3640 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.

SUMMARY: A peer-review workshop will

be held by the Environmental Criteria

and Assessment Office (ECAO) of EPA’s

Office of Health and Environmental

Assessment to review a draft of EPA’s

Mercury Study Report to Congress

(hereafter ‘‘Draft Report’’). This Draft

Report is being prepared by EPA in

response to Section 112(n)(1)(B) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in

1990, which requires EPA to submit to

Congress a study on mercury emissions.

The Draft Report focuses on sources of

mercury emissions to include electric

utility steam generating units,

municipal waste combustion units, and

other sources, including area sources.

Congress directed that the report

evaluate many aspects of mercury

emissions, including the rate and mass

of emissions, health and environmental

effects, technologies to control such

emissions, and the costs of such

controls.

DATES: The workshop will be held on

January 25 and 26, 1995, at the Andrew

W. Breidenbach Environmental

Research Center (AWBERC), 26 W.

Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati,

Ohio. The workshop will begin at 8:30

a.m. both days.

ADDRESSES: Eastern Research Group,

Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor is

providing logistical support for the peer

review workshop. Members of the

public wishing to attend the workshop

as observers should register by phoning

ERG at 617–674–7374. Please note that

space is limited and registrations will be

accepted on a first-come, first-serve

basis.

Time will be allowed for public

comment on both days of the workshop.

Members of the public wishing to

present formal comments at the

workshop should indicate so when

registering. Time will be limited in

order to give everyone an equal

opportunity to speak.

Copies of the Draft Report will be

available at the workshop. Additional

copies also will be available after the

workshop. To obtain a copy of this Draft

Report, interested parties should contact

the ORD Publications Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 26

W. Martin Luther King Drive,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone (513)

569–7562; fax (513) 569–7566. Please

provide your name, mailing address, the

document title (Mercury Study Report

to Congress), and the document

numbers (EPA/600/P–94/002Aa and

Ab).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Rita Schoeny, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Health and

Environmental Assessment,

Environmental Criteria and Assesment

Office, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive,

Cincinnati, Ohio 45268; telephone (513)

569–7544.

Martha Keating, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research

Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;

telephone (919)–541–5340.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

response to a mandate from Congress,

EPA has prepared a seven-volume

Mercury Study Report to Congress. The

seven volumes are as follows:

1. Executive Summary

2. Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury

Emissions in the United States

3. An Assessment of Exposure from

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in

the United States

4. Health Effects of Mercury and

Mercury Compounds

5. An Ecological Assessment for

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in

the United States

6. Characterization of Human Health

and Wildlife Risks from

Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in

the United States

7. An Evaluation of Mercury Control

Technologies, Costs, and Regulatory

Issues

A peer-review workshop is being held

as part of the process of scientific

review of the Draft Report. The Draft

Report, authored primarily by EPA

scientists with input from outside

scientific experts, is developmental and

does not represent Agency policy. The

Draft Report is being made available to

the public as part of the Agency’s

continuing commitment to conduct

assessments of important environmental

contaminants in an open and

participatory manner, to keep the public

informed, and to encourage public

review of significant assessments. The

public is invited to attend the

workshop. Seating will be limited, and

advance registration is suggested.

Information about attending the

meetings and obtaining a copy of the

Draft Report is provided elsewhere in

this notice. After the workshop, the

Draft Report will be revised and

subjected to final Agency review before

submission to the Office of Management

and Budget and ultimately to Congress.

Dated: January 11, 1995.

Joseph K. Alexander,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Research

and Development.

[FR Doc. 95–1249 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPP–180957; FRL 4928–2]

Receipt of Application for Emergency

Exemption to Use Propazine;

Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA has received specific

exemption requests from the Oklahoma

and the New Mexico Departments of

Agriculture (hereafter referred to as the

‘‘Applicants’’) to use the pesticide

propazine (CAS 139–40–2) to treat up to

280,000 and 50,000 acres, respectively,

of sorghum to control pigweed. The

Applicants propose the use of a new

(unregistered) chemical; therefore, in

accordance with 40 CFR 166.24, EPA is

soliciting public comment before

making the decision whether or not to

grant the exemptions.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Three copies of written

comments, bearing the identification

notation ‘‘OPP–180957’’ should be

submitted by mail to: Public Response

and Program Resource Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA.

Information submitted in any

comment concerning this notice may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information.’’

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 Confidential Business

Information must be provided by the

submitter for inclusion in the public

record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly

by EPA without prior notice. All written

comments filed pursuant to this notice

will be available for public inspection in

Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall No. 2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA,

from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Andrea Beard, Registration

Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC

20460. Office location and telephone

number: Floor 6, Crystal Station #1,

2800 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA, (703) 308–8791.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices 3641

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to section 18 of the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

(7 U.S.C. 136p), the Administrator may,

at her discretion, exempt a state agency

from any registration provision of

FIFRA if she determines that emergency

conditions exist which require such

exemption. The Applicants have

requested the Administrator to issue

specific exemptions for the use of

propazine on sorghum to control

pigweed. Information in accordance

with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as

part of this request.

