Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-07

Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.

FR Doc. 96-2631 Realignment of Jet Route J-588

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2631]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-9]

Realignment of Jet Route J-588

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This amendment alters Jet Route J-588 between the state of 
Michigan and Canada. This action is necessary because the Stirling, ON, 
Canada, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) has been 
decommissioned. Altering J-588 will ensure continuity for aircraft 
transitioning along that jet route to and from the United States and 
Canada.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, April 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia P. Crawford, Airspace and 
Obstruction Evaluation Branch (ATP-240), Airspace--Rules and 
Aeronautical Information Division, Air Traffic Rules and Procedures 
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-3075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 5, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of the 
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to alter Jet Route J-588 
from the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR to the Stirling, ON, Canada, VOR (60 
FR 52133). Interested parties were invited to participate in this 
rulemaking proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to 
the FAA. No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Except 
for editorial changes, this amendment is the same as that proposed in 
the notice. Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 
7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which 
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet route listed in 
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 
alters Jet Route J-588 from the Sault Ste Marie, MI, VOR to the 
Stirling, ON, Canada, VOR. The Stirling VOR was decommissioned in July 
1995. To ensure that continuity exists along J-588 for aircraft 
transitioning to and from the United States and Canada, the jet route 
will be realigned with the Campbellford, ON, Canada, VOR.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an 
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and 
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); 
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the 
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that 
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is 
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71, as follows:

PART 71--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 71 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp. p. 389.

Sec. 71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal 
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and 
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 
1995, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004--Jet Routes

* * * * *

J-588 [Revised]

    From Sault Ste Marie, MI; to Campbellford, ON, Canada. The 
portion within Canada is excluded.
* * * * *
    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 1996.
Harold W. Becker,
Manager, Airspace--Rules and Aeronautical Information Division.
[FR Doc. 96-2631 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 96-2626 Styrene-2-Ethylhexyl Acrylate-Glycidyl Methacrylate-2-Acrylamido- 2-Methylpropanesulfonic Acid Graft Copolymer; Tolerance Exemption

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4591-4592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2626]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180

[OPP-300398A; FRL-4987-6]
RIN 2070-AB78

Styrene-2-Ethylhexyl Acrylate-Glycidyl Methacrylate-2-Acrylamido-
2-Methylpropanesulfonic Acid Graft Copolymer; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a 
tolerance for residues of styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl 
methacrylate-2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer 
when used as an inert ingredient (dispersing agent/solvent) in 
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural 
commodities after harvest. Dow Chemical Co. requested this regulation 
pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective February 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES:  Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the 
document control number, [OPP-300398A], may be submitted to: Hearing 
Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., 
SW., Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing 
requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the 
document control number and submitted to: Public Response and Program 
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of objections and hearing 
requests to Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 
22202. Fees accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance 
Petition Fees'' and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting 
Operations Branch, OPP (Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, 
PA 15251.
    An electronic copy of objections and hearing requests filed with 
the Hearing Clerk may be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail 
(e-mail) to:
    [email protected]
    Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be 
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and 
any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing 
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format 
or ASCII file format. All copies of electronic objections and hearing 
requests must be identified by the docket number [OPP-300398A] . No 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-
mail. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests on this rule 
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional 
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:By mail: Rita Kumar, Registration 
Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and 
telephone number: 2800 Crystal Drive, North Tower, 6th Floor, 
Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8811; e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a proposed rule, published in the 
Federal Register of October 25, 1995 (60 FR 54643), which announced 
that Dow Chemical Co., 1803 Building, Midland, MI 48674-1803, had 
submitted pesticide petition (PP) 5E04461 to EPA requesting that the 
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 346a(e)), amend 40 CFR 180.1001(c) by 
exempting styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-glycidyl methacrylate-2-
acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid graft copolymer when used as an 
inert ingredient (dispersing agent/solvent) in pesticide formulations 
applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after 
harvest, under 40 CFR 180.1001(c). The inert ingredient meets the 
definition of a polymer under 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the criteria listed 
in 40 CFR 723.250(e) that define a chemical substance that poses no 
unreasonable risk under section 5 of the Toxic Substance Control Act 
(TSCA).
    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active 
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not 
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a 
pesticidal efficacy of their own): solvents such as alcohol and 
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty 
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceouse earth; thickeners such 
as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and 
dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; 
microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not 
intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be 
chemically active.
    The data submitted on the proposal and other relevant material have 
been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based on the data 
and information considered, the Agency concludes that the tolerance 
exemption will protect the public health. Therefore, tolerance 
exemption is established as set forth below.
    There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory 
committee received in response to the proposed rule.
    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 a reasonable possibility that available evidence 
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve 

[[Page 4592]]
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).
    EPA has established a record for this rulemaking under docket 
number [OPP-300398A] (including any 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 8 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public 
record is located in Room 1132 of the Public Response and Program 
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of 
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall #2, 
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
    Electronic comments may be sent directly to EPA at:
    [email protected].
    Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the 
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, 
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests 
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received 
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which 
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The 
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the 
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
    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.
    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: January 29, 1996.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Section 180.1001(c) is amended in the table therein by adding 
and alphabetically inserting the inert ingredient, to read as follows:

