Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27421

Hearing Clerk, at the address given

above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the

objections and/or hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted

must specify the provisions of the

regulation deemed objectionable and the

grounds for the objections (40 CFR

178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fees provided by 40

CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested,

the objections must include a statement

of the factual issue(s) on which a

hearing is requested, and the requestor’s

contentions on each such issue, and a

summary of the evidence relied upon by

the objection (40 CFR 178.27). A request

for a hearing will be granted if the

Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

there is a genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

2F4154/R2136] (including objections

and hearing requests 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

Rm. 1132, 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.

Written objections and hearing

requests, identified by the document

control number [PP 2F4154/R2136],

may be submitted to the Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. 3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk 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 any objections and hearing

requests 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 objections and hearing

requests submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the address

in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of

this document.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to all the requirements of the

Executive Order (i.e., Regulatory Impact

Analysis, review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)). Under

section 3(f), the order defines

‘‘significant’’ as those actions likely to

lead to a rule (1) having an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more, or adversely and materially

affecting a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local or tribal governments or

communities (also known as

‘‘economically significant’’); (2) creating

serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfering with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially altering the budgetary

impacts of entitlement, grants, user fees,

or loan programs; or (4) raising novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of this

Executive Order, EPA has determined

that this rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is

therefore not subject to OMB review.

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 to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 10, 1995.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

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

b. In § 180.480, by amending

paragraph (a) in the table therein by

adding and alphabetically inserting the

raw agricultural commodity bananas, to

read as follows:

§ 180.480 Fenbuconazole; tolerances for

residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per million

Bananas (whole fruit) 0.3 (of which not

more than 0.05

ppm is contained in

the banana pulp).

* * * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–12743 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4E4359/R2127; FRL–4936–3]

RIN 2070–AB78

Paraquat; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes

tolerances for residues of the desiccant,

defoliant, and herbicide paraquat in or

on the raw agricultural commodities

lentils, lentil forage, and lentil hay. The

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR4) requested this regulation to establish

the maximum permissible levels for

residues of paraquat in or on the

commodities, and EPA has found that

paraquat is useful and safe for the

requested tolerances.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation

becomes effective May 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests, identified by the

document control number, [PP 4E4359/

R2127], may be submitted to: Hearing

Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Fees
27422 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

accompanying objections and hearing

requests shall be labeled ‘‘Tolerance

Petition Fees’’ and forwarded to: EPA

Headquarters Accounting Operations

Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box

360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy

of any objections and hearing requests

filed with the Hearing Clerk should be

identified by the document control

number and submitted 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, bring copy of objections and

hearing requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2,

1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 22202.

A copy of objections and hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

may also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Copies of

objections and hearing requests must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Copies of objections and

hearing requests will also be accepted

on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 file

format or ASCII file format. All copies

of objections and hearing requests in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [4E4359/R2127]. No

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

should be submitted through e-mail.

Electronic copies of objections and

hearing requests on this rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found

below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson, Registration

Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

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

DC 20460. Office location and telephone

number: Sixth Floor, Crystal Station #1,

2800 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington,

VA 22202, (703)-308-8783; e-mail:

jamerson.hoyt@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of March 15, 1995 (60

FR 13939), EPA issued a proposed rule

that gave notice that the Interregional

Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), New

Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station,

P.O. Box 231, Rutgers University, New

Brunswick, NJ 08903, had submitted

pesticide petition (PP) 4E4359 to EPA

on behalf of the Agricultural Experiment

Stations of Idaho and Washington. The

petition requested that the

Administrator, pursuant to section

408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and

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

346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.205 by

establishing tolerances for residues of

paraquat (1,1’-dimethyl-4,4’-

bipyridinium-ion) derived from

application of either the bis(methyl

sulfate) or the dichloride salt (both

calculated as the cation), in or on the

raw agricultural commodities lentils at

0.3 part per million (ppm), lentil forage

at 0.1 ppm, and lentil hay at 0.4 ppm.

There were no comments or requests

for referral to an advisory committee

received in response to the proposed

rule.

The data submitted with the proposal

and other relevant material have been

evaluated and discussed in the

proposed rule. Based on the data and

information considered, the Agency

concludes that the tolerances will

protect the public health. Therefore, the

tolerances are established as set forth

below.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

and/or request a hearing with the

Hearing Clerk, at the address given

above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the

objections and/or hearing requests filed

with the Hearing Clerk should be

submitted to the OPP docket for this

rulemaking. The objections submitted

must specify the provisions of the

regulation deemed objectionable and the

grounds for the objections (40 CFR

178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is a genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is a reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

4E4359/R2127] (including any

objections and hearing requests

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 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal 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.

