36686 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices

clay loam, and 14 hours with sandy

loam soil.

4. Non-dietary exposure. In addition

to agricultural uses, fosetyl-Al is

registered on ornamentals and turf

under the brand names CHIPCO Aliette

WDG, and Aliette HG. CHIPCO Aliette

WDG is sold to professional applicators

only, which includes lawn care

operators (LCO). All residential uses of

CHIPCO Aliette WDG are applied by an

LCO. Typically, LCOs use fungicides for

ornamentals and turf on an as needed

basis only in part because of high cost,

variable performance, and little residual

control. In 1994, LCOs made an

estimated 206,200 acre treatments in

total for all fungicides representing less

than 1% of the available acreage of

32,740,000 assuming each acre was

treated once (Kline & Company, Inc.).

CHIPCO Aliette WDG is estimated to

have been used on less than 3% of the

acres treated with commercial

landscapes (turf and ornamentals)

constituting the majority of the use by

LCOs. Therefore, fosetyl-Al is used by

LCOs on less than 0.03% of the total

available acres. Aliette HG is not

currently being sold but plans are to

introduce this product on the market in

1998 on a limited geographical scale.

The product will be available to the

home consumer in single dose packages

for residential use on turf and

ornamentals. Available market research

information indicates that a total of 1.7

million pounds fungicide (active

ingredient) are sold annually for use by

the home owner. Since Aliette HG will

just be entering the market, only very

small quantities of the product are

expected to be sold. The maximum

amount expected to be sold for the next

few years is approximately 1% of the

total 1.7 million pounds of fungicide

products available to the home owner

for residential use on turf and

ornamentals. This use of the product is

therefore expected to have a negligible

impact on the aggregate exposure for

fosetyl-Al.

5. Conclusion. Considering that

fosetyl-Al is applied by LCOs on about

0.03% of available lawn acres (the

majority being commercial landscapes),

the likelihood of post application

exposure occurring, particularly in a

residential situation, is extremely low.

The use of fosetyl-Al by the homeowner

constitutes a minor use of the product

since only small quantities are expected

to be sold in 1998. Other applications by

professional operators, e.g. golf courses,

nurseries, sod farms, present only very

limited exposure to a limited population

of adults but do not pose any exposure

to small children. Thus, the ornamental

and turf uses are not expected to add

significantly to the aggregate exposure

for fosetyl-Al, and only dietary exposure

has been taken into consideration for

risk assessment purposes.

D. Cumulative Effects

Effects associated with fosetyl-Al are

unlikely to be cumulative with any

other compound. The formation of

calculi and bladder tumors in rats is the

only significant toxicological effect

observed with fosetyl-Al. These effects

were observed in rat only at a dose

which not only exceeds estimated

human exposure by several orders of

magnitude but is in excess of the OPP

dose limit for carcinogenicity studies.

Therefore, an aggregate assessment

based on common mechanisms of

toxicity is not appropriate as exposure

to humans will be well below the levels

producing calculi and bladder tumors in

rats. Further, considering the rapid

elimination of fosetyl-Al in the rat

metabolism study, any effects associated

with fosetyl-Al are unlikely to be

cumulative with any other compound.

Based on these reasons, only the

potential risks of fosetyl-Al are

considered in the exposure assessment.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Based upon all

available data, EPA has established an

RfD of 3.0 mg/kg/day using a 100 fold

safety factor to account for inter- and

intra-species differences and a NOEL of

250 mg/kg bwt/day from a 2-year

feeding study in dogs. A chronic dietary

risk assessment using established and

proposed tolerance residue levels, 1987

food consumption data, and 100% crop

treated results in utilization of 2.2, 4.5,

3.9, and 2.3% of the RfD for the whole

U.S. population, non-nursing infants

less than 1-year old, children aged 1 to

6-years, and children aged 7 to 12-years,

respectively. Thus, the dietary exposure

for fosetyl-Al is well below the RfD of

3.0 mg/kg/day and is negligible for all

segments of the population including

infants and children.

2. Infants and children—Adequate

margin of safety. In assessing the

potential for additional sensitivity of

infants and children to residues of

fosetyl-Al, the available developmental

and reproductive toxicity studies and

the potential for endocrine modulation

were considered. Developmental

toxicity studies in two species indicate

that fosetyl-Al has no teratogenic

potential at any dose level. Further, no

adverse effects on fetal development

were observed in rabbits at doses up to

500 mg/kg/day or in rats at doses up to

1,000 mg/kg/day. In a 3-generation rat

reproduction study, no adverse effects

on reproductive performance or pup

survival were observed up to 24,000

ppm (equivalent to a dose well above

EPA’s limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day).

Maternal and developmental NOELs

and LELs were comparable in all studies

indicating no increase in susceptibility

of developing organisms. Further,

fosetyl-Al has no endocrine-modulation

characteristics as demonstrated by the

lack of endocrine effects in

developmental, reproductive,

subchronic, and chronic studies. Since

registration of fosetyl-Al in 1983, EPA

has assessed the safety of this molecule

several times and has concluded

repeatedly that the level of dietary

exposure is sufficiently low to provide

ample margins of safety to guard against

any potential adverse effects of fosetylAl. Considering the conservative

exposure assumptions in setting the

tolerances and the dietary risk

assessment assuming 100% crop

treated, less than 5% of the RfD is

utilized for non-nursing infants less

than 1-year old, children aged 1 to 6-

years, and children aged 7 to 12-years.

The probability of non-occupational

sources of exposure to fosetyl-Al is

negligible. Therefore, based upon the

completeness and reliability of the

toxicity data and the conservative

exposure assessment, there is a

reasonable certainty that no harm will

result to infants and children from

exposure to the residues of fosetyl-Al

and no additional uncertainty factor is

warranted.

