5370 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

If Delaware fails to meet any of the

conditions of this approval action, the

EPA Regional Administrator would

directly make a finding, by letter, that

the conditional approval had converted

to a disapproval and the clock for

imposition of sanctions under section

179(a) of the Act would start as of the

date of the letter. Subsequently, a notice

would be published in the Federal

Register announcing that the SIP

revision has been disapproved.

The Administrator’s decision to

approve or disapprove the Delaware I/

M SIP revision will be based on whether

it meets the requirements of section

110(a)(2) (A)–(K) of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, and EPA regulations in 40

CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: January 24, 1997.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 97–2847 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, and 78

[FRL–5684–6]

RIN 2060–AF43, AF46, and AF47

Acid Rain Program; Permits,

Allowance System, Sulfur Dioxide OptIns, Continuous Emission Monitoring,

Excess Emissions, and Appeal

Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment

period on proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On December 27, 1996 (61 FR

68340), the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) promulgated a proposed

rule revising the permits, allowance

system, sulfur dioxide opt-ins,

continuous emission monitoring, excess

emissions, and appeal procedures rules.

The proposed rule streamlines the Acid

Rain Program while still ensuring

achievement of its statutory goals of

reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen

oxides emissions and the adverse health

and ecological impacts of acidic

deposition. EPA is extending the

comment period so that comments on

the proposed rule are due on February

10, 1997.

DATES: Comments on the December 27,

1996, proposed rule must be received on

or before February 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted in duplicate to EPA

Air Docket Section (6102), Waterside

Mall, Room M1500, 1st Floor, 401 M

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

Docket. Docket No. A–95–56

containing supporting information used

to develop the proposal is available for

public inspection and copying from 8:30

a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays, at EPA’s Air Docket Section at

the above address. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Barylski, at (202) 233–9074, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Acid Rain Division

(6204J), Washington D.C. (concerning

revisions of parts 73 and 75); Dwight C.

Alpern, Attorney-advisor, at (202) 233–

9151 (same address) (concerning all

other revisions); or the Acid Rain

Hotline, at (202) 233–9620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 24, 1997, EPA received a

request that the period for submission of

comments on the December 27, 1996,

proposed rule be extended for 14 more

days. EPA has considered the extension

request as well as the importance of

completing this rulemaking

expeditiously. In light of these

considerations, EPA extends the

comment period to February 10, 1997.

Dated: January 28, 1997.

Brian J. McLean,

Director, Acid Rain Program, Office of

Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 97–2844 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300451; FRL–5584–6]

Formic Acid; Proposed Tolerance

Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish

exemptions from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of the biochemical

pesticide formic acid in or on honey and

beeswax when used to control tracheal

mites in bee colonies and applied in

accordance with accepted apiarian

practices.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number [OPP–300451],

must be received on or before March 7,

1997.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person,

deliver comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal

Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(CBI). Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

will be included in the public record by

EPA without prior notice. The public

record is available for public inspection

in Rm. 1132 at the address given above,

from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket control

number, [OPP–300451]. No CBI should

be submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this proposed rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found in

unit IV. of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Diana M. Horne, c/o Product

Manager (PM) 90, Biopesticides and

Pollution Prevention Division (7501W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: Rm. 5–W57, CSI, 2800

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA, (703) 308–
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5371

8367; e-mail:

horne.diana@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of August 6, 1996 (61

FR 40841), EPA issued a notice (FRL–

5389–1) that IR–4, Cook College, P.O.

Box 231, Rutgers, The State University

of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ

08903–0231, on behalf of Mann Lake,

Ltd., County Road 40 and First St.,

Hackensack, MN, 56452, had submitted

pesticide petition (PP) 6E4700 under

section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C.

346a, proposing to amend 40 CFR part

180 by exempting tolerances for

residues of the biochemical pesticide

formic acid in or on honey and beeswax.

This document represents an EPA

proposal to establish exemptions from

the requirement of a tolerance for

residues of the biochemical pesticide

formic acid in or on honey and beeswax,

when applied as a honeybee miticide in

accordance with accepted apiarian

practices. EPA is proposing this

regulation pursuant to section

408(e)(1)(B) of FFDCA.

I. Background and Statutory Authority

The Food Quality Protection Act of

1996 (FQPA) (Pub. L. 104–170, 110 Stat.

1489) was signed into law August 3,

1996. FQPA amends both the FFDCA,

21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., and the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.. The

FQPA amendments went into effect

immediately. Among other things,

FQPA amends FFDCA to bring all EPA

pesticide tolerance-setting activities

under a new section 408 with a new

safety standard and new procedures.