Written objections and hearing

requests, identified by the document

control number [PP 4E4359/R2127],

may be submitted to the Hearing Clerk

(1900), Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. 3708, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

A copy of electronic objections and

hearing requests filed with the Hearing

Clerk 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 any objections and hearing

requests 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 objections and hearing

requests submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the address

in ‘‘ADDRESSES’’ at the beginning of

this document.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),

the order defines a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as an action that is

likely to result in a rule (1) having an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities (also

referred to as ‘‘economically

significant’’); (2) creating serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfering

with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially altering

the budgetary impacts of entitlement,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 27423

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of the Executive

Order, EPA has determined that this

rule is not ‘‘significant’’ and is therefore

not subject to OMB review.

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 to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 10, 1995.

Peter Caulkins,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office

of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 180.205, paragraph (a) is

amended in the table therein by adding

and alphabetically inserting entries for

the raw agricultural commodities

lentils, lentil forage, and lentil hay, to

read as follows:

§ 180.205 Paraquat; tolerances for

residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Lentils ........................................ 0.3

Lentil, forage ............................. 0.1

Lentil, hay ................................. 0.4

* * * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–12745 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 15

[GEN Docket No. 90–314, FCC 95–167]

Unlicensed Personal Communications

Services; Radio Frequency Devices

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By this action, the

Commission affirms its designation of

UTAM, Inc., to manage the transition of

the 1910–1930 MHz band from the

Private Operational Fixed Microwave

Service to unlicensed Personal

Communication Service (PCS)

operations. Further, the Commission

accepts UTAM’s plan for the relocation

of fixed microwave operations from this

spectrum and the deployment of

unlicensed PCS devices. The

Commission is requiring UTAM to

submit reports at six-month intervals on

the progress of the plan’s

implementation. UTAM’s management

of the transition of the 1910–1930 MHz

band will help to ensure that new and

innovative unlicensed PCS devices,

such as wireless PBX equipment,

wireless messaging systems, wireless

local area networks, and a broad range

of data communication products, are

made available as rapidly as possible

without disrupting fixed microwave

service.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David L. Means, Office of Engineering

and Technology, New Technology

Development Division, (301) 725–1585,

extension 206.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Fourth

Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC

95–167, adopted April 19, 1995, and

released May 12, 1995. The full text of

this decision is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room

230), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC. Copies may also be purchased from

the Commission’s duplicating

contractor, International Transcription

Services, at (202) 857–3800 or 2100 M

Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037.

Summary of the Memorandum Option

and Order

1. This Fourth Memorandum Opinion

and Order affirms its designation of

UTAM, Inc., to manage the transition of

the 1910–1930 MHz band from the

Private Operational Fixed Microwave

Service to unlicensed Personal

Communication Service (PCS)

operations. Further, the Commission

accepts UTAM’s plan for the relocation

of fixed microwave operations from this

spectrum and the deployment of

unlicensed PCS devices. The

Commission is requiring UTAM to

submit reports at six-month intervals on

the progress of the plan’s

implementation.

2. The 1910–1930 MHz band is

currently occupied by 383 fixed pointto-point microwave links. In the Second

Report and Order, 58 FR 59174,

November 8, 1993, the Commission

designated UTAM as the coordinator for

the transition of the unlicensed PCS

band from the fixed microwave service

to unlicensed PCS, conditioned on

UTAM’s submission and the

Commissions acceptance of: (1) A

funding plan that is equitable to all

prospective manufacturers of

unlicensed devices, and (2) a plan for

‘‘band clearing’’ that will permit the

implementation of nomadic devices

and, in particular, nomadic data PCS

devices, as promptly as possible.

3. On August 1, 1994, UTAM, Inc.,

submitted its plan for managing the

transition of the 1910–1930 MHz band

to use by unlicensed PCS operations.

The UTAM plan describes UTAM’s

organization and governance, financing

plan, bank clearing plan, coordination

procedures, protection of proprietary

information, dispute resolution

procedures and UTAM’s plans for

ending its coordination role and

dissolving itself.

4. We find that UTAM’s cost and

revenue projections are reasonable.

These projections appear to be based on

conservative estimates and to allow for

situations where a revenue source may

develop somewhat slowly. While we

recognize that there is always some

uncertainty in making such projections,

we are convinced that there will

eventually be sufficient revenues to

totally fund relocation of the microwave

incumbents. It seems fair to assume the

PCS licensees will bear approximately

half the cost of relocating the incumbent

microwave links in the 1910–1930 MHz

band, since these links are paired with

links in the licensed PCS spectrum. We

agree with UTAM that its estimate of the

cost for relocating each link is

conservative, which should provide

some margin if UTAM is faced with

relocating more links than it anticipates.

We do not agree with arguments that the

relocation of links would be disrupted

if there are funding shortfalls. We note,

in particular, that UTAM will not

initiate relocation negotiations until

adequate funding is available. Further,