 for the

pollutants in the CWT rule. Specifically,

the Agency seeks comment on the data

summarized in the study report and

placed in EPA’s Water Docket. The

Agency in not reopening the comment

period on the entire proposed rule.

Therefore, comments on other aspects of

the proposal will not be considered.

The final rule for the Landfills Point

Source Category (see 65 FR 3008,

January 19, 2000) promulgated

amendments to EPA Methods 625 and

1625 by modifying the methods for

additional pollutants, including the five

pollutants of concern for Landfills.

These amendments are also available for

review in EPA’s Water Docket. Since

publication of that rule, EPA has

received inquiries about the scope and

applicability of the amendments to

Methods 625 and 1625 promulgated at

40 CFR part 136 pertaining to the

Landfills rule. Specifically, EPA

received questions on whether these

amendments apply to any other point

source categories. Today’s notice

clarifies EPA’s intent regarding the

published amendments to these

methods. The amendments are

applicable only to the five regulated

pollutants in the Landfills rule when

found in the waste streams regulated

under that rule. When EPA promulgates

effluent limitations and standards for

CWT, EPA plans to further amend the

methods to specify that the revisions to

Methods 625 and 1625 are only

applicable to the five pollutants in the

Landfills rule (listed above) and to the

eleven pollutants promulgated in the

final CWT rule and only for the waste

streams regulated under those rules.

EPA intends to use the revised

Methods 625 and 1625 for monitoring

the pollutants regulated in the CWT and

Landfills rules only and not for general

use. To clarify this intent, EPA plans to

amend Methods 625 and 1625 in the

upcoming final CWT rule to limit the

scope and applicability to these rules.

These amendments will clarify the

Agency’s objective to expand the scope

of Methods 625 and 1625 for complying

with monitoring requirements for the

additional pollutants regulated in the

two effluent guidelines discussed herein

(i.e., CWT and Landfills only).

Dated: June 27, 2000.

J. Charles Fox,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 00–16756 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6727–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; deletion of the

Laskin/Poplar Oil Company Superfund

Site (Site) from the National Priorities

List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to delete

the releases from the Laskin/Poplar Oil

Company Superfund site (Site) from the

NPL and requests public comment on

this action. The NPL constitutes

appendix B to 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended. EPA

has determined that the Site currently

poses no significant threat to public

health or the environment, as defined by

CERCLA, and therefore, further

remedial measures under CERCLA are

not appropriate. We are publishing this

proposed rule without prior notification

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no dissenting comments. A

detailed rationale for this approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

dissenting comments are received, the

deletion will become effective. If EPA

receives dissenting comments, the direct

final action will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period.

Any parties interested in commenting

should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments concerning this

action must be received by August 4,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Richard Boice, Remedial Project

Manager, or Gladys Beard, Associate

Remedial Project Manager, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (SR–

6J), 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41393

Comprehensive information on this Site

is available through the public docket

which is available for viewing at the

Site Information Repositories at the

following locations: U.S. EPA Region 5,

Administrative Records, 77 W. Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 886–

0900; the Henderson Memorial Library,

55 E. Jefferson, Jefferson, OH 44047 and

the Ashtabula Public Library, 355 W.

44th St., Ashtablula, OH 44004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Boice, Remedial Project

Manager, at (312) 886–4740 or Gladys

Beard Associate Remedial Project

Manager at (312) 886–7253, written

correspondence can be directed to either

Mr. Boice or Ms. Beard at U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, (SR–

6J) 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL

60604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, see the Direct

Final Action which is located in the

Rules section of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C.

1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp.; p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 193.

Dated: June 14, 2000.

Gary Gulezian,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V.

[FR Doc. 00–16514 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 00–108; FCC 00–213]

Broadcast Services; Radio Stations,

Television Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

eliminate that section of the

Commission’s rules that that would

prohibit affiliation with an entity

maintaining one of the major television

networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC)

and the UPN or WB television network.

