Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33375

tests necessary to make a reasoned

evaluation of the risks posed by the

substance to the human health. Based

on these findings, a section 5(e) consent

order was negotiated with the PMN

submitter and a SNUR was

promulgated. EPA reviewed testing

conducted by the PMN submitter

pursuant to the consent order for the

substance and determined that the

information available was sufficient to

make a reasoned evaluation of the

health effects of the substance. EPA has

determined that it could not support a

finding that activities described in the

PMN may result in a significant risk.

The final revocation of SNUR provisions

for the substance designated herein is

consistent with the revocation of the

section 5(e) order.

In light of the above, EPA is finalizing

a revocation of SNUR provisions for this

chemical substance. When this

revocation becomes final, EPA will no

longer require notice of any person’s

intent to manufacture, import, or

process this substance. In addition,

export notification under section 12(b)

of TSCA will no longer be required.

III. Rulemaking Record

The record for the rule which EPA is

revoking was established at OPPTS–

50608 (P–92–341). This record includes

information considered by the Agency

in developing the rule and includes the

test data that formed the basis for this

finalization.

A public version of the record,

without any Confidential Business

Information, is available in the OPPT

Non-Confidential Information Center

(NCIC) from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except legal holidays.

The TSCA NCIC is located in the

Northeast Mall Basement Rm. B–607,

401 M St. SW., Washington, DC.

IV. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

EPA is revoking the requirements of

the rule. Any costs or burdens

associated with the rule will also be

eliminated when the rule is revoked.

Therefore, EPA finds that no costs or

burdens must be assessed under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), or the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Hazardous materials, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Significant

new uses.

Dated: June 18, 1996.

Charles M. Auer,

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is

amended to read as follows:

PART 721—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 721

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and

2625(c).

§ 721.3254 [Removed]

2. By removing § 721.3254.

[FR Doc. 96–16336 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 799

[OPPT–42030K; FRL–5363–2]

Withdrawal of Final Test Rule for

Mesityl Oxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing the final

test rule for mesityl oxide (MO; CAS No.

141–79–7). EPA has determined that,

since testing of MO has been completed

according to the terms of an enforceable

consent agreement, testing required

under the test rule would be duplicative

and therefore, the test rule is no longer

needed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule shall take

effect on June 27, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), 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.

Internet address: TSCAHotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Basis for this Action

In response to the Toxic Substances

Control Act Interagency Testing

Committee’s designation of mesityl

oxide (MO; CAS No. 141-79-7) as a

priority chemical in its Fourth Report

(44 FR 13866, June 1, 1979), EPA issued

a two-phase final test rule (50 FR 51857,

December 20, 1985 and 52 FR 19088,

May 20, 1987), under section 4 of the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

requiring certain health effects testing to

be conducted on MO. This test rule

appears at 40 CFR 799.2500. Several

manufacturers of MO obtained judicial

review of the rule.

On August 19, 1987, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded

the rule to EPA for reconsideration in

light of additional, post-promulgation

developments (Shell Chemical Co. v.

EPA, 826 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1987)). The

Court stayed the test rule pending EPA’s

reconsideration on remand. In August

1991, EPA entered into an enforceable

consent agreement (ECA) with four

manufacturers of MO that required

those manufacturers to perform certain

health effects tests on MO. A notice was

published in the Federal Register of

September 5, 1991 (56 FR 43878)

announcing the conclusion of the ECA

and describing the testing required by

the consent agreement. The current

notice references previous Federal

Register notices (56 FR 43878,

September 5, 1991; 52 FR 19088, May

20, 1987; and 50 FR 51857, December

20, 1985), that describe the known

health effects of MO and the uses and

exposures associated with this chemical

substance.

The ECA contains a three-test battery

that screens MO for mutagenic,

subchronic, developmental and

reproductive effects. The protocols used

to conduct testing under the ECA are

modeled on the generic protocols

developed by the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) for the Screening

Information Data Set (SIDS) testing

program. The OECD SIDS program is an

international cooperative program for

identifying and developing the test data

needed to screen and set priorities for

chemical substances and mixtures

having a high production volume (HPV)

worldwide. The SIDS/HPV list includes

chemicals, such as MO, for which few

health or environmental effects test data

are available.

Testing of MO under these protocols

has been completed. The test results are

currently being reviewed by the Risk

Management Program within EPA’s

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics, and by the OECD.

Concurrently with the publication of

the notice of the ECA, EPA proposed a

revocation of the mesityl oxide final test

rule (56 FR 43897, September 5, 1991)

since the needed testing would be

carried out under the ECA. No

comments were received in response to

this proposal. Since the needed testing

has been completed in accordance with

the terms of the ECA, by this action,

EPA is withdrawing the final test rule

for MO, by removing the rule from the

Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR

799.2500).
33376 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

II. Rulemaking Record

EPA has established a record for this

rulemaking under docket number

OPPTS–42030K. This record contains

the basic information that EPA

considered in developing this final rule,

and includes the following:

(1) Testing consent order for mesityl

oxide with incorporated enforceable

consent agreement and associated

testing protocols attached as

appendices.

(2) Federal Register notices pertaining

to this final rule and the testing consent

order and enforceable consent

agreement consisting of:

(a) Fourth Report of the TSCA

Interagency Testing Committee (44 FR

31866, June 1, 1979).

(b) First-phase final test rule for

mesityl oxide (establishing testing

requirements) ( 50 FR 51857, December

20, 1985).

(c) Second-phase final test rule for

mesityl oxide (establishing test

standards and reporting requirements) (

52 FR 19088, May 20, 1987).

(d) Notice of enforceable consent

agreement for mesityl oxide (56 FR

43878, September 5, 1991).

(e) Proposed rule to withdraw mesityl

oxide final test rule (56 FR 43897,

September 5, 1991).

A public version of this record which

does not include any information

claimed as confidential business

information (CBI) is available for public

inspection from Noon to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays. The public record is located in

the TSCA Nonconfidential Information

Center, Rm. NE B–607, USEPA, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

III. Economic Analysis

Withdrawal of the MO test rule and

the consequent elimination of the

testing requirements contained in the

rule will reduce testing costs. Therefore,

this action should not cause adverse

economic impact.

IV. Regulatory Assessment

Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency

must determine whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and

subject to the requirements of the

Executive Order. Section 3(f) of 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

a 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 the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this 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 will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

businesses because the action will

relieve the regulatory obligation to

conduct chemical testing.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any 1 year. Before promulgating

an EPA rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and to

adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule.

The provisions of section 205 do not

apply when they are inconsistent with

applicable law. Moreover, section 205

allows EPA to adopt an alternative other

than the least costly, most cost-effective

or least burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating and advising small

governments on compliance with the

regulatory requirements.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, or tribal governments or the

private sector. This rule reduces

enforceable duties on the private sector

by withdrawing a rule that requires

chemical testing.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

OMB has approved the information

collection requirements contained in the

final 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 (EPA

ICR No. 1139). This rule reduces the

public reporting burden associated with

the testing requirements under the final

test rule. A complete discussion of the

reporting burden is contained at 50 FR

51857, December 20, 1985.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799

Chemicals, Chemical export,

Environmental protection, Hazardous

substances, Health effects, Laboratories,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Testing.

Dated: June 20, 1996.

Susan H. Wayland,

Acting Assistant Administrator for

Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.

Therefore, title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, chapter I,

subchapter R, part 799 is amended as

follows:

PART 799—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 799

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.

§ 799.2500 [Removed]

2. By removing § 799.2500.

[FR Doc. 96–16332 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F