Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Notices 50367

available and reliable information that

lambda-cyhalothrin and other

substances that may have a common

mechanism of toxicity would have

cumulative effects. Therefore for

purposes of this request it is appropriate

only to consider the potential risks of

lambda-cyhalothrin in an aggregate

exposure assessment.

E. Safety Determination

The acceptable RfD based on a NOEL

of 0.1 mg/kg bw/day from the chronic

dog study and a safety factor of 100 is

0.001 mg/kg bw/day. A chronic dietary

exposure/risk assessment has been

performed for lambda-cyhalothrin using

the above RfD. Available information on

anticipated residues, monitoring data

and percent crop treated was

incorporated into the analysis to

estimate the Anticipated Residue

Contribution (ARC). The ARC is

generally considered a more realistic

estimate than an estimate based on

tolerance level residues.

1. U.S. population. The ARC from

established tolerances and the current

and pending actions are estimated to be

0.00005 mg/kg bw/day and utilize 5.0

per cent of the RfD for the U.S.

population. For the acute dietary

assessment the MOEs at the 95th, 99th,

and 99.9th percentiles are 2074, 742,

and 237, respectively.

2. Infants and children. FFDCA

section 408 provides that EPA shall

apply an additional tenfold margin of

safety for infants and children in the

case of threshold effects to account for

pre- and post-natal toxicity and the

completeness of the database unless

EPA determines that a different margin

of safety will be safe for infants and

children. EPA generally defines the

level of appreciable risk as exposure

that is greater than 1/100 of the NOEL

in the animal study appropriate to the

particular risk assessment. This

hundredfold uncertainty (safety) factor/

margin of exposure is designed to

account for combined inter and

intraspecies variability. EPA believes

that reliable data support using the

standard hundredfold margin/factor and

not the additional tenfold margin/factor

when EPA has a complete database

under existing guidelines and when the

severity of the effect in infants and

children or the potency or unusual toxic

properties of a compound do not raise

concerns regarding the adequacy of the

standard margin/factor.

In assessing the potential for

additional sensitivity of infants and

children to residues of lambdacyhalothrin, EPA considered the data

from oral developmental toxicity studies

in the rat and rabbit, as well as data

from a multi-generation reproduction

study in the rat. The developmental

toxicity studies are designed to evaluate

adverse effects in the developing

organism resulting from pesticide

exposure during prenatal development

in the mothers. Reproduction studies

provide information relating to effects

from exposure to the pesticide on the

reproductive capability of mating

animals and data on systemic toxicity.

i. Pre-natal effects. A developmental

toxicity study in rats given gavage doses

of 0, 5, 10, and 15 mg/kg/day with no

developmental toxicity observed under

the conditions of the study. The

developmental NOEL is greater than 15

mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested. The

maternal NOEL and LOEL are

established at 10 and 15 mg/kg/day,

respectively, based on reduced body

weight gain.

A developmental toxicity study in

rabbits given gavage doses of 0, 3, 10,

and 30 mg/kg/day with no

developmental toxicity observed under

the conditions of the study. The

maternal NOEL and LOEL are

established at 10 and 30 mg/kg/day,

respectively based on decreased body

weight gain. The developmental NOEL

is greater than 30 mg/kg/day, the highest

dose tested.

ii. Post-natal effects. A threegeneration reproduction study in rats

fed diets containing 0, 10, 30, and 100

ppm with no developmental toxicity

observed at 100 ppm, the highest dose

tested. The maternal NOEL and LOEL

for the study are established at 30 (1.5

mg/kg/day) and 100 ppm (5 mg/kg/day),

respectively, based upon decreased

parental body weight gain. The

reproductive NOEL and LOEL are

established at 30 (1.5 mg/kg/day) and

100 ppm (5 mg/kg/day), respectively,

based on decreased pup weight gain

during weaning.

In EPA’s review of the toxicity

endpoints for lambda-cyhalothrin they

concluded that the data on

developmental and reproductive

toxicity tests do not indicate any

increased pre- or post-natal sensitivity.

Therefore, EPA concluded that reliable

data support use of a hundredfold safety

factor and that an additional tenfold

safety factor is not needed.

Based on this information the ARC for

children 1-6 years old, and non-nursing

infants (subgroups most highly exposed)

utilizes 0.000159 mg/kg bw/day (15.9%

of the RfD) and 0.000101 mg/kg bw/day

(10.1% of the RfD), respectively.

Generally speaking, the Agency has no

cause for concern if anticipated residues

contribution for all published and

proposed tolerances is less than the RfD.

For the acute dietary assessment the

MOEs at the 95th, 99th, and 99.9th

percentiles are 658, 248, and 132,

respectively for children 1–6 years old.

