Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules 62361

The studies incorporated in the

October 24 notice address the

mechanism by which MC metabolites

induce lung and liver cancer in mice

and draw conclusions regarding the

relevance of the mouse data to the

assessment of human cancer risk. OSHA

determined that those studies are

relevant to full consideration of

concerns raised by the MC rulemaking

and reopened the record until

November 24, 1995, to allow the public

an opportunity to comment.

The October 24 notice generated

substantially more interest than OSHA

anticipated and the Agency is

concerned that the initial 30 days was

insufficient to allow full participation

by interested parties. Accordingly,

OSHA is reopening the comment period

until December 29, 1995.

DATES: Written comments on the

materials incorporated through the

October 24, 1995 notice of reopening

must be postmarked by December 29,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be

submitted in quadruplicate to the

Docket Office, Docket No. H–071B, U.S.

Department of Labor, room N–2634, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210. Telephone (202) 219–7894.

Written comments limited to 10 pages

or less in length also may be transmitted

by facsimile to (202) 219–5046,

provided that the original and 3 copies

are sent to the Docket Office thereafter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne C. Cyr, Office of Information and

Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, room N–3647, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210. Telephone (202) 219–8148.

For electronic copies of this Federal

Register notice, contact the Labor News

Bulletin Board (202) 219–4784; or

OSHA’s WebPage on Internet at http://

www.osha.gov/. For news releases, fact

sheets, and other short documents,

contact OSHA FAX at (900) 555–3400 at

$1.50 per minute.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 7, 1991, OSHA issued

a notice of proposed rulemaking (56 FR

57036) to address the significant risks of

MC-induced health effects. The

proposed rule required employers to

reduce occupational exposure to MC

and to institute ancillary measures, such

as employee training and medical

surveillance, for further protection of

MC-exposed workers.

OSHA convened public hearings (57

FR 24438, June 9, 1992) in Washington,

DC on September 16–24, 1992 and in

San Francisco, CA on October 14–16,

1992. The post-hearing period for the

submission of additional briefs,

arguments and summations ended on

March 15, 1993.

On March 11, 1994, OSHA reopened

the rulemaking record for 45 days (59

FR 11567) to obtain public input on

three documents incorporated into the

rulemaking record, one of which

examined the relationship between MC

exposure and human carcinogenesis.

The limited reopening, which ended on

April 25, 1994, generated 37 comments.

The Halogenated Solvents Industry

Alliance (HSIA) subsequently submitted

several recently completed studies

which address the mechanism for MCinduced cancer in mice and which

assert that species differences in the

metabolism of MC preclude the use of

mouse data to characterize human

cancer risk. The utility of the mouse

data in assessing human risk is a critical

issue in this rulemaking. Therefore,

OSHA concluded that it was

appropriate, even at this late stage of the

rulemaking process, to consider the

HSIA-submitted studies in the drafting

of the final rule. Accordingly, on

October 24, 1995, the Agency reopened

the rulemaking record to incorporate

those studies and to provide the public

with an opportunity to comment.

OSHA has been considering the

impact of species differences on the MC

risk assessment throughout this

rulemaking, and has generated an

extensive record over the nearly four

years since the proposal was published.

While the Agency has agreed with the

HSIA that the new materials should be

taken into account, the Agency still

believes that every effort should be

made to conclude this rulemaking

expeditiously. To that end, OSHA

reopened the record for 30 days to

receive any additional comments and

information regarding this issue. While

the record was open, OSHA received

many requests for the studies. Due to

the substantial interest generated by the

October 24 notice, the Agency has

decided to allow interested parties

additional time in which to submit their

comments. Therefore, OSHA is

extending the comment period until

December 29, 1995.

OSHA will provide interested parties

with copies of the materials

incorporated into the methylene

chloride record through the October 24,

1995 reopening notice, upon request, to

facilitate full and timely public

participation. Requests for copies of the

studies should be addressed to the

Christine Whittaker, Room N–3718,

Health Standards Programs, OSHA, U.S.

Department of Labor,200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Telephone: (202) 219–7174. Fax: (202)

219–7125.

