24894 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

2. Oil of Mustard, as a component of

household Yellow Mustard and Brown

Mustard, has been used in a variety of

food products [baked goods, oils, meats,

processed vegetables, snack foods,

soups, nut products, and gravies at

concentrations up to 18,344 parts per

million (ppm)], for a long time, without

any known deleterious health effects.

3. The Acute Oral LD50 for Allyl

isothiocyanate, in rats, is 339 mg/kg

body weight (Toxicity Category II). An

end-use formulation, as applied,

contains only 0.2% Allyl

isothiocyanate, which represents a 500-

fold dilution of active ingredient.

4. The Acute Oral LD50 for Oil of

Mustard, in rats, is 14.8 g/kg body

weight (Toxicity Category IV).

The toxicology data and other

information provided are sufficient to

demonstrate that there are no

foreseeable human health hazards likely

to arise from the use of the insecticide,

Allyl isothiocyanate (as a component of

food grade Oil of Mustard), in or all raw

agricultural commodities.

This pesticide/repellent is considered

useful for the purpose for which the

exemption from tolerance is sought and

capable of achieving its physical or

technical effect.

Based on the information considered,

the Agency concludes that

establishment of a tolerance is not

necessary to protect the public health.

Therefore, the exemption from tolerance

is established as set forth below.

Any person adversely affected by this

regulation may, within 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register, file written objections

to the regulation and may also request

a hearing on those objections.

Objections and hearing requests must be

filed with the Hearing Clerk, at the

address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A

copy of the objections and/or hearing

requests filed with the Hearing Clerk

should be submitted to the OPP docket

for this rulemaking. The objections

submitted must specify the provisions

of the regulation deemed objectionable

and the grounds for the objections (40

CFR 178.25). Each objection must be

accompanied by the fee prescribed by

40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is

requested, the objections must include a

statement of the factual issue(s) on

which a hearing is requested, the

requestor’s contentions on such issues,

and a summary of any evidence relied

upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A

request for a hearing will be granted if

the Administrator determines that the

material submitted shows the following:

There is genuine and substantial issue

of fact; there is reasonable possibility

that available evidence identified by the

requestor would, if established, resolve

one or more of such issues in favor of

the requestor, taking into account

uncontested claims or facts to the

contrary; and resolution of the factual

issue(s) in the manner sought by the

requestor would be adequate to justify

the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to all the requirements of the

Executive Order (i.e., Regulatory Impact

Analysis, review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)). Under

section 3(f), the order defines

‘‘significant’’ as those actions likely to

lead to 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 known 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 (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 ‘‘significant’’ and is

therefore not subject to OMB review. In

addition, this action does not impose

any enforceable duty, or contain any

‘‘unfunded mandates’’ as described in

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), or

require prior consultation as specified

by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,

October 28, 1993), entitled Enhancing

the Intergovernmental Partnership, or

special considerations as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994).

Pursuant to the requirements 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 a significant

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, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: May 8, 1996.

Daniel M. Barolo,

Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

PART 180—[AMENDED]

Therefore, 40 CFR Part 180 is

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

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

2. By adding § 180.1167 to subpart D

to read as follows:

§ 180.1167 Allyl isothiocyanate as a

component of food grade oil of mustard;

exemption from the requirement of a

tolerance.

The insecticide and repellent Allyl

isothiocyanate is exempt from the

requirement of a tolerance for residues

when used as a component of food

grade oil of mustard, in or on all raw

agricultural commodities, when applied

according to approved labeling.

[FR Doc. 96–12351 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5507–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of deletion of the A.L.

Taylor Superfund Site, Brooks,

Kentucky from the National Priorities

List.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) announces the

deletion of the A.L. Taylor Superfund

Site in Brooks, Kentucky, from the

National Priorities List (NPL) (Appendix

B of 40 CFR Part 300 which is the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)). EPA

and the Commonwealth of Kentucky

have determined that all appropriate

Fund-financed responses under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA), as amended, have been

implemented and that no further

cleanup is appropriate. Moreover, EPA

and the Commonwealth of Kentucky

determined that response actions
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 24895

conducted at the site to date have been

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment. This deletion does not

preclude future action under Superfund.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Liza

Montalvo, Remedial Project Manager,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, North Superfund Remedial

Branch, 345 Courtland Street NE.,

Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347–7791,

extension 2030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is: A.L. Taylor

Superfund Site, Brooks, Kentucky.