Sec. 180.1001   Exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *
    (c) *  *  *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Inert ingredients             Limits                 Uses         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
         *        *        *        *        *        *        *        
Styrene-2-ethylhexyl acrylate-   ..............  Dispersing agent/      
 glycidyl methacrylate-2-                         solvent.              
 acrylamido-2-                                                          
 methylpropanesulfonic acid                                             
 graft copolymer, minimum                                               
 number-average molecular                                               
 weight 12,500.                                                         
                                                                        
         *        *        *        *        *        *        *        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-2626 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 96-2624 Metalaxyl; Pesticide Tolerances; Correction

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4592-4593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2624]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180

[PP 2F4072/R2188; FRL-4986-7]

Metalaxyl; Pesticide Tolerances; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects a pesticide tolerance for metalaxyl in 
or on mustard greens that was set forth in a final rule in the Federal 
Register of November 15, 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Connie B. Welch, Product 
Manager (PM) 21, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide 
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, 
DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 227, CM #2, 1921 
Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-305-6226; e-mail: 
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 95-28068 in the Federal Register 
of November 15, 1995, at page 57364, a parts-per-million tolerance for 
mustard greens appeared as 2.0 ppm in the table, although the preamble 
to the document had made clear that the tolerance to be established is 
5.0 ppm. This document corrects the entry for mustard greens in the 
table to 40 CFR 180.408(a) by changing the parts-per-million entry from 
2.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm.

[[Page 4593]]

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.

    Dated: January 27, 1996

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 96-2624 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 96-2622 Avermectin BINF1 and its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Pesticide Tolerances

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4593-4594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2622]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180

[PP 4E4419/R2179; FRL-4981-6]
RIN 2070-AB78

Avermectin B1 and its Delta-8,9-Isomer; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document establishes time-limited tolerances for residues 
of the insecticide avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on 
the raw agricultural commodities dried hops and cattle fat. The 
regulation to establish maximum permissible levels for residues of the 
insecticide was requested in a petition submitted by the Interregional 
Research Project No. 4 (IR-4). The time-limited tolerances for dried 
hops and cattle expire on April 30, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective February 7, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the 
document control number, [PP 4E4419/R2179], may be submitted to: 
Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M 
St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Fees accompanying objections and 
hearing requests shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees'' and 
forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP 
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. A copy of any 
objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be 
identified by the document control number and submitted to: Public 
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division 
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring copy of 
objections and hearing requests to: Rm. 1132, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson 
Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202.
    A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing 
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail 
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and 
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and 
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 5.1 
file format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing 
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP 
4E4419/R2179]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be 
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing 
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be 
found below in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Hoyt L. Jamerson, 
Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Office location and telephone number: Rm. 259, 1921 Jefferson Davis 
Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703)-308-8783; e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 13, 
1995 (60 FR 47529), EPA issued a proposed rule that gave notice that 
the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), New Jersey 
Agricultural Experiment Station, P.O. Box 231, Rutgers University, New 
Brunswick, NJ 08903, had submitted pesticide petition (PP) 4E4419 to 
EPA on behalf of the Idaho, Oregon, and Washington Hop Commissions and 
the Hop Growers of America. The petition requested that the 
Administrator, pursuant to section 408(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(e), amend 40 CFR 180.449 by 
establishing time-limited tolerances for the combined residues of the 
insecticide avermectin B1 [a mixture of avermectins containing 
greater than or equal to 80 percent avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl 
avermectin A1a) and less than or equal to 20 percent avermectin 
B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) 
avermectin A1a)] and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the raw 
agricultural commodities dried hops at 0.5 part per million (ppm) and 
cattle fat at 0.015 ppm.
    There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory 
committee received in response to the proposed rule.
    The data submitted with the proposal and other relevant material 
have been evaluated and discussed in the proposed rule. Based on the 
data and information considered, the Agency concludes that the 
tolerance will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is 
established as set forth below.
    EPA is also revising the introductory text of Sec. 180.449(a) to 
correctly set forth the chemical expression for avermectin B1 in 
the paragraph. The chemical was incorrectly expressed in an amendment 
in the Federal Register of September 30, 1994 (59 FR 49826). This is a 
nonsubstantive change that merely is a restatement of a chemical 
expression.
    Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30 
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file 
written objections and/or request a hearing 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 a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a 
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).
     A record has been established for this rulemaking under docket 
number [PP 4E4419/R2179] (including any objections and hearing requests 
submitted electronically as described below). 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 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public 
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division 
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. 

[[Page 4594]]

    Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the document 
control number [PP 4E4419/R2179], may be submitted to the Hearing Clerk 
(1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 3708, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    A copy of electronic objections and hearing requests filed with the 
Hearing Clerk can be sent directly to EPA at:
    opp-D[email protected]

    A copy of electronic objections and hearing requests filed with the 
Hearing Clerk must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption.
    The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public 
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, 
EPA will transfer any objections and hearing requests received 
electronically into printed, paper form as they are received and will 
place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which will 
also include all objections and hearing requests submitted directly in 
writing. The official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained 
at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 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 the Executive Order, EPA has determined 
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to 
OMB review.
    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: January 26, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec. 180.449, by revising paragraph (a) and by amending 
paragraph (b) by revising the introductory text, to read as follows:

Sec. 180.449   Avermectin B1 and its delta-8,9-isomer; tolerances 
for residues.

