Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26149

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: May 6, 1996.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Table I to the Preamble

Reconfirmation of Part 60 and 61 Delegations

Part 60 Subpart Categories

Da ELECTRIC UTILITY STEAM

GENERATORS

Dc SMALL INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIALINSTITUTIONAL STEAM GENERATING

UNITS

E INCINERATORS

I ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS

RR TAPE AND LABEL SURFACE

COATINGS

OOO NONMETALLIC MINERAL

PROCESSING PLANTS

UUU CALCINERS AND DRYERS IN

MINERALS INDUSTRY

Part 61 Subpart Categories

M ASBESTOS

[FR Doc. 96–13151 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 136

[FRL–5509–7]

Guidelines Establishing Test

Procedures for the Analysis of Oil and

Grease and Total Petroleum

Hydrocarbons: Reopening of Comment

Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; reopening of comment

period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening

the comment period for the proposal to

amend the Guidelines Establishing Test

Procedures under section 304(h) of the

Clean Water Act to replace existing

gravimetric test procedures for the

conventional pollutant ‘‘oil and grease’’

with EPA Method 1664, which was

published in the Federal Register on

January 23, 1996 (61 FR 1730). The

public comment period for the proposed

rule ended on March 25, 1996.

EPA has received several requests for

an extension of time to comment on the

proposed rule, on the grounds that

several issues that the rule addresses

require additional time for a proper

evaluation. The Agency has determined

that an extension of time is in the public

interest, and that an additional 60 days

to comment on the proposed rule is

reasonable.

DATES: Comments on this proposal will

be accepted until July 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on

the proposed rule to ‘‘Method 1664’’

Comment Clerk; Water Docket MC–

4101; Environmental Protection Agency;

401 M Street, S.W.; Washington, D.C.

20460. Commenters are requested to

submit any references cited in their

comments. Commenters are also

requested to submit an original and 3

copies of their written comments and

enclosures. Commenters who want

receipt of their comments acknowledged

should include a self addressed,

stamped envelope. All comments must

be postmarked or delivered by hand by

July 23, 1996. No facsimiles (faxes) will

be accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ben Honaker, Engineering and Analysis

Division (4303), USEPA Office of

Science and Technology, 401 M Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C., 20460, or call

(202) 260–2272.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 23, 1996, EPA published a

proposed rule at 61 FR 1730 to replace

existing gravimetric procedures for the

conventional pollutant ‘‘oil and grease’’

(40 CFR 401.16) with EPA Method 1664

as part of EPA’s effort to reduce

dependency on the use of

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Method

1664 uses normal hexane (n-hexane) as

the extraction solvent in place of 1,1,2-

trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC–

113). This proposal would withdraw

approval of EPA Method 413.1 and

Standard Methods Method 5520B,

which use CFC–113 as the extraction

solvent. In an effort to provide for the

use and depletion of existing laboratory

stocks of CFC–113, EPA plans to

implement the required use of Method

1664 no sooner than six months after

the final rule is published in the Federal

Register. Method 1664 was also

proposed for the determination of total

petroleum hydrocarbons.

This extension of time for comment

neither represents any modification of

the proposed rule, nor indicates a

change in the Agency’s interpretation of

the existing requirements. The

extension of time for receipt of

comments simply provides those

interested parties an additional 60 days

to provide comments to the Agency on

the proposed rule. All other

requirements stipulated in the initial

proposal for receipt of comments still

apply.

All written comments submitted in

accordance with the instructions in the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

received by July 23, 1996, including

those received between the close of the

comment period on March 25, 1996, and

the publication of this notice, will be

entered into the public record and

considered by EPA before promulgation

of the final rule.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 96–13087 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[PP4E4420 and 6E4638/P656; FRL–5370–2]

RIN 2070–AC18

Metolachlor; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish

time-limited tolerances for residues of

the herbicide metolachlor and its

metabolites in or on the raw agricultural

commodities pepper, and forage and

hay of the grass forage, fodder and hay

crop group (excluding Bermudagrass).

The proposed regulation to establish

maximum permissible levels for

residues of the herbicide was requested

in petitions submitted by the

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR4). The tolerances would expire on

December 31, 1998.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket number [PP 4E4420 and 6E4638/

P656], must be received on or before

June 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments 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

comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202. Comments and data may also be

submitted to OPP by sending electronic

mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov.
26150 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket number [PP 4E4420 and

6E4638/P656]. Electronic comments on

this proposed rule may be filed online

at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found in the

‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION’’

section of this document.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business

Information’’(CBI). CBI should not be

submitted through e-mail. Information

marked as CBI 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 CBI

must be submitted for inclusion in the

public record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly

by EPA without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the Virginia

address given above, from 8 a .m. to 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding

legal holidays.