II. Public Participation

Comments

Written comments regarding the

materials incorporated into the

methylene chloride record through the

October 24, 1995 reopening notice must

be postmarked by December 29, 1995.

Four copies of these comments must be

submitted to the Docket Office, Docket

No. H–071B, U.S. Department of Labor,

room N–2625, 200 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20210. (202) 219–

7894. All materials submitted will be

available for inspection and copying at

the above address. Materials previously

submitted to the Docket for this

rulemaking need not be resubmitted.

III. Authority

This document was prepared under

the direction of Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

It is issued under section 6(b) of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act (29

U.S.C. 655), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of

December 1995.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

[FR Doc. 95–29719 Filed 12–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300405; FRL–4987–4]

RIN 2070–AC18

Maleic Hydrazide, Oryzalin,

Hexazinone, Streptomycin; Tolerance

Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: For each of the pesticides

subject to the actions listed in this

proposed rule, EPA has completed the

reregistration process and issued a

Reregistration Eligibility Decision

(RED). In the reregistration process, all

information to support a pesticide’s

continued registration is reviewed for

adequacy and, when needed,

supplemented with new scientific

studies. Based on the RED tolerance

assessments for the pesticide chemicals
62362 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules

subject to this proposed rule, EPA is

proposing to revoke various tolerances

for maleic hydrazide, oryzalin, and

hexazinone. This document also

proposes to delete as surplusage the

term ‘‘negligible’’ from a regulation on

streptomycin.

DATES: EPA must receive written

comments, identified by the OPP

document control number [OPP300405], on or before February 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments

to Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. In person, deliver comments

to Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@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 in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

[OPP-300405]. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail. Electronic comments on

this proposed rule may be filed online

at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Additional information on electronic

submissions can be found below in this

document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Jeff Morris, Special Review and

Reregistration Division (7508W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location: Special Review Branch,

Crystal Station #1, 3rd Floor, 2800

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

Telephone: (703)-308-8029; e-mail:

morris.jeffrey@epamail.epa.gov.

I. Legal Authorization

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.)

authorizes the establishment of

tolerances (maximum legal residue

levels) and exemptions from the

requirement of a tolerance for residues

of pesticide chemicals in or on raw

agricultural commodities pursuant to

section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346(a)). Without

such tolerances or exemptions, a food

containing pesticide residues is

considered to be ‘‘adulterated’’ under

section 402 of the FFDCA, and hence

may not legally be moved in interstate

commerce (21 U.S.C. 342). To establish

a tolerance or an exemption under

section 408 of the FFDCA, EPA must

make a finding that the promulgation of

the rule would ‘‘protect the public

health’’ (21 U.S.C. 346a(b)). For a

pesticide to be sold and distributed, the

pesticide must not only have

appropriate tolerances under the

FFDCA, but also must be registered

under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA,

7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).

In 1988, Congress amended the

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136 et

seq.) and required EPA to review and

reassess the potential hazards arising

from currently registered uses of

pesticides registered prior to November

1, 1984. As part of this process, the

Agency must determine whether a

pesticide is eligible for reregistration or

whether any subsequent actions are

required to fully attain reregistration

status. EPA has chosen to include in the

reregistration process a reassessment of

existing tolerances or exemptions from

the need for a tolerance. Through this

reassessment process, based on more

recent data, EPA can determine whether

a tolerance must be amended, revoked,

or established, or whether an exemption

from the requirement of one or more

tolerances must be amended or is

necessary.

The procedure for establishing,

amending, or revoking tolerances or

exemptions from the requirement of

tolerances is set forth in 40 CFR parts

177 through 180. The Administrator of

EPA, or any person by petition, may

initiate an action proposing to establish,

amend, revoke, or exempt a tolerance

for a pesticide registered for food uses.

Each petition or request for a new

tolerance, an amendment to an existing

tolerance, or a new exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance must be

accompanied by a fee. Current Agency

policy on tolerance actions identified

during the reregistration process is to

waive the payment of fees if the

tolerance action concerns revision or

revocation of an established tolerance,

or if the proposed exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance requires the

concurrent revocation of an approved

tolerance. Comments submitted in

response to the Agency’s published

proposals are reviewed, and the Agency

then publishes its final determination

regarding the specific tolerance actions.

