Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0056-0058
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (TCE); EPA Program Review: Notice of Availability
Posted Date: 2003-07-09T04:00Z

40944
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Notices
F.
International
Residue
Limits
No
CODEX,
Canadian
or
Mexican
maximum
residue
levels
have
been
established
for
zinc
phosphide.

G.
Rotational
Crop
Restrictions
Data
for
confined
accumulation
in
rotational
crops
have
been
waived
because
the
physical
properties
of
zinc
phosphide
precludes
transfer
of
residues
to
rotated
crops
(
Zinc
Phosphide
RED,
EPA
738
 
R
 
98
 
006,
July
1998).
Thus,
rotational
crop
restrictions
are
not
required.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
17104
Filed
7
 
8
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
OPPT
 
2002
 
0056;
FRL
 
7313
 
8]

1,1,2­
Trichloroethane
(
TCE);
EPA
Program
Review:
Notice
of
Availability
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
Under
section
4
of
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA),
EPA
issued
a
testing
consent
order
(
Order)
that
incorporates
an
enforceable
consent
agreement
(
ECA)
relating
to
1,1,2­
trichloroethane
(
TCE)
(
CAS
No.
79
 
00
 
5).
The
companies
subject
to
this
ECA,
the
Dow
Chemical
company;
Vulcan
Materials
Company;
Occidental
Chemical
Corporation;
Oxy
Vinyls,
LP;
Georgia
Gulf
Corporation;
Westlake
Chemical
Corporation;
PPG
Industries,
Inc.;
and
Formosa
Plastics
Corporation,
U.
S.
A.,
have
agreed
to
conduct
toxicity
testing,
develop
a
computational
dosimetry
model
for
route­
to­
route
extrapolations
of
dose
response,
and
develop
pharmacokinetics
and
mechanistic
(
PK/
MECH)
data
that
are
intended
to
satisfy
the
toxicological
data
needs
for
TCE
identified
in
a
TSCA
section
4
proposed
test
rule
for
a
number
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
chemicals.
This
notice
announces
the
availability
of
a
report
describing
the
findings
and
conclusions
for
the
program
review
component
of
the
ECA
for
TCE,
responds
to
comments
on
the
Tier
I
Program
Review
Testing,
identifies
modifications
to
Tier
II
ECA
activities,
and
establishes
revised
deadlines
for
completion
of
Tier
II
testing
and
computational
route
dosimetry
modeling
for
extrapolations
listed
under
Tier
II
of
the
ECA
for
TCE.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information
contact:
Barbara
Cunningham,
Director,
Environmental
Assistance
Division
(
7408M),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
202)
554
 
1404;
e­
mail
address:
TSCAHotline
epa.
gov.
For
technical
information
contact:
Richard
W.
Leukroth,
Jr.,
or
John
E.
Schaeffer,
Jr.,
Chemical
Control
Division
(
7405M),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001;
telephone
number:
(
202)
564
 
8157;
e­
mail
address:
ccd.
citb@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?

This
action
is
directed
to
the
public
in
general,
and
may
be
of
particular
interest
to
those
persons
who
are
or
may
be
required
to
conduct
testing
of
chemical
substances
under
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA).
Since
other
entities
may
also
be
interested,
the
Agency
has
not
attempted
to
describe
all
the
specific
entities
that
may
be
affected
by
this
action.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
under
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
this
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
EPA
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
docket
(
ID)
number
OPPT
 
2002
 
0056.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although,
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
for
which
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
Rm.
B102
 
Reading
Room,
EPA
West,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
docket
center
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Reading
Room
telephone
number
is
(
202)
566
 
1744
and
telephone
number
for
the
OPPT
Docket,
which
is
located
in
EPA
docket
center,
is
(
202)
566
 
0280.
2.
Electronic
access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although,
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
1.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
ID
number.

