Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18079

final rules section of this Federal

Register.

Executive Order 12866 Review

The HON rule promulgated on April

22, 1994 was considered ‘‘significant’’

under Executive Order 12866 and a

regulatory impact analysis (RIA) was

prepared. Today’s proposed revisions

clarify the rule and do not add any

additional control requirements. The

EPA believes that these revisions would

have a negligible impact on the results

of the RIA and the change is considered

to be within the uncertainty of the

analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires the identification of potentially

adverse impacts of Federal regulations

upon small business entities. The Act

specifically requires the completion of a

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in those

instances where small business impacts

are possible. Because this rulemaking

imposes no adverse economic impacts,

a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not

been prepared.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 28, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–8200 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 799

[OPPTS–42111E, FRL–4927–8]

RIN 2070–AB94

Test Rule; Office of Water Chemicals

Proposed Withdrawal of Certain

Testing Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw

certain testing requirements for two of

the chemical substances listed in the

Office of Water chemicals test rule

published in the Federal Register of

November 10, 1993 (58 FR 59667). EPA

required specified health effects testing

for the two chemical substances because

the substances are produced in

substantial quantities and there may be

substantial exposure to these

substances, there are insufficient data to

determine or predict the health effects

from exposure to these substances in

drinking water, and the testing required

is necessary to determine or predict

these health effects. EPA believes that

data recently made available to it are

sufficient to determine or predict the

health effects posed by short and longterm exposures to 1,1-dichloroethane in

drinking water and are sufficient to

determine or predict the health effects

posed by long-term exposures to 1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane in drinking water.

Therefore, EPA is proposing the

withdrawal of the 90–day subchronic

testing requirement for 1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane and the 90–day and

14–day testing requirements for 1,1-

dichloroethane.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by EPA on or before May 10,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments,

identified by the document control

number (OPPTS–42111E) in triplicate

to: TSCA Document Receipts Office

(Mail stop 7407), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. ET G–99, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC, 20460. A

public version of the administrative

record supporting this action, without

confidential business information, is

available for inspection at the above

address from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James G. Willis, Acting Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554–1404,

TDD (202) 554–0551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is

proposing to withdraw the 90–day

subchronic testing requirement for

1,1,2,2-tetratchloroethane and the 90–

day and 14–day testing requirements for

1,1-dichloroethane in the Office of

Water chemicals test rule referenced

above.

I. Proposed Modification

Pursuant to section 4 of the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA

proposed a test rule in the Federal

Register of May 24, 1990 (55 FR 21393)

and finalized the test rule in the Federal

Register of November 10, 1993 (58 FR

59667), finding that four chemical

substances; chloroethane (CAS No. 75–

00–3); 1,1-dichloroethane (CAS No. 75–

34–3); 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (CAS

No. 79–34–5); and 1,3,5-

trimethylbenzene (CAS No. 108–67–8)

are produced in substantial quantities

and that there may be substantial

exposure to these substances, that there

are insufficient data to determine or

predict the health effects from short and

long-term exposures to the substances in

drinking water, and that testing is

required to determine or predict the

health effects from short and long-term

exposures. Thus, EPA required subacute

toxicity (oral 14–day repeated dose) and

subchronic (oral 90–day) toxicity tests.

The data from these studies would be

used to develop Health Advisories

(HA’s) for the four unregulated drinking

water contaminants that are monitored

under section 1445 of the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA).

EPA has recently received requests to

withdraw all or part of the testing

required for two substances, 1,1-

dichloroethane and 1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane. On June 28, 1994, the

Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance

(HSIA) requested that EPA revoke the

subchronic (oral 90–day) toxicity test

requirements for 1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane (Ref. 1). This request

was based on the availability of a 90–

day subchronic toxicity drinking water

study of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane

conducted in rats and mice by the

National Toxicology Program (Ref. 2).

EPA reviewed this study and believes

that the study is sufficient to meet the

90–day subchronic toxicity test required

under the test rule and to establish longterm Health Advisories for the Office of

Water (OW) (Ref. 3). Therefore, EPA

believes it is appropriate to withdraw

the 90–day subchronic testing

requirements for 1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane.