II. Chemical-Specific Information and

Proposed Actions

A. Maleic Hydrazide

1. Regulatory history. In 1952, USDA

registered maleic hydrazide for use as a

growth regulator. EPA issued a

Registration Standard for maleic

hydrazide in 1988. In 1992, EPA issued

a Data Call-In (DCI) notice for maleic

hydrazide and the potassium salt of

maleic hydrazide that required data to

address ecological effects,

environmental fate, and residue

chemistry data gaps. EPA published a

RED for maleic hydrazide in June 1994

that reflects a reassessment of all data

submitted to date in response to the

Registration Standard and the 1992 DCI.

The RED also conditions the maleic

hydrazide reregistration on the

cranberry tolerance revocation proposed

in this document. Persons interested in

the details of this reassessment are

referred to the maleic hydrazide RED

(NTIS #PB88-236849).

2. Current proposal. EPA proposes to

revoke the 15-ppm tolerance for maleic

hydrazide residues in or on cranberries,

as listed in 40 CFR 180.175(b). EPA is

proposing this action for two reasons:

(1) The registrant is not supporting the

use of maleic hydrazide on this

commodity, and end-use maleic

hydrazide labels do not list cranberries

as a registered use (Two States,

Massachusetts and New Jersey, had

FIFRA section 24(c) (Special Local

Need) registrations for the use of maleic

hydrazide on cranberries in 1984 and

1985; EPA cancelled those registrations

in 1991, and EPA believes that since

1992 there has been little or no usage of

maleic hydrazide on cranberries in

those States.) Therefore, no residues of

maleic hydrazide are expected in or on

cranberries, making a cranberry

tolerance unnecessary. (2) Also, EPA

does not have adequate nature-of-theresidue data to determine that the

cranberry tolerance for maleic hydrazide

is protective of the public health. A

tolerance under section 408 of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

requires a finding that the tolerance will

protect the public health, and to make

such a finding for the established

cranberry tolerance in 40 CFR

180.175(b), EPA needs adequate data on

the nature of the residue (see 40 CFR

part 158 for guidance on data

requirements). To date, the Agency has

not received these data.

If during the comment period of this

proposed rule no party indicates that it

will support the use of maleic hydrazide

on cranberries by providing the

necessary data, EPA will issue a final

rule revoking the tolerance.

B. Oryzalin

1. Regulatory history. Oryzalin was

first registered in the United States in

1974 for use as a preemergence

herbicide in fruit and nut crops,

vineyards, orchards, forest areas,

noncrop areas, and agricultural crops. In
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules 62363

1987, EPA issued a Registration

Standard for oryzalin that evaluated the

studies submitted to that date. EPA

issued a DCI for oryzalin in 1991

requiring additional phytotoxicity data,

plant and animal analytical methods,

and nondietary exposure data. The

January 27, 1995 RED for oryzalin

reflects a reassessment of all data

submitted in response to the

Registration Standard and the DCI. The

RED also conditions the oryzalin

reregistration on the tolerance actions

proposed in this document. The Agency

refers persons interested in this

reassessment to the oryzalin RED (NTIS

publication #PB90-174137).

2. Current proposal. EPA proposes to

revoke the tolerances for oryzalin

residues in or on the following

commodities listed in 40 CFR

180.304(a): cottonseed, .05 ppm; grain,

barley, .05 ppm; grain, wheat, .05 ppm;

peas (succulent), .05 ppm; potatoes, .05

ppm; and soybeans, .1 ppm. EPA is

proposing this action because the

registrant is not supporting the use of

oryzalin on these commodities, and

end-use oryzalin labels do not list these

commodities as registered uses (these

have not been registered uses since

before publication of the the 1987

registration standard). As a result,

residues of oryzalin in or on these

commodities are not expected;

therefore, the tolerances are not

necessary.