For non-nursing infants the MOEs at the

95th, 99th and 99.9th percentiles are

710, 316, and 152, respectively.

F. International Tolerances

There are Codex maximum residue

levels established for residues of

cyhalothrin, as the sum of all isomers,

in or on the following crops and

commodities: pome fruits at 0.2 ppm;

cabbage, head at 0.2 ppm; potatoes at

0.02 ppm; cotton seed at 0.02 ppm;

cotton seed oil, crude at 0.02 ppm; and

cotton seed oil, edible at 0.02 ppm.

(Adam Heyward)

[FR Doc. 97–25499 Filed 9–22–97; 3:06 pm]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

September 19, 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 27,

1997. If you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of
50368 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Notices

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.

NW., 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:

Note: The Commission is submitting this

information collection to the Office of

Management and Budget under the

emergency provisions of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. OMB approval is

requested by October 12, 1997.

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0004.

Title: Guidelines for Evaluating the

Environmental Effects of

Radiofrequency Radiation (Second

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET

Docket No. 93–62).

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households; business or other for-profit;

not-for-profit institutions; and state,

local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 126,108.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.77

hours (avg.). The estimated time per

response varies with the number of

transmitters considered, e.g., a site with

a single transmitter might require one

hour to determine compliance, while a

site with many co-located transmitters

may require considerably more time.

Cost to Respondents: The estimated

cost to respondents to perform the

environmental evaluations per service

varies. For example, complex situations

that require a consulting engineer @

$100 per hour may require additional

time to perform an evaluation; portable

devices authorized under Part 2 of the

rules require a specific absorption rate

of RF energy test with an average cost

of approximately $5,000 per test; and

other applicants will use OET Bulletin

#65 to perform environmental

evaluations, and will no financial

burden associated with the evaluation.

Total Annual Burden: 223,376 hours.

Needs and Uses: This revised

information collection is a result of

responsibility placed on the FCC by the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969. NEPA requires that

each federal agency evaluate the impact

of ‘‘major actions significantly effecting

the quality of the human environment.’’

It is the FCC’s opinion that this is the

most efficient and reasonable method of

complying with NEPA with regard to

the environmental issue of radio

frequency radiation from FCC-regulated

transmitters. The Commission will

require applicants to perform an

environmental evaluation with respect

to radio frequency electromagnetic

fields. Applicants are required to

consider contributions from other

transmitters within the vicinity of their

facility in order to assess the cumulative

exposure. Accordingly, to correctly

determine compliance with the

Commission’s exposure limits, an

applicant must locate, determine

ownership, and gather technical

information for all contributing

transmitters. Applicants are generally

required, as part of the authorization

and licensing process, to indicate

compliance with the Commission

environmental rules. Supporting

information may be requested and

reviewed by the Commission’s

engineers, attorneys, and

paraprofessional staff to determine

whether the environmental evaluation is

sufficiently complete and in accordance

with the Commission’s rules.

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0213.

Title: Section 73.3525, Agreements for

removing application conflicts.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 38.

Estimated Time Per Response: 8

hours.

Cost to Respondents: $60,800.

Total Annual Burden: 39 hours (1

hour per respondent, 8 hours per

attorney which includes 1 hour

consultation time with respondent). The

8 hours attorney time is reflected in the

cost estimate not the total annual

burden hours.)

Needs and Uses: Section 73.3525

requires applicants for a construction

permit for a broadcast station to obtain

approval from the FCC to withdraw,

dismiss or amend its application when

that application is in conflict with

another application pending before the

FCC. In the event that the proposed

withdrawal of a conflicting application

would unduly impede achievement of a

fair, efficient and equitable distribution

of radio service, the FCC must issue an

order providing further opportunity to

apply for the facilities specified in the

application(s) withdrawn. Upon release

of this order, Section 73.3525(b)

requires that the party proposing

withdrawal of its application give notice

in a daily newspaper of general

circulation published in the community

in which the proposed station would

have been located. This notice must be

published twice a week for two

consecutive weeks within the threeweek period immediately following

release of the FCC’s order. Additionally,

within 7 days of the last of publication

of the notice, the applicant proposing to

withdraw shall file with the FCC a

statement giving the dates on which the

notice was published, the text of the

notice, and the name and location of the

newspaper in which the notice

appeared. The data in the request for

approval is used by FCC staff to assure

that the agreement is in compliance

with its rules and regulations and

Section 311 of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended. The newspaper

publication gives interested parties an

opportunity to apply for the facilities

specified in the withdrawn

application(s).

Federal Communications Commission.

Shirley S. Suggs,

Chief, Publications Branch.

[FR Doc. 97–25360 Filed 9–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

September 18, 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.