Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2921

EPA does not wish to delay interim

approval of the State’s part 70

PROGRAM with respect to undisputed

sources while EPA resolves this

question.

In deferring final action on program

approval for sources located in ‘‘Indian

Country,’’ EPA is not making a

determination that the State either has

adequate jurisdiction or lacks such

jurisdiction. Instead, EPA is deferring

judgment regarding this issue pending

EPA’s evaluation of the State’s analysis.

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends for a period of up

to two years. During the interim

approval period, the State is protected

from sanctions for failure to have a

program, and EPA is not obligated to

promulgate a Federal permits program

in the State. Permits issued under a

program with interim approval have full

standing with respect to part 70, and the

one-year time period for submittal of

permit applications by subject sources

begins upon interim approval, as does

the three-year time period for processing

the initial permit applications.

Requirements for approval, specified

in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section

112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a

program for delegation of section 112

standards as promulgated by EPA as

they apply to part 70 sources. Section

112(l)(5) requires that the State’s

program contain adequate authorities,

adequate resources for implementation,

and an expeditious compliance

schedule, which are also requirements

under part 70. Therefore, EPA is also

proposing to grant approval under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of

the State’s program for receiving

delegation of section 112 standards that

are unchanged from Federal standards

as promulgated. This program for

delegations only applies to sources

covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed interim

approval. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed interim approval are

contained in a docket maintained at the

EPA Regional Office. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development

of this proposed interim approval. The

principal purposes of the docket are:

(1) to allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

approval process, and

(2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by February 13,

1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA’s actions under section 502 of the

Act do not create any new requirements,

but simply address operating permits

programs submitted to satisfy the

requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because

this action does not impose any new

requirements, it does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–700 Filed 1–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300374; FRL–4924–9]

RIN 2070–AC18

3,5-Bis(6-Isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-

Oxadiazine-2,4,6-(3H,5H)-Trione,

Polymer with Diethylenetriamine;

Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

establish an exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance for residues

of 3,5-bis(6-isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-

oxadiazine-2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione,

polymer with diethylenetriamine (CAS

Reg. No. 87823-33-4), when used as an

inert ingredient (encapsulating agent) in

pesticide formulations applied to

growing crops. Miles, Inc., requested

this proposed regulation.

DATES: Written comments, identified by

the document control number [OPP–

300374], must be received on or before

February 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA

22202.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information’’

(CBI). Information so marked will not be

disclosed except in accordance with

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

will be included in the public docket by

EPA without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Welch, Registration Support

Branch, Registration Division (7505W),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

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

Office location and telephone number:

2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, 6th

Floor, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 308–

8470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Miles,

Inc., 8400 Hawthorn Road, P.O. Box

4913, Kansas City, MO 64120–0013,

submitted pesticide petition (PP)

4E4416 to EPA requesting that the

Administrator, pursuant to section

408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C.

346a(e)), propose to amend 40 CFR

180.1001(d) by establishing an

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance for residues of 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine (CAS Reg. No.

87823–33–4), when used as an inert

ingredient (encapsulating agent) in

pesticide formulations applied to

growing crops under 40 CFR

180.1001(d).

Inert ingredients are all ingredients

that are not active ingredients as defined

in 40 CFR 153.125, and include, but are

not limited to, the following types of

ingredients (except when they have a

pesticidal efficacy of their own):

solvents such as alcohols and

hydrocarbons; surfactants such as

polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty

acids; carriers such as clay and

diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as

carrageenan and modified cellulose;

wetting, spreading, and dispersing

agents; propellants in aerosol
2922 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Proposed Rules

dispensers; microencapsulating agents;

and emulsifiers. The term ‘‘inert’’ is not

intended to imply nontoxicity; the

ingredient may or may not be

chemically active.

The data submitted in the petition

and other relevant material have been

evaluated. As part of the EPA policy

statement on inert ingredients published

in the Federal Register of April 22, 1987

(52 FR 13305), the Agency set forth a list

of studies which would generally be

used to evaluate the risks posed by the

presence of an inert ingredient in a

pesticide formulation. However, where

it can be determined without that data

that the inert ingredient will present

minimal or no risk, the Agency

generally does not require some or all of

the listed studies to rule on the

proposed tolerance or exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance for an

inert ingredient. The Agency has

decided that no data, in addition to that

described below, for 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, will need to be

submitted. The rationale for this

decision is described below.

