Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Test Rule and Significant New Use Rule; Fourth Group of Chemicals, 65580-65608 [2011-26894]
Download as PDF
65580
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 721 and 799
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0520; FRL–8876–6]
RIN 2070–AJ66
Certain High Production Volume
Chemicals; Test Rule and Significant
New Use Rule; Fourth Group of
Chemicals
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to issue a
test rule under Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) section 4(a)(1)(B) to
require manufacturers and processors of
23 high production volume (HPV)
chemical substances to develop
screening-level health, environmental,
and fate data based on the potential for
substantial exposures of workers and
consumers to these chemicals. EPA is
also proposing to issue simultaneously
a significant new use rule (SNUR) for
another 22 HPV chemical substances
under TSCA section 5(a)(2). The SNUR
would require persons to file a
significant new use notice (SNUN) with
EPA prior to manufacturing, importing,
or processing any of these chemical
substances for use in a consumer
product or for any use, or combination
of uses, that is reasonably likely to
expose 1,000 or more workers at a single
corporate entity. The required
notification would provide EPA with
the opportunity to evaluate the intended
use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit
that activity before it occurs. EPA is also
soliciting comment on a number of
issues with regard to both the test rule
and the SNUR.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before January 19, 2012.
You may submit a request for an
opportunity to present oral comments.
This request must be made in writing.
If such a request is received on or before
January 19, 2012, EPA will hold a
public meeting on this proposed rule in
Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0520, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Document Control Office
(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–
0001.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document
Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg.,
Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0520.
The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the DCO’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2010–0520. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the docket without change and may be
made available on-line at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available
at https://www.regulations.gov. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT
Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm.
3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of
the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566–0280. Docket visitors are required
to show photographic identification,
pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are
processed through an X-ray machine
and subject to search. Visitors will be
provided an EPA/DC badge that must be
visible at all times in the building and
returned upon departure.
Submission of requests: You may
submit a request for an opportunity to
present oral comments. This request
must be made in writing and submitted
to the mailing or hand delivery
addresses provided in this unit. If such
a request is received, EPA will
announce the scheduling of the public
meeting in a subsequent document in
the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information contact: Robert
Jones (test rule) or Amy Breedlove
(SNUR), Chemical Control Division
(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 564–8161 or (202) 564–
9823; e-mail address:
jones.robert@epa.gov or
breedlove.amy@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
these actions if you manufacture
(defined by statute to include import) or
process any of the chemical substances
that are listed in Tables A. or B. in Unit
III. Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to:
• Manufacturers (defined by statute to
include importers) of one or more of the
subject chemical substances (NAICS
codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical
manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
• Processors of one or more of the
subject chemical substances (NAICS
codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical
manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
either technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
This action may also affect certain
entities through pre-existing import
certification and export notification
rules under TSCA. See Unit VI. for
export notification requirements.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that
you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest alternatives and substitute
language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as
possible, avoiding the use of profanity
or personal threats.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
viii. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. Can I request an opportunity to
present oral comments to the agency?
You may submit a request for an
opportunity to present oral comments.
This request must be made in writing.
If such a request is received on or before
January 19, 2012, EPA will hold a
public meeting on this proposed rule in
Washington, DC. This written request
must be submitted to the mailing or
hand delivery addresses provided under
ADDRESSES. If such a request is received,
EPA will announce the scheduling of
the public meeting in a subsequent
document in the Federal Register. If a
public meeting is announced, and if you
are interested in attending or presenting
oral and/or written comments at the
public meeting, you should follow the
instructions provided in the subsequent
Federal Register document announcing
the public meeting.
II. Background
A. What action is the agency taking and
why?
Congress gave EPA (also referred to as
‘‘Agency’’) broad authority to require
testing of chemical substances when
EPA can establish a minimum level of
risk concern for a chemical substance
(hazard and exposure are considered),
and/or when EPA can establish that
there is or may be substantial
production and release or exposure of a
chemical substance (production volume
and exposure are considered). HPV
chemical substances often have either
significant release or human exposure
scenarios that would stimulate EPA
interest and support an EPA decision to
require testing or to require notification
before additional exposures occur. EPA
is proposing to regulate 45 HPV
chemical substances with either a test
rule or a SNUR. EPA is proposing a test
rule under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B) for
23 of these 45 HPV chemical substances
and a SNUR under TSCA section 5(a)(2)
for the other 22 HPV chemical
substances (see Tables A. and B. in Unit
III.).
