8616 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Chinese hamsters dosed orally at 5,000

mg/kg; and tests for other genotoxic

effects, negative for unscheduled DNA

synthesis in rat hepatocytes up to

cytotoxic levels.

8. In a general metabolism study using

rats fed diets containing radio-labelled

prometryn, prometryn was extensively

metabolized with less than 2 percent of

the recovered 14C radioactivity

representing the parent compound.

Prometryn is excreted predominately in

the urine and feces.

The Reference Dose (RfD) for

prometryn is established at 0.04 mg/kg

of body weight (bwt)/day, based on a

NOEL of 3.75 mg/kg/day from the 2-year

feeding study in dogs and an

uncertainty factor of 100. The

Theoretical Maximum Residue

Contribution (TMRC) from established

tolerances and the current action is

estimated at 0.000181 mg/kg of body

weight/day and utilizes less than 1

percent of the RfD for the U.S.

population. The most highly exposed

subgroup (children of ages 1 through 6

years) will be exposed to less than 1

percent of the RfD from existing uses

and the proposed use on parsley.

An acute dietary exposure analysis

was conducted for prometryn based on

a NOEL of 12 mg/kg/day from the rabbit

developmental toxicity study. In the

analysis, tolerance level residues were

used to calculate the high-end exposure

for females older than 13 years, which

approximates women of child-bearing

age. High-end dietary exposure was

compared to the NOEL of 12 mg/kg/day

to obtain a high-end Margin of Exposure

(MOE) of 10,000. The Agency concludes

there is no acute dietary concern for

prometryn at this time.

The nature of residue in plants is

adequately understood for the purposes

of the proposed tolerance. An adequate

analytical method, gas chromatography,

is available for enforcement purposes.

The analytical method for enforcing this

tolerance has been published in the

Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II

(PAM II).

There is no reasonable expectation

that secondary residues will occur in

milk, eggs, or meat of livestock and

poultry, since there are no livestock feed

items associated with this action.

There are currently no actions

pending against the continued

registration of this chemical.

Based on the information and data

considered, the Agency has determined

that the tolerance established by

amending 40 CFR part 180 would

protect the public health. Therefore, it is

proposed that the tolerance be

established as set forth below.

Any person who has registered or

submitted an application for registration

of a pesticide, under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) as amended, which

contains any of the ingredients listed

herein, may request within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register that this rulemaking

proposal be referred to an Advisory

Committee in accordance with section

408(e) of the FFDCA.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments on the

proposed regulation. Comments must

bear a notation indicating the document

control number, [PP 6E3460/P597]. All

written comments filed in response to

this petition will be available in the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, at the address given above from

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

Friday, except legal holidays.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 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: January 30, 1995.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

part 180 be 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 § 180.222, paragraph (b) is

amended in the table therein by adding

and alphabetically inserting a new

entry, to read as follows:

§ 180.222 Prometryn; tolerances for

residues.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

Commodity Parts per

million

* * * * *

Parsley ...................................... 0.1

[FR Doc. 95–3385 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5154–4]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan; The

National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Cemetery Dump site, Rose Township,

Michigan from the National Priorities

List; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region V announces its

intent to delete the Cemetery Dump site,

Rose Township, Michigan from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment. The NPL is

Appendix B to the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended. This

action is being taken by EPA, because it

has been determined that all Fund-
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8617

financed response under CERCLA has

been implemented, and EPA, in

consultation with the State of Michigan,

has determined that no further cleanup

is appropriate. Moreover, EPA and the

State have determined that remedial

activities conducted at the site to date

have been protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

DATES: Comments concerning the

proposed deletion of the site from the

NPL may be submitted until March 17,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Matt Mankowski (HSRW–6J) Remedial

Project Manager, Office of Superfund,

U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. The

comprehensive information on the site

is available at the local information

repository located at: the Holly

Township Library, 1116 N. Saginaw,

Holly, Michigan. Requests for

comprehensive copies of documents

should be directed formally to the

appropriate Regional Docket Office. The

address for the Regional Docket Office is

Jan Pfundheller (H–7J), U.S. EPA,

Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604, (312) 353–5821.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt

Mankowski (HSRW–6J) Remedial

Project Manager, Office of Superfund,

U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886–

1842; or Heidi Valetkevitch (P–19J),

Office of Public Affairs, U.S. EPA,

Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604, (312) 886–1303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region V announces its

intent to delete the Cemetery Dump site

from the National Priorities List (NPL),

Appendix B to the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Contingency

Plan, 40 CFR Part 300 (NCP), and

requests comments on the deletion. The

EPA identifies sites which appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare or the environment, and

maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of Superfund (Fund) FundFinanced remedial actions. Pursuant to

Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any

site deleted from the NPL remains

eligible for additional Fund-financed

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action.