HSIA also requested that EPA

withdraw the 14– and 90–day

subchronic toxicity testing required

under the test rule for 1,1-

dichloroethane. This request was based

on a study conducted by Muralidhara et

al. (Ref. 6) that characterizes the acute

(24 hour), subacute (5 and 10 days), and

the subchronic (90 days) toxicity

potential of 1,1-dichloroethane. EPA

reviewed the study and believes the

study is sufficient to determine or

predict both the short and long-term

effects of exposure to 1,1-dichloroethane

(Ref. 7). Therefore, EPA believes it is

appropriate to withdraw both the 14–

and 90–day subchronic toxicity tests

required for 1,1-dichloroethane under

the test rule for the OW substances.

EPA is providing 30 days from

publication of this proposed

modification for submission of written

comments on the elimination of the

subchronic toxicity (oral 90–day) test

requirement for 1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane and of both the

subacute (oral 14–day repeated dose)

and subchronic (oral 90–day) toxicity

test requirements for 1,1,2,2-

tetrachloroethane. If the 30 day deadline

passes and no public comments have
18080 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

been received that cause a change in the

position set forth in this Notice, EPA

will grant the proposed modification to

delete these tests and publish a notice

to the effect in the Federal Register.

II. Comments Containing Confidential

Business Information

Any person who submits comments

that certain information claimed as

confidential business information must

label the specific information claimed as

confidential by circling, bracketing, or

underlining it, and marking it

‘‘confidential,’’ ‘‘trade secret,’’ or other

appropriate designation. Comments not

claimed as confidential at the time of

submission will be placed in the public

file without further notice to the

submitter. Any comments marked as

confidential will be treated in

accordance with the procedures in 40

CFR part 2. Any party submitting

confidential comments must prepare

and submit a public version of the

comments for the EPA public file.

III. Rulemaking Record

EPA has established a docket for this

rulemaking (docket number OPPTS–

42111E). Currently, this docket contains

the basic information considered by

EPA in developing this proposal.

A public version of the record, from

which all information claimed as CBI

has been deleted, is available for

inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential

Information Center, B–607, NE Mall,

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

from 12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except legal holidays.

The record includes the following

information:

(1) Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance

(HSIA). Letter from Peter Voytek, Ph.D. to

Connie Musgrove, USEPA entitled ‘‘Request

for Modification of Study Requirements’’.

(June 28, 1994).

(2) National Institute of Environmental

Health Sciences (NIEHS). Letter from

William Eastin, Ph.D. to Roger Nelson,

USEPA (July 7, 1994) with two attachments:

(a) Pathco. ‘‘Chairperson’s Report Structure

Activity Relationship Studies of Halogenated

Ethane-Induced Accumulation of Alpha-2UGlobulin in the Male Rat Kidney: Part A, B,

C, -Studies Conducted in F344 Rats at

Microbiological Associates’’.

(b) Microbiological Associates, Inc. Final

Report Study Nos. 03554.11 – 03554.12,

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane (TCE).

(3) USEPA. Memorandum from Bruce

Mintz to Roger Nelson ‘‘Request for Office of

Water Recommendation for Approval/

Disapproval of 28 Jun 1994 HSIA Request for

Modification of Test Standards for 1,1-

Dichloroethane and 1,1,2,2-

Tetrachloroethane (Office of Water Test

Rule)’’.

(4) Voytek, P. Note (Fax) to Roger Nelson

entitled ‘‘Preliminary Testing of 1,1-

Dichloroethane in Drinking Water’’. (Aug. 3,

1994).

(5) Unpublished. Original Draft of Report

to EPA HERL, Cincinnati in 1986. James V.

Bruckner, Ph.D. (Undated).

(6) Muralidhara, S., R. Ramanathan, C.E.