New section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) allows

EPA to establish an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance only if EPA

determines that the exemption is ‘‘safe.’’

Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines ‘‘safe’’ to

mean that ‘‘there is a reasonable

certainty that no harm will result from

aggregate exposure to the pesticide

chemical residue, including all

anticipated dietary exposures and all

other exposures for which there is

reliable information.’’ This includes

exposure through drinking water, but

does not include occupational exposure.

Section 408(c)(2)(B) requires EPA to

give special consideration to exposure

of infants and children to the pesticide

chemical residue in establishing an

exemption and to ‘‘ensure that there is

a reasonable certainty that no harm will

result to infants and children from

aggregate exposure to the pesticide

chemical residue...’’ and specifies

factors EPA is to consider in

establishing an exemption. Section

408(c)(3)(B) provides for circumstances

where no need exists for a practical

method for detecting and measuring

levels of pesticide chemical residue in

or on food.

In light of FQPA, EPA is engaged in

an intensive process, including

consultation with registrants, States,

and other interested stakeholders, to

make decisions on the new policies and

procedures that will be appropriate as a

result of enactment of FQPA. This

process will generally delay the review

of food use applications, particularly

those involving exposure to children.

EPA will publish a notice in the Federal

Register soon summarizing the

requirements of FQPA, indicating how

EPA intends to meet those

requirements, and describing actions

necessary to assure that EPA complies

with the law. However, EPA also

intends to continue to issue tolerances

and exemptions in the interim pending

publication of that notice. EPA also

intends to issue interim guidance to

States and others on how EPA will

implement section 408 in the near

future.

In deciding to issue tolerances and

exemptions early in the process of

FQPA implementation, EPA recognizes

that it will be necessary to make

decisions about the new FFDCA section

408, including the new safety standard.

In establishing tolerances and

exemptions during this interim period

before EPA makes its broad policy

decisions concerning the interpretation

and implementation of the new section

408, EPA does not intend to set

precedents for the application of section

408 and the new safety standard to other

tolerances and exemptions. Rather,

these early tolerance and exemption

decisions will be made on a case-bycase basis and will not bind EPA as it

proceeds with further rulemaking and

policy development. EPA intends to act

on tolerances and exemptions that

clearly qualify under the law.

II. Risk Assessment and Statutory

Findings

Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(B),

EPA has reviewed the available

scientific data and other relevant

information in support of this action.

Formic acid occurs naturally in honey at

levels up to 138 parts per million (ppm),

with natural concentrations found most

often in the 9 to 100 ppm range,

depending upon the source of the

nectar. It is also a natural component of

cheeses (9 to 28 ppm), peaches (6.5

ppm), and other foods. In addition, the

product label requires that formic acid

treatment be discontinued at least 4

weeks before the beginning of surplus

honey flow. This will effectively

discontinue formic acid use 6 weeks

before honey harvest. Residue studies

suggest that this interval is sufficient to

preclude residues of formic acid above

background levels naturally found in

honey. The U.S. Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) permits formic

acid to be used as a synthetic flavoring

agent in foods (21 CFR 172.515), and

has included ethyl formate in its listing

of substances (21 CFR 184.1295) added

directly to human food, which have

been found to be Generally Recognized

as Safe (GRAS).

EPA has reviewed the toxicology data

base for formic acid and has sufficient

data to assess the hazards and to make

a determination on aggregate exposure,

consistent with section 408(c)(2), for the

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance. EPA’s assessment of the

exposure, including dietary exposure,

and risks associated with establishing

this exemption follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

The mammalian toxicological data

considered in support of the exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance for

formic acid include the following

studies available in the published

literature: Acute oral LD50 studies in

rats, mice, and dogs; acute inhalation

studies in rats and mice, eye and skin

irritation studies in rabbits, subchronic

inhalation studies in rats and mice, and

an Ames/Salmonella mutagenicity assay

with and without rat liver S9 activation.

The results of these studies indicate

that formic acid has very low toxicity by

the oral route. Formic acid has an acute

oral LD50 of 1,100 mg/kg in rats; 700 mg/

kg in mice; and 4,000 mg/kg in dogs,

However, formic acid is a severe eye

irritant, and corrosive to the skin. The

inhalation LC50 is 15 gm/m3 in rats and

6,200 mg/m3 in mice. At 100 ppm the

vapors are ‘‘immediately dangerous to

life and health’’ for humans, causing

respiratory irritation, tearing, coughing

and headache followed in 6 to 8 hours

by pulmonary edema, dizziness, frothy

expectoration, and cyanosis (bluish skin

discoloration due to lack of oxygen in

the blood). Breathing lower

concentrations over time can lead to

erosion of the teeth, local tissue death

in the jaw, bronchial irritation with

chronic cough, frequent attacks of

bronchial pneumonia, and

gastrointestinal disturbances. The

OSHA standard for occupational

exposure is 5 ppm. Formic acid was not

mutagenic in the Ames/Salmonella

assay.

