Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 33373

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the separate proposed rule.

The EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective August 26, 1996.

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), petitions for

judicial review of this action must be

filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

August 26, 1996. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See Section

307(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.

7607(b)(2)).

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Nothing in this action shall be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for a revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under Section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

revisions provided for under part D of

Title I of the CAA. These rules may bind

State, local and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. To the extent that the rules being

approved by this action will impose no

new requirements, since such sources

are already subject to these regulations

under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action, and therefore

there will be no significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

EPA has also determined that this final

action does not include a mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 19, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42.U.S.C. 7401–7671(q).

Subpart L—Georgia

2. Section 52.570 is amended by

revising subparagraph (c)(37)(i)(A) to

read as follows:

§ 52.570 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(37) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) The following Rules of the Georgia

Department of Natural Resources,

Chapter 391–3–1, Air Quality Control,

became State effective on January 9,

1991.

391–3–1–.01(jjj);

391–3–1–.02(2)(a)4.;

391–3–1–.02(2)(t);

391–3–1–.02(2)(u)2.(i) and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(v)2.(i) and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(w)2.(i) and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(x)2.(i), (iii), and (x)3.(v);

391–3–1–.02(2)(y)2.(i) and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(z)2.(i) and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(aa)2.(i) and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(bb)1.(ii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(cc);

391–3–1–.02(2)(ee)1.(iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(ff)2.(ii)(V) and 3.(iii)(III);

391–3–1–.02(2)(ii)4.(i) and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(jj)2.(i) and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(mm)1.(i), (ii), and (iii);

391–3–1–.02(2)(pp);

391–3–1–.02(2)(qq);

391–3–1–.0292)(rr);

391–3–1–.02(2)(ss);

391–3–1–.02(3)(a);

391–3–1–.02(6)(a)3.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–16343 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS–50601H; FRL–5371–7]

Cyclohexanecarbonitrile, 1,3,3-

trimethyl-5-oxo-; Revocation of a

Significant New Use Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking a significant

new use rule (SNUR) promulgated

under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) for

cyclohexanecarbonitrile, 1,3,3-

trimethyl-5-oxo- based on receipt of new

data. Based on the data the Agency

determined that it could not support a
33374 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

finding that activities described in the

PMN may result in a significant risk.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of

this rule is July 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. E–543A, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:

(202) 554–1404, TDD: (202) 554–0551;

e-mail: TSCA-Hotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of September 23, 1992

(57 FR 44050), EPA issued a SNUR

(FRL–4001–2) establishing significant

new uses for cyclohexanecarbonitrile,

1,3,3-trimethyl-5-oxo-. Because of

additional data EPA has received for

this substance, EPA is revoking this

SNUR.

I. Background

The Agency proposed the revocation

of the SNUR for this substance in the

Federal Register of September 13, 1995

(60 FR 47531) (FRL–4926–1). The

background and reasons for the

revocation of the SNUR are set forth in

the preamble to the proposed

revocation. The Agency received no

public comment concerning the

proposed revocation. As a result EPA is

revoking this SNUR.

II. Background and Rationale for Final

SNUR Revocation of the Rule

During review of the premanufacture

notice (PMN) submitted for the

chemical substance that is the subject of

this final SNUR revocation, EPA

concluded that regulation was

warranted under section 5(e) of TSCA

pending the development of information

sufficient to make a reasoned evaluation

of the environmental effects of the

substance, and that the substance is

expected to be produced in substantial

quantities and there may be significant

or substantial human exposure. EPA

identified the 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 company’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–

50601 (P–90–1358). 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).

§ 721.2225 [Removed]

2. By removing § 721.2225.

[FR Doc. 96–16337 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS–50608D; FRL–5372–1]

Ethane, 1,1,1 Trifluoro-; Revocation of

a Significant New Use Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking a significant

new use rule (SNUR) promulgated

under section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) for

ethane, 1,1,1 trifluoro, based on receipt

of new data. Based on the data the

Agency determined that it could not

support a finding that activities

described in the PMN may result in a

significant risk.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of

this rule is July 29, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. E–543A, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, Telephone:

(202) 554–1404, TDD: (202) 554–0551;

e-mail: TSCA-Hotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of June 8, 1993 (58 FR

32228), EPA issued a SNUR (FRL–4172–

3) establishing significant new uses for

ethane, 1,1,1 trifluoro-. Because of

additional data EPA has received for

this substance, EPA is revoking this

SNUR.

I. Background

The Agency proposed the revocation

of the SNUR for this substance in the

Federal Register of September 13, 1995

(60 FR 47533) (FRL–4911–5). The

background and reasons for the

revocation of the SNUR are set forth in

the preamble to the proposed

revocation. The Agency received no

public comment concerning the

proposed revocation. As a result EPA is

revoking this SNUR.

II. Background and Rationale for Final

SNUR Revocation of the Rule

During review of the premanufacture

notice (PMN) submitted for the

chemical substance that is the subject of

this final SNUR revocation, EPA

concluded that regulation was

warranted under section 5(e) of TSCA

pending the development of information

sufficient to make a reasoned evaluation

of the health effects of the substance,

and that the substance is expected to be

produced in substantial quantities and

there may be significant or substantial

human exposure. EPA identified the