Dallas and J.V. Bruckner. ‘‘Acute, Subacute

and Subchronic Oral Toxicity Studies of 1,1-

Dichloroethane (DCE) in Rats’’. Society of

Toxicology Abstract. (1986).

(7) USEPA. Memorandum from Krishan

Khanna to Roger Nelson ‘‘Review of 1,1-

Dichloroethane (DCE) Data (TSCA Test Rule

for Office of Water Chemicals).’’ Nov. 15,

1994.

IV. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 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 entitlement,

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, it has been determined

that this proposed rule is not

‘‘significant’’ and is therefore not subject

to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), I certify that this

test rule, if promulgated, would not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small businesses

because the proposed amendment

would relieve a regulatory obligation to

conduct certain chemical tests.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

OMB has approved the information

collection requirements contained in

this proposed test rule under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and

has assigned OMB Control number

2070–0033.

This proposed rule would reduce the

public reporting burden associated with

the testing requirement under the final

test rule. A complete discussion of the

reporting burden is contained at 58 FR

59680.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799

Chemicals, Chemical export,

Environmental protection, Hazardous

substances, Health effects, Laboratories,

Provisional testing, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Testing,

Incorporation by reference.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603

Dated: March 31, 1995.

Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR,

chapter I, subchapter R, part 799 be

amended as follows:

PART 799 — [AMENDED]

a. The authority citation for part 799

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601, 2603, 2611,

2625.

b. In §799.5075 by revising

paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1)(i)(A),

(c)(2)(i)(A), and (d)(1) to read as follows:

§799.5075 Drinking water contaminants

subject to testing.

(a) * * *

(1) Chloroethane (CAS No. 75–00–3),

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (CAS No. 79–

34–5), and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (CAS

No. 108–67–8) shall be tested as

appropriate in accordance with this

section.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) An oral 14–day repeated dose

toxicity test shall be conducted with

chloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane,

and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene in

accordance with §798.2650 of this

chapter except for the provisions in

§§798.2650(a); (b)(1); (c); (e)(3), (4)(i),

(5), (6), (7)(i), (iv), (v), (8)(vii), (9)(i)(A),

(B), (11)(v); and (f)(2)(i). Each substance

shall be tested in one mammalian

species, preferably a rodent, but a nonrodent may be used. The species and

strain of animals used in this test should

be the same as those used in the 90–day

subchronic test required in paragraph

(c)(2)(i) of this section. The tests shall be

performed using drinking water.

However, if, due to poor stability or

palatability, a drinking water test is not
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 18081

feasible for a given substance, that

substance shall be administered either

by oral gavage, in the diet, or in

capsules.

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) An oral 90–day subchronic

toxicity test shall be conducted with

chloroethane and 1,3,5-

trimethylbenzene in accordance with

§798.2650 of this chapter except for the

provisions in §798.2650(e)(3), (7)(i), and

(11)(v). The tests shall be performed

using drinking water. However, if, due

to poor stability or palatability, a

drinking water test is not feasible for a

given substance, that substance shall be

administered either by oral gavage, in

the diet, or in capsules.

* * * * *

(d) * * * (1) This section is

effective on December 27, 1993, except

for paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1)(i)(A), and

(c)(2)(i)(A). Paragraphs (a)(1),

(c)(1)(i)(A), and (c)(2)(i)(A) are effective

(insert date 44 days after publication of

the final rule in the Federal Register).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–8734 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3100

[WO–610–00–4110–2411]

