104536 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 / Notices 

1https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2024–0446. 

2https://www.epa.gov/radiation/ 

phosphogypsum#aaup. 

project meet the regulatory requirements 

of 40 CFR 61.206(c); that is, the project 

is at least as protective of public health 

as maintaining the phosphogypsum in a 

stack. Therefore, the Agency issued an 

approval of the small-scale pilot project 

per 40 CFR 61.206, subject to terms and 

conditions which limit the project to the 

scope of the application. The terms and 

conditions are included in the approval 

letter to Mosaic, which is available in 

the public docket and on the EPA 

website, https://www.epa.gov/radiation/ 

phosphogypsum. Approval by the 

Agency is specific to the pilot project as 

described in the Mosaic request and 

indicates only that this project meets the 

approval requirements of Subpart R. 

II. Public Comments and Responses 

The EPA’s decision to approve or 

deny a request for other use under 40 

CFR 61.206 is not a rulemaking. In 

December 2005, the EPA issued a 

guidance document, ‘‘Applying to EPA 

for Approval of Other Uses of 

Phosphogypsum: Preparing and 

Submitting a Complete Petition Under 

40 CFR 61.206, A Workbook’’ 

(December 2005). Although this 

guidance is not binding, the EPA sought 

public comment on this pending 

approval using the procedure described 

in Section 2.4 of the Workbook. As 

outlined in the Workbook, the EPA 

published a notice of availability of this 

pending approval in the Federal 

Register on October 9, 2024, and opened 

a 30-day comment period, which was 

extended in response to public requests 

for an additional 15 days to close on 

November 23, 2024. Physical copies of 

the Mosaic request and the EPA’s 

technical evaluation were placed for 

public review in the Mulberry Public 

Library, 905 NE 5th Street, Mulberry, FL 

33860. The EPA also placed notices of 

public availability in local newspapers. 

The EPA has reviewed all comments 

received for their relevance to the 

pending approval. 

Many comments requested an 

extension of the 30-day comment 

period. The EPA extended the comment 

period in response to these requests. 

The majority of comments were 

generally opposed to the use of 

phosphogypsum in public roads, and 

critical of the current state of 

phosphogypsum management; these 

comments were determined to be 

outside the scope of this action, which 

is specific to the small-scale pilot 

project as it is described in Mosaic’s 

request. The EPA’s approval applies 

only to the proposed pilot project and 

not any broader use. Any other use 

would require a separate application, 

risk assessment, and approval. 

Comments related to EPA’s 

management of phosphogypsum and its 

non-radiological contaminants under 

the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act and other statutes 

similarly fell outside the scope of the 

current decision. EPA has documented 

other regulatory issues in its supporting 

documents, but EPA’s decision is only 

a determination of the permissibility of 

the project under the Clean Air Act 

National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Radionuclides. It does not imply any 

other regulatory approval or 

determinations of compliance. These 

must be obtained or made separately 

from this decision. 

Some commenters indicated that EPA 

established a legal ban on the use of 

phosphogypsum in road construction by 

considering but not issuing a categorical 

approval in 1992. Road use is not 

prohibited by the regulation as amended 

in 1992 and is eligible to be considered 

as an ‘‘other use.’’ 

Commenters were critical of many 

aspects of the risk assessment. 

Commenters questioned the EPA’s 

overall ability to perform radiological 

risk assessment, use of fatal radiogenic 

cancers as a health endpoint, selection 

of dose and risk coefficients, selection of 

models, and selection of exposure 

scenarios and whether current risk data 

was used. Specifically, several 

commenters believed that greater 

emphasis should be placed on the 

consideration of a future resident at the 

site of the pilot project. These comments 

represent disagreements with decisions 

that EPA has made in its evaluation of 

potential risks associated with the 

proposed pilot project, rather than new 

information that the Agency has not 

previously considered. After reviewing 

the comments, the EPA continues to 

believe that the risk assessments 

associated with this pilot project are 

consistent with current radiological risk 

assessment methodologies and 

precedent, and sufficient to evaluate the 

project per the requirements of 40 CFR 

61.206. Results from multiple modeling 

efforts indicate that risks due to the 

proposed pilot project are low. EPA 

believes that for this existing site, it is 

most appropriate to consider the 

potential risk to site workers and the 

nearest residents to the site when 

determining whether the pilot project is 

as protective as leaving the 

phosphogypsum in the stack. No 

comments raised topics which EPA did 

not consider in its technical evaluation 

or lead to a concern for human health 

or environmental impacts not 

previously considered. 

The Agency’s response to comments 

document is available in the public 

docket 1 and on the EPA 

phosphogypsum website,2 together with 

electronic copies of the application, the 

EPA’s review, and relevant background 

materials. 

Joseph Goffman, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30508 Filed 12–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

[OMB 3060–1155; FR ID 269133] 

Information Collection Being Reviewed 

by the Federal Communications 

Commission 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burdens, and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

the Commission) invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection. 

