[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77823-77824]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32088]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0218; FRL-9501-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Metallic Mineral
Processing Plants (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 13,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0218, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2822IT, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30
days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0218, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to either submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 0982.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0016.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2011.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for

Metallic Mineral Processing Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart LL) were
promulgated on February 21, 1984, and amended on October 17, 2000. This
NSPS affects both owners and operators of metallic mineral processing
plants.
    Owners and operators must conduct initial performance tests,
maintain records of startups, shutdowns, malfunctions, and continuous
monitoring system parameters, and submit semiannual reports. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance; and, in general, are required of all sources subject to
NSPS.
    Notifications are to inform the Agency or delegated authority when
a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may
then inspect the source to check if the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operating, and that the standards are being met.
Performance test reports are required as these are the Agency's records
of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standards
and to serve as a record of the operating conditions under which
compliance are to be achieved. The information generated by monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements described in this ICR are
used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the standard
continue to operate the control equipment and achieve continuous
compliance with the regulation.
    All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority. In
the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL, as
authorized in section 112 and 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required
information consists of emissions data and other information that have
been determined to be private.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for the EPA
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 52
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Metallic mineral processing plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,306.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $233,712, which includes $220,712 in
labor costs, no capital/startup costs, and $13,000 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours to
the respondents in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. After
consulting the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and
trade associations, our data indicates that there are approximately 20
sources subject to the rule, with no additional new sources over the
next three years.
    However, there is an increase in the estimated burden cost as
currently identified in the OMB Inventory of approved Burdens. The
increase is not due to any program changes, but the change in burden is
due to the use of the most updated labor rates.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-32088 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 71398-71399]
[DOCID:fr17de07-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13036-000]

BPUS Generation Development, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

December 10, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 13036-000.
    c. Date filed: September 28, 2007.
    d. Applicant: BPUS Generation Development, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Mount Morris Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Genesee River in Livingston County, New York. It would
use the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Mount Morris Dam.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Jeffrey M. Auser, P.E., BPUS Generation
Development, LLC, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY
13088,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-13036-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project using the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' Mount Morris Dam and operated in a run-of-river
mode would consist of: (1) A new 50-foot long, 50-foot wide, 30-foot
high concrete powerhouse and associated switchyard; (2) two 50-foot-
long, 18-foot-diameter steel penstocks; (3) a new tailrace channel
immediately downstream, river left, of the existing Corps' outlet
works; (4) one turbine/generator unit with an installed capacity of 5
megawatts; (5) a new 3,603-foot long above ground transmission line
extending from the switchyard near the powerhouse northeast to an
interconnection point with an existing transmission line owned by
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation; and (6) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed Mount Morris Dam Project would have an average annual
generation of 20 gigawatt-hours.
    l. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy
is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
item h above.
    m. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    n. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license

application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    o. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    p. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    q. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    r. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    s. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24303 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69916-69918]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28306]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0129]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of an
Approved Information Collection Request; Training Certification for
Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval. On May 17, 2012, FMCSA published a Federal
Register notice allowing for a 60-day comment period on the ICR. The
agency received no comments in response to this notice.

DATES: Please send your comments by December 21, 2012. OMB must receive

your comments by this date to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2012-0129. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC, 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Training Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0028.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved ICR.
    Respondents: Entry-level CDL drivers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 397,500.
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.
    Expiration Date: November 30, 2012.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 66,250 hours. FMCSA estimates that
an entry-level driver requires approximately 10 minutes to complete the
tasks necessary to comply with the regulation. Those tasks are
photocopying the training certificate, giving the photocopy to the
motor carrier employer, and placing the original of the certificate in
a personal file. Therefore, the annual burden for all entry-level
drivers is 66,250 hours [397,500 x 10/60 minutes to respond = 66,250
hours].

Background

    The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. 31301 et
seq.) established the CDL program and directed the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), FMCSA's predecessor agency, to establish minimum
qualifications for issuance of a CDL. After public notice and an
opportunity for comment, the FHWA established driver knowledge-and-
skills standards. The Agency required the States to ensure by testing
that each CDL applicant meets these standards before issuing a CDL to
the applicant.
    In 1985, the FHWA published ``Model Curriculum for Training
Tractor-Trailer Drivers'' (Model Curriculum). In the years following,
the FHWA did not mandate driver training for three principal reasons.
First, the Agency did not believe it could justify the use of the
considerable Agency resources that would be required to develop and
sustain a nationwide, comprehensive driver-training program. Second,
the FHWA believed that the level of safety of entry-level drivers would
soon be improving because the States were nearing the deadline for
enforcing the new mandatory CDL-licensing knowledge-and-skills
standards. Third, many truck-driving schools were strengthening their
training curricula in light of the new Model Curriculum (``Truck
Safety: Information on Driver Training,'' Report of the U.S. General
Accounting Office, GAO/RCED-89-163, August 1989, pages 4 and 5).
    In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 (ISTEA) (Public Law 102-240, December 18, 1991) directed the FHWA
to ``commence a rulemaking proceeding on the need to require training
of all entry-level drivers of CMVs'' [Section 4007(a)(2)]. On June 21,
1993, the FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled, ``Training for All Entry-Level Drivers of Commercial Motor
Vehicles (CMVs)'' (58 FR 33874). The Agency also began a study of the
effectiveness of the driver training currently being received by entry-
level CMV drivers. The results of the study were published in 1997
under the title ``Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver
Training'' (Adequacy Report), which is available under FMCSA Docket
1997-2199 at the Federal eRulemaking Portal (www.regulations.gov)
described above. The study found that CMV drivers (i.e. drivers of
heavy trucks, motorcoaches, and school buses) were not receiving
adequate entry-level training.
    On August 15, 2003, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators'' (68 FR 48863). The Agency proposed
mandatory training for entry-level CMV operators hauling property (not
passengers), thereby addressing the vast majority of the CMV drivers
identified by the Adequacy Report. FMCSA proposed entry-level training
on four topics it believed would provide the greatest benefit to the
safety of CMV operations: Driver qualifications, hours-of-service of
drivers, driver wellness and whistle-blower protection. On May 21,
2004, after a period of public comment, FMCSA published a rule
prohibiting a motor carrier from allowing an entry-level driver
employee to operate a CMV transporting property until he or she
provided the carrier with a duly-executed certificate indicating that
he or she had been trained in the four subject areas noted above (69 FR
2004). The rule became effective on July 20, 2004. Training providers
were required to provide a certificate to each driver trainee receiving
the requisite training.
    In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit held that FMCSA failed to consider important factors identified
by the Adequacy Report in developing its entry-level driver-training
rule. While the Court left the 2004 rule in place, it also directed the
Agency to give the rule further consideration consistent with its
decision. On December 26, 2007, FMCSA proposed revised minimum
standards for the mandatory training of entry-level CDL drivers (72 FR
73226). The Agency has analyzed the public comments received in
response to the notice, and is continuing to develop a final rule on
this subject.

Definitions

    (1) ``Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations'' (FMCSRs) are parts
350-399 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (2)
``Commercial motor vehicle'' (CMV) means a motor vehicle or combination
of motor vehicles used in commerce to transport passengers or property
if the motor vehicle--(a) has a gross combination weight rating of
11,794 kilograms or more (26,001 pounds or more) inclusive of a towed
unit(s) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds), or (b) has a GVWR of 11,794 or more
kilograms (26,001 pounds or more), or (c) is designed to transport 16
or more passengers, including the driver, or (d) is of any size and is
used in the transportation of hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR
383.5 (49 CFR 383.5). The definition of CMV found at 49 CFR 390.5 of
the FMCSRs is not applicable to this notice. (3) ``Commercial Driver's
License (CDL) Driver'' means the

operator of a CMV because such operators must possess a valid
commercial driver's license (CDL)(Section 383.23(a)(2)). (4) ``Entry-
level CDL Driver'' means a driver with less than one year of experience
operating a CMV with a CDL (49 CFR 380.502(b)).
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued on: November 8, 2012.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-28306 Filed 11-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


., OPPT 2002 0075 0002 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 JAN23 AM 9: 53 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 15765 required incormation to the US. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804 ( 2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and record keeping requirements. Environmental protection.