    (a) Tolerances, to expire on April 30, 1996, are established for 
the insecticide avermectin B1 [a mixture of avermectins containing 
greater than or equal to 80 percent avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl 
avermectin A1a) and less than or equal to 20 percent avermectin 
B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) 
avermectin A1a)] and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the following 
commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Parts per    Expiration
                   Commodity                      million        date   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat...................................        0.015    April 30,
                                                                    1996
Cattle, meat..................................         0.02          Do.
Cattle, mbyp..................................         0.02          Do.
Citrus, whole fruit...........................         0.02          Do.
Cottonseed....................................        0.005          Do.
Hops, dried...................................          0.5          Do.
Milk..........................................        0.005          Do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) A tolerance is established for the combined residues of the the 
insecticide avermectin B1 [a mixture of avermectins containing 
greater than or equal to 80 percent avermectin B1a (5-O-demethyl 
avermectin A1a) and less than or equal to 20 percent avermectin 
B1b (5-O-demethyl-25-de(1-methylpropyl)-25-(1-methylethyl) 
avermectin A1a)] and its delta-8,9-isomer in or on the following 
commodities:
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-2622 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 96-2620 Practices and Procedures

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4585-4587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2620]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

5 CFR Part 1201

Practices and Procedures

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board) is amending 
appendices II and III to its rules at 5 CFR part 1201 to reflect a 
realignment of the geographical jurisdictions of its regional and field 
offices, effective immediately, and to announce the closing of its St. 
Louis Field Office as of April 1, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Darrell L. Netherton, Director of Regional Operations, (202) 653-5805.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is amending appendices II and III 
to its rules at 5 CFR part 1201 to reflect a realignment of the 
geographical jurisdictions of its regional and field offices, effective 
immediately, and to announce the closing of its St. Louis Field Office 
as of April 1, 1996. This realignment is a continuation of the Board's 
efforts to streamline its operations and will enable the Board to 
continue to respond to the needs of its customers while maximizing the 
use of its financial and human resources.
    The realignment results in the following changes:
    (1) The San Francisco Regional Office is redesignated the Western 
Regional Office. The amendment also reflects the new address and 
facsimile number of this office. The Denver Field Office, previously 
under the Dallas Regional Office, is realigned with the Western 
Regional Office. The geographic areas covered by the Western Regional 
Office and its Denver and Seattle field offices now constitute the 
Western Region.
    (2) The Chicago Regional Office is redesignated the Central 
Regional Office and gains jurisdiction over the geographic areas 
formerly under the St. Louis Field Office, except for its jurisdiction 
in Tennessee as described in item 4 below. The Dallas Regional Office 
is redesignated as a field office. The geographic areas covered by the 
Central Regional Office and its Dallas Field Office new constitute the 
Central Region.

[[Page 4586]]

    (3) The Philadelphia Regional Office is redesignated the 
Northeastern Regional Office. The geographic areas covered by the 
Northeastern Regional Office and its Boston and New York field offices 
now constitute the Northeastern Region.
    (4) The Atlanta Regional Office gains jurisdiction over the area of 
Tennessee west of the Tennessee River and now has jurisdiction over the 
entire state of Tennessee. The geographic areas covered by the Atlanta 
Regional Office now constitute the Atlanta Region.
    (5) There is no change to the jurisdiction of the Washington 
Regional Office. The geographic areas covered by the Washington 
Regional Office now constitute the Washington Region.
    (6) The St. Louis Field Office will close as of April 1, 1996.
    Because appeals and related matters must be filed with the regional 
or field office having geographic jurisdiction, appellants, agencies, 
and other interested parties should carefully review the amended 
regional and field office jurisdictions in appendix II to part 1201 and 
the approved hearing locations in appendix III to part 1201. (The 
approved hearing locations in appendix III are listed in alphabetical 
order by state, and alphabetically by city within each state.) For the 
convenience of its customers, the Board is republishing appendices II 
and III to part 1201 in their entirety.
    Effective as of the date of this notice, all new appeals from the 
geographic areas formerly covered by the St. Louis Field Office should 
be filed with the Central Regional Office in Chicago (except those from 
Tennessee west of the Tennessee River, which should be filed with the 
Atlanta Regional Office). The St. Louis Field Office will continue to 
process its pending caseload until the office closes and cases in 
process are turned over to the Central Regional Office. Parties with 
cases pending before judges in the St. Louis Field Office should 
continue to make any required filings and direct any inquiries to the 
St. Louis Field Office until otherwise advised by the judge assigned to 
their case.
    The Board is publishing this rule as a final rule pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 1204(h).

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 1201

    Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Government 
employees.

    Accordingly, the Board amends 5 CFR part 1201 as follows:

PART 1201--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 1201 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1204, and 7701 unless otherwise noted.