RIN 1004–AC26

Promotion of Development, Reduction

of Royalty on Heavy Oil

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) is issuing this

proposed rule to amend the regulations

relating to the waiver, suspension, or

reduction of rental, royalty, or minimum

royalty. This amendment would

establish the conditions under which

the operators of properties that produce

‘‘heavy oil’’ (crude oil with a gravity of

less than 20 degrees) can obtain a

reduction in the royalty rate. This action

is being taken to encourage the

operators of Federal heavy oil leases to

place marginal or uneconomical shut-in

oil wells back in production, provide an

economic incentive to implement

enhanced oil recovery projects, and

delay the plugging of these wells until

the maximum amount of economically

recoverable oil can be obtained from the

reservoir or field. The BLM believes that

this amendment will result in

substantial additional revenue for the

States and Federal Government,

increase the cumulative amount of

domestic oil production from existing

wells, increase the percentage of oil

recovery from presently developed

reservoirs, minimize the necessity of

drilling new wells with their additional

environmental impacts, assist in

reducing the national balance of trade

deficit, and help promote stability in the

jobs and services related to the domestic

oil industry.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

by June 9, 1995. Comments postmarked

after this date may not be considered as

part of the decisionmaking process in

issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

to: Director (140), Bureau of Land

Management, Room 5555, Main Interior

Building, 1849 C Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20240. Comments will

be available for public review in Room

5555 at the above address during regular

business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.),

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John W. Bebout, Bureau of Land

Management, (202) 452–0340.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Existing

section 3103.4–1 of Title 43, Code of

Federal Regulations, provides two forms

of Federal oil and gas royalty reduction:

on a case-by-case basis upon

application, and for stripper wells. In

order to encourage the greatest ultimate

recovery of oil or gas and in the interest

of conservation, the Secretary, upon a

determination that it is necessary to

promote development, or that a lease

cannot be successfully operated under

the terms provided therein, may reduce

the royalty on an entire leasehold or any

portion thereof. The provision

concerning stripper well properties

allows royalty reduction for properties

that produce an average of less than 15

barrels of oil per eligible well per wellday.

The Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) has reason to believe that

additional royalty relief for producers of

heavy crude oil may be necessary to

maintain current levels of development,

promote investment in enhanced

recovery efforts, and encourage

maximum recovery of the resource, thus

warranting royalty reduction under

Section 39 of the Mineral Leasing Act

(30 U.S.C. 209).

Fluctuating oil prices, combined with

high production costs, have resulted in

an uncertain economic future for

producers of low gravity crude oil. As

recently as last January, California

producers of heavy crude were spending

between $9 and $10 to produce a barrel

of crude oil that was typically selling for

between $8.50 and $9 per barrel (from

data provided by the Conservation

Commission of California Oil and Gas

Producers). When depreciation,

depletion, and amortization costs were

considered, nearly 69% of the state’s

production was uneconomic and more

than 13,000 industry and industryrelated jobs were at risk (California

Independent Petroleum Association).

Heavy crude oil prices have recently

risen to the point that the immediate

crisis in California has passed. Many of

the heavy oil properties remain only

marginally economic, however, and are

vulnerable to future down-turns in oil

prices. As many as two-thirds of the

marginal properties could be lost during

a period of sustained low oil prices

(National Petroleum Council Committee

on Marginal Wells/Executive

Summary—Draft). The danger in losing

these wells is that, although production

from individual wells may be small,

their collective loss would be

significant. The United States would

lose the opportunity to take advantage

of new technologies being developed by

the Department of Energy (DOE) and

industry, and the remaining recoverable

reserves would be lost.

This proposed rule would preserve

the contribution of marginal producers

of heavy crude oil to the national

reserve base. As a result of this relief,

more wells should stay on line (even in

periods of depressed oil prices), fewer

recoverable reserves should be lost, and

there will be less adverse economic

impact on States and local communities.

The DOE has modeled the BLM’s

proposed royalty rate reduction for

heavy crude oil. It is DOE’s conclusion

that the proposal will benefit all

producers of heavy oil while remaining

revenue neutral to all oil producing

States except California (California

contains the majority of the nation’s

heavy oil reserves). Assuming a West

Texas Intermediate Crude oil price of

$20 per barrel—a price consistent with

recent oil markets—the proposal can be

expected to increase recoverable

reserves in California by around 72

percent, from 132.8 million barrels to

228.5 million barrels.

A provision of the proposed rule

provides for the termination of

individual royalty reductions should the

average price of West Texas

Intermediate Crude oil rise to a level

greater than $24 per barrel for a period

of at least 6 consecutive months. This

provision is intended to ensure that