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 Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308–8783; email: jamerson.hoyt@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR4), New Jersey Agricultural Experiment

Station, P.O. Box 231, Rutgers

University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903,

has submitted pesticide petitions (PP)

4E4420 and 6E4638 to EPA on behalf of

the named Agricultural Experiment

Stations. These petitions request 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 180.368 by

establishing tolerances for combined

residues (free and bound) of the

herbicide metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-

ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-

methylethyl)acetamide], and its

metabolites, determined as the

derivatives, 2-[(2-ethyl-6-

methylphenyl)amino]-1-propanol and 4-

(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-5-

methyl-3-morpholinone, each expressed

as the parent compound, in or on

certain raw agricultural commodities as

follows:

1. PP 4E4420. Petition submitted on

behalf of the Experimental Stations of

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma,

South Carolina, and Texas proposing a

time-limited tolerance for pepper at 0.5

part per million (ppm).

IR-4 also proposed that the

established tolerances for combined

residues of metolachlor and its

metabolites on bell pepper at 0.1 ppm,

chili pepper at 0.5 ppm, Cubanelle

pepper at 0.1 ppm, and tabasco pepper

at 0.5 ppm be removed. The established

metolachlor tolerances for these

varieties of pepper are no longer

needed, since the proposed tolerance for

pepper will apply to all varieties of

pepper. The commodity term ‘‘pepper’’

is defined in 40 CFR 180.1(h) to include

all varieties of pepper.

2. PP 6E4638. Petition submitted on

behalf of the Experimental Station of

Oregon proposing time-limited

tolerances for forage at 10 ppm and hay

at 0.2 ppm of the grass forage, fodder

and hay crop group (excluding

Bermudagrass). IR-4 proposed the

tolerances in support of regional

registration for use of metolachlor on

grass grown for seed in Idaho, Oregon

and Washington. The use of metolachlor

on grass grown for seed will be limited

to production areas in Idaho, Oregon,

and Washington based on the

geographical representation of the

residue data submitted. Additional

residue data will be required to expand

the area of usage. Persons seeking

geographically broader registration

should contact the Agency’s

Registration Division at the address

provided above. EPA is establishing

these tolerances with an expiration date

of December 31, 1998, to allow IR-4 time

to submit additional residue data in

support of permanent tolerances for

pepper and the grass forage, fodder, and

hay crop group (excluding

Bermudagrass). IR-4 has agreed to

provide magnitude of residue data from

three additional field trials for bell

pepper, and five additional field trials

for grass forage and hay.

The scientific data submitted in the

petition and other relevant material

have been evaluated. The toxicological

data considered in support of the

proposed tolerance include:

1. A 1–year feeding study with dogs

fed diets containing 0, 100, 300, or 1,000

ppm (equivalent to 3.5, 9.7 or 32.7 mg/

kg/day for males and 3.6, 9.7 or 33.0

mg/kg/day for females) with a systemic

no-observed effect level (NOEL) of 300

ppm (9.7 mg/kg/day) based on

decreased body weight in females.

2. A 2–year feeding/carcinogenicity

study with rats fed diets containing 0,

30, 300, 1,000, or 3,000 ppm (equivalent

to 0, 1.5, 15, 50, or 150 mg/kg/day) with

a compound related increase in liver

adenomas and combined adenomas/

carcinomas in female rats at the high

dose level. This study, which was

performed by Industrial Biotest, was

classified as supplemental data due to

inadequate clinical chemistry

determination and dietary preparation

records.

3. A 2–year feeding/carcinogenicity

study with rats fed diets containing 0,

30, 300, or 3,000 ppm (equivalent to 0,

1.5, 15, or 150 mg/kg/day) with a

systemic NOEL of 300 ppm based on

decreased body weight at the 3,000 ppm

dose level. A statistically significant

increase in liver neoplasia was found in

female rats at the 3,000 ppm dose level.

4. A 2–year carcinogenicity study in

mice fed diets containing 0, 300, 1,000

and 3,000 ppm (highest dose level

equivalent to 428 mg/kg/day) with no

treatment related carcinogenic effects

observed under the conditions of the

study.

