9142 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

timely received, the direct final rule will

be withdrawn and all public comments

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule. Since the EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on these proposed amendments,

any parties interested in commenting

should do so during this comment

period.

For further supplemental information,

the detailed rationale, and the rule

amendments, see the notice containing

the direct final rule in the final rules

section of this Federal Register.

Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements of the previously

promulgated NESHAP were submitted

to and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). A copy

of this Information Collection Request

(ICR) document (OMB control number

2060–0325) may be obtained from Ms.

Sandy Farmer, Information Policy

Branch, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. (mail code

2136), Washington, D.C. 20460, or by

calling (202) 260–2740.

Today’s proposed amendments to the

Gasoline Distribution NESHAP have no

impact on the information collection

burden estimates made previously. No

additional certifications or filings are

being proposed. Therefore, the ICR has

not been revised.

B. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether a regulation is

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The criteria set

forth in section 1 of the Order for

determining whether a regulation is a

significant rule are as follows:

(1) Is likely to have an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more, or adversely and materially affect

a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal government communities;

(2) Is likely to create a serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfere

with an action taken or planned by

another agency;

(3) Is likely to materially alter the

budgetary impact of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Is likely to raise novel or policy

issues arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

The Gasoline Distribution NESHAP

promulgated on December 14, 1994 was

treated as a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ within the meaning of the

Executive Order. An estimate of the cost

and benefits of the NESHAP was

prepared at proposal as part of the

background information document

(BID). This estimate was updated in the

BID for the final rule to reflect

comments and changes made in

developing the final rule. The

amendments being proposed today have

no impact on the estimates in the final

BID. Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this action is a ‘‘non-significant

regulatory action’’ within the meaning

of the Executive Order. As such, this

action was not submitted to OMB for

review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. When

the Agency promulgated the Gasoline

Distribution NESHAP, it analyzed the

potential impacts on small businesses,

discussed the results of this analysis in

the Federal Register, and concluded

that the promulgated regulation would

not result in financial impacts that

significantly or differentially stress

affected small companies. This

proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it

would impose no additional impacts on

small businesses beyond those analyzed

in the original rulemaking and would

simplify the administration of the rule

for all governmental jurisdictions.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act, signed into law

on March 22, 1995, the 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 the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, the 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 the EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that today’s

action 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.

Therefore, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act do not

apply to this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Incorporation by reference,

Petroleum bulk stations and terminals,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: February 21, 1997.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–4886 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[OPPTS–42187E; FRL–5592–1]

40 CFR Part 799

RIN 2070–AC76

Proposed Test Rule for Hazardous Air

Pollutants; Extension of Comment

Period on Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period on

proposed test rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the public

comment period from March 31, 1997 to

April 30, 1997 on the proposed rule to

require manufacturers and processors of

21 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) to

test these substances for certain health

effects. This proposed rule was

published in the Federal Register on

June 26, 1996 (61 FR 33178)(FRL–4869–

1). On December 23, 1996, EPA

extended the public comment period on

the proposed rule from January 31, 1997

to March 31, 1997 (61 FR 67516)(FRL–

5580–6).

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed rule must be received by EPA

on or before April 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit three copies of

written comments on the proposed

HAPs test rule, identified by document

control number (OPPTS–42187A; FRL–

4869–1) to: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Pollution
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 9143

Prevention and Toxics (OPPT),

Document Control Office (7407), Rm. G–

099, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC

20460.

A public version of the official

rulemaking record supporting this

action, excluding confidential business

information (CBI), is available for

inspection at the TSCA Nonconfidential

Information Center, Rm. NE–B607, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, from

12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except on legal holidays.

All comments that 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 that

they believe is entitled to treatment as

CBI must assert a business

confidentiality claim in accordance with

40 CFR part 2. This claim must be made

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 treat the

information as non-confidential and

may make it available to the public

without further notice to the submitter.

Comments and data may also be

submitted in electronic form by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: opptncic@epamail.epa.gov. Such comments

and data must be submitted in an ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by (OPPTS–

42187A)(FRL–4869–1). No information

claimed as CBI should be submitted

through e-mail. Comments in electronic

form may be filed online at many

federal depository libraries.

