Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64795

IV. EPA Evaluation

EPA has evaluated the submitted

ordinance and has determined that it is

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy.

Specifically, the ordinance is

enforceable and there is evidence of

sufficient personnel, funding, and

authority under State law for Maricopa

County to carry out the program.

Finally, this ordinance is more stringent

than the existing SIP-approved trip

reduction program in both applicability

(50 employee threshold versus 100

employee threshold in the SIP-approved

rule) and in the overall trip and VMT

reduction goals. As a result, this

ordinance, if approved into the SIP, will

strenghten the SIP and not interfere

with any applicable requirement

concerning attainment and reasonable

further progress or any other applicable

requirement of the CAA. CAA section

110(l). Therefore, EPA is proposing to

approve MCESD’s Ordinance P–7,

Maricopa County Trip Reduction

Ordinance (May 26, 1994) under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the

requirements of section 110 (a) and (l).

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose

any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

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 pre-existing 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 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Carbon monoxide, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 1, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–32185 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS–50629; FRL–5752–9]

RIN 2070–AB27

Proposed Revocation of Significant

New Use Rules for Certain Chemical

Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke

significant new use rules (SNURs) for 12

substances promulgated under section

5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA) for certain chemical

substances based on new data. Based on

the new data the Agency no longer finds

that activities not described in the

corresponding TSCA section 5(e)

consent order or the premanufacture

notice (PMN) for these chemical

substances may result in significant

changes in human or environmental

exposure.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by EPA by January 8, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Each comment must bear

the docket control number OPPTS–

50629 and the name(s) of the chemical

substance(s) subject to the comment. All

comments should be sent in triplicate

to: OPPT Document Control Officer

(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Room G–099,

East Tower, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically to:

oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov. Follow the

instructions under Unit III. of this

document. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail.

All comments which contain

information claimed as CBI must be

clearly marked as such. Three sanitized

copies of any comments containing

information claimed as CBI must also be

submitted and will be placed in the

public record for this rulemaking.

Persons submitting information on any

portion of which they believe is entitled

to treatment as CBI by EPA must assert

a business confidentiality claim in

accordance with 40 CFR 2.203(b) for

each portion. This claim must be made
64796 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

at the time that the information is

submitted to EPA. If a submitter does

not assert a confidentiality claim at the

time of submission, EPA will consider

this as a waiver of any confidentiality

claim and the information may be made

available to the public by EPA without

further notice to the submitter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. E–543A, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202)

554–1404, TDD: (202) 554–0551; e-mail:

TSCA-Hotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability: Electronic

copies of this document are available

from the EPA Home Page at the Federal

Register-Environmental Documents

entry for this document under ‘‘Laws

and Regulations’’ (http://www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr/).

In the Federal Register referenced for

each substance, EPA issued a SNUR

establishing significant new uses for the

substances listed in Unit II. of this

preamble, OPPTS–50582, August 15,

1990 (55 FR 33303); OPPTS–50585,

September 28, 1990 (55 FR 39899);

OPPTS–50589, April 17, 1991 (56 FR

15784); OPPTS–50601, September 23,

1992 (57 FR 44070); OPPTS–50613,

October 4, 1993 (58 FR 51706); and

OPPTS–50620, March 1, 1995 (60 FR

11042) (FRL–4868–4). Because of

additional data EPA has received for

these substances, EPA is hereby

proposing to revoke the SNURs.

I. Rationale for Revocation of the Rules

During EPA’s review of the PMNs

submitted under section 5(a)(1)(A) of

TSCA for the chemical substances

subject to this revocation, EPA

concluded that promulgation of SNURs

under section 5(a)(2) was warranted

based on the fact that activities not

described in the section 5(e) consent

order or the PMN might result in

significant changes in human or

environmental exposure. Based on these

findings, SNURs were promulgated

defining such activities as ‘‘significant

new uses.’’

Based on new data, EPA has revoked,

or will revoke the section 5(e) consent

orders that are the basis for these SNURs

and no longer finds that activities not

described in the section 5(e) consent

orders or the PMN may result in

significant changes in human or

environmental exposure nor constitutes

‘‘significant new uses.’’ The proposed

revocation of SNURs for these

substances is consistent with this

finding. When this revocation becomes

final, notice of intent to manufacture,

import, or process these substances for

a significant new use will no longer be

required. In addition, export notification

under section 12(b) of TSCA will no

longer be required on the basis of these

substances being subject to SNURs.