The EPA will accept comments on

this proposal for 30 days after

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

Section II of this notice explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the history of this site and

explains how the site meets the deletion

criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria the

Agency uses to delete sites from the

NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR

300.425(e), sites may be deleted from

the NPL where no further response is

appropriate. In making this

determination, EPA will consider, in

consultation with the State, whether any

of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed

response under CERCLA has been

implemented, and no further response

action by responsible parties is

appropriate;

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

Before EPA can delete a site from the

NPL, the state in which the site was

located must concur on the proposed

deletion. EPA shall provide the state 30

working days for review of the deletion

notice prior to its publication in the

Federal Register.

As noted above, deletion of a site from

the NPL does not preclude eligibility for

subsequent additional Fund-financed

actions if future site conditions warrant

such actions.

Deletion of sites from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations.

Furthermore, deletion from the NPL

does not in any way alter EPA’s right to

take enforcement actions, as

appropriate. The NPL is designed

primarily for informational purposes

and to assist in Agency management.

III. Deletion Procedures

Upon determination that at least one

of the criteria described in 300.425(e)

has been met, EPA may formally begin

deletion procedures. This Federal

Register notice, and a concurrent notice

in the local newspaper in the vicinity of

the site, announce the initiation of a 30-

day comment period. The public is

asked to comment on EPA’s intention to

delete the site from the NPL. All critical

documents needed to evaluate EPA’s

decision are generally included in the

information repository and the deletion

docket.

Upon completion of the public

comment period, the EPA Regional

Office will, if necessary prepare a

Responsiveness Summary to evaluate

and address concerns which were

raised. The public is welcome to contact

the EPA Regional Office to obtain a copy

of this responsiveness summary, when

available. If EPA still determines that

the deletion from the NPL is

appropriate, final notice of deletion will

be published in the Federal Register.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following summary provides the

Agency’s rationale for intending to

delete the site from the NPL.

The Cemetery site is located in the NE

1/4 of Section 27 (T4N, R7E), Rose

Township, Oakland County, Michigan.

The 4-acre site is located on Rose Center

(or Milford) Road and is a former sand

and gravel pit in which a large number

of drums were buried within an

approximate 2-acre area on the site.

The site was placed on the National

Priorities List (NPL) in 1982. The

Michigan Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR) entered into a

Cooperative Agreement (CA) with the

United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) in May, 1984 to

conduct a Remedial Investigation/

Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The Record of

Decision (ROD) was signed on

September 11, 1985. The September

1985 ROD recommended a Remedial

Action (RA) that included the

excavation of approximately 250 drums

and disposal at an approved off-site

landfill. The RA for the Cemetery site

was completed on November 10, 1988.

On September 19, 1989, a second ROD

was signed indicating that the selected

remedy for the rest of the site was ‘‘No

Further Action’’. An Interim Close Out

Report, signed on September 11, 1991,

was written in response to the

completion of the RA. The Final Close

Out Report was signed by the Regional

Administrator July 11, 1994. The State’s

concurrence was received on August 30,

1994. A Five-Year Review was

completed July 8, 1994.

EPA, with concurrence of the State of

Michigan, has determined that all

appropriate Fund-financed responses

under CERCLA at the Cemetery Dump

site have been completed, and no

further Superfund response is

appropriate in order to provide

protection of human health and the

environment. Therefore, it is proposed

that the site be deleted from the NPL.
8618 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Dated: January 4, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region V.