    Appendices II and III to part 1201 are revised to read as follows:

Appendix II to Part 1201--Appropriate Regional or Field Office for 
Filing Appeals

    All submissions shall be addressed to the Regional Director, if 
submitted to a regional office, or the Chief Administrative Judge, 
if submitted to a field office, Merit Systems Protection Board, at 
the addresses listed below, according to geographic region of the 
employing agency or as required by Sec. 1201.4(d) of this part. The 
facsimile numbers listed below are TDD-capable; however, calls will 
be answered by voice before being connected to the TDD. Address of 
Appropriate Regional or Field Office and Area Served:

1. Atlanta Regional Office, 401 West Peachtree Street, N.W., 10th 
floor, Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3519, Facsimile No.: (404) 730-2767, 
(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee).
2. Central Regional Office, 230 South Dearborn Street, 31st floor, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604-1669, Facsimile No.: (312) 886-4231, 
(Illinois; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas City, Kansas; Kentucky; Michigan; 
Minnesota; Missouri; Ohio; and Wisconsin).
2a. Dallas Field Office, 1100 Commerce Street, Room 6F20, Dallas, 
Texas 75242-9979, Facsimile No.: (214) 767-0102, (Arkansas, 
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas).
3. Northeastern Regional Office, U.S. Customhouse, Room 501, Second 
and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-2987, 
Facsimile No.: (215) 597-3456, (Delaware; Maryland--except the 
counties of Montgomery and Prince George's; New Jersey--except the 
counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and Union; Pennsylvania; and West 
Virginia).
3a. Boston Field Office, 99 Summer Street, Suite 1810, Boston, 
Massachusetts 02110-1200, Facsimile No.: (617) 424-5708, 
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 
Vermont).
3b. New York Field Office, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3137-A, New York, 
New York 10278-0022, Facsimile No.: (212) 264-1417, (New Jersey--
counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and Union; New York; Puerto Rico; 
and Virgin Islands).
4. Washington Regional Office, 5203 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1109, Falls 
Church, Virginia 22041-3473, Facsimile No.: (703) 756-7112, 
(Maryland--counties of Montgomery and Prince George's; North 
Carolina; Virginia; Washington, DC; and all overseas areas not 
otherwise covered).
5. Western Regional Office, 250 Montgomery Street, Suite 400, 4th 
floor, San Francisco, California 94104-3401, Facsimile No.: (415) 
705-2945, (California and Nevada).
5a. Denver Field Office, 12567 West Cedar Drive, Suite 100, 
Lakewood, Colorado 80228-2009, Facsimile No.: (303) 969-5109, 
(Arizona, Colorado, Kansas--except Kansas City, Montana, Nebraska, 
New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming).
5b. Seattle Field Office, 915 Second Avenue, Suite 1840, Seattle, 
Washington 98174-1056, Facsimile No.: (206) 220-7982, (Alaska, 
Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Pacific overseas areas).

Appendix III to Part 1201--Approved Hearing Locations By Regional 
Office

Atlanta Regional Office

Birmingham, Alabama
Huntsville, Alabama
Mobile, Alabama
Montgomery, Alabama
Jacksonville, Florida
Miami, Florida
Orlando, Florida
Pensacola, Florida
Tallahassee, Florida
Tampa/St. Petersburg, Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Augusta, Georgia
Macon, Georgia
Savannah, Georgia
Jackson, Mississippi
Charleston, South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee
Memphis, Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee

Central Regional Office

Chicago, Illinois
Indianapolis, Indiana
Davenport, Iowa/Rock Island, Illinois
Des Moines, Iowa
Lexington, Kentucky
Louisville, Kentucky
Detroit, Michigan
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
Kansas City, Missouri
Springfield, Missouri
St. Louis, Missouri
Cleveland, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Dayton, Ohio
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Dallas Field Office

Little Rock, Arkansas
Alexandria, Louisiana
New Orleans, Louisiana
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Corpus Christi, Texas
Dallas, Texas
El Paso, Texas
Houston, Texas
San Antonio, Texas
Temple, Texas
Texarkana, Texas

Northeastern Regional Office

Dover, Delaware
Baltimore, Maryland
Trenton, New Jersey
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania
Charleston, West Virginia
Morgantown, West Virginia

[[Page 4587]]

Boston Field Office

Hartford, Connecticut
New Haven, Connecticut
Bangor, Maine
Portland, Maine
Boston, Massachusetts
Manchester, New Hampshire
Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Providence, Rhode Island
Burlington, Vermont

New York Field Office

Newark, New Jersey
Albany, New York
Buffalo, New York
New York, New York
Syracuse, New York
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Washington Regional Office

Washington, DC
Asheville, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Jacksonville, North Carolina
Bailey's Crossroads, Falls Church, Virginia
Norfolk, Virginia
Richmond, Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia

Western Regional Office

Fresno, California
Los Angeles, California
Sacramento, California
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
Santa Barbara, California
Las Vegas, Nevada
Reno, Nevada

Denver Field Office

Phoenix, Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Denver, Colorado
Grand Junction, Colorado
Pueblo, Colorado
Wichita, Kansas
Billings, Montana
Great Falls, Montana
Missoula, Montana
Omaha, Nebraska
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bismarck, North Dakota
Fargo, North Dakota
Rapid City, South Dakota
Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Salt Lake City, Utah
Casper, Wyoming

Seattle Field Office

Anchorage, Alaska
Honolulu, Hawaii
Boise, Idaho
Pocatello, Idaho
Medford, Oregon
Portland, Oregon
Seattle, Washington
Spokane, Washington
Richland, Kennewick, and Pasco, Washington

    Dated: February 2, 1996.
Robert E. Taylor,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-2620 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-M

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 96-2568 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 63

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4594-4595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2568]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 672