The official record of this action, as

well as the public version, will be

maintained in paper form. EPA will

transfer all comments received

electronically into paper form and will

place the paper copies in the official

record. The official record is the paper

record maintained at the address listed

at the beginning of the ‘‘ADDRESSES’’

section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Rm. ET–543B, Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone: (202) 554–1404; TDD: (202)

554–0551; e-mail: TSCAHotline@epamail.epa.gov.

For technical information contact:

Richard Leukroth, Project Manager,

Chemical Control Division (7405),

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington,

DC, 20460; telephone: (202) 260–0321;

fax: (202) 260–8850; e-mail:

leukroth.rich@epamail.epa.gov.; or Gary

Timm, Senior Technical Advisor,

Chemical Control Division (7405),

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260–1859;

fax: (202) 260–8168; e-mail:

timm.gary@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HAPs

rule proposed testing, under section 4(a)

of the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA), of: 1,1’-biphenyl, carbonyl

sulfide, chlorine, chlorobenzene,

chloroprene, cresols [3 isomers],

diethanolamine, ethylbenzene, ethylene

dichloride, ethylene glycol,

hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride,

maleic anhydride, methyl isobutyl

ketone, methyl methacrylate,

naphthalene, phenol, phthalic

anhydride, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene,

1,1,2-trichloroethane, and vinylidene

chloride. EPA would use the data

generated under the rule to implement

several provisions of section 112 of the

Clean Air Act and to meet other EPA

data needs and those of other Federal

agencies. In the HAPs proposal, EPA

solicited proposals for enforceable

consent agreements (ECAs) regarding

the performance of pharmacokinetics

(PK) studies which would permit

extrapolation from data developed from

oral exposure studies to predict effects

from inhalation exposure.

On October 18, 1996, EPA extended

the public comment period on the

proposed rule from December 23, 1996

to January 31, 1997 (61 FR 54383)(FRL–

5571–3). This extension was to allow

more time for the submission of

proposals for ECAs on PK and adequate

time for comments on the proposed rule

to be submitted after the Agency has

considered the ECA proposals. EPA has

received several proposals for ECAs on

PK. Due to the complexity of the issues

raised by these proposals, the Agency

extended the public comment period to

March 31, 1997 (61 FR 67516, December

23, 1996) to allow more time to consider

the ECAs and to finalize the test

guidelines to be referenced in the

proposed HAPs test rule.

In the HAPs proposed rule published

on June 26, 1996 (61 FR 33178), testing

would be conducted using the OPPTS

harmonized guidelines that were

proposed on June 20, 1996 (61 FR

31522)(FRL–5367–7). The process of

developing these guidelines is

proceeding at the same time as the

development of the HAPs test rule. As

stated in the original proposal, the

OPPTS harmonization process may

result in the finalization of the

guidelines prior to the end of the

comment period for the proposed rule.

If so, EPA will publish the final

guidelines used in the HAPs rule in

order to allow for public comment on

the applicability of the finalized

guidelines to the HAPs rule.

There has been an additional delay in

finalizing the guidelines. The Agency

has decided to extend the comment

period on the HAPs test rule to allow for

the publication of the final guidelines.

In addition, the Agency anticipates

responding to the submitters of

proposals for ECAs on PK by no later

than March 31, 1997.

Accordingly, EPA is extending the

comment period on the proposed rule to

April 30, 1997.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Hazardous substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: February 25, 1997.

Charles M. Auer,

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

[FR Doc. 97–5193 Filed 2–27–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

46 CFR Part 382

[Docket No. R–158]

RIN 2133–AB19

Determination of Fair and Reasonable

Guideline Rates for the Carriage of

Bulk and Packaged Preference

Cargoes on U.S.-Flag Commercial

Vessels

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The regulations at 46 CFR

part 382 prescribe the administrative

procedures and methodology for

determining fair and reasonable rates for

the carriage of dry and liquid bulk and

packaged preference cargoes on United

States commercial cargo vessels.

MARAD proposes to amend those

regulations to prescribe cost averaging

as the methodology used for