Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1305

surviving spouse’s extended period of

eligibility shall be for the length of time

that the individual was prevented from

initiating or completing his or her

chosen program of education. This shall

be determined as follows:

(1) If the eligible spouse or surviving

spouse is in training in a course

organized on a term, quarter, or

semester basis, his or her extended

period of eligibility shall contain the

same number of days as the number of

days from the date during the eligible

spouse’s or surviving spouse’s original

period of eligibility that his or her

training became medically infeasible to

the earliest of the following dates:

(i) The commencing date of the

ordinary term, quarter, or semester

following the day the eligible spouse’s

or surviving spouse’s training became

medically feasible;

(ii) The ending date of the eligible

spouse’s or surviving spouse’s period of

eligibility as determined by § 21.3046(c);

or

(iii) The date the eligible spouse or

surviving spouse resumed training.

(2) If the eligible spouse or surviving

spouse is training in a course not

organized on a term, quarter, or

semester basis, his or her extended

period of eligibility shall contain the

same number of days from the date

during the eligible spouse’s or surviving

spouse’s original period of eligibility

that his or her training became

medically infeasible to the earlier of the

following dates:

(i) The date the eligible spouse’s or

surviving spouse’s training became

medically feasible; or

(ii) The ending date of the eligible

spouse’s or surviving spouse’s period of

eligibility as determined by § 21.3046.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3512(b))

Subpart F—Education Loans

5. The authority citation for subpart F

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 3537, 3698, 3699.

§ 21.4501 [Amended]

6. In § 21.4501, paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v)(A), (b)(2)(v)(B), (c)(1),

and (c)(3) are each amended by

removing ‘‘(d)’’ and adding, in its place,

‘‘(d), or § 21.3047’’.

[FR Doc. 97–437 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS–50610C; FRL–5578–6]

Certain Acrylate Esters; Withdrawal of

Proposed Significant New Use Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a

proposed significant new use rule

(SNUR) for certain acrylate substances

based on receipt of new toxicity data.

The data, which were generated through

a voluntary industry testing program,

resulted in a significant lowering of

hazard concerns for acrylate substances

such that EPA can no longer support a

finding that activities designated by the

proposed SNUR are significant new uses

under section 5(a) of TSCA.

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: In the

Federal Register of November 22, 1993

(58 FR 61649) (FRL–4186–2), EPA

proposed a SNUR to be codified at 40

CFR 721.340 establishing significant

new uses for certain acrylate esters. EPA

is withdrawing this proposal in light of

additional toxicity data received for

acrylate substances

I. Rulemaking Record

The rulemaking record for the

proposed rule which is being

withdrawn by today’s rule was

designated as OPPTS–50610. That

record includes information considered

by the Agency in developing the

proposed rule and includes the test data

to which the Agency has responded

with this notice of withdrawal.

II. Background

EPA is withdrawing the significant

new use and recordkeeping

requirements proposed for certain

acrylate esters under 40 CFR part 721,

subpart E. Further background

information for the substances is

contained in the rulemaking record

referenced in Unit I of this preamble.

EPA proposed a SNUR which was to

be codified at 40 CFR 721.340,

establishing certain significant new uses

for all acrylate substances falling within

the ‘‘acrylate category’’ description,

based on EPA’s systematic regulation of

this category of chemicals. The

proposed SNUR was intended to serve

as a chemical category-wide substitute

for the Agency’s current practice of

regulating individual acrylate

substances one-at-a-time as those

substances underwent premanufacture

notice review pursuant to section 5(e) of

TSCA. The proposed SNUR would have

saved time and resources for both EPA

and PMN submitters. The Agency

believed that available data were

sufficient to warrant regulation,

including the promulgation of a

category SNUR, based on the potential

unreasonable risk of cancer from

uncontrolled exposure to acrylates.

While the final rule was being

developed, a voluntary testing program

was being developed jointly by EPA and

industry and was subsequently

conducted by a group of acrylate

manufacturers affected by acrylate

regulation, the Specialty Acrylates

Manufacturers (SAM). EPA and SAM

negotiated this voluntary testing

program for this category of chemicals

based on SAM’s commitment to conduct

toxicity testing for acrylate and

methacrylate substances. The purpose of

the testing program was to cooperatively

supply test data to address EPA’s health

concerns for the acrylate category. SAM

conducted several short term studies on

a series of acrylates and two long-term

dermal bioassays on Triethylene Glycol

Diacrylate (TREGDA) and Triethylene

Glycol Dimethacrylate (TREGDMA).

This testing was intended to correlate

activity in certain short term assays with

longer-term carcinogenic potential, as

well as to better characterize the toxicity

of the acrylate chemical category

generally.

After reviewing the test data

generated by the voluntary testing

program, including the long term

bioassays, EPA found that neither

TREGDA nor TREGDMA were

carcinogenic under the conditions of the

studies. Based on the TREGDMA

bioassay and data for other

methacrylates, EPA no longer supports

the carcinogenicity concern for

methacrylates. However, in the case of

TREGDA, the maximum tolerated dose

(MTD) may not have been attained

because skin irritation noted in the

range finding studies was not present

over the entire term of the bioassay.