Dated: March 19, 1998.

James Jones, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Progranis.

amended as follows: Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is PART 180  [ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180 Authority: 21 U. S. C. 346aand 371. continues to read as follows:

9 180.442 [ Amended]

tolerance listed ror ` Vegetables, Cucurbits" in the table under paragraph ( b) by changing the expiration date " 4/ 30/ 98" to read " 4/ 30/ 99".

[ FR Doc. 98 8216 Filed 3 31 98; 8: 45 am] 2. In 5 180.442, by amending the BILLING CODE 6560 50 F ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 716 [ OPPTS 421886; FRL 5750 41 RIN 2070 AD17 Revisions to Reporting Regulations Under TSCA Section 8( d)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Direct h a 1 rule.

SUMMARY: As a part of EPA's 1994 regulatory review, the reporting requirements under section 8( d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) were reviewed Tor burden reduction opportunities. As a result of this review, EPA is revising its TSCA section 8( d) health and safety data reporting rule that requires chemical manuracturers ( including importers) and processors of listed substances and listed mixtures to report unpublished health and safety studies. Revisions include changes to the categories of persons required to report. the types of studies and the grade/ purity of the substance for which reporting is required, the reporting period, and the measure of adequacy of the file search needed to comply with the requirements of TSCA section 8( d). Additionally, EPA is amending the sunset date for all chemical substances and mixtures listed in 40 CFR 716.120, for which reporting is currently required. Furthermore, because of this change in the reporting period, EPA will no longer conduct a biennial review of the chemical substances and mixtures listed in 40 CFR 716.120. The Agency's goal is to streamline the reporting requirements while maintaining the ability to protect human health and the environment through the collection of data regarding potential risks. DATES: Effective date: June 30, 1998. Comment date: All comments must be received by EPA by May 1, 1998. If EPA receives adverse comments to this direct final rule by May I , 1998, EPA will issue a notice to withdraw this direct final rule and seek comment on the issue raised. After considering the comments submitted, EPA will respond to comments received in a final rule that is published in the Federal Register. If no adverse comments to this direct final rule are received, this rule will become effective as a final rule on the date specified above. ADDRESSES: Each comment must bear the docket control number OPPTS 42188B. All comments should be sent in triplicate to: OPPT Document Control Officer ( 7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 1 M St., SW., Room G 099, East Tower, Washington, DC 20460. Comments and data may also be submitted electronically to: oppt. ncic@ epamail. epa. gov. Follow the instructions under Unit IV. of this document. No Confidential Business Information ( CBI) should be submitted through e mail.

information claimed as CBI must be clearly marked as such. Three sanitized copies of any comments containing information claimed as CBI must also be submitted and will be placed in the public record for this rulemaking. Persons submitting information on any portion of which they believe is entitled to treatment as CBI by EPA must assert a business confidentiality claim in accordance with 40 CFR 2.203( b) for each such portion. This claim must be made at the time that the information is submitted to EPA. If a submitter does not assert a confidentiality claim at the time of submission, EPA will consider this as a waiver of any confidentiality claim and the information may be made All comments which contain available to the public by EPA without further notice to the submitter. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director, Environmental Assistance Division ( 7408). Rm. ET 543B, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, USEPA, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: ( 202) 554 1404; TDD: ( 202) 554 0551; e mail: TSCA Hotline@ epamail. epa. gov. For specific information regarding this rule, contact Keith Cronin, Project Manager, Chemical Control Division ( 7405), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, US. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460: telephone: ( 202) 260 8157: fax: ( 202) 260 1096; e mail: cronin. keith@ epamail. epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability:

Internet 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/ TOX/) . Fax on Demand and select item 4301 for a copy of this document and select item 4057 for a copy of 40 CFR 716.120 revised in its entirety. Regulated persons. Potentially regulated persons are those that manufacture ( including import) or process chemical substances and mixtures. Regulated categories and entities include: Electronic copies of this document are Using a faxphone call 202 401 0527 Examples of regulated per sons Industry Chemical manufacturers ( in cluding import ers), chemical processors, and petroleum refiners.

This table is not exhaustive, but lists the types of persons that could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of persons may also be regulated. To determine whether a person is regulated by this action, carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 716. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular person, consult the person listed under " FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT" at the beginning of this document. EPA believes this revised rule will significantly decrease the reporting burden by eliminating many of the file 15 766 Federal RegisterIVol. 63, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 1998 / Rules and Regulations searches conducted in compliance with TSCA section 8( d), eliminating many of the reporting systems which have been designed to track TSCA section 8( d) chemical substances, and eliminating the submission of data that are typically unnecessary to determine data needs. EPA is publishing this action as a direct final rule. without a proposal and prior opportunity for comment, because the action suhstantially reduces existing reporting requirements under TSCA section 8( d), the Agency views the action as noncontroversial, and the Agency anticipates there will be no significant adverse comments. EPA believes that there will be no adverse reaction to this action because it substantially reduces the reporting burden associated with TSCA section 8( d) Health and Safety Data reporting requirements while still providing EPA with the needed data. In addition, EPA discussed these changes with a majority of the information providers and users, and received a favorable response. It is in the interest of the regulated community and EPA to avoid delaying the implementation of this action due to the burden reduction that would be achieved from the time it becomes effective as a final rule. The shared interest of EPA and the regulated community in this action indicates that these revisions will be received favorably and without adverse comment. Tlierel` ore, notice and public procedure are unnecessary prior to the publication of this direct final rule. Nonetheless, adverse comments may be submitted on chis action as directed under " ADDRESSES" at the beginning of this document. If EPA receives adverse comments, this direct final rule will be withdrawn before the effective date through publication of a document in the Federal Register. If this direct final rule i s withdrawn, any public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent proposed rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this action must do so a t this time. If no adverse comments are received, the public is advised that [ his action will become erfective on June 30. 1998. I. Introduction The TSCA section 8( d) Health and Safety Data Reporting rule ( 40 CFR part 716) sets forth requirements for the submission of lists and copies of health and safety studies on chemical substances and mixtures selected for priority consideration for testing rules under section 4( a) of TSCA and on other substances and mixtures for which EPA requires health and safety information to identify data needs and/ or to support chemical risk assessment/ management activities. The rule requires manufacturers ( including importers) and processors to submit to EPA unpublished health and safety studies on the substances and mixtures listed at 40 CFR 716.120. EPA is revising the categories of persons required to report, the types of studies and the purity/ grade of the substance on which studies were performed for which reporting is required, the reporting period, and the measure of adequacy of the file search needed to comply with TSCA section 8( d). A. Background On October 11, 1976, the President signed the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA), 15 U. S. C. 2601 et seq., to " regulate commerce and protect human health and the environment by requiring testing and necessary use restrictions on certain chemical substances * Section 8( d) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2607( d), directs the EPA Administrator to promulgate rules that require the submission of lists of health and safety studies and copies of the studies pertaining to chemical substances and mixtures in commerce. This section of TSCA requires " any person who manufactures ( includes imports), processes, or distributes in commerce or who proposes to manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce any chemical substance or mixture" to submit to EPA lists and copies of health and safety studies available to them. The regulations implementing TSCA section 8( d) are found at 40 CFR part 716. Under the current section 8( d) regulations, EPA requires the submission of unpublished health and safety studies on specified chemicals from manufacturers ( including importers) and processors of the chemicals. Studies of human health and environmental effects, including studies of exposures to people and the environment, are the fundamental ingredients of any assessment of chemical risk. EPA requires reporting under these regulations for specific chemicals that are under investigation either in the early stages of risk assessment or when action to control exposure is being considered.