5. A second 2–year carcinogenicity

study in mice fed diets containing 0,

300, 1,000 or 3,000 ppm with no

treatment related carcinogenic effects

observed under the conditions of the

study.

6. A 2–generation reproduction study

in rats fed diets containing 0, 30, 300 or

1,000 ppm with a reproductive NOEL of

300 ppm (equivalent to 23.5 to 26 mg/

kg/day) based on reduced pup weights

in the F1a and F2a litters at the 1,000

ppm dose level (equivalent to 75.8 to

85.7 mg/kg/day). The NOEL for parental

toxicity is equal to or greater than the

1,000 ppm dose level.

7. A developmental toxicity study in

rabbits given gavage doses at 0, 36, 120

or 360 mg/kg/day on gestation days 6

through 18. The NOEL for maternal

toxicity was established at 120 mg/kg/

day based on lacrimation, miosis,

reduced food consumption and body

weight gain. There was no

developmental toxicity observed under

the conditions of the study.

8. A second developmental toxicity

study in rats given gavage doses of 0, 30,

100, 300, or 1,000 mg/kg/day on

gestation days 6-15. The NOEL’s for

maternal and developmental toxicity

were established at 300 mg/kg/day. The

NOEL for maternal toxicity was based

on deaths, salivation, lacrimation,

convulsions, reduced body weight and

food consumption at the 1,000 mg/kg/

day dose level. The NOEL for

developmental toxicity was based on
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26151

reduced mean fetal body weight,

reduced number of implantations/dam

with resulting decreased litter size, and

a slight increase in resorptions/dam

with resulting increase in postimplantation loss.

9. Metolachlor was not found to be

mutagenic in any tests. Mutagenicity

data include gene mutation assays in

Salmonella and mouse lymphoma cells;

structural chromosome aberration tests

including an in vivo micronucleus assay

in Chinese hamsters and a dominant

lethal assay in mice; and other

genotoxic activity tests including DNA

damage/repair assays in rat hepatocytes

and in human fibroblasts, and an in

vivo/in vitro unscheduled DNA

synthesis assay.

10. Several metabolism studies have

been performed with metolachlor and

the available data indicate the

compound is readily absorbed after oral

dosing and excreted in approximately

equal amounts in urine and feces.

Metolachlor was evaluated by the

Office of Pesticide Programs’ Health

Effects Division, Carcinogenicity Peer

Review Committee (CPRC) in 1991 and

classified as a Group C (possible

carcinogen) with a recommendation for

the quantification of estimated potential

human risk using a linearized low-dose

extrapolation (Q*). This

recommendation was based on the

finding of liver tumors in female rats at

the 3,000 ppm dose level in both rat

studies and the apparent induction of a

small number of nasal turbinate tumors

in both sexes of rats at the 3,000 ppm

dose level. Nasal turbinate tumors have

also been associated with dietary

administration of acetochlor and

alachlor, structurally related herbicides

that are classified as Group B2

carcinogens (probable human

carcinogens).

The Carcinogenicity Peer Review

Committee’s decision was presented to

the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel on

September 18, 1991. The Panel

concluded that liver tumors were benign

and hyperplasia were evident in rats of

both sexes. The Panel also concluded

that the occurrence of nasal turbinate

tumors in rats was low and not

statistically significant, but of concern

since metolachlor is structurally related

to acetochlor and alachlor. The Panel

considered the carcinogenicity evidence

to be minimal but sufficient for the

classification of metolachlor as a Group

C carcinogen.

The CPRC met on July 27, 1994, to

revaluate the weight-of-the-evidence on

metolachlor, with particular reference to

its carcinogenicity, based on newly

submitted metabolism and mutagenicity

studies. The registrant submitted data to

show that the metabolism of

metolachlor is substantially different

from the metabolism of acetochlor and

alachlor. Metolachlor does not

metabolize to form a reactive quinone

imine, which is presumed to be the

carcinogenic metabolite of acetochlor

and alachlor. There was also no

evidence for mutagenic potential of

metolachlor. Based on these data and in

consideration of the full weight-of-theevidence, the CPRC concluded that the

classification of metolachlor should

remain as a Group C carcinogen, but

recommended that the Reference Dose

(RfD) should be used for quantification

of human risk.