[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 020196A]

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Pollock in Statistical Area 63

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Closure.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting the directed fishery for pollock in 
Statistical Area 63 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is 
necessary to prevent exceeding the first quarterly allowance of the 
total allowable catch (TAC) for pollock in this area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 2, 1996, 
until 12 noon, A.l.t., June 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is 
governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 
672.
    The first quarterly allowance of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 63 
is 3,420 metric tons (mt) (1996 GOA Final Specifications published 
February 5, 1996), determined in accordance with Sec. 672.20(a)(2)(iv). 
The directed fishery for pollock in Statistical Area 63 of the GOA was 
closed under Sec. 672.20(c)(2)(ii) on January 23, 1996 (61 FR 2457, 
January 26, 1996) and reopened on January 29, 1996 (61 FR 3606, 
February 1, 1996). The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional 
Director), has determined, in accordance with Sec. 672.20(c)(2)(ii), 
that the first quarterly allowance of pollock TAC in Statistical Area 
63 soon will be reached. Therefore, the Regional Director has 
established a 

[[Page 4595]]
directed fishing allowance of 3,220 mt after determining that 200 mt 
will be taken as incidental catch in directed fishing for other species 
in Statistical Area 63 in the GOA. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting 
directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 63.
    Maximum retainable bycatch amounts for applicable gear types may be 
found in the regulations at Sec. 672.20(g).

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 1, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-2568 Filed 2-1-96; 4:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 96-2545 Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2545]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 1996 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 4585]]

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 950

RIN 3206-AG50

Solicitation of Federal Civilian and Uniformed Service Personnel 
for Contributions to Private Voluntary Organizations

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document clarifies the final regulations governing the 
Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) which were published on November 24, 
1995, (60 FR 57889). Included in those regulations are the eligibility 
criteria and public accountability standards for participating 
charitable organizations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey C. Lee, 202-606-2564.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this correction, 
superseded 5 CFR 950 on the effective date and affect organizations 
applying for participation in the Combined Federal Campaign.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations regarding the public 
accountability standard for public and government support may mislead 
an otherwise eligible organization which actually has appropriate 
funding sources from applying and/or participating in the CFC. The 
correcting language sets forth the proper accountability process, and 
allows for the correct computation of funding sources to determine if 
the organization meets CFC standards. In addition, Sec. 950.501(b) 
refers to a section which was eliminated from the proposed regulations 
and combined with Sec. 950.501 of the final regulations. Applicant 
charitable organizations will benefit from these clarifications.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 950

    Administrative practice and procedures, Charitable contributions, 
Government employee, Military personnel, Nonprofit organizations, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

PART 950--SOLICITATION OF FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND UNIFORMED SERVICE 
PERSONNEL FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO PRIVATE VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS

    Accordingly, 5 CFR 950 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendments:
    1. The authority citation for Part 5 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: E.O. 12353 (March 23, 1982), 47 FR 12785 (March 25, 
1982). 3 CFR 1982 Comp., p. 139. E.O. 12404 (February 10, 1983), 48 
FR 6685 (February 15, 1983), Pub. L. 100-202, and Pub. L. 102-393 (5 
U.S.C. 1101 Note).

Sec. 950.203  [Corrected]

    2. In Sec. 950.203, paragraph (a)(10) is revised to read as 
follows:

Sec. 950.203  Public accountability standards.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Certify that the organization has received no more than 80 
percent of its total support and revenues from government sources as 
computed by dividing line 1c by line 12 from the IRS Form 990 submitted 
pursuant to Sec. 950.203(a)(3).

Sec. 950.501  [Corrected]

* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 950.501, in paragraph (b) remove ``Sec. 950.502'' and 
insert, ``Sec. 950.501(a)'' in its place.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-2545 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M

Complete official Federal Register PDF

FR Doc. 96-2495 Air Quality; Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic CompoundsExclusion of Perchloroethylene

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4587-4591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2495]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4588]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-5416-7]

Air Quality; Revision to Definition of Volatile Organic 
Compounds--Exclusion of Perchloroethylene

