43328 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices

document. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Mark Wilhite, Special Review

Branch (7508W), Special Review and

Reregistration Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20046. Office location,

telephone number, and e-mail address:

Special Review Branch, 3rd floor, 2800

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA, (703) 308–

8586, e-mail:

wilhite.mark@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

Vinclozolin (trade names Ronilan,

Curalan, and Ornilan) is a fungicide first

registered in 1981 to control various

types of rot caused by Botrytis spp.,

Sclerotinia spp, and other types of mold

and blight causing organisms, on

strawberries, lettuce (all types),

stonefruit, tomatoes, grapes, raspberries,

onions, succulent beans, residential turf,

recreational areas, golf courses,

commercial and industrial sites.

Vinclozolin is also registered for use on

ornamental plants in green houses and

nurseries. BASF, the sole registrant of

vinclozolin used on food commodities,

sought a new section 3 registration for

use of vinclozolin on succulent beans.

EPA was unable to make the

‘‘reasonable certainty of no harm’’

finding mandated by section 408(b)(2) of

the FFDCA for a new succulent beans

use and associated tolerances if all

existing uses remained in place. To

reduce aggregate risk posed by exposure

to vinclozolin, and thereby enable the

Agency to make a ‘‘reasonable certainty

of no harm’’ finding for succulent beans

and the related tolerances, BASF

requested the voluntary cancellation of

some registered uses.

II. BASF Request to Amend

Registrations

On April 30, 1997, BASF submitted a

written request to EPA seeking to amend

the registrations for vinclozolin.

Specifically, BASF requested that EPA

delete from registration numbers 7969-

53, 7969-57, 7969-62, and 7969-85 the

use of vinclozolin on plums, including

plums grown for prunes, grapes,

tomatoes, residential turf, and turf in

parks, school grounds, and recreational

areas.

III. Deletions Pursuant to Voluntary

Requests

Under section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA,

registrants may request at any time that

EPA amend a pesticide registration to

delete one or more uses (7 U.S.C.

136d(f)(1)). Consistent with 6(f)(1) of

FIFRA, EPA is publishing a notice of

receipt of the request and allowing 30

days for public comment.

IV. Existing Stocks

Effective immediately, all vinclozolin

products being manufactured must

reflect the changes described in this

notice. Retailers, distributors, and endusers may sell, distribute, or use

products with the previously approved

labeling which are already in channels

of trade until such supplies are

exhausted.

V. Proposed Use Deletion

The use deletions will take effect on

October 14, 1997 unless before that date

EPA publishes a notice in the Federal

Register modifying this proposed order.

EPA approves BASF’s request to

delete plums, including plums grown

for prunes, grapes, tomatoes, residential

turf, and turf in parks, school grounds,

and recreational areas from vinclozolin

products with EPA registration numbers

7969-53, 7969-57, 7969-62, and 7969-85.

VI. Public Comment Procedures

EPA invites interested parties to

submit written comments in response to

this notice. Comments must be

submitted by September 12, 1997.

Comments must bear a document

control number. Three copies of the

comments should be submitted to either

location under ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this notice.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this notice may be claimed

confidential by marking any or all that

information as Confidential Business

Information (CBI). EPA will not disclose

information so marked, except in

accordance with procedures set forth in

40 CFR part 2. A second copy of such

comments, with the CBI deleted, also

must be submitted for the public for

inclusion in the public record. EPA may

publicly disclose without prior notice

information not marked confidential.

VII. Rulemaking Record

The official record for this notice, as

well as the public version, has been

established for this document under

docket number ‘‘OPP–66243’’ (including

comments and data submitted

electronically as described below). A

public version of this record, including

printed, paper versions of electronic

comments, which does not include any

information claimed as CBI, is available

for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The official record is located

at the address in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the

beginning of this document.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Comment and data will

also be accepted on disks in

Wordperfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number OPP–66243.

Electronic comments on this document

may be filed online at many Federal

Depository Libraries.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Use deletions.

Dated: August 7, 1997.

Jack E. Housinger,

Acting Director, Special Review and

Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

[FR Doc. 97–21411 Filed 8–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

August 7, 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, Public Law 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 1997 / Notices 43329

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 September 12,

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

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M St.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to jboley@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collection(s) contact Judy

Boley at 202–418–0214 or via internet at

jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0774.

Title: Federal-State Joint Board on

Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96–45.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households; business or other for-profit;

not-for-profit institutions; state or local

or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 5,565,451.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3.1

hours (avg.).

Cost to Respondents: N/A.

Total Annual Burden: 1,784,220

hours.