A Notice of Intent to Delete for this

site was published in July, 1988. A

Revised Notice of Intent to Delete was

published on March 8, 1996 (FRL–

5436–8). The closing date for comments

on the Revised Notice of Intent to Delete

was April 17, 1996. EPA received no

comments.

EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Any site deleted from the NPL

remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action in the future. Section

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that

Fund-financed actions may be taken at

sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of

a site from the NPL does not affect

responsible party liability or impede

agency efforts to recover costs

associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

waste, Hazardous substances,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recorkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: May 6, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA

Region 4.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757; 3 CFR

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923;

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300

is amended by removing the site A.L.

Taylor, Brooks, Kentucky.

[FR Doc. 96–12485 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

46 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. R–165]

RIN 2133–AB25

Cargo Preference—U.S.-Flag Vessels;

Available U.S.-Flag Commercial

Vessels

AGENCY: Maritime Administration,

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment to the cargo

preference regulations of the Maritime

Administration (MARAD) provides that

during the five year period beginning

with the 1996 Great Lakes shipping

season when the St. Lawrence Seaway

is in use, MARAD will consider the

legal requirement for the carriage of

bulk agricultural commodity preference

cargoes on privately-owned ‘‘available’’

U.S.-flag commercial vessels to have

been satisfied where the cargo is

initially loaded at a Great Lakes port on

one or more U.S.-flag or foreign-flag

vessels, transferred to a U.S.-flag

commercial vessel at a Canadian

transshipment point outside the St.

Lawrence Seaway, and carried on that

U.S.-flag vessel to a foreign destination.

This provision will allow U.S. Great

Lakes ports to compete for certain bulk

agricultural commodity preference

cargoes under agricultural assistance

programs administered by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and

the U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID). This rule will

extend that policy for an additional five

years, after which the Agency would

assess the merits of making the rule

permanent. MARAD issued

substantially identical rules in 1994 and

1995 related to the Great Lakes Shipping

season for each of those years,

respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

E. Graykowski, Deputy Maritime

Administrator for Inland Waterways and

Great Lakes, Maritime Administration,

Washington, DC, Telephone (202)366–

1718.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: United

States law at sections 901(b) and 901b,

Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended

(the ‘‘Act’’), 46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b) and

1241f, requires that at least 75 percent

of certain agricultural product cargoes

‘‘impelled’’ by Federal programs

(preference cargoes), and transported by

sea, be carried on privately-owned

United States-flag commercial vessels,

to the extent that such vessels ‘‘are

available at fair and reasonable rates for

United States-flag commercial vessels,

in such manner as will insure a fair and

reasonable participation of United

States-Flag commercial vessels in such

cargoes by geographical areas.’’ The

Secretary of Transportation wishes to

administer that program so that all ports

and port ranges, including U.S. Great

Lakes ports, may participate in the

carriage of preference cargoes under five

programs administered by the United

States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) and United States Agency for

International Development (USAID),

pursuant to Titles I, II and III of the

Agricultural Trade Development and

Assistance Act of 1954, as amended;

P.L. 480 (7 U.S.C. 1701–1727); the

Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (7

U.S.C. 2791(c)); and the Food for

Progress Act of 1985, as amended (7

U.S.C. 1736).

Prior Rulemakings

On August 18, 1994, MARAD

published a final rule on this subject in

the Federal Register (59 FR 40261). That

rule stated that it was intended to allow

U.S. Great Lakes ports to participate

with ports in other U.S. port ranges in

the carriage of bulk agricultural

commodity preference cargoes. It stated

that dramatic changes in shipping

conditions have occurred since 1990,

including the disappearance of any allU.S.-flag commercial ocean-going bulk

cargo service to foreign countries from

U.S. Great Lakes ports. The static

configuration of the St. Lawrence

Seaway system and the evolving greater

size of commercial vessels contributed

to the disappearance of any all-U.S.-flag

service.

No bulk grain preference cargo has

moved on U.S.-flag vessels out of the

Great Lakes since 1989, with the

exception of one trial shipment in 1993.

Under the Food Security Act of 1985,

Public Law 99–198, codified at 46 app.

U.S.C. 1241f(c)(2), a certain minimum

amount of Government-impelled cargo

was required to be allocated to Great

Lakes ports during the Great Lakes

shipping seasons of 1986, 1987, 1988

and 1989. That ‘‘set-aside’’ expired in

1989, and was not renewed by the

Congress. The disappearance of