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action revises EPA's definition of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) for purposes of preparing State implementation plans 
(SIP's) to attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 
for ozone under title I of the Clean Air Act (Act) and for the Federal 
implementation plan (FIP) for the Chicago ozone nonattainment area. 
This action adds perchloroethylene (perc), also known as 
tetrachloroethylene, to the list of compounds excluded from the 
definition of VOC on the basis that it has negligible photochemical 
reactivity. Perc is a solvent commonly used in dry cleaning, maskant 
operations, and degreasing operations. This rule results in more 
accurate assessment of ozone formation potential and will assist States 
in avoiding exceedances for the ozone health standard. The rule does 
this by causing control efforts to focus on compounds which are actual 
ozone precursors, rather than giving credit for control of a compound 
which has negligible photochemical reactivity.
    Perc will continue to be regulated as a hazardous air pollutant 
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. EPA has already issued 
regulations limiting emissions of perc from dry cleaning and 
halogenated solvent cleaning and as a feedstock in the organic chemical 
manufacturing industry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective March 8, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to section 307(d)(1) (B), (J), and (U) of the Act, 
42 U.S.C. section 7607(d)(1) (B), (J), and (U), this action is subject 
to the procedural requirements of section 307(d). Therefore, EPA has 
established a public docket for this action, A-92-09, which is 
available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Johnson, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards 
Division (MD-15), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone (919) 541-
5245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 8, 1977, EPA published a recommended policy on control of 
VOC (42 FR 3513) which discussed the photochemical reactivity of 
organic compounds and their role in the formation of tropospheric 
ozone. This policy statement identified several compounds that are 
considered to be of negligible photochemical reactivity and which are 
not required to be controlled in order to prevent the formation of 
tropospheric ozone. The policy was subsequently amended on June 4, 1979 
(44 FR 32042), May 16, 1980 (45 FR 32424), July 22, 1980 (45 FR 48941), 
January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1988), and March 18, 1991 (56 FR 11418) to add 
compounds to those already recognized by EPA as having negligible 
photochemical reactivity.
    On October 24, 1983, EPA proposed to add perc to the list of 
negligibly-reactive compounds which would be exempt from regulation 
under SIP's to attain the NAAQS for ozone. This proposal was based upon 
a laboratory testing program that investigated perc's role in the 
tropospheric ozone problem. The study concluded that perc contributes 
less to the ambient ozone problem than equal concentrations of ethane 
(one of the negligibly-reactive organic compounds previously exempted 
from ozone SIP controls). The details of this investigation are 
contained in the EPA report, ``Photochemical Reactivity of 
Perchloroethylene,'' EPA-600/3-83-001, January 1983. A copy has been 
placed in the docket (A-92-09) for today's action.
    In the October 24, 1983 proposal, comments were solicited on the 
proposed action. The EPA received 20 comments on the proposal. None of 
the commenters questioned the technical judgment that perc is 
negligibly reactive and has an insignificant impact on ozone formation. 
However, there was quite a divergence of opinion as to the action EPA 
should take in response to the new findings on the reactivity of perc, 
many of which related to concerns about perc as a toxic air pollutant. 
Because of these concerns, EPA determined at that time to take no final 
action on the proposal.
    Subsequently, the Act as amended listed perc as a hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) under section 112(b). Pursuant to section 112(d), EPA 
has issued national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP) for two major perc source categories: perc dry cleaning, 
September 22, 1993 (58 FR 49354), and halogenated solvent cleaning, 
December 2, 1994 (59 FR 61801). Additional releases which may result 
from perc production or use as a feedstock are addressed by the NESHAP 
for the hazardous organics (chemicals) industry promulgated April 22, 
1994 (59 FR 19402). These two applications, together with the use of 
perc as feedstock in chemical production, account for 90% of current 
perc production. Pursuant to section 112(e) of the amended Act, the EPA 
will be issuing hazardous pollutant emissions standards for various 
other categories including several other perc sources through November 
15, 2000. On January 28, 1992, the Halogenated Solvents Industry 
Alliance (HSIA) petitioned EPA to exempt perc from regulation as an 
ozone precursor under the Act. This request was based on HSIA's 
contention that perc is negligibly photochemically reactive and does 
not contribute to tropospheric ozone formation. The HSIA identified, as 
the technical basis for its contention that perc is negligibly 
reactive, the October 24, 1983 proposal (48 FR 49097) by EPA to amend 
its ``Recommended Policy on Control of Organic Compounds'' to exempt 
perc from regulation on the basis of its negligible photochemical 
reactivity.
    On February 3, 1992 (57 FR 3941), pursuant to a proposed rule 
issued March 18, 1991 (56 FR 11418), EPA promulgated a general 
definition of VOC (40 CFR 51.100(s)) as part of EPA's regulations 
governing the development of SIP's. That action also incorporated the 
VOC definition into various SIP-related rules, including EPA's new 
source review rules and the FIP rules for the Chicago area. This 1992 
regulatory definition superseded the July 8, 1977 policy statement as 
well as the subsequent revisions to that policy. In accordance with the 
policy on which it was based, the regulatory definition excludes a 
number of organic compounds from the definition of VOC on the basis 
that they are negligibly photochemically reactive and therefore 
contribute negligibly to tropospheric ozone formation. This list of 
negligibly-reactive compounds contained the compounds originally 
identified in the 1977 policy statement plus other compounds that have 
been recognized by EPA subsequent to the 1977 policy statement as 
having negligible photochemical reactivity. Further, EPA has revised 
this definition twice through rulemaking (59 FR 50693 and 60 FR 

[[Page 4589]]
31633). Perc was not included in the list of negligibly photochemically 
reactive compounds in this definition.
    On October 26, 1992, EPA proposed to revise its definition of VOC 
(40 CFR 51.100(s)) by adding perc to the list of compounds that are 
regarded as negligibly photochemically reactive. Final action based on 
that October 26, 1992 proposal is being taken today.