EPA previously issued a proposal to

remove the above-named commodities

from 40 CFR 180.304(a). (See the

Federal Register of January 18, 1995 (60

FR 3611).) That proposal is superseded

by this document.

EPA has sufficient data to ascertain

the adequacy of the established

tolerances listed 40 CFR 180.304(a) for

the above-named commodities.

However, if no party indicates support

for the use of oryzalin on these

commodities during the comment

period of this proposed rule, EPA will

issue a final rule revoking the

tolerances.

C. Hexazinone

1. Regulatory history. EPA first

registered hexazinone in 1975 for use as

a broad-spectrum herbicide for general

weed control. In 1982, EPA issued an

initial Registration Standard for

hexazinone, and in 1988 EPA issued a

second Registration Standard. The 1988

Standard summarized available data

supporting the registration of

hexazinone products and required

additional product chemistry, residue

chemistry, toxicology, ecological effects,

and environmental fate data. The

January 27, 1995 RED for hexazinone

represents an assessment of the data

required by the Registration Standards.

The RED also conditions the hexazinone

reregistration on the tolerance actions

proposed in this document. Persons

interested in this reassessment should

contact NTIS (telephone no. 703-487-

4650) for a copy of the hexazinone RED.

2. Current proposal. EPA proposes to

revoke the tolerances for hexazinone

residues in or on the following

commodities in 40 CFR 180.396: eggs, .1

ppm; poultry, fat, .1 ppm; poultry, meat,

.1 ppm; poultry, mbyp, .1 ppm;

pineapple, fodder, 5 ppm; and

pineapple, forage, 5 ppm.

EPA is proposing to revoke the egg

and poultry tolerances because the

maximum residue expected in poultry

tissues would be .005 ppm, an order of

magnitude below the limit of detection

for hexazinone metabolites, resulting in

no detectible residues. Therefore,

tolerances are not needed for

hexazinone residues in or on eggs and

poultry. The pineapple fodder and

forage tolerances are proposed for

revocation because EPA no longer

regulates pineapple fodder and forage as

raw agricultural commodities (since the

Agency does not consider pineapple

fodder and forage to be produced in

significant quantities to warrant

regulation).

If no valid objections are raised

during the comment period following

this proposed rule, EPA will issue a

final rule revoking the tolerances.

D. Streptomycin

1. Regulatory history. Streptomycin

has been used in the United States since

the 1940s to treat bacterial infections in

humans and was first registered as a

pesticide in 1955. At that time, it was

used primarily as a bactericide/

fungicide on selected agricultural and

nonagricultural crops. Other uses

include seed treatment, residential use,

and as an aquarium algaecide. In 1988,

EPA issued a Registration Standard for

streptomycin requiring data to support

the registered uses regulated under

FIFRA.

EPA issued a RED for streptomycin on

September 30, 1992, reflecting a

reassessment of all data submitted in

response to the Registration Standard.

The RED also conditions the

streptomycin reregistration on the

tolerance action proposed in this

document. Persons interested in this

reassessment should contact NTIS

(telephone no. 703-487-4650) for a copy

of the streptomycin RED.

2. Current proposal. EPA proposes to

delete ‘‘negligible’’ from 40 CFR 180.245

because in this case the term

‘‘negligible’’ is surplusage.

III. Public Comment Procedures

EPA invites interested persons to

submit written comments, information,

or data in response to this proposed

rule. Comments must be submitted by

February 5, 1996. Comments must bear

a notation indicating the document

control number. Three copies of the

comments should be submitted to either

location listed under ADDRESSES at the

beginning of this document.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any or

all of that information as ‘‘Confidential

Business Information’’ (CBI). EPA will

not disclose information so marked,

except in accordance with procedures

set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A second

copy of such comments, with the CBI

deleted, also must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record. EPA may

publicly disclose without prior notice

information not marked confidential.

Any person who has registered or

submitted an application for registration

of a pesticide under FIFRA, as amended,

that contains any of the ingredients

listed herein may request within 30

days after publication of this document

in the Federal Register that this

rulemaking proposal be referred to an

Advisory Committee in accordance with

section 408(e) of the FFDCA.

