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
3642 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 1995 / Notices

and of plans for addressing such

shortfall. Such notice must be provided

within thirty days after the LEC

becomes aware of an anticipated

shortfall or within five days after

denying capacity to a video

programmer, whichever occurs first.

The Commission also conforms its

existing enhanced services safeguards

against anticompetitive conduct by

adding video dialtone delivery service

to the service categories for which it

requires that Regional Bell Operating

Companies (RBOCs) and GTE Service

Corporation (GTE) report installation

and maintenance activities. In addition,

the Commission requires the RBOCs and

GTE to file, within 90 days after

publication in the Federal Register, a

detailed description of the types of

Customer Proprietary Network

Information (CPNI) to which they

anticipate having access as providers of

video dialtone service, and to explain

how they would plan to use such

information in marketing video dialtone

services to video programmers or

consumers.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–1159 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–0l–F

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

requirements to OMB for review and

clearance under the Paperwork

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

Copies of these submissions 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 Dorothy Conway,

Federal Communications Commission,

(202) 418–0217 or via internet at

DConway@FCC.GOV. 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: 3060–0411.

Title: § 1.720–1.735, Formal

Complaints Against Common Carriers.

Action: Extension of a currently

approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit; individuals or households; Notfor-profit institutions; Federal

Government and State, Local or Tribal

Governments.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Annual Burden: 760

responses; 10 hours burden per

response; 7,600 hours total annual

burden.

Needs and Uses: § 1.720 through

1.735 of 47 CFR were promulgated to

implement § 208 of the Communications

Act 47 U.S.C. which provides that any

person may file a complaint with the

FCC regarding acts or omissions of

common carriers subject to the

Communications Act. This section

obligates the FCC to serve such

complaints on the affected carrier for

response or resolution. The Commission

is also obligated to investigated

unsatisfied complaints. The information

is used to determine whether a violation

of the Communications Act or the

Commission’s rules has occurred.

OMB Number: 3060–0179.

Title: § 73.1590 Equipment

Performance Measurements.

Action: Extension of a currently

approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for

profit.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Annual Burden: 12,753

responses; 0.64 hours per response

(approximately 38 minutes); 8,127 hours

total annual burden.

Needs and Uses: § 73.1590 request

broadcast licensees to make audio and

visual equipment performance

measurements for each main transmitter

and retain complete data at the

transmitter. These measurements

minimize the potential for interference

to other stations. FCC staff use this

information to identify sources of

interference.

OMB Number: 3060–0210.

Title: § 73.1930 Political Editorials.

Action: Extension of a currently

approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households; Business or other for-profit.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Annual Burden: 2,309

responses; 3 hours per response; 6,927

hours total annual burden.

Needs and Uses: § 73.1930 requires

that when a commercial licensee in an

editorial opposes or endorses a

candidate, the licensee must notify the

other qualified candidate(s) for the same

office or the candidate opposed. This

information is used to provide a

qualified candidate reasonable

opportunity to respond to the editorial.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR 95–1160 Filed 1–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–0l–F

[WT Dkt. No. 94–147: FCC 94–315]

Order To Show Cause, Hearing

Designation Order and Notice of

Opportunity for Hearing for Forfeiture

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Order to show cause, hearing

designation order and notice of

opportunity for hearing for forfeiture.

SUMMARY: On December 9, 1994

(released December 13, 1994), the

Commission adopted an order which

requires James A. Kay, Jr. (Kay), holder

of one hundred sixty four land mobile

licenses in the Los Angeles area to show

cause why his licenses should not be

revoked or cancelled, why he should

not be ordered to cease and desist from

certain violations of the

Communications Act of 1934 as

amended and the Commission’s Rules,

why an order for forfeiture should not

issue, and designated the matters for a

hearing before an Administrative Law

Judge at a time and place to be

designated in a subsequent Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

W. Riley Hollingsworth or William H.

Kellett at (717) 337–1311, or Gary

Schonman at (202) 632–6402.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Order to

Show Cause, Hearing Designation Order

and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing

for Forfeiture adopted on December 9,

1994 and released on December 13,

1994. The full text of the order

including a listing of the licenses at

issue are available for inspection and

copying at the FCC Docket Branch

(Room 230) at 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC. The text of the order

may be purchased by calling ITS, at

(202) 857–3800.

The Commission discussed generally

alleged violations by Kay of the

Communications Act as amended (the

‘‘Act’’) and of the Commission’s Rules.

The Commission Order relates to 164

Private Land Mobile licenses authorized

under Part 90 of the Commission’s

Rules. 47 CFR 90.1 et seq. The

Commission proceeded to designate the

following issues for hearing:

(a) whether James A. Kay, Jr. has

violated Section 308(b) of the Act and/

or 47 CFR 1.17, by failing to provide

requested information in his responses

to Commission inquiries; (b) whether