Needs and Uses: Congress has

directed the Commission to implement

a new set of universal service support

mechanisms that are explicit and

sufficient to advance the universal

service principles enumerated in

Section 254 of the Telecommunications

Act of 1996 and such other principles as

the Commission believes are necessary

and appropriate for the protection of the

public interest, convenience and

necessity, and are consistent with the

Act.

In the Report and Order, the

Commission promulgates the rules and

requirements to preserve and advance

universal service. The collections are

necessary to implement Section 254.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–21367 Filed 8–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[FCC 97–264]

Supplemental Pleading Cycle

Established for Comments on Petition

for Declaratory Ruling of the Cellular

Telecommunications Industry

Association

Released: July 28, 1997.

On December 16, 1996, the Cellular

Telecommunications Industry

Association (CTIA) filed a Petition for

Declaratory Ruling (‘‘CTIA Petition’’)

requesting that the Commission preempt

moratoria imposed by state and local

governments on the siting of

telecommunications facilities. On

December 18, 1996, the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau issued a

public notice, 62 FR 04047 (January 28,

1997), seeking comment on the CTIA

Petition. CTIA and the supporting

commenters contend that the

Commission has the jurisdiction under

Section 253(a) and 332(c)(3) of the

Communications Act to preempt local

siting moratoria because such moratoria

are not individual land use ‘‘decisions’’

or ‘‘disputes,’’ which Congress has

stated are to be reviewed by the courts

under Section 332(c)(7) of the

Communications Act, but rather are

blanket ordinances that act as barriers to

entry.

Following the submission of the

comments on the CTIA Petition,

representatives from CTIA and four

wireless companies made ex parte

presentations in which they raised

additional issues and arguments. In the

ex parte presentations, the

representatives recommended that the

Commission adopt guidelines for local

moratoria. Specifically, they asked that

we find that:

(1) All siting moratoria that exceed 90

days (current and prospective) are

invalid and preempted as impermissible

entry regulation of Commercial Mobile

Radio Services (CMRS).

(2) Moratoria of open-ended duration

constitute per se violations of Sections

253(a) and 332(c)(3) of the

Communications Act.

(3) Moratoria that preclude the filing

and processing of applications

constitute per se violations.

(4) Moratoria that discriminate against

new CMRS providers by allowing

certain CMRS licensees to build and

modify facilities while new entrants are

precluded from deploying services

should be declared per se invalid entry

regulation.

(5) Moratoria based directly or

indirectly on radiofrequency (RF)

emissions and related health concerns

should be per se preempted.

The Commission also received

numerous comments and other ex parte

filings arguing that the Commission

does not have the jurisdiction to

preempt state and local siting moratoria.

Most recently, on July 15, 1997, the

Commission’s Local and State

Government Advisory Committee

(LSGAC) submitted an ex parte letter in

which it argued that Congress had made

clear its intent to protect state and local

authority over the siting of personal

wireless service facilities from

interference by the Commission. LSGAC

argued that neither Section 332(c)(3)(A)

nor Section 253 of the Communications

Act govern the adoption of siting

moratoria by local governments. LSGAC

contends that Section 332(c)(7) of the

Communications Act provides that it is

the only section of the Act that affects

local land use authority over personal

wireless service facilities and that

Section 332(c)(7) reserves to courts of

competent jurisdiction the settlement of

local zoning disputes.

Based on our review of the record

received in response to the CTIA

Petition and the subsequent ex parte

filings, we tentatively conclude that,

pursuant to Sections 253(d) and

332(c)(3) of the Communications Act,

we have the authority to consider

whether local facility siting moratoria

may prohibit or have the effect of

prohibiting the ability of wireless

service providers to offer service in

violation of Section 253(a) or whether

moratoria constitute local regulation of

CMRS entry prohibited by Section

332(c)(3). We recognize that, pursuant to

Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v), parties adversely

affected by decisions regarding the

placement, construction, and

modification of personal wireless

service facilities that are inconsistent

with the limitations set forth in Sections

332(c)(7)(B)(i)-(iii) are directed to seek

relief from a ‘‘court of competent

jurisdiction.’’ We believe that Section

332(c)(7)(B)(v) does not, however, limit

our authority to review local facility

siting moratoria which may constitute

entry barriers under Sections 253(d) or

entry regulations under 332(c)(3). In this

regard, certain moratoria, especially

moratoria of unlimited duration, may

constitute impermissible CMRS entry

regulation or may prohibit or have the

effect of prohibiting CMRS entry into a

local marketplace. Accordingly, to the

extent that moratoria of unlimited or

unspecified duration may constitute

barriers to the provision of

telecommunications services, we

believe that we have the jurisdiction to

preclude such moratoria under Section