II.
Background
A.
What
is
the
EPA
Program
Review
for
TCE?
In
the
Federal
Register
of
October
16,
2002
(
67
FR
63913)
(
FRL
 
7275
 
8)
EPA
announced
that
it
was
conducting
the
program
review
component
of
the
enforceable
consent
agreement
(
ECA)
for
the
1,1,2­
trichloroethane
(
TCE)
alternative
testing
program,
and
solicited
public
comment
on
data
received
under
the
Tier
I
Program
Review
testing
segment
of
the
ECA
for
TCE
(
CAS
No.
79
 
00
 
5).
Comments
were
to
inform
EPA's
decision
on
whether
or
not
additional
data
and/
or
model
development
are
needed
before
Tier
II
testing
and
computational
routeto
route
dosimetry
modeling
extrapolations
can
proceed
for
the
Tier
II
endpoints
listed
in
the
ECA
for
TCE.
Details
of
the
testing
program
for
TCE
are
available
in
the
ECA
and
in
the
Federal
Register
of
June
15,
2000
(
65
FR
37550)(
FRL
 
6494
 
5),
in
which
EPA
announced
it
had
entered
into
an
ECA
and
issued
a
testing
consent
order
for
TCE.
The
ECA
for
TCE
was
developed
in
response
to
EPA's
request
for
ECA
proposals
for
health
effects
testing
of
a
number
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAPs
or
HAP
chemicals),
including
TCE
(
see
the
proposed
test
rule
in
the
Federal
Register
of
June
26,
1996
(
61
FR
33178)
(
FRL
 
4869
 
1),
and
the
proposed
test
rule,
as
amended,
in
the
Federal
Register
of
December
24,
1997
(
62
FR
67466)
(
FRL
 
5742
 
2);
February
5,
1998
(
63
FR
5915)
(
FRL
 
5769
 
3);
and
April
21,
1998
(
63
FR
19694)
(
FRL
 
5780
 
6).
The
HAPs
rulemaking
proposed
testing
for
health
effects
by
the
inhalation
route
of
exposure.
In
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
also
invited
the
submission
of
proposals
that
included
pharmacokinetics
studies
and
model
development
that
would
permit
route­
to­
route
dosimetry
extrapolation
to
predict
for
inhalation
exposures.
The
ECA
for
TCE
applies
such
an
alternative
approach
to
satisfy
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
27
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYN1.
SGM
09JYN1
OPPT­
2002­
0056­
0058
RECEIVED
OPPT
NCIC
2003
July
9
7:
23AM
40945
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Notices
data
needs
identified
in
the
proposed
HAPs
rulemaking.
Under
the
TCE
ECA
testing
program,
the
data
needs
for
TCE
are
being
addressed
via
an
informed
testing
program
that
utilizes,
wherever
possible,
extant
data
from
acceptable
studies
performed
by
routes
other
than
inhalation,
testing
by
inhalation
and
the
oral
route,
and
development
of
pharmacokinetics
and
mechanistic
(
PK/
MECH)
data
to
support
a
computational
dosimetry
model
to
perform
route­
toroute
extrapolations.
Since
this
is
a
new
approach,
EPA
and
the
companies
included
a
program
review
step
within
the
testing
program.
The
testing
program
consists
of
Tier
I
HAPs
Testing;
Tier
I
Program
Review
Testing;
EPA
Program
Review;
and
Tier
II
Testing.
Tier
I
HAPs
Testing
consisted
of
endpoint
testing
conducted
by
inhalation
exposure
for
acute
and
subchronic
toxicity.
The
Tier
I
Program
Review
Testing
included:
(
1)
Development
of
a
computational
dosimetry
model
specific
for
TCE
in
rats
and
mice;
(
2)
simulation
testing
of
the
predictive
capability
of
the
model
against
an
inhalation
test
data
set;
and
(
3)
demonstration
of
the
model's
utility
in
supporting
quantitative
route­
to­
route
dosimetry
extrapolations.
The
test
sponsors
also
developed
PK/
MECH
data
to
support
the
application
of
the
model
to
oral­
to­
inhalation
extrapolations
of
dose­
response
for
extant
and
Tier
II
Testing
endpoint
studies.
Tier
I
HAPs
Testing
and
Tier
I
Program
Review
Testing
results
are
available
in
the
legacy
docket
(
OPPTS
 