1. In the case of certain chemical

substances that are defined as

‘‘polymers,’’ the Agency has established

a set of criteria which identify categories

of polymers that present low risk. These

criteria (described in 40 CFR 723.250)

identify polymers that are relatively

unreactive and stable compared to other

chemical substances as well as polymers

that typically are not readily absorbed.

These properties generally limit a

polymer’s ability to cause adverse

effects. In addition, these criteria

exclude polymers about which little is

known. The Agency believes that

polymers meeting the criteria noted

above will present minimal or no risk.

The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, conforms to the

definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR

723.250(b)(11) and meets the following

criteria that are used to identify low-risk

polymers.

The minimum number-average

molecular weight of 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, is listed as

1,000,000. Substances with molecular

weights greater than 400 generally are

not absorbed through the intact skin,

and substances with molecular weights

greater than 1,000 generally are not

absorbed through the intact

gastrointestinal tract. Chemicals not

absorbed through skin or GI tract

generally are incapable of eliciting a

toxic response.

2. The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, is not a cationic

polymer, nor is it reasonably expected

to become a cationic polymer in a

natural aquatic environment.

3. The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, does not contain

less than 32.0 percent by weight of the

atomic element carbon.

4. The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, contains as an

integral part of its composition the

atomic elements carbon, hydrogen,

nitrogen, and oxygen.

5. The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, does not contain as

an integral part of its composition,

except as impurities, any elements other

than those listed in 40 CFR

723.250(d)(3)(ii).

6. The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, is not a biopolymer,

a synthetic equivalent of a biopolymer,

or a dervative or modification of a

biopolymer that is substantially intact.

7. The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, is not manufactured

from reactants containing, other than

impurities, halogen atoms or cyano

groups.

8. The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, does not contain a

reactive functional group that is

intended or reasonably expected to

undergo further reaction.

9. The chemical 3,5-bis(6-

isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine2,4,6-(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with

diethylenetriamine, is neither designed

nor reasonably expected to substantially

degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

Based on the information above and

review of its use, EPA has found that,

when used in accordance with good

agricultural practice, this ingredient is

useful, and a tolerance is not necessary

to protect the public health. Therefore,

EPA proposes that the exemption from

the requirement of a tolerance be

established as set forth below.

Any person who has registered or

submitted an application for registration

of a pesticide, under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) as amended, that contains

any of the ingredients listed herein, may

request within 30 days after the

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.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments on the

proposed regulation. Comments must

bear a notation indicating the document

control number, [OPP–300374]. All

written comments filed in response to

this petition will be available in the

Public Response and Program Resources

Branch, at the address given above, from

8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except legal holidays.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 2 of Executive

Order 12866.

Pursuant to the requirement of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–

354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601–612),

the Administrator has determined that

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have an economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. A certification statement to this

effect was published in the Federal

Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests.

Dated: December 21, 1994.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration 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. Section 180.1001(d) is amended in

the table therein by adding and

alphabetically inserting the inert

ingredient, to read as follows:

§ 180.1001 Exemptions from the

requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

(d) * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2923

1On December 29, 1992, the Commission adopted

regulations that govern the filing of tariffs and

service contract essential terms in electronic format.

2The Commission is aware of several contracts in

paper form whose terms are of several years

duration. One of these contracts has a 10-year term.

Inert ingredients Limits Uses

* * * * * * *

3,5-Bis(6-isocyanatohexyl)-2H-1,3,5-oxadiazine-2,4,6-

(3H,5H)-trione, polymer with diethylenetriamine

(CAS Reg. No. 87823-33-4); minimum number average molecular weight 1,000,000.

.............................................. Encapsulating agent.

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–818 Filed 1–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Parts 515, 550, 580 and 581

[Docket No. 95–01]

Filing of Tariffs by Marine Terminal

Operators; Publishing, Filing and

Posting of Tariffs in Domestic Offshore

Commerce; Publishing and Filing of

Tariffs by Common Carriers in the

Foreign Commerce of the United

States; Service Contracts

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime

Commission proposes to remove 46 CFR

Part 515, Filing of Tariffs by Marine

Terminal Operators; 46 CFR Part 550,

Publishing, Filing and Posting of Tariffs

in Domestic Offshore Commerce; 46

CFR Part 580, Publishing and Filing of

Tariffs by Common Carriers in the

Foreign Commerce of the United States;

and 46 CFR Part 581, Service Contracts.

