Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices 42791

from 1989 through 1992 and field trial

residue data, MBC exposure was

calculated. This exposure multiplied by

the cancer potency factor (Q*) generates

the potential cancer risk attributable to

MBC at the 95% confidence interval.

Life-time cancer risk for the total U.S.

population for all seasons is calculated

to be 2.71 x 10-7. With the addition of

grape and pear uses the lifetime cancer

risk is 2.89 x 10-7. The most sensitive

sub-population is non-hispanic other

than black or white, with a cancer risk

of 4.56 x 10-7.

5. Infants and children. Based on the

acute and chronic dietary assessments,

there is reasonable certainty of no harm

to children who consume food treated

with TM. Potential exposure from water

or non-occupational exposure is

minimal. Inhalation and dermal

exposure is unlikely. The acute MOEs

for dietary ingestion are large.

The potential of TM to induce toxic

effects in children at a greater sensitivity

than the general population has been

assessed by the rat and rabbit

developmental and 2-generation

reproduction studies. No major

teratogenic or fetotoxic effects were

present in the absence of maternal

toxicity. The TM 2-generation

reproduction study showed thyroid and

liver effects in both the parental and

first generation pups. The effects were

greater in the parental animals than in

subsequent generations. This would

indicate that there is no greater

sensitivity for neo-nates, infants and

children to TM than the general

population. The reproductive and

developmental data base is complete.

There is no need to impose an

additional safety factor to protect infants

and children. Based on the level of

potential exposure and similar

sensitivity to the adult population,

infants and children are well protected

by the current TM regulatory policy.

F. International Tolerances

The CODEX Maximum Residue

Limits (MRL) for thiophanate-methyl are

expressed as the metabolite MBC. The

grape MRL is 10 mg/kg and the pear

MRL is 5 mg/kg. (Mary Waller)

[FR Doc. 97–20990 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5871–7]

De Minimis Settlement Under Section

122(g) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA), as amended, Peerless

Industrial Paint Coatings Site, City of

St. Louis, St. Louis County, Missouri;

Notice of Request for Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has entered into a de

minimis administrative settlement to

resolve claims under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, 42

U.S.C. 9622(g). The settlement is

intended to resolve the liability of

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

(Westinghouse) for the response costs

incurred and to be incurred at the

Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings Site,

City of St. Louis, St. Louis County,

Missouri.

DATES: Written comments must be

provided on or before September 8,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the Regional

Administrator, United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region VII, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, Kansas 66101 and should

refer to: In the Matter of the Peerless

Industrial Paint Coatings Superfund

Site, City of St. Louis, St. Louis County,

Missouri, EPA Docket Nos. VII–97–F–

0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Denise L. Roberts, Assistant Regional

Counsel, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region VII, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101, (913) 551–7559.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

(‘‘Westinghouse’’ or de minimis party’’),

the settling party, is a de minimis

generator of hazardous substances found

at the Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings

Site, which is the subject Superfund

Site. On April 21, 1997, Region VII

entered into a de minimis

administrative settlement to resolve

claims under Section 122(g) of CERCLA,

42 U.S.C. 9622(g).

The Peerless Industrial Paint Coatings

Site (the ‘‘Site’’) is located in St. Louis

at 1265 Lewis Street, St. Louis,

Missouri, approximately 1⁄4 mile north

of downtown St. Louis in an industrial

section of the city. The de minimis

party, Westinghouse, is a corporation

that operated a facility in Manor,

Pennsylvania from 1937 until July 1995

which manufactures and sells paints

and resins to commercial customers.

Westinghouse sold polyester resins and

alkyds to Peerless Industrial Paint

Coatings (‘‘Peerless’’), a St. Louis

corporation, at very low prices.

Westinghouse admitted that it sold

secondary coatings or materials to

Peerless at very low prices, which were

less than the costs of disposal for

hazardous wastes at an authorized

permitted facility. Peerless was a

manufacturer of paints and magazine

coatings that purchased large quantities

of paint materials at low prices and

accumulated more materials on-site

than could be used. In June 1993, the

EPA began a removal action at the site.

Approximately 3500 drums of

hazardous substances that demonstrated

the characteristic of ignitability were

removed from the facility at the cost of

$1,089,062.71.