II. Comments on Proposal and EPA Responses

    In accordance with section 307(d) of the Act, as amended in 1990, 
today's action is accompanied by a response to each of the significant 
comments, criticisms, and new data submitted in written or oral 
presentations during the comment period. Eight commenters (a labor 
union, an environmental organization, a municipal government, two trade 
associations, and three manufacturing companies) submitted written 
comments in response to EPA's October 26, 1992 proposal. Most of the 
comments support the proposed action. Copies of these comments are 
located in the docket (A-92-09) for this action. Significant comments 
and EPA's responses are summarized below. Finally, in the proposal for 
today's action, EPA indicated that interested persons could request 
that EPA hold a public hearing on the proposed action (see section 
307(d)(5)(ii) of the Act). The EPA did not receive any such requests 
for a public hearing and, therefore, did not hold one.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested that the proposal should be 
delayed or withdrawn until it has been established that the public 
health is adequately protected by controls on emissions of perc from 
all sources. This concern is brought about, in part, by the fact that 
perc is listed as a HAP in section 112 of the Act. These commenters 
refer to the toxicity hazard of the compound and to the possibility 
that it may be a human carcinogen. One of these commenters stated that 
there are sources of perc, other than dry cleaning, for which EPA has 
not yet proposed NESHAP which would define the maximum available 
control technology level of control for the source. Such sources 
include degreasing, use in paints and architectural coatings, 
adhesives, use for maskants in the aerospace industry, and 
miscellaneous uses in the manufacture of aerosol spray paints and 
cleaners, pharmaceuticals, textiles, printing inks, and dielectric 
fluids for power transformers. These sources will not be controlled as 
VOC sources if perc is excluded from the definition of VOC.(Note--The 
NESHAP for halogenated solvent cleaning had not yet been promulgated 
when this comment was submitted.)

    Response: The EPA's purpose in promulgation of the general 
definition of VOC (40 CFR 51.100(s)) is for use in the preparation of 
SIP's designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS for ozone. That 
definition of VOC lists several compounds which are considered to have 
negligible photochemical reactivity and, therefore, are exempt from the 
VOC definition. Based on the criteria used to judge the reactivity of 
compounds for this list, EPA has determined that perc should be added 
to the list of compounds as not contributing substantially to the 
formation of ground level ozone. Further, EPA believes that based on 
perc's non-reactivity it is inappropriate to allow States to continue 
to take credit for perc reductions in ozone non-attainment planning.
    Compounds that are defined as being HAP are required to be 
controlled under section 112 of the Act which calls for EPA to develop 
a NESHAP for sources of the listed compounds. Perc is listed as a HAP 
in section 112 of the Act. The EPA believes that the control of HAP, 
including perc, under section 112 of the Act is the proper approach to 
controlling these emissions. EPA shares the concerns regarding perc's 
toxicity. Acute and chronic inhalation exposure to perc results in 
central nervous system effects. Further, EPA's science advisory board 
(SAB) has advised the Agency that perc should be classified as a 
carcinogen; the SAB found that the scientific evidence of 
carcinogenicity falls on the continuum between ``B2'' probable and a 
``C'' possible. For these reasons EPA believes that regulation under 
section 112 of the Clean Air Act is appropriate. As noted previously, 
EPA already has taken steps to regulate the great majority of perc 
emissions and plans to issue further regulations for the remaining 
major sources which release perc to the atmosphere. Further, EPA has 
the authority to regulate additional source categories--if EPA 
identifies any such sources. EPA today reaffirms its intention to 
ensure that adequate public health protection from perc emissions is 
provided through these programs.
    Today's action improves our ability to provide public health 
protection from the effects of ground level ozone. The rule does this 
by causing control efforts to focus on compounds which are actual ozone 
precursors, rather than giving credit for control of a compound which 
has negligible photochemical reactivity. And since the Agency already 
has made substantial progress in issuing necessary NESHAPs, EPA does 
not agree that the proposal to add perc to the negligibly reactive list 
in the definition of VOC should be delayed until all evaluations of 
perc emissions under section 112 of the Act are complete. Further, 
representatives of trade associations for manufacturers and end-users 
of perchloroethylene have stated that they believe that 
perchloroethylene consumption in consumer products and related products 
(and therefore associated emissions) will not increase dramatically as 
a result of this action. We have received commitments from industry 
associations to survey or otherwise track how consumption of 
perchloroethylene in these kinds of products changes. Should EPA become 
aware of significant increases in perchloroethylene emissions or in 
public exposure from such sources, EPA will then consider appropriate 
regulatory action.
    Comment: One commenter noted that exempting perc as a VOC would 
mean that the control techniques guideline (CTG) for perc dry cleaning 
(``Control of Volatile Organics Emissions from Perchloroethylene Dry 
Cleaning Systems''; EPA 450/2-78-050, December 1978) would no longer 
apply. In addition, the proposed NESHAP for the dry cleaning industry 
(56 FR 64382, December 9, 1991) would exempt many small sources that 
the CTG covers. Therefore, the public will have greater exposure to a 
suspected carcinogen than if perc continues to be controlled as a VOC 
for purposes of meeting reasonably available control technology. 
(Note--Since these comments were received, the dry cleaning NESHAP has 
been promulgated.)
    Response: EPA is confident that the recently promulgated NESHAP 
increases public health protection above levels achieved by the 
formerly applicable CTG. It is true that the NESHAP for dry cleaning 
exempts small-sized dry cleaners from additional control requirements 
for process emissions, albeit fewer small sources than initially 
proposed. The decision to limit requirements on these smallest sources 
was made based on deliberations considering the extreme impacts of the 
control costs on these very small sources. All sources must now comply 
with pollution prevention requirements such as leak detection and 
repair. EPA further notes that the control requirements for most 
sources are considerably more stringent under the recent NESHAP than 
under the CTG. The NESHAP results in nationwide decreases in perc 
emissions of 32,400 Mg (35,700 T) each year beyond controls existing 
due to the CTG or other State rules. 