The RfD is established at 0.1 mg/kg of

body weight (bwt)/day, based on a

NOEL of 9.7 mg/kg/day from the 1–year

feeding study with dogs and an

uncertainty factor of 100. Available

information on anticipated residues

and/or percent of crop treated were used

to estimate the Anticipated Residue

Contribution (ARC) from residues of

metolachlor in the human diet. The

ARC from established tolerances and the

proposed tolerances for pepper and

forage and hay of the grass, forage,

fodder and hay group is estimated at

0.0006 mg/kg bwt/day and utilizes 0.6

percent of the RfD for the U.S.

population. The ARC for non-nursing

infants (the subgroup most highly

exposed) utilizes 2 percent of the RfD.

EPA generally has no concern for

exposures below 100 percent of the RfD

and concludes that the proposed uses of

metolachlor on pepper and grass grown

for seed pose negligible dietary cancer

risks to humans.

Adequate analytical methods are

available for enforcement purposes. The

methods are listed in the Pesticide

Analytical Manual, Vol. II (PAM II). The

qualitative nature of the residues in

plants and animals is adequately

understood. The established tolerances

for milk and meat, fat, kidney, liver and

meat byproducts of livestock are

adequate to cover secondary residues

resulting from the proposed use on grass

grown for seed. There are no livestock

feed commodities associated with

pepper.

There are presently no actions

pending against the continued

registration of this chemical. The

pesticide is considered useful for the

purpose for which the tolerances are

sought.

Based on the information and data

considered, the Agency has determined

that the tolerances established by

amending 40 CFR part 180 would

protect the public health. Therefore, it is

proposed that the tolerances 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 notice 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 docket

number [PP 4E4420 and 6E4638/P656].

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [PP

4E4420 and 6E4638/P656] (including

comments and data 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.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments 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 all comments 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

comments 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

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
26152 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 102 / Friday, May 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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.

This action does not impose any

enforceable duty, or contain any

‘‘unfunded mandates’’ as described in

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L. 104–4), or

require prior consultation as specified

by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,

October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership, or

special consideration as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994).

Pursuant to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 explaining the

factual basis for this determination 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, 1996.

Peter Caulkins,

Acting 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 § 180.368, by removing

‘‘peppers, bell’’ from the table in

paragraph (a), by revising the table in

paragraph (c) and by adding a new

paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 180.368 Metolachlor; tolerances for

residues.

* * * *

*

(c)* * *

Commodity Parts per

million Expiration date

Onions, dry bulb ........................................................................................................................................... 1.0 ........................................

Grass forage, fodder and hay group (excluding Bermudagrass), forage .................................................... 10 December 31, 1998

Grass forage, fodder and hay group (excluding Bermudagrass), hay ........................................................ 0.2 December 31, 1998

(d) A time-limited tolerance is

established for the combined residues

(free and bound) of the herbicide

metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-

methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-

methylethyl)acetamide], and its

metabolites, determined as the

derivatives, 2-[(2-ethyl-6-

methylphenyl)amino]-1-propanol and 4-

(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-2-hydroxy-5-

methyl-3-morpholinone, each expressed

as the parent compound in or on the

following raw agricultural commodity:

Commodity Parts per

million Expiration date

Pepper .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.5 December 31, 1998

[FR Doc. 96–13022 Filed 5–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I and Part 64

[CC Docket No. 96–98; CC Docket No. 96–

112; DA 96–753]

Implementation of the Local

Competition Provisions in the

Telecommunications Act of 1996;

Allocation of Costs Associated With

Local Exchange Provision of Video

Programming Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Common Carrier Bureau

released a public notice inviting parties

filing comments or reply comments on

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in

CC Docket No. 96–98, regarding

implementation of the local competition

provisions in the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, and the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 96–112,

regarding allocation of costs associated

with local exchange provision of video

programming services, to submit

proposed language for rules that the

Commission could adopt in these

proceedings. Such proposed language

will not be counted against the page

limits set forth in those notices.

DATES: Comment dates in CC Docket No.

96–98 are May 16, 1996, with reply

comments due May 30, 1996, and also

May 20, 1996, with reply comments due

June 3, 1996. Comments in CC Docket

No. 96–112 are due May 28, 1996; reply

comments are due June 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be filed

with the Office of the Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20554.

The complete text of the Notice released

by the Commission is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239,

Washington, D. C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Gallant (202/418–1941), Policy and

Program Planning Division, Common

Carrier Bureau.