42198C)
and
electronically
in
the
e­
Docket
(
OPPT
 
2002
 
0056).
The
purpose
of
the
program
review
was
to
determine:
1.
Whether
it
is
feasible
and
appropriate
to
apply
Tier
I
Program
Review
testing
data
and
data
from
other
studies
acceptable
to
EPA
to
support
computational
route­
to­
route
extrapolations
for
endpoints
listed
in
the
Tier
II
testing
segment
of
the
ECA.
2.
Whether
the
data
from
the
Tier
I
Program
Review
testing
segment
provide
a
sufficient
basis
for
conducting
the
endpoint
testing
and/
or
the
computational
route­
to­
route
extrapolations
specified
in
the
Tier
II
testing
segment.
3.
The
nature
and
scope
of
any
additional
work
that
may
be
required
before
Tier
II
testing
and
the
application
of
the
TCE
model
for
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
reporting
(
e.
g.,
development
of
additional
PK/
MECH
data,
modification
to
the
TCE
model).
B.
What
were
the
Public
Comments
on
the
Tier
I
Program
Review
Testing?
EPA
received
one
public
comment
from
the
People
for
the
Ethical
Treatment
of
Animals
(
PETA).
The
comment
was
submitted
by
PETA
and
on
behalf
of
themselves,
the
Physicians
Committee
for
Responsible
Medicine,
the
Humane
Society
of
the
United
States,
the
Doris
Day
Animal
League,
and
Earth
Island
Institute.
PETA's
comments
were
favorable
on
the
use
of
the
alternative
approach
to
address
data
needs
utilizing
PBPK
modeling
which
could
result
in
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
animals
used
in
toxicity
testing
to
meet
EPA's
data
needs.
Although,
PETA
also
stated
their
belief
that
the
presently
available
data
base
for
TCE
is
sufficiently
extensive
to
characterize
the
toxicity
of
TCE,
and
that
no
additional
testing
is
necessary,
PETA
did
not
include
comments
regarding
the
scientific
merit
of
the
PK/
MECH
data
or
PBPK
model
development
for
TCE.
EPA
appreciates
the
expressed
support
for
the
application
of
alternative
approaches
that
incorporate
PBPK
modeling
as
a
means
to
address
data
needs
for
HAP
chemicals.
Although,
computational
approaches
are
an
increasingly
important
tool
for
EPA
to
use
in
addressing
data
needs,
they
must
be
scientifically
defensible
and
rely
on
the
development
of
PK/
MECH
data
relevant
to
the
modeling
approach.
Computational
dosimetry
modeling
approaches
need
critical
empirical
data
from
toxicity
studies
conducted
in
a
scientifically
adequate
manner.
EPA
has
concluded
that
the
Tier
II
testing
is
necessary
in
this
case.
EPA's
basis
for
this
decision
is
presented
in
previous
Federal
Register
notices,
cited
in
Unit
II.
A.