B. Aggregate Exposure

The potential dietary exposure of the

general public to formic acid residues
5372 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

resulting from its use in bee hives for

the control of tracheal mites is not

expected to raise background levels

naturally found in honey and beeswax.

In general, other potential sources of

exposure to pesticide residues are those

found in drinking water and exposure

from residential uses of pesticides.

Since this use of formic acid is not

expected to result in environmental

residues of any kind, and since there are

no other registered pesticidal uses of

formic acid, either residential or

otherwise, exposure from these

additional sources is not expected. The

public is exposed to formic acid through

its use as a direct food additive and

because, as mentioned, it is a naturally

occurring substance in honey (and other

foods).

Because of the very low oral toxicity

of formic acid and because of the fact

that its presence in the diet is, for the

most part, as a naturally-occurring food

ingredient, EPA does not believe that

there is any reason to be concerned

about the potential for cumulative

effects of formic acid and other

substances that have a common

mechanism of toxicity.

C. Safety Determinations

1. U.S. population in general. Formic

acid occurs naturally in honey at

varying levels depending upon the

nectar source available to the bees. Data

from oral studies shows formic acid to

be of very low toxicity. The FDA allows

the use of formic acid as a synthetic

flavoring agent in foods, and has listed

ethyl formate as GRAS. This use of

formic acid is permitted only if the level

in food of the added formic acid is far

below the natural background levels of

formic acid in honey. Use of formic acid

against bee mites according to label

directions is not expected to raise

residues above background levels

naturally occurring in honey and

beeswax, or result in environmental

residues of any kind. In addition, there

currently exist no other registered

pesticidal uses of formic acid.

Because there are essentially no

residues resulting from the proposed

pesticidal use, EPA believes there are no

dietary risk concerns with such use.

Further, even taking into account

natural sources of formic acid in the diet

and formic acid’s use as a food additive,

EPA has concluded that aggregate

exposure to residues of formic acid in

food over a lifetime will not pose

appreciable risks to human health.

Thus, EPA finds that there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to formic

acid residues. Accordingly, EPA

determines that exempting formic acid

from the requirement for a tolerance is

safe. However, given the corrosive

nature of formic acid, as it is applied in

the beehive, potential acute effects

resulting from occupational exposure

are of concern to the Agency and will

be addressed by precautionary labeling

required for registration.

2. Infants and children. EPA has

determined that the toxicity and

exposure data are sufficiently complete

to adequately address the potential for

additional sensitivity of infants and

children to residues of formic acid. For

the reasons given above, EPA concludes

that there is a reasonable certainty that

no harm will result to infants and

children from aggregate exposure to

formic acid residues.

D. Other Considerations

The Agency proposes to establish

exemptions from the requirement of a

tolerance without any numerical

limitation; therefore, the Agency has

concluded that analytical methods are

not required for enforcement purposes

for formic acid.

E. Response to Comments

Four comments were received in

response to the notice of the petition.

Three of the commenters urged the

Agency to proceed with registration and

to grant the tolerance exemption for

formic acid. The emergency situation

which exists among apiarists nationwide due to the impacts of tracheal

mites on bee survival and honey

production was cited in support of the

registration and tolerance exemption. In

addition, it was noted that formic acid

is currently used in parts of Europe and

in Canada, and that tons of European

honey are imported into the United

States annually. Finally, it was noted

that formic acid is naturally occurring in

honey to a variable degree, depending

upon the source of the nectar. One

commenter expressed concern regarding

impacts of formic acid on bee egg

hatchability, larval survivability, and

bee behavior, noting a lack of studies

designed to assess these potential

impacts. Although these last comments

relate primarily to whether the pesticide

should be registered under FIFRA, EPA

will explain here its response. The

Agency is aware of formic acid use

experience in Canada, where

dehydrated eggs, dead young larvae, and

dead queens were observed, when 85

percent formic acid was applied, or

when application occurred at extremely

high temperatures. However, minimal

negative impact was noted when 65

percent formic acid was applied.

Proposed label statements warn of

potential queen rejection and a possible

slight increase in bee mortality if formic

acid is applied at temperatures above

90° F. Finally, section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA

requires the registrant to submit to the

Agency any factual information

regarding unreasonable adverse effects

on the environment that might be

caused by a registered pesticide.