These regulations contain the

guidelines, standards, and procedures

for marine terminal operators (‘‘MTO’s’’)

and common carriers by water to file

and publish their tariffs and/or service

contract essential terms with the

Commission in paper format. The

Commission believes that these

regulations have become unnecessary

because its rules now require electronic

tariff filing in the Commission’s

Automated Tariff Filing and Information

system (‘‘ATFI’’).

DATES: Comments on or before February

13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments (original and 15

copies) are to be submitted to: Joseph C.

Polking, Secretary, Federal Maritime

Commission, 800 North Capitol Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20573, (202) 523–

5725.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryant L. VanBrakle, Director, Bureau of

Tariffs, Certification and Licensing,

Federal Maritime Commission, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., Washington,

DC 20573, (202) 523–5796.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission administers, inter alia, the

Shipping Act, 1916 (‘‘1916 Act’’), 46

U.S.C. app. 801, et seq.; the Intercoastal

Shipping Act, 1933 (‘‘1933 Act’’), 46

U.S.C. app. 843, et seq.; and the

Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘1984 Act’’), 46

U.S.C. app. 1701, et seq. (collectively

‘‘Shipping Acts’’), which require or

authorize the Commission to require

common carriers and MTO’s to file with

the Commission their tariffs and/or

service contract essential terms.

Presently, such tariffs and essential

terms are required by regulation, in 46

CFR Parts 515, 580 and 581, to be filed

in paper format. In February, 1993, the

Commission implemented its ATFI

system and directed common carriers

and MTO’s to file such tariffs and

essential terms in electronic form into

ATFI.1 This requirement is consistent

with Public Law 102–582, the High Seas

Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act,

section 502 which directed common

carriers to ‘‘file electronically with the

Commission all tariffs and all essential

terms of service contracts required to be

filed’’ by the 1916, 1933, or 1984 Acts.

The ATFI system is now fully

operational and the Commission will no

longer be accepting tariffs and/or service

contract essential terms in paper form.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes

to remove Parts 515, 550, 580 and 581.

One matter, however, with respect to

service contracts requires further

discussion. When the Commission

implemented its ATFI system, it

directed common carriers and MTO’s to

file an electronic tariff and to cancel the

corresponding paper instrument.

However, with respect to service

contract essential terms, the

Commission took a different approach,

recognizing that a service contract is a

special arrangement between a shipper

and a common carrier or a conference of

carriers with a specified duration. At the

time ATFI was implemented, the

Commission had on file and in effect

several thousand service contracts as

well as their corresponding essential

terms.2 The Commission did not require

carriers to convert the paper version of

a service contract into electronic form.

Rather, the Commission directed

carriers to file, on a prospective basis,

the essential terms of all newly executed

service contracts into the ATFI system.

Some of the essential terms which

were filed in paper form prior to the

conversion to ATFI are still in effect.

The Commission continues to find it

unnecessary to require the conversion of

these originally-filed service contract

essential terms into electronic format.

However, with the proposed

cancellation of Part 581 the Commission

will no longer accept amendments, in

paper form, to these essential terms.

Should the parties amend the essential

terms of service contracts now in paper

form, the Commission will require,

consistent with its electronic filing rules

in Part 514, the electronic filing of the

complete, restated statement of essential

terms—as amended—into ATFI.

The Federal Maritime Commission

certifies, pursuant to section 605(b) of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), that this Proposed Rule, if

adopted, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities, including

small businesses, small organizational

units, and small governmental

organizations. ‘‘The criteria contained in

this section requires the agency head to

examine both the degree of impact as

well as the dispersion of that impact.’’

S. Rep. No. 878, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 14

(1980) reprinted at 1980 U.S. Code

Cong. and Admin. News, p. 2788 at

2801. The Commission does not believe

that the removal of Parts 515, 550, 580

and 581 under the circumstances

described above will result in either

significant impact or impact upon a

substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule does not contain

any collection of information

requirements as defined by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as