Therefore, because the MTD may not

have been attained in the TREGDA

study, and based on available data for

other acrylates, EPA still has concerns

that some acrylates may be carcinogenic

after repeated application at higher

doses.
1306 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Based on these findings EPA’s

regulation of the acrylates category

under TSCA section 5(e) has changed.

EPA no longer regulates these chemicals

as a category for health concerns.

However, if an acrylate or methacrylate

substance is structurally similar to a

substance for which EPA has positive

toxicity data, EPA may regulate that

substance under section 5(e) of TSCA

based on its potential unreasonable risk.

Henceforth this will be done on a caseby-case basis and is expected to

effectively eliminate regulation of most

acrylates and methacrylates for health

concerns, especially higher molecular

weight and polymeric substances. EPA

will continue to evaluate the acrylate

category for ecotoxicity; although these

substances typically have low

environmental releases during their

manufacture, processing, and use which

will continue to limit unreasonable risk

findings under section 5(e) of TSCA for

the environmental toxicity of this class

of chemicals.

Despite the fact that EPA no longer

expects to make a potential

unreasonable risk finding under TSCA

section 5(e) for most new acrylates and

methacrylates, EPA still recommends

the use of personal protective

equipment for workers exposed to new

or existing chemical acrylates and

methacrylates. In the case of dermal

exposure, impervious gloves and

protective clothing are recommended,

and in the case of inhalation exposure,

an appropriate National Institute of

Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH)-approved respirator or

engineering controls to reduce or

eliminate workplace exposures.

III. Objectives and Rationale of

Withdrawing the Proposed Rule

Based on the review of acrylate esters

that are the subject of this withdrawal

of a proposed SNUR, EPA concluded

that for these substances, regulation was

warranted under section 5(a) of TSCA

pending the development of information

sufficient to make reasoned evaluations

of the health effects of the substance,

and EPA identified the tests considered

necessary to evaluate the risks of the

substances. The basis for such findings

is referenced in Unit II of this preamble.

Based on these findings, a SNUR was

proposed pending certain toxicity

testing.

EPA reviewed the toxicity testing

conducted for certain acrylate

substances, that were the result of a

voluntary acrylates testing program and

determined that it could no longer

support a finding that activities

designated by the proposed SNUR are

significant new uses under section 5(a)

of TSCA.

In light of the above, EPA is

withdrawing the proposed SNUR

provisions for acrylate esters.

IV. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

EPA is revoking the requirements of

this rule. Any costs or burdens

associated with this rule will also be

eliminated when the rule is revoked.

Therefore, EPA finds that no costs or

burdens must be assessed under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), or the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Hazardous materials, Recordkeeping

and reporting requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the proposed rule published

at 58 FR 61649, November 22, 1993, is

withdrawn.

Dated: December 26, 1996.

Paul J. Campanella,

Acting Director, Chemical Control Division,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 97–513 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 600

[Docket No. 961030300–6369–02; I.D.

120996A]

RIN 0648–AJ30

Magnuson Act Provisions; Essential

Fish Habitat (EFH)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; notice of availability;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS has developed a

framework for guidelines to implement

the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act), as mandated by the Sustainable

Fisheries Act. This framework will be

expanded into guidelines, by regulation,

that will assist Fishery Management

Councils (Councils) in the description

and identification of essential fish

habitat (EFH), including adverse

impacts on EFH, in fishery management

plans (FMPs) and in the consideration

of actions to conserve and enhance EFH.

An advance notice of proposed

rulemaking was published on November

8, 1996, soliciting comments to assist

NMFS in developing this framework

and eventually the guidelines by

regulation. NMFS now announces the

availability of this framework and

invites interested persons to submit

written comments, information, and

suggestions.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before February 12,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Director, Office of Habitat

Conservation, Attention: EFH, National

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD

20910–3282. A copy of the framework is

available (see SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee

Crockett, NMFS, 301/713–2325.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A copy of the framework is available

via the Internet at: http://

kingfish.ssp.nmfs.gov/rschreib/html/

anpr2.htm, or by contacting one of the

following NMFS Offices:

Office of Habitat Conservation,

Attention: EFH, National Marine

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–

3282; 301/713–2325.

Northeast Regional Office, Attention:

Habitat and Protected Resources

Division, One Blackburn Drive,

Gloucester, MA 01930; 508/281–9328.

Southeast Regional Office, Attention:

Habitat Conservation Division, 9721

Executive Center Drive North, St.

Petersburg, FL 33702; 813/570–5317.

Southwest Regional Office, Attention:

Habitat Conservation Division, 501 West

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach,

CA 90802; 310/980–4041.

Northwest Regional Office, Attention:

Habitat Conservation Branch, 911 NE.

11th Avenue, Room 620, Portland, OR

97232; 503/230–7235.

Alaska Regional Office, Attention:

Protected Resources Management

Division, 9109 Mendenhall Road, P.O.

Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99801; 907/586–

7235.

NMFS invites comments and

information to support efforts to

implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act

(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) mandate to

develop guidelines by regulation to

describe and identify EFH, including

adverse impacts and conservation and

enhancement actions, for fisheries

managed by any Council or NMFS.