The settlement has been approved by

the U.S. Department of Justice because

the response costs in this matter exceed

$500,000.00. The EPA estimates the

total past and future costs will be

approximately $1,342,357.05. Pursuant

to the Administrative Order on Consent,

the de minimis party is responsible for

its attributable share of 1.71 percent of

the hazardous substances removed from

the Site. Westinghouse had agreed to

pay a total of $27,920.07 which is

further detailed as follows: $17,720.07 is

its attributable share of past costs,

$5,100.00 is its attributable share of

anticipated future costs; and $5,100.00

is a premium of 100% for future cost

overruns. The EPA determined these

amounts to be the de minimis party’s

fair share of liability based on the

amount of hazardous substances found

at the Site and contributed by the

settling party. The settlement includes

contribution protection from lawsuits by

other potentially responsible parties as

provided for under section 122(g)(5) of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g)(5).

The de minimis settlement provides

that the EPA covenants not to sue the de

minimis party for response costs at the

Site or for injunctive relief pursuant to

Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA and

section 7003 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1980,

as amended (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6973.

The settlement contains a reopener

clause which nullifies the covenant not

to sue if any information becomes

known to the EPA that indicates that the

parties no longer meet the criteria for a
42792 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 153 / Friday, August 8, 1997 / Notices

de minimis settlement set forth in

Section 122(g)(1)(A) of CERCLA, 42

U.S.C. 9622(g)(1)(A). The covenant not

to sue does not apply to the following

matters:

(a) Liability for failure to meet a

requirement of the Administrative Order

on Consent;

(b) Liability resulting from any future

arrangement for disposal or treatment of

a hazardous substance, pollutant or

contaminant at the Site after the

effective date of the Administrative

Order on Consent;

(c) Criminal liability; or

(d) Liability for damages or injury to,

destruction of, or loss of the natural

resources.

The de minimis settlement will

become effective upon the date which

the EPA issues a written notice to the

party that the statutory public comment

period has closed and that comments

received, if any, do not require

modification of or EPA withdrawal from

the settlement.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–20978 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

August 4, 1997.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13. An agency

may not conduct or sponsor a collection

of information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. No

person shall be subject to any penalty

for failing to comply with a collection

of information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) that does not

display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning: (a)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before October 7, 1997.

If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commissions, Room 234, 1919 M St.,

NW., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Judy

Boley at 202–418–0214 or via internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval No.: 3060–XXXX.

Title: Public Notice—Procedures for

Petitions for Preemption under Section

253 of the Communications Act.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households; business or other for-profit

entities; state, local or tribal

government.

Number of Respondents: 60.

Estimated Hour Per Response: 125

hours per response (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirement.

Estimated Total Annual Burden:

7,500 hours.

Needs and Uses: Section 253 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, added by the

Telecommuncations Act of 1996,

requires the Commission, with certain

important exceptions, to preempt the

enforcement of any State or local statute

or regulation, or other State or local

legal requirement (to the extent

necessary) that prohibits or has the

effect of prohibiting the ability of any

entity to provide any interstate or

intrastate telecommunications service.

The Commission’s consideration of

preemption begins with the filing of a

petition by an aggrieved party. The

petition is placed on public notice and

commented on by others. The

Commission’s decision is based on the

public record, generally composed of

the petition and comments. The Public

Notice the Commission proposed to

release establishes guidelines relating to

its consideration of preemption

petitions. Consideration of a petition

requesting Commission action pursuant

to Section 253 necessarily will involve

state or local statutes, regulations,

ordinances, or other legal requirements

that will likely be initially unfamiliar to

the Commission. In order to render a

timely and informed decision, the

Commission expects petitioners and

commenters to provide it with relevant

information sufficient to describe the

legal regime involved in the controversy

and to establish the factual basis

necessary for decision. The Commission

will use the information to discharge its

statutory mandate relating to the

preemption of State or local statutes or

regulations, or other State or local legal

requirements.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–21036 Filed 8–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

Notice of Agency Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that

at 10:02 a.m. on Tuesday, August 5,

1997, the Board of Directors of the

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

met in closed session to consider certain

corporate, supervisory, and

administrative enforcement activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board

determined, on motion of Director

Joseph H. Neely (Appointive), seconded

by Director Nicolas P. Restinas (Acting

Director, Office of Thrift Supervision),

concurred in by Ms. Leann Britton,

acting in the place and stead of Director

Eugene A. Ludwig (Comptroller of the

Currency), and Acting Chairman

Andrew C. Hove, Jr., that Corporation

business required its consideration of

the matters on less than seven days’

notice to the public; that no earlier

notice of the meeting was practicable;

that the public interest did not require

consideration of the matters in a

meeting open to public observation; and

that the matters could be considered in

a closed meeting by authority of

subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8),

(c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(10) of the

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5

U.S.C. 552b (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8),

(c)(9)(A)(ii)), and (c)(10)).

The meeting was held in the Board

Room of the FDIC Building located at

550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

Dated: August 5, 1997.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–21124 Filed 8–6–97; 12:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–M