[[Page 4590]]

    Comment: One commenter cited as unfair the section of the proposed 
rule change that would prohibit the use of perc emission reduction 
credits (ERC) which were achieved prior to the proposed revision as VOC 
offsets or in netting transactions. The commenter asserted that such a 
prohibition would have a negative financial impact on companies that 
spent money in good faith to reduce perc emissions and to bank 
emissions credits prior to the rule change. A second commenter 
suggested that treating perc as a VOC may interfere with attainment of 
the ozone NAAQS. This second commenter attached a January 8, 1992 
letter from the San Diego Air Pollution Control District to EPA which 
took a critical view of having to issue ERC for substantial reductions 
in emissions of perc. This letter said:

    Under the existing VOC definition, these ERC's may now be used 
to offset emission increases from the new sources of VOC whose 
photochemical reactivity is not negligible, resulting in a net 
increase in ozone precursors. The use of perchloroethylene ERC's as 
offsets exacerbates the District's severe ozone nonattainment 
problem since the emission increase in reactive compounds would not 
be truly offset.

    Response: The EPA is deferring its decision concerning whether 
credits for perc, which were banked prior to today's action, may be 
used in future netting, offsetting or trading transactions with 
reactive VOC. Because of the potential impact that banked emissions 
could have on attainment demonstrations and reasonable further progress 
showings, EPA needs to conduct further discussions with States on this 
issue.
    Comment: One commenter supported the withdrawal of the appropriate 
CTG's simultaneously with any final rulemaking.
    Response: There are two CTG's which refer to perc, the solvent 
metal cleaning CTG and the perc dry cleaning CTG (``Control of Volatile 
Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022, 
November 1977, and ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Systems,'' EPA-450/2-78-050, December 
1978). The solvent metal cleaning CTG discusses a number of other 
solvents in addition to perc, and the technology discussed in this CTG 
would often apply to any of several solvents that are used for 
degreasing. The perc dry cleaning CTG is aimed specifically at 
controlling perc.
    Today's action in promulgating this final rule means that, for 
purposes of ozone control, the perc dry cleaning CTG no longer has the 
legal status of a CTG. The solvent metal cleaning CTG is no longer 
considered to be a CTG for controlling perc emissions. However, the 
solvent metal cleaning CTG is still applicable as a CTG in regards to 
all other solvents which are VOC. Although these two documents are no 
longer regarded as CTG's as related to perc, they remain effective as 
technical guidance documents; States may still use the documents as 
sources of technical information when developing rules to control toxic 
materials.

III. Final Action

    Today's final action is based upon the material in Docket No. A-92-
09 and EPA's review and consideration of all comments received during 
the public comment period. As provided in EPA's October 26, 1992 
proposal and as modified in response to comments described above, EPA 
hereby amends its definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) to exclude 
perchloroethylene (also known as tetrachloroethylene) as a VOC for 
ozone SIP purposes. The revised definition will also apply in the 
Chicago ozone nonattainment area pursuant to the 40 CFR 52.741(a)(3) 
definition of volatile organic material or volatile organic compounds. 
States are not obligated to exclude from control as a VOC those 
compounds that EPA has found to be negligibly reactive. However, after 
the effective date of this final action, EPA will not enforce measures 
controlling perc as part of a federally-approved ozone SIP. In 
addition, after the effective date of this final action, States may not 
take credit for controlling perc in their ozone control strategies.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because it relaxes current regulatory requirements rather than 
imposing new ones. The EPA has determined that this rule is not 
``significant'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is, 
therefore, not subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. 
This action does not contain any information collection requirements 
subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 and/or tribal government(s) in the aggregate. Since 
today's action is deregulatory in nature and does not impose any 
mandate upon any source, the cost of such mandates will not result in 
estimated annual costs of $100 million or more.
    Assuming this rulemaking is subject to section 317 of the Act, the 
Administrator concludes, weighing the Agency's limited resources and 
other duties, that it is not practicable to conduct an extensive 
economic impact assessment of today's action since this rule will relax 
current regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator simply 
notes that any costs of complying with today's action, any inflationary 
or recessionary effects of the regulation, and any impact on the 
competitive standing of small businesses, on consumer costs, or on 
energy use, will be less than or at least not more than the impact that 
existed before today's action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of 
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF 
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 51.100 is amended by revising paragraph (s)(1) 
introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 51.100  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (1) This includes any such organic compound other than the 
following, which have been determined to have negligible photochemical 
reactivity: methane; ethane; methylene chloride (dichloromethane); 
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform); 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane (CFC-113); trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11); 
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12); 

[[Page 4591]]
chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22); trifluoromethane (HFC-23); 1,2-
dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114); chloropentafluoroethane 
(CFC-115); 1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123); 1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a); 1,1-dichloro 1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b); 
1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b); 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124); pentafluoroethane (HFC-125); 1,1,2,2-
tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134); 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a); 1,1-
difluoroethane (HFC-152a); parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF); cyclic, 
branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes; acetone; 
perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene) and perfluorocarbon compounds 
which fall into these classes:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-2495 Filed 2-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Complete official Federal Register PDF