promulgated. chemicals and mixtures are added and subtracted from the list in 40 CFR 7 16.120. The process by which these modifications are made has evolved over the years. Particularly significant changes in the process described at 40 CFR part 7 16 occurred on October 4, 1982, when a rule ( 47 FR 38780) \ vas published that set up a process for adding chemicals recommended for testing by the TSCA * "

As TSCA section 8( d) rules are Interagency Testing Committee ( ITC) without the opportunity for prior notice and comment ( 40 CFR 71 6.105( b)). For such chemicals, amendments made to 40 CFR 716.120, the list of chemicals subject to section 8( d) reporting requirements, become effective as direct final rules thirty days after publication of a document in the Federal Register. B. Role of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee ( ITC) The TSCA Interagency Testing Committee ( ITC) is an independent committee that was created in 1976 under section 4( e) of TSCA, 15 U. S. C. 2603( e), to make recommendations to the Agency about chemicals for which data are needed. The statute specifies that the ITC consists of eight statutory members, appointed by and drawn from the following organizations: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), Department of Labor ( DOL) ( appointee is drawn from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA)), Council on Environmental Quality ( CEQ), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS) , National Cancer Institute ( NCI) , National Science Foundation ( NSF), and the Department of Commerce ( DOC). Currently, eight other Federal Agency members are participating on a liaison basis: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR), Consumer Product Safety Commission ( CPSC), Department of Agriculture ( USDA), Department of Defense ( DOD), Food and Drug Administration ( FDA), Department of the Interior ( DOI) , National Library of Medicine ( NLM), and the National Toxicology Program ( NTP). The chemical substances and mixtures recommended by the ITC to the EPA for priority consideration for proposed test rules under TSCA section 4( a) comprise a list called the Priority List. Chemical substances and mixtures may he recommended to be added to the Priority List based on the ITC's consideration of factors such as production volume, exposure, and availability of data regarding health and environmental effects. When the ITC recommends chemicals for testing, EPA issues amendments in the Federal Register to add to the list of recommended chemicals subject to reporting requirements under TSCA section 8( a) ( 40 CFR 712.30) and TSCA section 8( d) ( 40 CFR 716.120).

infrastructure to rapidly prioritize inter Agency data needs on many industrial chemicals. The ITC has the authority to The ITC provides an existing Federal RegisterIVol. 63, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 15767 designale chemical substances and mixtures on the Priority List with respect to which the ITC determines the Administrator should initiate rulemaking proceedings pursuant to TSCA section 4( a). Within 12 months of the date of first inclusion on the Priority List of a chemical substance or mixture designated by the ITC, TSCA directs the Administrator to initiate rulemaking proceedings or publish in the Federal Register the reasons for not doing so.

Administrator to meet focused Federal data needs under TSCA section 4( e). EPA plans io focus its TSCA section 8( d) reporting requirements to reduce the resources that are consumed to retrieve and submit section 8( d) studies ( on the part of industry), log in. store and index studies ( on the part of EPA), and summarize and review studies ( on the part of ITC). Further, in its 40th Report to the Administrator, the ITC has recommended to EPA that procedures be established by the Agency that offer industry opportunities to submit voluntarily the types of data required under TSCA section 8( a) and 8( d) and establish cooperative efforts with the ITC to support TTC efforts in evaluating chemicals for testing under TSCA ( 62 FR 30580, June 4, 1997). C. The Need for Change reinventjon initiative. EPA has reviewed its reporting requirements under section 8( d) of TSCA. The Agency's goal is to streamline the reporting requirements while maintaining the availability of the data or its ability to acquire the data necessary to protect human health and the envjronment. The current opportunity lo revise the section 8( d) rule is the result of the " regulatory rerorm" evaluation efforts undertaken as a result of a Presjdential regulatory reform initiative of March 16, 1995 entitled " Reinventing Environmental Regulation." The rationales for reinvention activities are manifold, however, a central principle is that "[ rjegulation must be designed to achieve environmental goals in a manner that minimizes costs to individuals, businesses. and other levels of government." ( Ref. 1) Over the years, EPA has received a variety of comments concerning the implementation of section 8( d). Extensive comments have been received on many topics, including the definition of the term " processor," reporting requirements for waste streams, and reporting requirements for modeling and monitoring information. In December 1987, the Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA) The ITC recommends chemicals to the As one part of its regulatory developed a comprehensive report ( Ref. 2) suggesting a variety of revisions and, in June 1996, provided the following lis1 of suggested revisions in descending order of importance to CMA and its members ( Ref. 3):

to one year for section 8( d) related information.

modeling studies.

requirements.

mixtures.

waste streams.

reporting. ( 1) Reduce ten year reporting period ( 2) Revise reporting of monitoring and ( 3) Revise processor reporting ( 4) Reduce reporting of studies on ( 5) Exempt reporting requirements for ( 6) Eliminate study initiation ( 7) Clarify file search issue. ( 8) Clarify guidance on reporting of international studies. ( 9) Establish a voluntary call in prior to issuing TSCA section 8( d) reporting rules.

list of TSCA section 8( d) chemicals by CAS registry number. ( 1 1) Exclude health and safety studies managed by other environmental regulations to avoid duplicate reporting. ( 12) Eliminate reporting of quantitative risk assessment and structure activity analysis. ( IO) Establish an electronic up to date ( 1 3) Eliminate less useful studies. ( 14) Provide for alternative forms of required reporting. D. The Public Meeting Federal Register notice ( 61 FR 43546) inviting all interested parties to attend a public meeting in Washington, DC on September 12, 1996, to discuss possible amendments to the TSCA section 8( d) rule. The meeting was well attended with over 65 representatives of manufacturers, processors, trade associations, and other interested parties. Each of the above issues was discussed and time for comments was provided. At the meeting, EPA requested that comments on the above or any other issues be submitted in writing for consideration by the Agency. Additional comments were submitted, especially relating to the issue of definition of the term " processor" and whether processors should be required to submit health and safety data under section 8( d) of TSCA. The comments received from all sources have been analyzed and evaluated ( Ref. 4) and the general issues are addressed in Unit 11. of this document. On August 23, 1996, EPA published a 11. Revisions to TSCA Section 8( d) Regulations A. Background methods by which it can acquire chemical substance and mixture data needed to protect human health and the environment. Section 8( d) provides EPA with the authority to promulgate rules requiring the submission of studies that are initiated by the submitter, as well as studies conducted by the submitter in the past and studies the submitter knows of or may reasonably ascertain. A chemical substance or mixture that is not subject to an section 8( d) rule may still be subject to other TSCA reporting requirements. Section 8( e) requires manufacturers, processors and distributors to report any information regarding a chemical substance or mixture which reasonably supports the conclusion that the substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. Studies that are not otherwise required to be reported under section 8( e) are typically the kind of studies required to be reported under section 8 ( d) . Data relating to chemical substances and mixtures that are not reportable under TSCA section 8 may be obtained by EPA through the promulgation of a test rule under section 4 of TSCA. Once findings are made by EPA under section 4( a), EPA must promulgate a rule requiring the testing of chemical substances and mixtures to develop health and environmental effects data. B. Persons Who Must Report regulations, any person who manufacturers ( including imports) or processes a chemical substance or mixture listed under 40 CFR 7 16.120 must submit to EPA copies of available health and safety studies upon request by EPA Currently, there is no category or sector limitation on reporting. By this rulemaking, reporting of health and safety studies would be required only by manufacturers ( including importers) who fall under the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) in effect as of January 1, 1997, replacing the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (( SIC): 62 FR 17288, April 9, 1997), Subsector 325 ( chemical manufacturing and allied products) and Industry Group 324 1 1 ( petroleum refiners), unless otherwise required in a specific rule. EPA believes that this narrowing of the scope of reporting, on a routine basis, will reduce the burden imposed on industry to comply with TSCA section 8( d), while still providing EPA and other Federal agencies with the TSCA provides EPA with a variety of Under the current TSCA section 8( d)