Sorghum is grown as a rotational crop

with cotton and wheat, in order to

comply with the soil conservation

requirements. Propazine, which was

formerly registered for use on sorghum,

was voluntarily canceled by the former

Registrant, who did not wish to support

its re-registration. The Applicants claim

that this has left sorghum growers in

Oklahoma and New Mexico with no

preemergent herbicides that will

adequately control certain broadleaf

weeds, especially pigweed. Until 1993–

4, the first season an exemption was

requested, growers were using existing

stocks of propazine. The Applicants

state that other available herbicides

have serious limitations on their use,

making them unsuitable for control of

pigweed in sorghum. Although the

original Registrant of propazine has

decided not to support this chemical

through reregistration, another company

has committed to support the data

requirements for this use. Propazine was

once registered for this use, but has now

been voluntarily canceled and is

therefore considered to be a new

chemical.

The Applicants state that, since

growers used existing stocks of

propazine between the time of its

voluntary cancellation and the

availability of propazine under an

emergency exemption, yields have not

shown a decrease. However, the

Applicants claim that significant

economic losses will occur without the

availability of propazine.

The Applicants propose to apply

propazine at a maximum rate of 1.2 lbs.

active ingredient (a.i.), (2.4 pts. of

product) per acre, by ground or air, with

a maximum of one application per crop

growing season. Therefore, use under

this exemption could potentially

amount to a maximum total of 336,000

lbs. of active ingredient (84,000 gal. of

product) in Oklahoma, and 60,000 lbs.

of active ingredient (15,000 gal. of

product) in New Mexico. This is the

second time that Oklahoma and New

Mexico have applied for this use of

propazine on sorghum under section 18

of FIFRA. Oklahoma and New Mexico

were issued exemptions for this use for

last growing season.

This notice does not constitute a

decision by EPA on the applications

themselves. The regulations governing

section 18 require publication of a

notice of receipt of an application for a

specific exemption proposing use of a

new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient

not contained in any currently

registered pesticide). Such notice

provides for opportunity for public

comment on the application.

Accordingly, interested persons may

submit written views on this subject to

the Field Operations Division at the

address above.

The Agency, accordingly, will review

and consider all comments received

during the comment period in

determining whether to issue the

emergency exemptions requested by the

Oklahoma and New Mexico

Departments of Agriculture.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides

and pests, Crisis exemptions.

Dated: January 6, 1995.

Lois Rossi,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office

of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 95–1190 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collection

Requirement Submitted to Office of

Management and Budget for Review

January 6, 1995.

The Federal Communications

Commission has submitted the

following information collection

requirement to OMB for review and

clearance under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

Copies of this submission may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857–

3800. For further information on this

submission contact Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, (202)

418–0214. Persons wishing to comment

on this information collection should

contact Timothy Fain, Office of

Management and Budget, Room 10214

NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202)

395–3561.

OMB Number: 3060–0149.

Title: Part 63—§ 214 Application and

Supplemental Information

Requirements (§ 63.01 - 63.601).

Action: Revision of a currently

approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly,

and on occasion reporting requirements.

Estimated Annual Burden: 510

responses, 13.3 hours average burden

per response, 6,820 hours total annual

burden.

Needs and Uses: The Commission

modified its rules to enable local

telephone companies (LECs) to

participate in the video marketplace

through video dialtone. The

Commission concluded that allowing

telephone company involvement in the

video marketplace, consistent with

statutory telephone company-cable

television cross-ownership restrictions,

will advance the FCC’s goals of creating

opportunities and incentives to develop

an advanced telecommunications

infrastructure, increasing competition in

the video marketplace, and enhancing

the diversity of video services to the

American public in order to promote

consumer choice.

The Commission decided that it will

permit, but not require LECs to provide

video dialtone to the public consistent

with the existing regulatory framework

for non-video enhanced services and

subject to additional requirements.

These additional requirements, which

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB),

provided, in relevant part, that: (1) LECs

wishing to offer video dialtone must

make available to multiple service

providers, on a nondiscriminatory

common carrier basis, a basic platform

that will deliver video programming and

potentially other services to end users;

(2) local telephone companies will be

permitted to provide some additional

enhanced and other non-common

carrier services to customers of the

common carrier platform, and the

Commission will apply existing

safeguards against anticompetitive

conduct; and (3) in addition to existing

requirements of Part 63, telephone

companies that wish to offer video

dialtone must describe how their

proposed construction and operation of

the basic platform will serve multiple

video programmers and expand as

demand increases.

In CC Docket No. 87–266, MO&O on

Reconsideration and Third FNPRM, the

Commission requires LECs providing

video dialtone service to notify the

Chief of the Common Carrier Bureau of

any anticipated or existing capacity

shortfall in their video dialtone platform