F. Conclusion

Based on the information and data

considered, EPA proposes that the

exemptions from the requirement of a

tolerance be established as set forth

below.

III. Public Comments

Under FFDCA, section 408(e)(2), EPA

must provide for a public comment

period before issuing a final tolerance or

tolerance exemption under 408(e)(1).

The public comment period is to be for

60 days unless the Administrator for

good cause finds that it is in the public

interest to reduce that comment period.

Based on several factors, EPA believes

there is good cause for reducing the

comment period on these exemptions.

First, notice was already provided, in

accordance with the FFDCA prior to its

recent amendment, for the exemption

for formic acid. The Agency believes

that the comments received in response

to that notice have been adequately

addressed. In addition, residues

resulting from this use of formic acid are

not expected to exceed background

levels naturally found in honey and

beeswax. Given the emergency situation

that currently exists among beekeepers

regarding bee mortality resulting from

tracheal mite infestations, the Agency is

allowing a 30-day instead of a 60-day

public comment period for these

proposed tolerance exemptions.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments on the

proposed regulation. Comments must

bear a notation indicating the docket

control number, [OPP–300451]. All

written comments filed in response to

this petition will be available in the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch at the address given above from

8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except legal holidays.

IV. Public Docket

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket control

number [OPP–300451] (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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 24 / Wednesday, February 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 5373

holidays. The public record is located in

Room 1132 of the Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202.

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.

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer all comments received

electronically into printed, paper form

as they are received and will place the

paper copies in the official rulemaking

record which will also include all

comments submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the address

in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of

this document.

V. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, since this action does not impose

any information collection requirements

as defined by the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., it is not

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget. In addition,

this action does not impose any

enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4), or require prior

consultation with State officials as

specified by Executive Order 12875 (58

FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or special

considerations as required by Executive

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994).

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement explaining the factual basis

for this determination was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (Title II of Pub. L. 104–121, 110

Stat. 847), EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

in today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2) of the APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: January 28, 1997.

Janet L. Anderson,

Director, Biopesticides and Pollution

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide

Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

Chapter I be amended as follows:

PART 180— [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. By adding new § 180.1178 to read

as follows:

§ 180.1178 Formic acid; exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance.

The biochemical pesticide formic acid

is exempted from the requirement of a

tolerance in or on honey and beeswax

when used to control tracheal mites in

bee colonies, and applied in accordance

with accepted apiarian practices.

[FR Doc. 97–2712 Filed 2–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Parts 3500, 3510, 3520, 3530,

3540, 3550, 3560, and 3570

RIN 1004–AC49

[WO–130–1820–00 24 1A]

Leasing of Solid Minerals Other Than

Coal and Oil Shale

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed regulations, reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: On October 18, 1996, the

Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’)

published a document in the Federal

Register announcing a proposed rule to

reorganize the solid minerals

regulations in 43 CFR parts 3500, 3510,

3520, 3530, 3540, 3550, 3560, and 3570

(61 FR 54384). The purpose of the

proposed rule is to eliminate redundant

language, streamline the regulations,

and clarify the responsibilities of

interested parties. The 60-day comment

period for the proposed rule expired on

January 16, 1997. After receiving

requests for more time to comment,

BLM is re-opening the comment period

for 30 days.

DATES: Submit comments by March 7,

1997.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,

you may:

(a) Hand-deliver comments to the

Bureau of Land Management,

Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620

L St., NW., Washington, DC.;

(b) Mail comments to the Bureau of

Land Management, Administrative

Record, Room 401LS, 1849 C Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20240; or

(c) Send comments through the

Internet to WOComment@wo.blm.gov.

Please include ‘‘attn: AC49’’, and your

name and return address in your

Internet message. If you do not receive

a confirmation from the system that we

have received your Internet message,

please contact us directly at (202) 452–

5030.

You will be able to review comments

at BLM’s Regulatory Affairs Group

office, Room 401, 1620 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., during regular

business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.)

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erica Petacchi, (202) 452–5084, or

Annetta Cheek, (202) 452–5099.

Dated: January 30, 1997.

Ted Hudson,

Acting Regulatory Affairs Group Manager.

[FR Doc. 97–2767 Filed 2–4– 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 36, 51, 61 and 69

[CC Docket Nos. 96–45, 96–262, and 96–

98; DA 97–56]

Implementation of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment on staff

analysis of economic cost proxy models.

SUMMARY: The Common Carrier Bureau

of the Federal Communications

Commission here seeks comment on