3 15768 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 1998 i Rules and Regulations d a b necessary to protect human health and the environment. A number or organizations have suggested that the definition of the term " processor" under TSCA section 8( d) should be reevaluated. Commentors suggested CWQ options: ( 1) Revise the derinition to focus reporting requirements on manufacturers ( jncluding importers), rather than on " chemical users," who buy chemicals and mixtures and then use them to manufacture non chemical products. such as articles. ( 2) Use appropriate Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) codes ( replaced by the North American Industry Classification System, NAICS, in 1997). At the present time, the term " processor" may be broadly defined to include a far larger audience than intended on a routine basis.

300 submitters of the roughly 11,000 submissions of TSCA section 8( d) information received LO date, and has categorized them by submitter type ( Ref. 4). The vast majority of submitters are individual chemical manufacturers or associations representing chemical manufacturers Palling under NAICS Subsector 325 and Industry Group 324 11, which are heavily concentrated on the chemicaL, allied products, and petroleum refining industries. Examination oi` some o  the processor submissions indicates very limited data have been submitted by them and typically only in the form of industrial hygiene/ monitoring data. Thus, narrowing the overall scope of persons who must report on a routine basis would likely have a negligible impact on the type and comprehensiveness of the information submitted under section 8( d). The rule's rocus on those entities that actually submit studies ensures that virtually all o  the data that have been reported in the past will continue to be reported. Health and safety data submitted under section 8( d) are typically those studies that are not otherwise reportable under section 8( e), the " substantial risk" information reporting provision of TSCA. Further, studies reportable under section 8( e) must be submitted within a specific time kame by a broader range of persons, i. e., manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors. I n a specific section 8( d) rule, EPA may require reporting of health and safety studies from all manufacturers ( including importers) and processors of a chemical substance. In this way, EPA reserves the ability to require more information from a much wider EPA Ihas analyzed the approximately audience in exceptional circumstances, while reducing the burden to industry on a routine basis. C. Reporting Period The reporting period for health and safety studies under TSCA section 8( d) is currently 60 days for existing data, and 10 years for new data, after the effective date on which a listed chemical substance or listed mixture is added to 40 CFR 716.120, unless the listed substance or listed mixture is removed from 40 CFR 7 16.120 prior to the lapse of the standard reporting period. EPA is revising 40 CFR 716.65, Reporting period, to only require a standard one time reporting, which will include the requirement that all existing studies be reported within 60 days of the 40 CFR 716.120 listing, instead of the present 10 year reporting requirement. EPA believes this will provide a significant burden reduction Tor industry while having little effect on the availabilitv of data to EPA and the ITC ( Refs. 5 a i d 6). When a substance from the TSCA section 4( e) Priority List is listed at 40 CFR 7 16.120, existing studies are required to be reported within 60 days of the listing, then the ITC examines the submitted data, usually within a year, to see if test data are already available in the areas of concern. The ITC has only rarely used data that have been submitted after the first year. Once the ITC recommends a chemical for testing, EPA may write a rule requiring testing or obtain the test data through specific enforceable consent agreements ( ECA) with individual companies or groups of companies who volunteer to conduct the needed testing. This may take one to several years after the initial 40 CFR 716.120 listing. Although it is important for EPA to know about any testing initiated after the first year, EPA expects this information to still be forthcoming to EPA in a timely manner. Industry groups subject to a test rule, or with which EPA is negotiating an ECA, are likely to be knowledgeable about any relevant testing that is underway or will in fact be the ones conducting the testing. Examination of the EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions ( TSCATS) database ( Ref. 4) indicates that most of the section 8( d) submissions are made shortly after the initial listing of a chemical substance. Any new studies that offer reasonable support for a conclusion of substantial risk, would still be required to be submitted immediately under TSCA section 8( e). In addition, many companies submit to EPA other new studies on a " For Your Information" ( FYI) basis. The present revisions to the rule leave section 8( d) as the primary mechanism to obtain older studies, not new studies, and require that industry track the chemical for 60 days to make sure that any data that should be submitted under section 8( d) are collected and transmitted to EPA, within this new time frame. Should this direct final rule become effective, EPA will sunset all current reporting requirements for all chemicals listed at 40 CFR 7 16.120 for which reporting is currently required, except for those chemicals about which EPA was notified that a study had been initiated or is underway. For those chemicals, reporting is required until receipt of the final report is received by EPA. At the present time, the 60 day reporting period for all chemicals and mixtures listed at 40 CFR 7 16.120 has elapsed. Experience has shown prospective reporting to be very limited and therefore, it is likely that EPA has received all relevant data except for chemicals for which EPA has received notice of studies initiated during the initial 60 day period or those studies underway at that time.

D. Initiated Studies The existing regulations at 40 CFR 716.35( a)( 2) and 40 CFR 716.60( b)( l) require that EPA be notified within 30 days about studies initiated during the current IO year reporting period and that the Agency be provided with information including the date on which the study was commenced, the purpose of the study, the types of data to be collected, the anticipated date of completion, and the name and address of the laboratory conducting the study. EPA is revising 40 CFR 716.65 to only require notification of study initiation that occurs during the 60 day reporting period. EPA believes that this revision will reduce the burden imposed on industry without reducing the data available to EPA and other Federal agencies to protect human health and the environment. Several comments ( Ref. 4) received in response to the public meeting held on September 12, 1996, have suggested that for short term toxicity studies, any notification is of little value because within a short time the final versions of these studies would be submitted. It was also suggested that it would require considerable effort to track the initiation of other types of studies, such as monitoring studies. In addition, it was suggested by some industry groups that it would be to their benefit to voluntarily notify EPA of these planned studies in order to ensure the completeness of data known to EPA, as Y Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 62 I Wednesday, April 1, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 15 769 the Agency will make decisions on required testing of a chemical substance or mixture under section 4 of TSCA based upon the data available. Historically. i'ew studies have been initiated during the TSCA section 8( d) reporting period. Thus, the revisions made in this rulemaking should result in a reduction in burden related to reporting by industry and in burden of reviewing by EPA. Persons who are subject to che rule under 40 CFR 716.35 ( a) (' 2) or ( a) ( 3) and who have submitted to EPA lists of ongoing or initiated studies under 40 CFR 716.35 ( a)( l) or ( a)@) must slill submit the final report or the study within 30 days after its completion regardless of the study's completion date.