F. International Tolerances

There are presently no Codex

maximum residue levels established for

residues of fosetyl-Al on any crop.

[FR Doc. 98–17808 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6121–3]

Proposed CERCLA Administrative De

Minimis Contributor Settlement With

Mesa Oil, Inc.—Rocky Flats Industrial

Park Site in Jefferson County,

Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice and request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirements of section 122(i) of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C.

9622(i), notice is hereby given of a

proposed administrative de minimis
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 129 /Tuesday, July 7, 1998 / Notices 36687

settlement under section 122(g) of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 622(g) with Mesa

Oil, Inc. (‘‘MESA’’), concerning the

Rocky Flats Industrial Park site located

in the 17000 block of Colorado Highway

72, approximately 2 miles east of the

intersection of Colorado Highways 93

and 72, in Jefferson County, Colorado

(the ‘‘Site’’). The settlement, embodied

in a proposed Administrative Order on

Consent (‘‘AOC’’), is designed to resolve

Mesa’s liability at the Site through a

covenant not to sue under sections 106

and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and

9607, and section 7003 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

(‘‘RCRA’’), 42 U.S.C. 6973, subject to

certain reopening provisions. The

proposed AOC requires Mesa to pay a

total of $2,000.00 in cash together with

the approximately $50,000.00 of in-kind

work contributed by Mesa to site

investigation and remediation efforts at

the Site, to address its liability to the

United States related to past and future

response actions at the Site.

Opportunity for comment

For thirty (30) days following the date

of publication of this notice, the Agency

will consider all comments received and

may modify or withdraw its consent to

the settlement if comments received

disclose facts or considerations which

indicate that the settlement is

inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

The Agency’s response to any comments

received will be available for public

inspection at the EPA Superfund Record

Center, 999 18th Street, 5th Floor, in

Denver, CO. Commenters may request

an opportunity for a public meeting in

the affected area in accordance with

section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6973(d).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before August 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement

and additional background information

relating to the settlement are available

for public inspection at the EPA

Superfund Records Center, 999 18th

Street, 5th Floor, in Denver, CO.

Comments and requests for a copy of the

proposed settlement should be

addressed to Carol Pokorny,

Enforcement Specialist (8ENF-T),

Technical Enforcement Program, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 999

18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO

80202–2466, and should reference the

Rocky Flats Industrial Park Site,

Jefferson County, CO and EPA Docket

No. CERCLA–VIII–98–13.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol Pokorny, Enforcement Specialist

(8ENF–T), Technical Enforcement

Program, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 999 18th Street, Suite 500,

Denver, CO 80202–2466, (303) 312–

6970.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of

proposed administrative de minimis

contributor settlement under section

122(g) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(g): In

accordance with section 122(i) of

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notification

is hereby given that the terms of the

AOC have been agreed to by Mesa. By

the terms of the proposed AOC, Mesa

will pay $2,000.00 cash to the

Hazardous Substance Superfund for its

release of 75 gallons of used oil

containing hazardous substances. In

addition to its cash payment, Mesa has

contributed in-kind services valued at

approximately $50,000.00 to the

characterization and remediation of the

Site. The in-kind services represent

work Mesa has conducted in

anticipation of this settlement and were

not otherwise required by law. The total

dollar amount which Mesa will pay to

the Agency represents approximately

0.01538% of the estimated total cost of

remediation. EPA estimates that the

total response costs incurred and to be

incurred at or in connection with the

Site by the United States and by private

parties to be approximately

$13,000,000.00.

In exchange for payment and Mesa’s

remediation and investigatory work at

the Site, EPA will provide Mesa with a

covenant not to sue under sections 106

and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606

and 9607(a), and under section 7003 of

the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as

amended (also known as the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act), which

will resolve Mesa’s liability at the Site.

The settlement also provides Mesa with

contribution protection. Under the

terms of the AOC, the United States

reserves the right to institute judicial or

administrative proceedings against Mesa

seeking to compel Mesa to perform

response actions relating to the Site,

and/or to reimburse the United States

for additional costs of response, if

information not contained in EPA’s

administrative site file as of the effective

date of the AOC is discovered which

indicates that Mesa contributed

hazardous substances to the Site in an

amount greater than 6,690 gallons or

hazardous substances which are

significantly more toxic or are of

significantly greater hazardous effect

than other hazardous substances at the

Site.

Dated: June 16, 1998.

Carol Rushin,

Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of

Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental

Justice, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 98–17964 Filed 7–6–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Farm Credit Administration Board;

Regular Meeting; Sunshine Act

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given,

pursuant to the Government in the

Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), that

the July 9, 1998 regular meeting of the

Farm Credit Administration Board

(Board) will not be held. The Board will

hold a special meeting at 9:00 a.m. on

Tuesday, July 14, 1998. An agenda for

this meeting will be published at a later

date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the Farm

Credit Administration Board, (703) 883–

4025, TDD (703) 883–4444.

ADDRESS: Farm Credit Administration,

1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean,

Virginia 22102–5090.

Dated: July 1, 1998.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 98–18048 Filed 7–2–98; 11:33 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 92–237; DA 98–1317]

North American Numbering Council;

Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On July 1, 1998, the

Commission released a public notice

announcing the July 22–23,1998,

meeting and agenda of the North

American Numbering Council (NANC).

The intended effect of this action is to

make the public aware of the NANC’s

next meeting and its Agenda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Simms, at (202) 418–2330 or via

the Internet at lsimms@fcc.gov. The

address is: Network Services Division,

Common Carrier Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 2000 M

Street, NW, Suite 235, Washington, DC

20554. The fax number is: (202) 418–

7314. The TTY number is: (202) 418–

0484.