[FR Doc. 95–3604 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0, 1, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25,

73, 74, 78, 80, 87, 90, 94, 95, and 97

[WT Docket No. 95–5, FCC 95–16]

Streamlining the Antenna Structure

Clearance Procedure and Revision of

the Rules Concerning Construction,

Marking, and Lighting of Antenna

Structures

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted

a Notice of Proposed Rule Making

which seeks to streamline the

Commission’s antenna structure

clearance process by instituting a

uniform registration process for

structure owners, revise the current

antenna structure painting and lighting

requirements in keeping with updated

recommendations by the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA), and

make antenna structure owners

primarily responsible for antenna

structures that require painting and/or

lighting. This action stems from the

Commission’s effort to streamline

regulatory processes and eliminate

unnecessary public burdens as well as

the need to update the Commission’s

Rules to reflect recent changes in two

FAA Advisory Circulars and the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended. Thus, the proposed rules

should reduce the number of

Commission filings, expedite the

processing authorizations involving

FAA coordination, and clarify rules

concerning the painting and lighting of

antenna structures.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 21, 1995, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

April 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Noel of the Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau at (202)

418–0680, or Robert Greenberg of the

Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418–2720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No.

95–5, FCC 95–16, adopted January 12,

1995, and released, January 20, 1995.

The full text of this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center

(Room 239) 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text may

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor International

Transcription Services, 2100 M Street

NW., Washington, DC 20037, telephone

(202) 857–3800.

Summary of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

1. The Commission has initiated the

instant proceeding to thoroughly review

its antenna structure clearances process,

eliminate unnecessary public burdens,

and reduce processing time for

Commission authorizations that require

FAA coordination. Presently, the

clearance process requires identifying

the coordinates and height of each

antenna structure requiring FAA

notification (i.e., each structure

exceeding 60.96 meters (200 feet) in

height above ground level or within

close proximity to an airport). If the

FAA determines that such a structure is

a potential hazard to air navigation

because of its height or location, the

FAA may recommend that the antenna

structure height be decreased,

recommend painting or lighting

specifications, or both. Thus, the current

clearance process requires certain

prospective licensees and permittees to

file antenna structure data with the

Commission and the FAA, and upon

authorization, holds licensees and

permittees responsible for the painting

and lighting of antenna structures,

where required.

2. The Commission proposes three

distinct changes to the rules. First, the

Commission proposes to replace the

current clearance process with a

streamlined procedure for registering

each antenna structure which requires

FAA notification. The registration

process would require the antenna

structure owner, not the licensees or

permittees using the structure, to (1)

register the antenna structure with the

Commission, (2) maintain the

structure’s painting and lighting in

accordance with the Commission’s

Rules, (3) notify the Commission of

changes in height, coordinates,

ownership, painting, or lighting of the

structure, and (4) notify the Commission

upon dismantling the structure. This

proposed action would not impose a

greater net filing burden on the public,

but would instead decrease the number

of entities affected by these

requirements.

3. Second, the Commission proposes

to incorporate by reference the

recommendations found in the

following two FAA Advisory Circulars:

Obstruction Marking and Lighting (AC

70/7460–1H) released August, 1991, and

Specification for Obstruction Lighting

Equipment (AC 150/5435–43D) released

July, 1988. This proposed change

updates the Commission’s Rules in light

of the FAA’s recent air safety

recommendations and would

grandfather the present painting and

lighting requirements of existing

structures for 10 years. This action

would serve to streamline the

Commission’s Rules and increase air

safety.

4. Third, the Commission proposes to

implement statutory language holding

antenna structure owners primarily

responsible for compliance with the

Commission’s painting and lighting

requirements. This means that the

Commission would first look toward

structure owners to ensure that antenna

structures are painted and lighted in

accordance with the Commission’s

Rules. In cases where reliance on the

owner proves ineffective, the

Commission would turn toward the

tenant licensees and permittees to

ensure that the structure is properly

painted and lighted.

5. The Commission seeks specific

comments concerning the proposed rule

amendments, options for implementing

the registration process, and whether

the proposal may necessitate changes to

the Commission’s environmental rules

in 47 CFR 1.1301–1.1319.

6. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. Reason for Action. The

Commission proposes to: (1) institute a

procedure to register certain antenna

structures, used by Commission

licensees and permittees, which require

notice to the FAA of proposed

construction, (2) revise the

Commission’s painting and lighting

requirements to incorporate by reference

FAA Advisory Circulars AC 70/7460–

1H (August 1991) and AC 150/5345–

43D (July 1988), and (3) hold antenna

structure owners primarily responsible

for compliance with the Commission’s

painting and lighting requirements.

Objectives

The Commission seeks to: (1) reduce

the number of filings to the Commission

regarding changes to antenna structures,

(2) expedite application and notification

processing, (3) unify and streamline

federal painting and lighting regulations

to ease the public and governmental

burdens associated with processing

certain application, (4) increase safety in

air navigation.