E. Studjes to be Repol t ed A present general requirement of 40 CFR part 716 is that all health and safety data available on a listed chemical substance or listed mixture must be reported when requested by EPA. EPA is narrowing the focus of the reporting requirements to specifically identi y data needs on listed chemical substances or listed mixtures which meet or exceed certain grade/ puri ty requirements. EPA believes that this approach reduces the amount of routine reporting of health effects studies and mixture studies which are in many cases of little value in Agency and ITC decision making. Following the September 12, 1996, public meeting, EPA met with the ITC to discuss potential revisions to the Agency's regulations under TSCA section 8( d). The ITC recommended that the Agency focus its needs for section 8( d) data to reduce the resources that are spent by: industry to submit section 8( d) studies, EPA to computerize and store studies, and ITC to review studies. In order to facilitate such focused requests for information, EPA will require reporting of studies on particular effects of a chemical recommended by the ITC. In order to facilitate the identification or data needs, the EPA will specify the type( s) of health and safety data needed by the ITC ( see the following table for sample of effects data; environmental fate and exposure data may also be requested by the ITC). By being as specific as possible in identifying data needs, EPA will allow some companies that have indexed their health and safety studies to quickly identify relevant information for submission. Also, there may be some instances when the ITC cannot specifically identify the type of health and safety data needed ( e. g., when a chemical has high exposure and little toxicity data). In such a situation, the reporting requirement may be significantly broader in scope. In all cases, the ITC will provide the rationale to EPA for its requests for studies of interest. EPA will also specify the chemical grade/ purity for which reporting is required. If studies meeting the EPAs chemical/ grade purity specifications are not reported, the ITC may consider requesting studies on mixtures containing the recommended chemical, and EPA will reserve the ability to require that mixtures containing a listed chemical substance are subject to reporting under a specific TSCA section 8( d) rule. In the past, the ITC has typically only reviewed studies on mixtures if there were no available studies on the relatively pure chemical. The reduction in the routine reporting of studies on mixtures that would occur upon promulgation of this direct final rule should provide significant burden relief to industry, not because of the quantity of studies that are typically reported on mixtures, but because of the difficulty in identifying the mixtures that contain a listed substance. By no longer routinely requesting mixture studies, EPA will expend fewer resources computerizing and storing studies and ITC will spend less time reviewing studies that are in many cases of little value in Agency and ITC decision making. The following table is a hypothetical example of the types of existing studies for which EPA may be interested in obtaining for a chemical or mixture which meets or exceeds certain grade/ purity criteria. This table should not be interpreted as setting forth future reporting requirements for a given chemical substance or mixture; rather it is a sample of the type of table which could be printed in the Federal Register setting forth certain identified data needs necessary for risk characterization for a specific chemical substance or mixture meeting specified grade/ purity criteria in a new section of rules issued under section 8( d). Data needs and grade/ purity would be indicated in the appropriate boxes. Data needs may include health, ecological, and/ or environmental fate studies. A particular organism ( e. g., rat) or route of exposure ( e. g., inhalation) may provide the most relevant data for decision making purposes, therefore, identification of a particular test species or route of exposure will be made where applicable.

Examples of Health, Ecological, andlor Environmental Effects Studies Which Can Be Requested Under TSCA Section 8( d)

Test species Route Of expo I sure ~

CAS registry 1 Gradelpurity of test sub no. stance Study types Chemical name 1 , chemical name 2, chemical name 3. chemical name xxx xx x xxx xx x xxx xx x technical grade or better ( XX%).

99.9% mixtures 75% or greater H El isu bchronic EE*/ acute toxicity EF3/ hydrolysis EE/ reproductive toxicity EF/ octanol Water partition Coefficient Mammals Fish fres hwater na4 Fish Marine na DermaVoral na na na na HE, health effects. 2 EE, ecological effects. 3 EF, environmental fate. 4 na, not applicable.

F. Adequate File Search TSCA section 8( d) studies requires searching all " active" files or records kept by the company personnel responsible for keeping such records or providing advice on health and environmental effects of chemicals. In this rulemaking, EPA is limiting 40 CFR The former approach for reporting 716.25 to require file searches only for reportable information dated on or after January 1, 1977, the effective date of TSCA, unless a subsequent section 8( d) rule requires a more extensive search.

5 15770 Federal Register IVol. 63, NO. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 1998 / Rules and Regulations EPA believes that this revision will also result in an additional reduction in burden to both industry and EPA. Over the years, commenters have suggested that file searches have resulted in considerable burden due to the reporting of some rather old studies which are less likely to meet current needs clue to changing protocols to achieve state or the art science and lack of application of Good Laboratory Practice Standards ( GLPS). The GLPS were promulgated in 1978 ( Food and Drug Administration) and the mid 1980' s ( EPA, 40 CFR part 792). For example, in earlier studies, fewer animals were used for oncogenicity, developmental, reproductive, and subchronic studies; monitoring of animals' health status by breeders was less rigorous: and chemical analytical methods were not as sensitive. However. ljmicing reporting of studies to only a certain time frame preceding the date of the listing of the substance could result in useful studies not being reported to EPA and ITC. Consequently. EPA would reserve the right to request such studies through a more extensive search.

exceptional circumstances, establishing a single date after which all files should be searched will remove the confusion that currently exists with respect to " active" and " retired" files. EPA will continue to accept the submissions of older studies that may meet the regulatory needs of EPA and ITC, but these would be submitted on a voluntary rather than obligatory basis by industry, unless a rule makes submission mandatory. However, because swdies conducted prior to the effective date or TSCA may be the only source of relevant data on a chemical, EPA may, under certain circumstances. require file searches for reportable information dated before January 1, 1977. Industry will have a considerable jncentive to voluntarily submit older " good" studies, because the alternative is that EPA may require testing under section 4 of TSCA i f sufficient relevant test data are not forthcoming. Additionally, section 8( e) would remain applicable to studies, regardless of age, required to be reported pursuant to that section.

111. Refinements to the TSCA Section 8( d) Information Collection Program A. The Volii~ iiary Program For over twenty years, the ITC has received voluntary data submissions from manufacturers, importers, processors and users of chemicals recommended by the ITC and has EPA believes that in all but engaged in dialogue with several chemical industry trade associations and their members to discuss the needs for these data. Such dialogue provides opportunities to discuss in a more focused way data needed by ITC member organizations, and may in some cases result in the ITC obtaining sufficient information to remove a chemical from the Priority List provided by the ITC to EPA. The following are examples that illustrate the significance of these activities: ( 1) Discussions between the ITC and CMA's Propylene Glycol Ethers Panel resulted in the provision of data and facilitated the removal of propylene glycol ethers from the Priority List ( 60 FR 42982, August 17, 1995). ( 2) Discussions between the ITC and Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council ( SEHSC) resulted in the provision of data and facilitated the removal of many siloxanes from the Priority List ( 61 FR 4188. February 2, 1996). Recently, most additions to the list of chemical substances and mixtures subject to TSCA section 8( d) reporting requirements ( 40 CFR 7 16.120) have been the result of additions by the ITC to the TSCA section 4( e) Priority List. Voluntary data submissions by numerous chemical companies and trade associations to the ITC have been helpful in identifying the important commercial chemicals that require testing and identifying the types of tests that need to be conducted. A request for the voluntary submission of health and safety data prior to the promulgation of a section 8( d) rule for a recommended chemical was issued by the ITC in its 40th Report to the EPA Administrator ( 62 FR 30580, June 4, 1997). Such requests provide an opportunity for industry representatives to voluntarily submit information related to the ITC's testing or informational needs. When responding to requests, a letter ( or e mail) of intent to submit the information must be received by the ITC no later than 30 days after the date the ITC Report is published in the Federal Register. If the ITC receives a " letter of intent," followed by a voluntary information submission, the ITC will make a decision regarding the need for additional information following its review of all relevant information. If no " letter of intent" ( or e mail) is received, the ITC will request in its next Report that EPA promulgate a TSCA section 8( d) rule requiring the reporting of health and safety studies on the recommended chemical substance or mixture. B. Electronic Submissions an interest for a number of years in the development of a means for providing electronic submissions of TSCA section 8( d) related data. This interest was stimulated for the following reasons: ( 1) Electronic submissions would reduce costs to industry and the EPA by eliminating copying time and charges. ( 2) Electronic submissions would cut the large amount of paper generated with each submission. ( 3) Electronic submissions could be linked to tracking systems to ease document management efforts by EPA, ITC, and industry. ( 4) Electronic submissions would have the potential to be searchable and permit easier review. ( 5) Electronic submissions could be more easily and rapidly transferred to end users allowing potential real time assessment of submissions. ( 6) Electronic submissions could be " uploaded" to existing databases. ( 7) Electronic submissions may be readily made publicly available through existing and new information dissemination vehicles. Currently, three areas related to electronic submissions of TSCA section 8( d) data are under consideration: ( 1) Cover sheets for section 8( d) The EPA, ITC, and industry have had documents.