C.
What
are
the
Conclusions
of
the
EPA
Program
Review?
EPA
has
determined
that
the
Tier
I
Program
Review
testing
and
data
from
other
studies
acceptable
to
EPA
can
support
computational
route­
to­
route
dosimetry
extrapolations
for
the
endpoints
listed
in
the
Tier
II
testing
segment
of
the
ECA.
More
specifically,
EPA
has
concluded
that:
1.
The
PK/
MECH
data
report
and
Tier
I
toxicity
studies
appear
to
have
been
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
protocols
and
specifications
as
described
in
Appendix
C
of
the
ECA.
2.
The
available
study
records
are
sufficient
to
allow
an
evaluation
of
the
quality
of
the
studies
performed.
3.
The
TCE
PBPK
model
is
appropriately
chemical­
specific,
and
suitably
based
on
the
current
understanding
of
the
kinetics
of
TCE.
4.
The
species,
dose
level,
exposure
regimens,
and
vehicles
used
are
relevant
for
the
toxicity
data
that
are
the
object
of
the
Tier
II
extrapolations.
5.
The
Tier
I
Program
Review
PK/
MECH
data
demonstrated
that
periodicity
was
achieved
in
the
studies
that
support
the
model.
EPA
has
also
concluded,
that
the
choice
of
dose
metrics
for
Tier
II
computational
route
dosimetry
extrapolations
should
be
revised
to
correlate
with
Tier
I
study
findings,
and
that
selection
of
the
dosing
regimens
for
Tier
II
testing
could
benefit
from
predictions
derived
from
the
PBPK
model
for
TCE.
These
changes
to
the
original
testing
and
extrapolation
reporting
are
described
in
the
revised
Table
1
(
Table
1.
(
amended))
of
this
Federal
Register
notice,
and
will
be
incorporated
into
protocol
development
under
Tier
II
activities.
EPA's
program
review
activity,
including
the
findings
and
conclusions,
are
described
in
a
report
titled:
``
Program
Review
Report
on
the
Enforceable
Consent
Agreement
for
1,1,2­
Trichloroethane''
(
U.
S.
EPA,
April
21,
2003).
This
report
is
available
electronically
from
the
e­
Docket
OPPT
 
2002
 
0056.
It
is
EPA's
decision
that
the
HAP
Task
Force
can
proceed
with
Tier
II
Testing
under
the
schedule
set
forth
in
Table
1.
of
this
Federal
Register
notice.
The
testing
schedule
corresponds
to
that
originally
set
forth
in
the
Federal
Register
notice
announcing
the
ECA
and
Order
for
TCE,
but
is
modified
to
include
the
additional
time
needed
to
complete
the
Program
Review
segment
of
the
ECA
for
TCE,
which
was
longer
than
originally
anticipated,
plus
additional
time
for
Tier
II
protocol
development.
Table
1.
also
identifies
additional
modifications
to
Tier
II
activities
to
correlate
with
Tier
I
study
findings.
EPA
does
not
consider
these
modifications
of
the
test
schedules
or
Tier
II
activities
to
be
significant.

D.
What
are
the
Modifications
to
the
ECA
for
TCE?
This
Federal
Register
notice
incorporates
modifications
to
the
ECA
for
the
TCE
test
schedule
for
Tier
II
ECA
activities,
clarifies
protocol
development
for
Tier
II
testing,
expands
consideration
for
dose
metrics
to
be
applied
in
the
Tier
II
route
dosimetry
extrapolations
and
reporting,
and
identifies
a
change
in
signatory
companies
to
the
ECA.
The
testing
schedule
corresponds
to
that
originally
set
forth
in
the
Federal
Register
notice
announcing
the
ECA
and
Order
for
TCE,
but
is
modified
to
allow
for
the
time
needed
to
perform
the
EPA
Program
Review,
which
was
longer
than
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
27
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYN1.
SGM
09JYN1
40946
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Notices
anticipated.
Additional
time
was
also
included
in
the
schedule
for
Tier
II
testing
protocol
development.
Footnotes
in
Table
1.
have
been
revised
to
address
refinements
in
Tier
II
protocol
development
and
extrapolation
reporting
changes
identified
as
modification
to
Appendix
C.
5
(
General
Outline
for
Route­
to­
Route
Extrapolation
Reporting)
to
correlate
with
Tier
I
study
findings.
Finally,
one
of
the
signatory
companies
to
the
ECA,
Borden
Chemicals
and
Plastics
Operating
Limited
Partnership,
is
no
longer
a
participant
in
the
ECA,
due
to
bankruptcy.
The
remaining
companies
that
are
signatories
of
the
ECA
for
TCE
have
agreed
to
assume
the
responsibilities
for
this
change
in
membership
to
the
HAP
Task
Force.
EPA
does
not
consider
these
modifications
to
be
significant.