II. Proposed Revocations and

Background

EPA is proposing to revoke the

significant new use and recordkeeping

requirements under 40 CFR part 721,

subpart E for the following chemical

substances. In this unit, EPA provides a

description for each substance,

including its premanufacture notice

(PMN) number, chemical name (generic

name if the specific name is claimed as

CBI), CAS number (if assigned), the date

of the revocation of the section 5(e)

consent order (where applicable), a

summary of the reason for revoking the

rule, Federal Register reference, docket

number, and the CFR citation removed

in the regulatory text section of this

proposed rule. Further background

information for the substances is

contained in the rulemaking record

referenced below in Unit III. of this

preamble.

PMN Number P–87–90

Chemical name: (generic)

Methylenebistrisubstituted aniline-.

CAS number: Not available.

Revocation of section 5(e) consent order:

September 11, 1997.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: August 15, 1990 (55 FR

33305).

Docket number: OPPTS–50582.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: 90-Day Dietary Study in

Rats: Based on toxic effects in the liver

and lungs to both males and females,

the lowest observed adverse effect level

(LOAEL) was 300 parts per million

(ppm) (23.4 milligrams/kilograms/day

(mg/kg/day) and 28.2 mg/kg/day) and

the no observed adverse effect level

(NOAEL) was 100 ppm (7.6 mg/kg/day

and 8.5 mg/kg/day) respectively. There

were no effects noted in the target areas

of the eyes and the reproductive organs

of the males or females. In addition,

three mutagenicity studies, a mouse

micronucleus assay, a bacterial

mutation assay, and a chromosomal

aberration study were conducted. The

results demonstrated that the PMN

substance is not a gene or chromosome

mutagen and confirmed previous

negative results in Salmonella

typhimurium and in vitro in human

lymphocytes.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.700 (Formerly

40 CFR 721.1395).

PMN Number P–91–55

Chemical name: (generic)

Alkylcarbamic acid, alkynyl ester.

CAS number: Not available.

Revocation of section 5(e) consent order:

March 11, 1997.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: September 23, 1992 (57 FR

44064).

Docket number: OPPTS–50601.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: The following test data

for structurally analogous material was

submitted under the terms of the 5(e)

consent order. The data showed the 96-

hour LC50 for fish was 85.0 milligrams/

liter (mg/L) and the 48-hour LC50 for

daphnids was 60.0 mg/L.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.2840.

PMN Number P–84–527

Chemical name: (generic) Unsaturated

amino ester salt.

CAS number: Not available.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: August 15, 1990 (55 FR

33304).

Docket number: OPPTS–50582.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of the test data

submitted under a voluntary testing

program for acrylates, EPA no longer

finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: Two long-term dermal

bioassays on triethylene glycol

diacrylate and triethylene glycol

dimethacrylate demonstrated no

evidence of carcinogenicity under the

test conditions. Refer to Proposed

Revocation of SNURs for Certain

Acrylate Substances published in the

Federal Register of June 2, 1997 (62 FR
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64797

29688) (FRL–5595–1), for further

background information on these test

results.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.2860

(Formerly 40 CFR 721.980).

PMN Number P–84–537

Chemical name: (generic) Unsaturated

amino alkyl ester salt.

CAS number: Not available.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: August 15, 1990 (55 FR

33304).

Docket number: OPPTS–50582.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of the test data

submitted under a voluntary testing

program for acrylates, EPA no longer

finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: Two long-term dermal

bioassays on triethylene glycol

diacrylate and triethylene glycol

dimethacrylate demonstrated no

evidence of carcinogenicity under the

test conditions. Refer to Proposed

Revocation of SNURs for Certain

Acrylate Substances published in the

Federal Register of June 2, 1997 (62 FR

29688) (FRL–5595–1), for further

background information on these test

results.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.2880

(Formerly 40 CFR 721.983).

PMN Number P–90–549

Chemical name: (generic) Benzoate

ester.

CAS number: Not available.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: April 17, 1991 (56 FR 15790).

Docket number: OPPTS–50589.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: The substance is not a

chromosome mutagen in vivo in the

mouse micronucleus assay. The 28-day

repeated dose oral study in rats

demonstrated a NOAEL of 150 mg/kg/

day and a LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day

based on behavioral changes, liver

effects, and blood effects. An oral

developmental toxicity study in rats

demonstrated a NOAEL of 300 mg/kg/

day for both maternal and

developmental toxicity. At 1,000 mg/kg/

day there was both maternal body

weight loss and a decrease in fetal

weight in addition to reductions in the

incidence of fetal ossification.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.2940

(Formerly 40 CFR 721.570).

PMN Numbers P–88–1303, P–88–2177,

and P–90–212

Chemical name: Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-1-

fluoro-.

CAS number: 1717–00–6.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: April 17, 1991 (56 FR 15791).

Docket number: OPPTS–50589.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: Rat Inhalation

Carcinogenicity Study: The only

significant effects noted were a

statistically significant increased

incidence of benign testicular interstitial

cell tumors in male rats in the mid and

high dose ranges (5,000 ppm and

15,000–20,000 ppm). The high dose was

1⁄3 of the 4-hour LC50. Two Generation

Inhalation Reproductive Study: The

substance demonstrated reproductive

and developmental toxicity at 20,000

ppm. Adult systemic toxicity was

evident at 8,000 ppm and 20,000 ppm.

The LOAEL was 8,000 ppm and the

NOAEL was 2,000 ppm. A

Neurobehavioral and Neuropathological

Effects Study in Rats: The only effect

noted was a significant reduction in

brain weight in females exposed to the

highest concentration (rats were dosed

at 15,000 ppm for 16 weeks and 2 days

and observed for effects until week 21

of the study).

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.3200

(Formerly 40 CFR 721.1007).

PMN Number P–89–776

Chemical name: (generic) Substituted

benzenesulfonic acid, alkali metal salt.

CAS number: Not available.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: April 17, 1991 (56 FR 15790).

Docket number: OPPTS–50589.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: The substance was not

a chromosome mutagen in vivo in the

mouse micronucleus assay. The no

observed effect level (NOEL) for the 90-

day oral study in rats is 50 mg/kg/day

based on increased liver weights and

clinical chemistry changes indicative of

hepatotoxicity at 316 mg/kg/day and

higher.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.4640

(Formerly 40 CFR 721.566).

PMN Number P–86–1662

Chemical name: (generic) Halogenated

phosphate ester.

CAS number: Not available.

Revocation of section 5(e) consent order:

December 7, 1995.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: October 4, 1993 (58 FR

51707).

Docket number: OPPTS–50613.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: An oral 28-day repeated

dose neurotoxicity study in hens: An

NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day was

established based on a decrease of brain

neurotoxic esterase in the spinal cord

and a NOEL of 500 mg/kg/day was

established based on no effects observed

at this dose level (the next lower dose

tested).

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.5990.

PMN Number P–91–831

Chemical name: Propane, 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoro-.

CAS number: 431–89–0.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: September 23, 1992 (57 FR

44071).

Docket number: OPPTS–50601.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: Inhalation

Developmental Toxicity Studies in Rats

and Rabbits: No effects were noted at
64798 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

100,000 ppm (the maximum dose

tested) in rats or rabbits. No effects were

noted in the rangefinding studies at

200,000 ppm. 90-day Inhalation Study

in Rats: No effects noted at 78,167 ppm.

Cardiac Sensitization Inhalation Study

in dogs: The substance is a cardiac

sensitizer at 14 percent concentration

(140,000 ppm) in air. The NOAEL is

estimated at 9.7 percent concentration

in air based on no adverse effects noted

at 9 percent concentration in air and

distinctly irregular heartbeats noted at

10.5 percent concentration in air.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.8125.

PMN Number P–90–583

Chemical name: (generic) Reaction

product of alkylphenol, tetraalkyl

titanate and tin complex.

CAS number: Not available.

Revocation of section 5(e) consent order:

May 31, 1995.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: April 17, 1991 (56 FR 15793).

Docket number: OPPTS–50589.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: The acute oral LC50 is

greater than 2,000 mg/kg/day. The

mouse micronucleus assay and the ames

assay were negative. The 28-day

repeated dose oral study in rats

demonstrated a NOAEL of 150 mg/kg/

day and a LOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.9260

(Formerly 40 CFR 721.2085).

PMN Number P–89–844

Chemical name: 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4,6-

triamine, hydrobromide.

CAS number: 29305–12–2.

Revocation of section 5(e) consent order:

January 17, 1996.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: September 28, 1990 (55 FR

39905).

Docket number: OPPTS–50585.

Basis for revocation: Based on the

Agency’s analysis of potential exposures

and the test data submitted pursuant to

the section 5(e) consent order, EPA no

longer finds that activities described as

‘‘significant new uses’’ in the SNUR

may result in significant changes in

human exposure. Accordingly, EPA has

determined that further regulation

under section 5(a)(2) is not warranted at

this time.

Toxicity results: A 1-generation oral

(dietary) reproductive study in rats

demonstrated a NOAEL of 1,600 ppm.

At 4,000 ppm there was reduced

maternal food consumption during

lactation, reduced paternal body weight

(bwt), and reduced offspring survival

and bwt.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.9780

(Formerly 40 CFR 721.2188).

PMN Number P–94–1009

Chemical name: (generic) Trifunctional

aliphatic blocked urethane cross-linker.

CAS number: Not available.

Federal Register publication date and

reference: March 1, 1995 (60 FR 11045).

Docket number: OPPTS–50620.

Basis for revocation: Pursuant to 40 CFR

720.75(e), the submitter withdrew the

PMN. Therefore, a new PMN is required

before anyone may commence

manufacture or import. Since the PMN

requirement is applicable to the

substance, a SNUR is unwarranted at

this time and EPA is revoking the

SNUR.

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.9962.

III. Public Record and Electronic

Submissions

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, has been established for this

rulemaking under docket control

number OPPTS–50629 (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 12 noon to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The official rulemaking record

is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential

Information Center, Rm. NE–B607, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov

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 5.1/6.1 or ASCII file

format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number OPPTS–

50629. Electronic comments on this

proposed rule may be filed online at

many Federal Depository Libraries.

IV. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

This final rule revokes or eliminates

an existing regulatory requirement and

does not contain any new or amended

requirements. As such, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted these types of actions from

review under Executive Order 12866,

entitled Regulatory Planning and

Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

Since this final rule does not impose

any requirements, it does not contain

any information collections subject to

approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., or require any other action under

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.

104–4). Nor does it require any prior

consultation as specified by Executive

Order 12875, entitled ‘‘Enhancing the

Intergovernmental Partnership’’ (58 FR

58093, October 28, 1993), or special

considerations as required by Executive

Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994) or require OMB review in

accordance with Executive Order 13045,

entitled Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

In addition, pursuant to section 605(b)

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency has

determined that SNUR revocations,

which eliminate requirements without

imposing any new ones, have no

adverse economic impacts. The

Agency’s generic certification for SNUR

revocations appears on June 2, 1997 (62

FR 29684) (FRL–5597–1), and was

provided to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration.

V. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

Agency has submitted a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the General

Accounting Office prior to publication

of this proposed rule in today’s Federal

Register. This is not a major rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Hazardous substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 24, 1997.

Charles M. Auer,

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

part 721 be amended as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 64799

PART 721—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 721

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and

2625(c).

§ § 721.700, 721.2840, 721.2860, 721.2880,

721.2940, 721.3200, 721.4640, 721.5990,

721.8125, 721.9260, 721.9780, 721.9962

[Removed]

2. By removing § § 721.700, 721.2840,

721.2860, 721.2880, 721.2940, 721.3200,

721.4640, 721.5990, 721.8125, 721.9260,

721.9780, and 721.9962.

[FR Doc. 97–32180 Filed 12–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a

Petition To Delist the Red Wolf

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) announces a 90-day finding for

a petition to delist the red wolf (Canis

rufus) under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended. The Service

finds that the petition did not present

substantial scientific or commercial

information indicating that delisting

this species may be warranted.

DATES: The finding announced in this

notice was made on August 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Information, comments, or

questions regarding this petition may be

submitted to the Red Wolf Recovery

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville,

North Carolina 28801. The petition

finding, supporting data, and comments

are available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: V.

Gary Henry (704/258–3939, Ext. 226) at

the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the

Service make a finding on whether a

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a

species presents substantial scientific or

commercial information demonstrating

that the petitioned action may be

warranted. To the maximum extent

practicable, this finding is to be made

within 90 days of receipt of the petition,

and the finding is to be published

promptly in the Federal Register. If the

petition is found to present the required

information, the Service is also required

to promptly commence a review of the

status of the species.

The Service has made a finding on a

petition to delist the red wolf (Canis

rufus). The petition, dated August 5,

1995, was submitted by Mr. Rob

Gordon, Executive Director, National

Wilderness Institute, and was received

by the Service on August 15, 1995.

The processing of this petition

conforms with the Service’s final listing

priority guidance published in the

Federal Register on December 5, 1996

(61 FR 64475). The guidance clarifies

the order in which the Service will

continue to process the backlog of

rulemakings during fiscal year 1997

following two related events: (1) the

lifting, on April 26, 1996, of the

moratorium on final listings imposed on

April 10, 1995 (Public Law 104–6), and

(2) the restoration of significant funding

for listing through passage of the

omnibus budget reconciliation law on

April 26, 1996, following severe funding

constraints imposed by a number of

continuing resolutions between

November 1995 and April 1996. The

guidance calls for giving highest priority

to handling emergency situations (tier

1), second highest priority (tier 2) to

resolving the listing status of the

outstanding proposed listings, and third

priority (tier 3) to resolving the

conservation status of candidate species

and processing administrative findings

on petitions. The processing of this

petition falls under tier 3. At this time,

the Southeast Region has no pending

tier 1 actions and pending tier 2 actions

are near completion. Additionally, the

guidance states that ‘‘effective April 1,

1997, the Service will concurrently

undertake all of the activities presently

included in Tiers 1, 2, and 3’’ (61 FR

64480). The Service announced an

extension on October 23, 1997 (62 FR

55268), of the guidance for fiscal year

1997. The 1997 guidance will remain in

effect until final guidance for fiscal year

1998 is published in the Federal

Register.

The petition presents the contention

that the red wolf is a gray wolf (Canis

lupus)/coyote (C. latrans) hybrid and

references six literature citations to

support the discussion of wolf/coyote

hybridization. One of these citations

includes four separate papers. The

petition also cites two references

regarding the reason for delisting other

species. The petitioner concluded that

those delistings were due to errors in

the original data and contends that

delisting the red wolf is also valid

because of original data error. The

petitioner also contends that since the

red wolf is a cross between two species

that are secure and plentiful, the red

wolf is not the best available repository

of genetic material of an endangered

species that could be recovered through

back-breeding.

The Service has reviewed the petition,

the literature cited in the petition, other

available literature and data, and has

consulted with experts on wolves and

molecular genetics. On the basis of the

best scientific and commercial

information available, the Service finds

that the petition does not present

substantial information indicating that

delisting this species may be warranted.

The following three points summarize

the reasons for this finding:

1. Neither the submitted data nor

other available data provides conclusive

evidence for the contention that the red

wolf is a wolf/coyote hybrid.

The petition included attached

literature references. These references

consisted of a July 1995 Scientific

American article by Robert K. Wayne

and John L. Gittleman and the list of

further reading references in that same

article. The petition states that

substantial new evidence in the form of

peer-reviewed scientific papers

demonstrates the hybrid origin of the

red wolf, and references the research of

Wayne and Gittleman as the basis, thus

indirectly focusing on the Wayne and

Gittleman article. This article is not a

peer-reviewed paper and only the senior

author has published original research

regarding the red wolf. The Service has

reviewed the references, along with

other data, to determine their content,

significance, and relevance to the

petitioned action. The Service views the

data presented in the petition as (1) a

selective misrepresentation of the

information contained in the cited

references and (2) a misrepresentation of

the available scientific and commercial

data.

An earlier petition to delist the red

wolf as a hybrid based on the

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) results of

Wayne and Jenks (1991) was found not

to present substantial information to

indicate that delisting was warranted

(57 FR 1246; 1992). Much of the

supporting evidence for that conclusion

is repeated in the finding for this

petition. However, the primary focus in

this finding is the results and

interpretations regarding the nuclear

DNA results of Roy et al. (1996); Roy et

al. (1994); and Roy et al. (1994).