section 8( d) documents. ( 2) Bibliographic data and abstracts of ( 31 Electronic copies of full text section 8( d) documents. Documents containing confidential business information ( CBI) must not be submitted electronically. Electronic submissions of section 8( d) data are considered public information by the Agency. The current status of the above efforts is as follows:

abstract submittal. Standardized coversheets have been designed by a committee consisting of members from EPA and industry. These coversheets Co versheets, bibliographic data and provide the information required for entry of data into EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions ( TSCATS) database as well as some additional data desired by the Agency. Currently EPA is investigating the possibility of placing templates of this coversheet on a World Wide Web page to permit easy access and a means for transmitting completed cover sheets to EPA, and matching transmitted coversheets to the paper copies of the section 8( d) documents when they are received by EPA. These coversheets will provide a standardized form for submittal of data whether used in Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 1998 / Rules and Regulations 15771 electronic form or as a paper attachment to a section 8id) document. As part of this effort, industry would submit bibliographic data ( title, submitter, laboratory), indexing terms ( as they are used in the TSCATS database) and abstracts of section 8( d) documents submitted. Some industry groups have indicated that there is little incentive to develop the means to submit these data electronically if they normally only submit a few studies or if their files are not currently in electronic form. EPA agrees that current incentives are lacking, but feels that, with time, inclustry ( particularly large corporations) \ Aiill have " computerized" file structures, and electronic filing may provjde industry with a cost savings. If EPA establishes its data needs now, industry can accommodate them, at little expense. when developing electronic files. With advance knowledge of Lhese data elements, industry can ensure that any database developed w i l l be compatible with electronic submission of section 8( d) information.

development or systems to accommodate submission of full text documents in electronic form will assist in reducing storage space, providing easily read documents, and potentially allowing the searching of documents for specific subjects. EPA anticipates that electronic documents would be provided in a variety of file formats including. but not limited to, standard word processing files, images. and combinations OF these, and any system developed would need to accommodate all formats. Information from laboratory studies. particularly raw data, is still typically maintained in handwritten I` orm, and unless a specific company has its own reason for converting this maierial to eleclronic form, there is little incentive io convert for submission to EPA. In addition, industries who submit relatively few documents may initially prefer paper submission. For these reasons, jndusiry has encouraged EPA Lo develop means for receiving submissions in electronic form, while also maintaining the current process for receiving paper copies of TSCA section 8( d) submissions. EPA believes there are a number of advantages to developing the means to submit section X( d) information in electronic form, thus the development of these procedures will continue. The current system or paper submissions will be continued because of the cost of converting to electronic submissions, particularly [ or those who submit relatively few documents or do not currently have their files computerized. Full Lex1 eleclronic documents. The It is anticipated, however, that in the future, more companies will have electronic files and that there will be a cost savings associated with the submission of section 8( d) documents by electronic filing. As the means to submit documents electronically progresses, EPA will address issues concerning document security, integrity and authenticity. C. Updated List of Chemicals for which TSCA Section 8( d) Reporting is Required Currently, when a chemical or chemical class appears on the section 4( e) Priority List, an amendment to the section 8( d) regulations at 40 CFR 716.120, effective thirty days after publication in the Federal Register, requires submission of all health and safety studies for 10 years after the notice is published. EPA has also made the section 8( d) list at 40 CFR 716.120 available on EPA's Home Page through a World Wide Web Site ( http:// www. epa. gov). Under the revised section 8( d) rule, EPA has reduced the reporting period, in general, from 10 years to 60 days. Because of this change in the reporting period, EPA will no longer conduct biennial review of chemical substances and mixtures listed at 40 CFR 716.120. EPA is amending the sunset date for all chemical substances and mixtures listed at 40 CFR 716.120, for which reporting is currently required, to June 30, 1998. Nevertheless, EPA will continue to publish each chemical or mixture on the list at 40 CFR 716.120, including the sunset date, for a period of 5 years. In a specific section 8( d) rule, EPA may, in certain circumstances in which it has identified a continuing need for information, continue to list chemical substances and mixtures at 40 CFR 71 6.120 for a period of time not to exceed 2 years. In this way, EPA reserves the ability to require the reporting of information during periods longer than 60 days where EPA believes that new and potentially significant data may be generated beyond the 60 day period, while reducing the burden of industry on a routine basis. IV. Public Record and Electronic Submissions rulemaking, as well as the public version, has been established for this rulemaking under docket control number OPPTS 42 188B ( including comments and data submitted electronically as described below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments. which does not include any The official record for this information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 12 noon to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official rulemaking record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm. NE B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at: oppt. ncic@ epamail. epa. gov Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in Wordperfect 5.1/ 6.1 or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the docket control number OPPTS 42188B. Electronic comments on this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. A. Supporting Documentation information considered in developing this Rule and includes the following information: Federal Register notice of Public Meeting for TSCA Section 8( d) Revision, ( August 23, 1996, 61 FR 43546). Communications consisting of: ( a) Written letters. ( 1) AAMA 81 AIAM. 1996. Comments This record contains the basic of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers on EPA's TSCA Section 8( d) Reinvention Initiative, November 1, 1996, Washington, DC. ( 2) AIA. 1996. Letter from Roundtree, G. to Frank Kover, OPPT, EPA for TSCA Section 8( d) Revision Project, Aerospace Industries Association, October 15, 1996, Washington, DC. ( 3) API. 1996. Comments of the American Petroleum Institute on EPA's Review of Reporting Requirements Under Section 8( d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, November 1, 1996, Washington, DC.