TABLE
1.
(
AMENDED)
 
REQUIRED
TESTING,
TEST
STANDARDS,
REPORTING
AND
OTHER
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
1,1,2­
TRICHLOROETHANE
Testing
Segment
Required
Testing
Test
Standard
Deadline
for
Final
Report1
(
Months)

Tier
II
Testing
and/
or
Extrapolation
Reporting
Acute
neurotoxicity
(
drinking
water)
§
799.9620
(
as
annotated
in
ECA
Appendix
D.
3)
12
Acute
neurotoxicity
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
of
Tier
II
drinking
water
acute
neurotoxicity
data
to
inhalation2
ECA
Appendix
C
14
Subchronic
neurotoxicity
(
drinking
water)
§
799.9620
(
as
annotated
in
ECA
Appendix
D.
3)
18
Subchronic
neurotoxicity
route­
toroute
extrapolation
of
Tier
II
drinking
water
subchronic
neurotoxicity
data
to
inhalation2
ECA
Appendix
C
21
Developmental
toxicity
(
drinking
water)
§
799.9370
(
as
annotated
in
ECA
Appendix
D.
4)
24
Developmental
toxicity
route­
toroute
extrapolation
of
Tier
II
drinking
water
developmental
toxicity
data
to
inhalation3
ECA
Appendix
C
27
Reproductive
toxicity
(
drinking
water)
§
799.9380
(
as
annotated
in
ECA
Appendix
D.
5)
30
Reproductive
toxicity
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
of
Tier
II
drinking
water
reproductive
toxicity
data
to
inhalation4
ECA
Appendix
C
33
Immunotoxicity
(
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
of
extant
oral
data
in
ECA
Appendix
E.
2
to
inhalation)
5
ECA
Appendix
C
9
Carcinogenicity
(
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
of
extant
oral
data
in
ECA
Appendix
E.
3
to
inhalation6
ECA
Appendix
C
6
1Number
of
months
after
the
effective
date
of
thisFederal
Register
Notice,
which
announces
that
EPA
has
concluded
the
EPA
Program
Review
when
the
final
report
is
due.
In
addition,
every
6
months
from
the
effective
date
of
the
Order
until
the
end
of
the
ECA
testing
program,
interim
reports
describing
the
status
of
all
testing
to
be
performed
under
the
ECA
for
TCE
must
be
submitted
by
the
companies
to
EPA.
2Quantitative
route­
to­
route
extrapolations
based
on
the
Tier
II
acute
and
subchronic
drinking
water
neurotoxicity
study
data,
and
developed
for
each
of
the
following
dose
metrics:
Parent
compound
in
venous
blood
and
brain,
as
maximum
concentration
(
Cmax)
and
as
the
area
under
the
time­
concentration
curve
(
AUC),
and
metabolite,
as
amount
metabolized
in
the
liver
or
brain
per
day
normalized
to
organ
weight.
3Quantitative
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
based
on
the
Tier
II
drinking
water
developmental
toxicity
study
data,
and
developed
for
each
of
the
following
dose
metrics:
Parent
compound
in
venous
blood,
as
maximum
concentration
(
Cmax)
and
as
the
area
under
the
time­
concentration
curve
(
AUC),
and
metabolite,
as
amount
metabolized
in
the
liver
per
day
normalized
to
liver
weight.
4Quantitative
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
based
on
the
Tier
II
drinking
water
reproductive
effects
toxicity
study
data,
and
developed
for
each
of
the
following
dose
metrics:
Parent
compound
in
venous
blood,
as
maximum
concentration
(
Cmax)
and
as
the
area
under
the
time­
concentration
curve
(
AUC),
and
metabolite,
as
amount
metabolized
in
the
liver
per
day
normalized
to
liver
weight.
5Quantitative
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
based
on
the
PK/
MECH
data
developed
under
this
ECA
and
the
data
of
Sanders
et
al.
(
1985),
and
developed
for
each
of
the
following
dose
metrics:
parent
compound
in
venous
blood
and
spleen,
as
maximum
concentration
(
Cmax)
and
as
the
area
under
the
time­
concentration
curve
(
AUC),
and
metabolite,
as
amount
metabolized
in
the
liver
or
spleen
per
day
normalized
to
organ
weight.
6Quantitative
route­
to­
route
extrapolation
based
on
the
PK/
MECH
data
developed
under
this
ECA
and
the
data
of
NCI
(
1978),
and
developed
for
each
of
the
following
dose
metrics:
parent
compound
in
venous
blood
and
liver,
as
maximum
concentration
(
Cmax)
and
as
the
area
under
the
time­
concentration
curve
(
AUC),
and
metabolite,
as
amount
metabolized
in
the
liver
per
day
normalized
to
liver
weight.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
27
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYN1.
SGM
09JYN1
40947
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
131
/
Wednesday,
July
9,
2003
/
Notices
List
of
Subjects
Environmental
protection,
Hazardous
chemicals.

