[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4605-4607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2205]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 721
[OPPTS-50563A; FRL-6050-7]
RIN 2070-AB27
Diphenyl-2,4,6-Trimethylbenzoyl Phosphine Oxide; Withdrawal of
Proposed Significant New Use Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a proposed significant new use rule (SNUR)
for diphenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl phosphine oxide based on receipt of
new data. Based on the new data the Agency no longer finds that
activities not described in the Premanufacture Notice (PMN) for this
substance may result in significant changes in human or environmental
exposure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director,
Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-531, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202)
[[Page 4606]]
554-1404, TDD: (202) 554-0551; e-mail: TSCA-H[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Availability: Electronic copies of this document are
available from the EPA Home Page at the Federal Register-Environmental
Documents entry for this document under ``Laws and Regulations''
(http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/).
In the Federal Register of February 2, l988 (53 FR 2857), EPA
proposed a SNUR to be codified at 40 CFR 721.855 establishing
significant new uses for diphenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl phosphine
oxide. Because of additional data EPA has received for this substance,
EPA is withdrawing this proposed rule.
I. Background
The Agency proposed the SNUR for diphenyl-2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl
phosphine oxide in the Federal Register of February 2, 1988 (53 FR
2857). The background and reasons for the SNUR are set forth in the
preamble of the proposed rule. After the proposed SNUR, EPA received a
90-day oral subchronic study in rats for the substance. The study
resulted in a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 100
milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day). There were effects noted in the
liver, blood, and testes at 300 and 1000 mg/kg/day but there was no
significant evidence of neurotoxic effects at any dose. EPA had
expressed concerns for severe neurotoxicity hazard in the proposed
SNUR. Based on this data, EPA no longer finds that activities not
described in the PMN may result in significant changes in human
exposure and is withdrawing the proposed rule.
II. Rationale for Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule
During review of the PMNs submitted for the chemical substance that
is the subject of this withdrawal, EPA concluded that regulation was
warranted based on available information that indicated activities not
described in the PMN might result in significant changes in human
exposure. Based on these findings, a SNUR was proposed.
Based on the submitted test data, EPA no longer finds that
activities other than those described in the PMN may result in
significant changes in human exposure. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing
the proposed SNUR for this chemical substance. When this withdrawal is
published in the Federal Register, export notification under section
12(b) of TSCA will no longer be required.
III. Public Record
The official record for this proposed rule, as well as the public
version, has been established for this proposed rule under docket
control number OPPTS-50563A (including comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 12 noon to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official
record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm.
NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC.
IV. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders
This proposed rule does not impose any requirements. As such, this
action does not require review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). For the same reason, it does not require
any action under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) or Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
since this type of action does not require any proposal, no action is
needed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may
not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that creates
a mandate upon a State, local, or tribal government, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA
must provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local, and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's proposed rule does not create an unfunded Federal mandate
on State, local, or tribal governments. The proposed rule does not
impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities,
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the
mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to OMB, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This proposed rule does not
involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 4607]]
Dated: January 19, 1999.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 99-2205 Filed 1-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F