Public Document Office. " OPPTS 82038 TSCA Section 8( d) Guidance on Modeling Health and Safety Studies." March 4, 1992, 3M, St. Paul, MN 55144. ( 5) Adams, G. L. 1995. Letter to TSCA Public Document Office. " OPPTS 84030 TSCA Section 8( d) ." October 19, 1995,3M, St. Paul, MN 55144. ( 6) Christman, M. H. 1992. Letter to TSCA Public Document Office. Comments on Docket Control Number OPPTS 82038: " Questions and Answers: Applicability of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) Section 8( d) Model Health and Safety Reporting Rule ( 40 CFR Part 716) to Modeling ( 4) Adams, G. L. 1992. Letter to TSCA 15772 Federal Register IVol. 63, No. 62 I Wednesday, April 1, 1998 I Rules and Regulations Studies." 57 FR 1723 ( January 15, 1992), April 1. 1992, DuPont, Wilmington, Delaware 19898. ( 7) CMA. 1988. Letter to Joseph Merenda, Director, Existing Chemical Assessment Division, EPA, May 2, 1988, Washington, DC. ( 8) CMA. I99 1. Letter to Mark Greenwood: Director, Office of Toxic Substances, EPA, August 26, 1991, Washington, DC. ( 9) CMA. 1996. Recommendations of the Chemical Manufacturers Association for Reform in EPA's Reporting Requirements Under Section 8( d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, October 15. 1996, Washington. DC. ( I 0) Green, D. H. 1994. Letter to Patricia A. Roberts, Office of General Counsel, EPA, for Regulations of Wastes Under TSCA, October 6, 1994, Piper & Marbury, Washington, DC. ( I 1) Green, D. H. 1996A. Letter to Patricia A. Roberts, Office of General Counsel, EPA, Tor TSCA section 4 Test Rules and Waste Imports, April 5, 1996, Piper & Marbury, Washington, DC. ( 12) Green, D. H. 1996B. Letter to Keith Cronin, Chemical Control Division, OPPT, for Comments on Issues Raised at EPA Public Meeting on TSCA Section 8( d) Amendments ( OPPTS 4218). October 15, 1996, Piper & Marbury, Washington, DC.

Frank Kover, OPPT, US EPA for TSCA Section 8( d) Revision Project, Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC.

Docket Contol Number 42188 for Comments on Section 8( d) Notice, October 14. 1996, FMC Corporation, Philadelphia. PA. ( 15) Kuryla, W. C. 1990. Letter to Charles Auer. Acting Director, Existing Chemical .4ssessment Division, Office of Toxic Substances, for Request for Interpretation ol` TSCA Section 8( d), March 29, 1990, Union Carbide Corporation, Danbury. CT 06817. ( 16) Kuryla, W. C. 1995. Letter to Frank Kover, OPPT, US EPA for TSCA Section 8( d) Revision, December 21, 1995, Union Carbide Corporation, Danbury, CT 06817. ( 17) Petlte, F. D. 1996. Letter to Frank Kover, OPPT, US EPA, Comments on Revisions to TSCA Section 8( d), October 10, 1996, Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport, TN 37662. ( 18) Robinson, R. H. 1995A. Letter to Regulatory Coordination Staff, OPPTS, EPA, for Regulatjons Reinvention Initiative Opportunity to Submit Comments in OPPTS, May 16, 1995, Hazardous Waste Management Association.

Denise Keehner. Deputy Director, ( 13) Greenwood, M. A. 1996. Letter to ( 14) Harvey, S. K. 1996. Letter to TSCA ( 19) Robinson, R. H. 1995B. Letter to Chemical Control Division, OPPTS. EPA, for Meeting Concerning Applicability of TSCA to Wastes, May 3 1, 1995, Hazardous Waste Management Association. ( 20) Sanders, W. H. 111. Undated. Letter to Gary King, Regulatory Program Manager, Safety Kleen Corporation, Elgin, Illinois, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA. Washington, DC.

Public Document Office. Comments on Docket Control Number OPPTS 82038: " Questions and answers: Applicability of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) Section 8( d) model health and safety reporting rule to modeling studies." 57 FR 1723 ( January 15, 1992), July 20, 1992, Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO 63167. ( 22) Zoll, D. F. 1988A. Letter to Charles L. Elkins, Director of Office of Toxic Substances. May 24, 1988, Guidance on Application of TSCA Section 8( d) to Community Health Standards and Modeling and Monitoring Reports Developed in Connection With Section 313 of EPCRA, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

J. Merenda, Director of the Assessment Division, EPA, June 28, 1988, Application of TSCA Section 8( d) to Modeling and Other Materials Developed in Connection With Section 313 of EPCRA, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

Meeting for Revisions's in EPA's Reporting Requirements under Section 8( d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, September 12, 1996, Washington, DC. B. References ( 1) " Reinventing Environmental Regulation," Clinton Regulatory Refordnitiative, Washington, DC ( 2 1) Wilson, J. D. 1992. Letter to TSCA ( 23) Zoll, D. F. 1988B. Letter to Joseph ( b) Meeting summary. EPA. Agenda and Presentation; Public  ( March 16, 1995). ( 21 CMA. 1987. Recommendations of the Chemical Manufacturers Association for Modification of EPA's Regulations Under Section 8( d) of TSCA. December 28, 1987. Washington, DC. ( 3) CMA. 1996. Regulatory Priorities of the Chemical Manufacturers Association for Modification of EPA's Regulations Under Section 8( d) of TSCA ( Draft). June, 1996. Washington, DC. ( 4) Syracuse Research Corporation. " Support Document for Proposed Revisions to Section 8( d) of TSCA," Syracuse NY ( April 30, 1997). ( 5) Chemical Manufacturers Association. " Recommendations of the Chemical Manufacturers Association for Reforms in EPA's Reporting Requirements Under Section 8( d) of the Toxic Substances Control Act" ( October 15, 1996). ( 6) EPA. " Analysis of the Proposed Streamlining of Section 8( d) Rule Requireme&." Washington, DC ( April 30, 1997). V. Regulatory Assessment Requirements ( OMB) has exempted actions issued pursuant to section 8( d) of TSCA from OMB review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). In addition, this direct final rule is expected to provide significant reductions in the burden and costs associated with reporting under TSCA section 8( d) for those subject to reporting ( i. e., manufacturers, importers, and processors of chemicals), as well as those who use the information reported ( i. e., the ITC and EPA), and is not expected to result in any adverse impacts. As a result. this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Pub. L. 104 4), or require prior consultation with State officials as specified by Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership ( 58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993). Moreover, it does not involve special considerations of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), or require OMB review in accordance with Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).

Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 USC 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements related to reporting under TSCA section 8( d) have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070 0004 ( EPA ICR No. 575). This action does not impose The Orfice of Management and Budget According to the Paperwork 15773 Federal Register/ Vol. 63, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 1998 / Rules and Regulations any new collections or burden requiring additional OMB approval. The annual public burden for the existing requirements ranged between 2 and 23 hours per response ( depending upon the individual respondent activilies). The changes made to the requirements through this direct final rule reduce the annual public burden by 5,000 hours, for a new annual public burden of between 1 and 12 hours per response. If the Agency does not receive any adverse comments so that this direct final rule can become effective, EPA will then amend the total burden hours approved under OhlB Control number 2070 0004 to reflect this reduction. Under the PRA, burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide illformation to or for a Federal agency. This includes [ he time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information: adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements: train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information: search data sources: complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

accuracy of this burden estimate, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through [ he use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( Mail Code 2137). 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to the Offjce of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503; marked " Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." Please remember to include the OME control number in any correspondence, but do nor submit any reports to these addresses. In addition. pursuant to section 605( b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. GO1 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this action does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Send any comments about the VI. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General Under 5 U. S. C. 801( a)( l)( A), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the US. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 716 Hazardous substances, Health and Safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Environmental Protection, Chemicals,

Dated: March 18. 1998 Lynn R. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

PART 716[ AMENDED]

1. The authority for part 7 16 continues to read as follows: Authority: 15 U. S. C. 2607( d). 2. By revising ,5716.5 to read as follows:

5716.5 Persons who must report.

( b) and ( c) of this section, only those persons described in this section are required to report under this part. Persons who must report include manufacturers ( including importers) who fall within the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) ( in effect as of January 1, 1997) Subsector 325 ( chemical manufacturing and allied products) or Industry Group 3241 I ( petroleum refineries), who: ( 1) In the 10 years preceding the effective date on which a substance or mixture is added to 5 7 16.120, either had proposed to manufacture ( including import), or had manufactured ( including imported) the listed substance or listed mixture ( including as a known bvuroduct'l. are reauired to reuort ( a) Except as provided in paragraphs d& ng the' reportiGg period s; ecified in 5716.65. ( 2) As of the effective date on which a substance or mixture is added to 5716.120, and who propose to manufacture ( including import), or who are manufacturing ( including importing) the listed substance or listed mixture ( including as a known byproduct), are required to report during the reporting period specified in 5 716.65. ( 3) After the effective dale on which a substance or mixture is added to § 716.120, and who propose to manufacture ( including import) the listed substance or listed mixture ( including as a known byproduct), are required to report during the reporting period specified in 5 716.65. ( b) A rule promulgated under the authority of 15 U. S. C. 2607( d) may require that any person who does not fall within NAICS ( in effect as of January 1, 1997) Subsector 325 or Industry Group 324 11, and who had proposed to manufacture ( including import) or process, had manufactured ( including imported) or processed, proposes to manufacture ( including import) or process, or is manufacturing ( including importing) or processing a substance or mixture listed in 5 716.120 must report under this part. ( c) Processors and persons who propose to process a substance or mixture otherwise subject to the reporting requirements imposed by this part are not subject to this part unless EPA specifically states otherwise in a particular notice or rule promulgated under the authority of 15 U. S. C. 2607( d). 3. By adding § 716.20( b)( 5) to read as follows:

5 716.20 Studies not subject to reporting requirements.

( b) * * * ( 5) Rulemaking proceedings that add substances and mixtures to § 716.120 will specify the types of health and/ or environmental effects studies that must be reported and will specify the chemical grade/ purity requirements that must be met or exceeded in individual studies. Chemical grade/ purity requirements will be specified on a per chemical basis or for a category of chemicals for which reporting is required.

follows: * * * * *

4. By revising 5716.25 to read as 5716.25 Adequate file search.

The scope of a person's responsibility to search records is limited to records in the location( s) where the required information is typically kept, and to records kept by the person or the person's individual employee( s) who is/ are responsible for keeping such records or advising the person on the health and environmental effects of chemicals. Persons are not required to search for reportable information dated before January 1, 1977, to comply with this subpart unless specifically required to do so in a rule. 5. By revising the first sentence in § 716.3O( a)( l) to read as follows:

9716.30 Submission of copies of studies.

( a) ( 1) Except as provided in 55 7 16.5, 716.20, and 716.50, persons must send to EPA copies of any health and safety studies in their possession for the i 15774 Federal Register/ Vol. 63, No. 62 / Wednesday, April 1, 1998 / Rules and Regulations substances or mixtures listed in S716.120. * * * * * * * 6. By revising § 716.35( a), introductory text, to read as follows:

5 716.35 Submission of lists of studies. ( a) Except as provided in 5S716.5, 716.20, and 716.50, persons subject to this rule must send lists of studies to EPA for each of the listed substances or listed mixtures ( including as a known byproduct) j n 716.120 which they are manuracturing, importing, or processing, or which they propose to manuracture ( including import) or process. * * * * * 7. By revising § 716.45(~)( 3) to read as follows:

5716.45 How to report on substances and mixtures. * * ~ %

( 4 * * * ( 3) The substance of the grade/ purity specified in each rule promulgated under 15 U. S. C. 2607( d).

follows:

5716.60 Reporting schedule. ( a) General requirements. Except as provided in S 716.5 and paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this section, submissions under 55716.30 and 716.35 must be postmarked on or before 60 days after the effective date of the listing of a substance or mixture in 5716.120 or within 60 days of proposing to manufacture ( including import) or process a listed substance or listed mixture ( including as a known byproduct) if first done after the effective date of the substance or mixture being listed in § 716.120. 8. By revising 5 716.60( a) to read as * * * * 9. By revising the § 716.65 to read as follows:

5716.65 Reporting period. Unless otherwise required in a rule promulgated under 15 U. S. C. 2607( d) relating to a listed chemical substance or listed mixture [ hereinafter " rule"], the reporting period for a listed chemical substance or listed mixture will terminate GO days after the effective date on which the listed chemical substance or listed mixture is added to 40 CFR 71 6.120. EPA may require reporting for a listed chemical substance or listed mixture beyond the 60 day period in a rule promulgated under 15 U. S. C. 2607( d), however EPA will not extend any reporting period later than 2 years after the effective date on which a listed chemical substance or listed mixture is added to 40 CFR 716.1 20. After the applicable reporting period terminates, any person subject to the rule under 40 CFR 716.5 ( a)( 2) or ( a)( 3) and who has submitted to EPA lists of ongoing or initiated studies under 40 CFR 716.35 ( a)( l) or ( a)( 2) must submit a copy of any such study within 30 days after its completion, regardless of the study's completion date.

5716.120 [ Amended] 10. The tables in S716.120 ( a), ( c), and ( d) are amended by revising the dates in the " Sunset date" column that have not yet occurred as of April 1, 1998, to read " June 30, 1998".

[ FR Doc. 98 8425 Filed 3 31 98,8.45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560 50 F FEDEWL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [ MM Docket No. 87 268; FCC 98 23]

Advanced Television Systems AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration o f the Fifth Report and Order (" MO& O") reaffirms & clarifies the Commission's rules to implement digital television. The intended effect of this action is to provide a host of new and beneficial services to the American public, while preserving and improving free universal television service that serves the public, EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1998. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mania Baghdadi, Mass Media Bureau, Policy & Rules Division, 202 418 2130. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's MO& O, MM Docket No. 87 268, FCC 98 23, adopted February 17, 1998 and released February 23, 1998. The full text of this MO& O is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center ( Room 239), 1919 M Street, N. W., Washington, DC, and also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., 20036, ( 202) 857 3800. I. Introduction 1. In the Fifth Report and Order, 62 FR 26996 ( May 16, 1997), in the digital television (" DTV") proceeding, we adopted rules to permit the nation's broadcasters to implement the conversion to digital television in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (" 1996 Act"). Our goals were to preserve and promote free, universally available, local broadcast television in a digital world, as well as to advance spectrum efficiency and the rapid recovery of spectrum by fostering the swift development of DTV. Accordingly, we sought to maximize broadcasters' flexibility to provide a digital service to serve the needs and desires of the viewers, while adopting rules to ensure a smooth transition to digital television. 2. We established an aggressive but reasonable construction schedule, a requirement that broadcasters continue to provide free, over the air television service, a target date of 2006 for the completion of the transition, and a simulcasting requirement phased in at the end of the transition period. We also recognized that digital broadcasters remain public trustees of the nation's airwaves and have a responsibility to serve the public interest. In order to permit an opportunity to reassess the decisions we made in the Fifth Report and Order, we also noted our intention to conduct a review of the progress of the transition to DTV every two years. In response to petitions for reconsideration from various parties, we take this opportunity to reaffirm, revise, or clarify certain of our actions. Issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration that are not addressed here will be resolved in separate proceedings or future orders as noted. 11. Issue Analysis A. Eligibility 3. Background. The 1996 Act expressly` iimited initial eligibility for DTV licenses to persons that, as of the date of the issuance of the licenses, hold either a construction permit or license ( or both) for a television broadcast station. In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission issued initial DTV licenses simultaneously to all eligible full power permittees and licensees. We concluded that it more effectively effectuates the Congressional scheme to implement the statute through a streamlined three phased licensing process, with the first phase consisting of the initial DTV license, rather than through the conventional two phased licensing process. Use of the two step process without the initial licensing phase would have prevented the establishment of a date certain at which to determine initial eligibility because. given the statutory directive that eligibility be limited to permittees and licensees as of the date of issuance of the DTV licenses, it could potentially