Documents considered and relied

upon by EPA pertaining to this action,

and all written comments filed pursuant

to this proposed rule, will be available

for public inspection in Rm. 1132,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA between 8 a.m.

and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except for legal holidays.

A record has been established for this

rulemaking under docket number [OPP300405] (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 8 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The public

record is located in Room 1132 of the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, Field Operations Division

(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at:

opp-Docket@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption.
62364 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 6, 1995 / Proposed Rules

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, as described above will be kept

in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will

transfer all comments received

electronically into printed, paper form

as they are received and will place the

paper copies in the official rulemaking

record which will also include all

comments submitted directly in writing.

The official rulemaking record is the

paper record maintained at the address

in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this

document.

IV. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

To satisfy requirements for analysis

specified by Executive Order 12866, the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Paperwork Reduction Act, and the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, EPA

has analyzed the impacts of this

proposal.

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),

the order defines a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as an action that is

likely to result in a rule: (1) having an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more, or adversely and

materially affecting a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or state, local or tribal

governments or communities (also

referred to as ‘‘economically

significant’’); (2) creating serious

inconsistency or otherwise interfering

with an action taken or planned by

another agency; (3) materially altering

the budgetary impacts of entitlements,

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or

policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in this Executive

Order.

Pursuant to the terms of this

Executive Order, EPA has determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action,’’ because it does not

meet any of the regulatory-significance

criteria listed above.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA has reviewed this proposed rule

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of

1980 (Pub. L. 96-354; 94 Stat. 1164, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and has determined

that it will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses, small

governments, or small organizations.

Accordingly, I certify that this proposed

rule does not require a separate

regulatory flexibility analysis under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed regulatory action does

not contain any information collection

requirements subject to review by OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This proposed rule contains no

Federal mandates under Title II of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995, Pub. L. 104-4, for State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector,

because it would not impose

enforceable duties on them.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: November 30, 1995.

Jack E. Housenger,

Chief, Special Review Branch, Special Review

and Reregistration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

part 180 be amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

2. In § 180.175, by removing

paragraph (b) and designating it as

‘‘reserved’’ as follows:

§ 180.175 Maleic hydrazide; tolerances for

residues.

* * * * *

(b) [Reserved]

§ 180.245 [Amended]

3. By amending § 180.245

Streptomycin; tolerances for residues,

by removing the term ‘‘negligible’’ from

the text.

§ 180.304 [Amended]

4. In § 180.304 Oryzalin; tolerances

for residues by amending paragraph (a)

in the table therein by removing the

entries for cottonseed; grain, barley;

grain, wheat; peas (succulent); potatoes;

and soybeans.

§ 180.396 [Amended]

5. In § 180.396 Hexazinone;

tolerances for residues by amending

paragraph (a) in the table therein by

removing the entries for eggs; poultry,

fat; poultry, mbyp; poultry, meat;

pineapple, fodder; and pineapple,

forage.

[FR Doc. 95–29734 Filed 12–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300403; FRL–4986–2]

RIN 2070–AC18

Tebuthiuron; Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA has completed the

reregistration process and issued a

Reregistration Eligibility Document

(RED) for tebuthiuron. In the

reregistration process, all information to

support this pesticide’s continued

registration is reviewed for adequacy

and, when needed, supplemented with

new scientific studies. Based on the

RED tolerance assessment for the

pesticide chemical subject to this

proposed rule, EPA is proposing to

lower the tolerance for grass hay and

grass rangeland forage and change the

commodity name grass, rangeland

forage to grass, forage.

DATES: Written comments, identified by

the OPP document control number

[OPP–300403], must be received on or

before January 5, 1996.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit comments

to Public Response and Program

Resources Branch, Field Operations

Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. In person, deliver comments

to Rm. 1132, Crystal Mall #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted in ASCII

file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by docket number

[OPP–300403]. No CBI should be

submitted through e-mail. Electronic

comments on this proposed rule may be

filed online at many Federeal

Depository Libraries. Additional

information on electronic submissions

can be found below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Ben Chambliss, Special Review