Currently, this rule permits a television

broadcast station to affiliate with an

entity maintaining two or more

broadcast television networks unless the

two or more networks consist of two or

more of the major networks (i.e., ABC,

CBS, NBC and Fox) or one of these four

networks and either the UPN or WB

television network. This rule was

identified as one that should be

modified in the Commission’s Biennial

Review Report.

DATES: Comments are due by September

1, 2000, and reply comments are due by

October 2, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Holberg, Mass Media Bureau,

Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418–

2134 or Dan Bring, Mass Media Bureau,

Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418–

2170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the NPRM in MM Docket

No. 00–108, FCC 00–213, adopted June

8, 2000, and released June 20, 2000. The

complete text of this NPRM is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC and

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service

(202) 857–3800, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Room CY–B402, Washington, D.C. The

NPRM is also available on the Internet

at the Commission’s website: http://

www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

I. Introduction

1. This Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes the

amendment of Section 73.658(g) of the

Commission’s Rules (47 CFR 73.658(g)),

the ‘‘dual network’’ rule applicable to

broadcast stations. This rule permits a

television broadcast station to affiliate

with an entity maintaining two or more

broadcast television networks unless the

two or more networks consist of two or

more of the major networks (i.e., ABC,

CBS, NBC and Fox) or one of these four

networks and either the UPN or WB

television network. These networks are

not explicitly named in the rule.

However, the statute and legislative

history of the Telecommunications Act

of 1996, which required the

Commission to amend the dual-network

to its current form make it clear that

these are the networks intended to be

described by the legislation. As a result

of our analysis in our Biennial Review

proceeding concerning broadcast

ownership rules (Biennial Review

Report in MM Docket No. 98–35

(‘‘Biennial Report’’), FCC 00–191

(Adopted May 26, 2000; Released June

20, 2000)), we made a preliminary

determination that the current rule, as a

result of competition, may no longer

serve the public interest. Accordingly,

we indicated that we would commence

this rulemaking proceeding proposing to

amend the rule by eliminating the

portion of the rule that precludes the

ownership of the UPN or WB networks

by the ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox television

networks.

II. Background

2. As we noted in the Biennial Review

Report, the Commission first adopted a

dual network rule for broadcast radio

networks in 1941 following an

investigation to determine whether the

public interest required ‘‘special

regulations’’ for radio stations engaged

in chain broadcasting (6 FR 2282 (May

6, 1941)). The rule provided that no

license would be issued to a broadcast

station affiliated with a network

organization that maintained more than

one broadcast network. The

Commission extended the dual network

rule to television networks in 1946

(Amendment of Part 3 of the

Commission’s Rules, 11 FR 33 (Jan. 1,

1946)). The Commission believed that

permitting an entity to operate more

than one network might preclude new

networks from developing and

affiliating with desirable stations

because those stations might already be

tied up by the more powerful network

entity. In addition, the Commission

expressed concern that dual networking

could give a network too much market

power. The dual network prohibition,

therefore, was intended to remove

barriers that would inhibit the

development of new networks, as well

to serve the Commission’s more general

diversity and competition goals. The

dual network rule for broadcast

television remained unchanged until

1996, when the Commission amended

the rule to conform with the provisions

in Section 202(e) of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

(Public Law 104–104, 110 Stat. 56

(1996)).

3. Section 73.658(g) sets forth the

Commission’s current dual network

rule. It directly reflects the provisions of

the Telecom Act which permit a

television broadcast station to affiliate

with a person or entity that maintains

two or more networks of television

broadcast stations unless such networks

are composed of: (1) Two or more

persons or entities that were ‘‘networks’’

on the date the Telecom Act was

enacted; or (2) any such network and an

English-language program distribution

service that on the date of the Telecom

Act’s enactment provided 4 or more

hours of programming per week on a

national basis pursuant to network

affiliation arrangements with local

television broadcast stations in markets

reaching more than 75 percent of

television households. Section 202(e) of