Dated:
June
26,
2003.
Philip
S.
Oshida,
Acting
Director,
Chemical
Control
Division,
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
16927
Filed
7
 
8
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
S
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Notice
of
Public
Information
Collection(
s)
Being
Reviewed
by
the
Federal
Communications
Commission,
Comments
Requested
June
27,
2003.
SUMMARY:
The
Federal
Communications
Commission,
as
part
of
its
continuing
effort
to
reduce
paperwork
burden
invites
the
general
public
and
other
Federal
agencies
to
take
this
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
following
information
collection(
s),
as
required
by
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
of
1995,
Public
Law
104
 
13.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
control
number.
No
person
shall
be
subject
to
any
penalty
for
failing
to
comply
with
a
collection
of
information
subject
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
that
does
not
display
a
valid
control
number.
Comments
are
requested
concerning
(
a)
whether
the
proposed
collection
of
information
is
necessary
for
the
proper
performance
of
the
functions
of
the
Commission,
including
whether
the
information
shall
have
practical
utility;
(
b)
the
accuracy
of
the
Commission's
burden
estimate;
(
c)
ways
to
enhance
the
quality,
utility,
and
clarity
of
the
information
collected;
and
(
d)
ways
to
minimize
the
burden
of
the
collection
of
information
on
the
respondents,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
or
other
forms
of
information
technology.
DATES:
Written
comments
should
be
submitted
on
or
before
September
8,
2003.
If
you
anticipate
that
you
will
be
submitting
comments,
but
find
it
difficult
to
do
so
within
the
period
of
time
allowed
by
this
notice,
you
should
advise
the
contact
listed
below
as
soon
as
possible.
ADDRESSES:
Direct
all
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
comments
to
Judith
B.
Herman,
Federal
Communications
Commission,
Room
1
 
C804,
445
12th
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20554
or
via
the
Internet
to
Judith­
B.
Herman@
fcc.
gov.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
additional
information
or
copies
of
the
information
collection(
s),
contact
Judith
B.
Herman
at
202
 
418
 
0214
or
via
the
Internet
at
Judith­
B.
Herman@
fcc.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
OMB
Control
No.:
3060
 