Comments are requested concerning: 

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; 

the accuracy of the Commission’s 

burden estimate; ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; 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; and ways to 

further reduce the information 

collection burden on small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before February 21, 

2025. 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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2024 / Notices 104537 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email PRA@

fcc.gov and to nicole.ongele@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information about the 

information collection, contact Nicole 

Ongele, (202) 418–2991. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC 

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 PRA that 

does not display a valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. 

OMB Control Number: 3060–1155. 

Title: Sections 15.709, 15.713, 15.714, 

15.715 15.717, 27.1320, TV White Space 

Broadcast Bands. 

Form No.: N/A. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 1,510 respondents; 3,500 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 2 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion 

reporting requirement, recordkeeping 

requirement and third party disclosure 

requirement. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this information collection 

is contained in 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 201, 302, 

and 303 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 

302a, 303. 

Total Annual Burden: 7,000 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: $151,000. 

Needs and Uses: The Commission is 

submitting this information collection 

as an extension to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) after 

this 60 day comment period in order to 

obtain the full three year clearance. The 

white space database determines which 

frequencies are available for unlicensed 

devices and is the primary means to 

prevent white space devices from 

causing harmful interference to TV 

reception and other protected services. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30532 Filed 12–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

[DOCKET NO. 24–17] 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 

Complainant, v. Orient Overseas 

Container Line Limited and OOCL 

(Europe) Limited, Respondents and 

Third-Party Complainants, v. Samsung 

Electronics Company, Ltd., Third-Party 

Respondent; Notice of Filing of ThirdParty Complaint 

Served: December 17, 2024. 

Notice is given that third-party 

complaint has been filed with the 

Federal Maritime Commission (the 

‘‘Commission’’) by Orient Overseas 

Container Line Limited and OOCL 

(Europe) Limited (the ‘‘Third-Party 

Complainants’’) against Samsung 

Electronics Company, Ltd. (the ‘‘ThirdParty Respondent’’). Third-Party 

Complainants state that the Commission 

has subject-matter jurisdiction over the 

complaint pursuant to the Shipping Act 

of 1984, as amended, 46 U.S.C. 40101 et 

seq., and personal jurisdiction over 

Third-Party Respondent as a signatory 

to the service contracts that gave rise to 

the claims asserted by Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. (the 

‘‘Complainant’’) in this proceeding and 

within which it was designated as the 

shipper. 

Third-Party Complainant Orient 

Overseas Container Line Limited is a 

corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of Hong Kong engaged 

in business as an ocean common carrier 

with a principal place of business in 

Wanchai, Hong Kong. 

Third-Party Complainant OOCL 

(Europe) Limited is a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of 

the United Kingdom engaged in 

business as an ocean common carrier 

with a principal place of business in 

Levington Suffolk, United Kingdom. 

Third-Party Complainants identify 

Third-Party Respondent as a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of 

South Korea engaged in the global 

electronics business with a principal 

place of business in Suwon, South 

Korea. 

Third-Party Complainants allege that 

Third-Party Respondent violated 46 

U.S.C. 41102(a). Third-Party 

Complainants allege this violation arose 

due to Third-Party Respondent’s failure 

to exercise control over, and/or grant of 

permission to, its affiliate, Complainant, 

to engage in unjust or unfair devices or 

means to obtain or attempt to obtain 

ocean transportation for property at less 

than the rates or charges that would 

otherwise apply by demanding refunds 

and waivers of future charges, and 

bringing legal proceedings against ocean 

carriers. 

An answer to the third-party 

complaint must be filed with the 

Commission within 25 days after the 

date of service. 

The full text of the third-party 

complaint can be found in the 

Commission’s electronic Reading Room 

at https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/ 

proceeding/24-17/. The initial decision 

of the presiding judge shall be issued by 

March 28, 2025, and the final decision 

of the Commission shall be issued by 

October 14, 2025. 

David Eng, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30552 Filed 12–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Proposed Agency Information 

Collection Activities; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. 

ACTION: Notice, request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System (Board) invites 

comment on a proposal to extend for 

three years, without revision, the 

Uniform Application for Municipal 

Securities Principal or Municipal 

Securities Representative Associated 

with a Bank Municipal Securities Dealer 

(Form MSD–4) and Uniform 

Termination Notice for Municipal 

Securities Principal or Municipal 

Securities Representative Associated 

with a Bank Municipal Securities Dealer 

(Form MSD–5; OMB No. 7100–0100). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before February 21, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by FR 2436, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Agency Website: https://

www.federalreserve.gov/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments, 

including attachments. Preferred 

method. 

• Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, 

Board of Governors of the Federal 

Reserve System, 20th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20551. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mailing address. 

• Other Means: publiccomments@

frb.gov. You must include the OMB 

number or the FR number in the subject 

line of the message. 

Comments received are subject to 

public disclosure. In general, comments 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES