### 27294 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

PM2.5 NAAQS. Today’s actions do not address the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

These actions propose to make determinations of attainment based on air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements, and it would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory actions ’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• Do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, these proposed 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS determinations for the Huntington-Ashland Area do not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 13, 2011. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Dated: April 26, 2011. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

Dated: April 6, 2011. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 2011–11355 Filed 5–10–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 721**

**[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0109; FRL–8871–3]**

**RIN 2070–AB27**

**Proposed Revocation of the Significant New Use Rule on a Certain Chemical**  **Substance**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing to revoke a significant new use rule (SNUR) promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for a chemical substance identified generically as substituted ethoxyethylamine phosphonate, which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P–95–1950. EPA issued a

‘‘non-5(e) ’’ SNUR (i.e. SNUR on a substance that is not subject to a TSCA section 5(e) consent order), designating certain activities as significant new uses based on the concern criteria. EPA has received and reviewed new information and test data for the chemical substance and proposes to revoke the SNUR.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0109, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001.

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2011–0109. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries are only accepted during the DCO’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 2011–0109. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov Web site is

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to


### 27295 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  For technical information contact: Virginia Lee, Chemical Control Division (7405 M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 564–4142; e-mail address: lee.virginia@epa.gov.

For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 1404; e-mail address: TSCA– Hotline@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, import, process, or use the chemical substance contained in this proposed rule. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Manufacturers, importers, or processors of the subject chemical substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturers and petroleum refineries. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in § 721.5. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under **FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATION CONTACT**

.

This action may also affect certain entities because of import certification and export notification requirements under TSCA. Chemical importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127; see also 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA. The EPA policy in support of import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. Importers of the chemical, the subject of this action, would no longer be required to certify compliance with the SNUR requirements if the revocation becomes effective. In addition, if this proposed SNUR revocation becomes effective, persons who export or intend to export the chemical that is the subject of this action would no longer be subject to the TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C. 2611(b)) export notification requirements at 40 CFR part 707, that are currently triggered by the SNUR. B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember
to:

i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used.

v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. II. Background A. What action is the agency taking?

In the Federal Register of January 22, 1998 (63 FR 3393) (FRL–5720–3), EPA promulgated a SNUR at 40 CFR 721.6078 for the chemical substance identified generically as substituted ethoxyethylamine phosphonate (PMN P–95–1950). This SNUR designated certain activities as significant new uses based on the environmental effect criteria identified in § 721.170(b)(4)(ii) for analogous polyanionic monomers. EPA has received and reviewed aquatic toxicity test data for the chemical substance and based on its review of these data, EPA now proposes to revoke the SNUR pursuant to § 721.185. In this unit, EPA provides a brief description of this chemical substance, including the PMN number, generic chemical name, the Federal Register publication date and reference, the docket number, the basis for revoking the SNUR under § 721.185, and the CFR citation of the SNUR.

PMN Number P–95–1950

Chemical name: Substituted ethoxyethylamine phosphonate (generic).

CAS number: Not available. Federal Register publication date and reference: January 22, 1998 (63 FR 3393).

Docket number: OPPTS–50628. Basis for revocation of SNUR: EPA issued a SNUR for this substance based on the environmental effect criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii) for analogous polyanionic monomers. Subsequently, the PMN submitter petitioned EPA to revoke the SNUR based on the results of submitted aquatic toxicity testing in fish, daphnids, and algae. The aquatic toxicity testing demonstrated that the substance has inherently low toxicity, mitigating EPA’s concern for toxicity to aquatic organisms. Therefore, EPA rescinds its finding that releases to water resulting in stream concentrations that exceed 30 parts per billion (ppb) may cause significant adverse environmental effects. Based on available information, the substance no longer meets the concern criteria at § 721.170(b)(4)(ii). Therefore, EPA proposes that the SNUR for this


### 27296 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

chemical substance be revoked pursuant to § 721.185(a)(4).

CFR citation: 40 CFR 721.6078. B. What is the agency’s authority for taking this action?

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a

‘‘significant new use. ’’ EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance for that use. The mechanism for reporting under this requirement is established under § 721.5.

Upon conclusion of the review for P– 95–1950, based on the concern criteria in § 721.170(b)(4)(ii) discussed in Unit II.A., EPA determined that there was a concern for potential environmental effects of the substance at a concentration as low as 30 ppb of the PMN substance in surface waters and promulgated a non-5(e) SNUR for this chemical substance.

Under § 721.185, EPA may at any time revoke a SNUR for a chemical substance which has been added to subpart E of 40 CFR part 721 if EPA makes one of the determinations set forth in § 721.185(a)(1) through (a)(6). Revocation may occur on EPA’s initiative or in response to a written request. Under § 721.185(b)(3), if EPA concludes that a SNUR should be revoked, the Agency will propose the changes in the Federal Register , briefly describe the grounds for the action, and provide interested parties an opportunity to comment.

EPA has determined that the criteria set forth in § 721.185(a)(4) have been satisfied for the chemical substance; therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke the SNUR for this chemical substance. The significant new use notification and the recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 721.6078 would terminate if and when this proposed revocation becomes effective. In addition, export notification under TSCA section 12(b) and 40 CFR part 707, subpart D triggered by the SNUR would no longer be required. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This proposed rule would revoke or eliminate an existing regulatory requirement and does not contain any new or amended requirements. As such, the Agency has determined that this proposed SNUR revocation would not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of regulatory actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). This proposed rule does not contain any information collections subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Since this proposed rule eliminates a reporting requirement, the Agency certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), that this SNUR revocation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For the same reasons, this action does not require any action under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed rule has neither Federalism implications, because it would not have substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), nor Tribal implications, because it would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined under Executive Order 12866, and it does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. It is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use. Because this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action. This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice related issues 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). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 29, 2011. Wendy C. Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 721 be amended as follows:

**PART 721—[AMENDED]**

1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

**§ 721.6078 [Removed]**

2. Remove § 721.6078.

[FR Doc. 2011–11208 Filed 5–10–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION** 

**47 CFR Part 90**

**[WT Docket No. 11–69, ET Docket No. 09– 234; FCC 11–63]** 

**Private Land Mobile Radio Service Regulations** 

**AGENCY :**  Federal Communications Commission.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This document proposes to modify our rules to permit the implementation of Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) technology in the United States. We also seek comment on our proposed technical rules that would enable digital technologies like TETRA to operate without causing interference to existing systems, and on how the deployment of TETRA technology may affect public safety interoperability. Comments on these proposed rule changes will aid the Commission in determining whether or not it is in the public interest to make TETRA technology available to private wireless users, especially those that must comply with the upcoming narrowbanding requirements.

**DATES :**  Submit comments on or before June 27, 2011 and reply comments are due on or before August 9, 2011.