0800.
Title:
FCC
Wireless
Telecommunications
Bureau
Application
for
Assignment
of
Authorization
and
Transfers
of
Control.
Form
No.:
FCC
Form
603.
Type
of
Review:
Revision
of
a
currently
approved
collection.
Respondents:
Individuals
or
households,
business
or
other
for­
profit,
not­
for­
profit
institutions,
state,
local
or
tribal
government.
Number
of
Respondents:
32,151.
Estimated
Time
Per
Response:
1.75
hours.
Frequency
of
Response:
On
occasion
reporting
requirement.
Total
Annual
Burden:
36,171
hours.
Total
Annual
Cost:
$
7,073,000.
Needs
and
Uses:
FCC
Form
603
is
a
multi­
purpose
form
used
to
apply
for
approval
of
assignment
or
transfer
of
control
of
licenses
in
the
Wireless
Radio
Services.
The
data
collected
on
this
form
is
used
by
the
FCC
to
determine
whether
the
public
interest
would
be
served
by
approval
of
the
requested
assignment
or
transfer.
This
form
is
also
used
to
notify
the
Commission
of
consummated
assignments
and
transfers
of
wireless
licenses
that
have
previously
been
consented
to
by
the
Commission
or
for
which
notification
but
not
prior
consent
is
required.
This
form
is
used
by
applicants/
licensees
in
the
Public
Mobile
Services,
Personal
Communications
Services,
Private
Land
Mobile
Radio
Services,
Broadcast
Auxiliary
Services,
Fixed
Microwave
Services,
Maritime
Services
(
excluding
ships)
and
Aviation
Services
(
excluding
aircraft).
The
purpose
of
the
form
is
to
obtain
information
sufficient
to
identify
the
parties
to
the
proposed
assignment
or
transfer,
establish
the
parties
basic
eligibility
and
qualifications,
classify
the
filing,
and
determine
the
nature
of
the
proposed
service.
Various
technical
schedules
are
required
along
with
the
main
form
applicable
to
Auctioned
Services,
Partitioning
and
Disaggregation,
Undefined
Geographical
Area
Partitioning,
Notification
of
Consummation
or
Request
for
Extension
of
Time
for
Consummation.
The
form
is
being
revised
to
accommodate
Promoting
Efficient
Use
of
Spectrum
Through
Elimination
of
Barriers
to
the
Development
of
Secondary
Markets;
additional
questions
concerning
the
foreign
ownership;
and
clarifying
existing
instructions
for
the
general
public
as
noted
in
the
Communications
Act
of
1934,
Section
310(
b)(
4).
There
is
no
change
to
the
estimated
average
burden
or
number
of
respondents.

Federal
Communications
Commission.
Marlene
H.
Dortch,
Secretary.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
17337
Filed
7
 
8
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6712
 
01
 
P
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[
DA
03
 
1812]

The
International
Bureau
Revises
and
Reissues
the
Commission's
List
of
Foreign
Telecommunications
Carriers
That
Are
Presumed
To
Possess
Market
Power
in
Foreign
Telecommunications
Markets
AGENCY:
Federal
Communications
Commission.
ACTION:
Notice.

SUMMARY:
In
this
document,
the
Commission
revises
and
reissues
its
list
of
foreign
telecommunications
carriers
that
are
presumed
to
possess
market
power
in
foreign
telecommunications
markets.
Several
Commission
rules
incorporate
this
list
by
reference.
Recently
the
Commission
updated
these
rules.
In
addition,
carriers'
names
have
changed
as
a
result
of
a
divestiture
of
national
incumbent
operators
into
regional
operators.
Thus,
it
was
necessary
for
the
Commission
to
revise
and
reissue
the
public
notice.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Peggy
Reitzel,
Policy
Division,
International
Bureau,
(
202)
418
 
1460.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
is
a
summary
of
the
Commission's
Public
Notice
released
June
5,
2003.
By
this
Public
Notice,
the
International
Bureau
revises
and
reissues
the
Commission's
``
List
of
Foreign
Telecommunications
Carriers
that
Are
Presumed
to
Possess
Market
Power
in
Foreign
Telecommunications
Markets.''
The
revised
list
of
carriers
reflects
any
corrections
to
carrier
names
that
were
incorrect
or
new
names
now
used
by
the
carriers
since
this
public
notice
was
initially
released
in
1999.
This
corrected
list
is
identical
to
the
list
previously
released,
except
for
name
changes
that
occurred
as
a
result
of
a
divestiture
of
national
incumbent
operators
into
regional
operators.
While
the
Commission's
staff
attempts
to
maintain
current
information
as
to
the
names
of
carriers
on
this
list,
we
encourage
interested
parties
to
advise
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
16:
27
Jul
08,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4703
Sfmt
4703
E:\
FR\
FM\
09JYN1.
SGM
09JYN1