These 45 HPV chemical substances
are among the chemical substances that
were included in EPA’s HPV Challenge
Program (hereafter HPV Challenge)
initiated in 1998. Of the 2,782 chemical
substances originally included in the
HPV Challenge, 1,858 were officially
sponsored either directly in the HPV
Challenge or indirectly through
international efforts, although 5 were
later withdrawn. Another 416 of the
2,782 chemical substances were
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65581
removed from the scope of the HPV
Challenge for a variety of reasons (e.g.,
polymers, inorganics, etc.). The
remaining 508 of the 2,782 chemical
substances were termed ‘‘orphans’’
because they were not sponsored and
there were no other factors that removed
the chemical substances from the scope
of the HPV Challenge. Of the 508
orphans, 405 are no longer produced at
HPV levels. Of the remaining 103
chemical substances, 63 have been
included in one of three test rules, or
EPA has otherwise received data
adequate to meet its needs. The
remaining 40, plus the 5 chemical
substances whose HPV Challenge
sponsorships were withdrawn, are the
subject of this proposed test rule and
SNUR. For more information on the
HPV Challenge go to https://
www.epa.gov/hpv/ or see the Federal
Register of March 16, 2008 (71 FR
13708) (FRL–7335–2). This action
contains the fourth and final test rule in
the series and includes the last
unsponsored/orphan chemical
substances in the HPV Challenge.
The data that EPA seeks through the
HPV Challenge is the Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS) developed
by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), of
which the United States is a member.
SIDS consists of tests for six endpoints
(Ref. 1), including acute toxicity,
repeated dose toxicity, developmental
and reproductive toxicity, genetic
toxicity, ecotoxicity, and environmental
fate. The six SIDS endpoints provide a
minimum, internationally-agreed-upon
set of test data for screening HPV
chemical substances for human and
environmental hazards, and assist EPA
and others in making an informed,
preliminary judgment about the hazards
of HPV chemical substances.
B. What is the agency’s authority for
taking these actions?
1. Test rule. EPA is proposing this test
rule under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)
which directs EPA to require by rule
that manufacturers and/or processors of
chemical substances and mixtures
conduct testing, if the EPA
Administrator finds that:
i. A chemical substance or mixture is
or will be produced in substantial
quantities, and (1) it enters or may
reasonably be anticipated to enter the
environment in substantial quantities or
(2) there is or may be significant or
substantial human exposure to such
substance or mixture.
ii. There are insufficient data and
experience upon which the effects of the
manufacture, distribution in commerce,
processing, use, or disposal of such
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65582
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
substance or mixture or of any
combination of such activities on health
or the environment can reasonably be
determined or predicted.
iii. Testing of such substance or
mixture with respect to such effects is
necessary to develop such data.
2. SNUR. Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA
authorizes EPA to determine that a use
of a chemical substance is a ‘‘significant
new use.’’ EPA must make this
determination by rule after considering
all relevant factors, including those
listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once
EPA determines that a use of a chemical
substance is a significant new use,
TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons
to submit a SNUN to EPA at least 90
days before they manufacture, import,
or process the chemical substance for
that use.
C. Applicability of General Provisions
1. Test rule. General provisions for
test rules appear under 40 CFR part 790
(subparts A, B, C, and E), 40 CFR part
791, 40 CFR part 792, and 40 CFR part
799 (subpart A). 40 CFR part 790,
subpart A, describes the scope, purpose,
and authority for test rules and consent
agreements, provisions for submitting
information to the Agency, and the
treatment of confidential business
information. 40 CFR part 790, subpart B
covers the procedures for developing
consent agreements and test rules. 40
CFR part 790, subpart C covers the
implementation, enforcement, and
modification of test rules. This subpart
includes information about persons
subject to testing and required to submit
letters-of-intent to conduct testing and
persons who must submit testing
exemption applications, and includes
information about the submission of
study plans and how to modify test
standards and schedules if necessary.
Subpart E of 40 CFR part 790 provides
detailed information about exemptions
from test rules. 40 CFR parts 791 and
792 respectively cover provisions for
data reimbursement and required good
laboratory practice standards. 40 CFR
part 799, subpart A, provides additional
information on the scope and purpose of
the rule, the applicability of the rule,
submitting information, test standards,
the availability of test guidelines,
distinguishing positive and negative
results, the effects of non-compliance,
chemicals for which the testing
reimbursement period has passed, and
imports and exports.
Persons who export or intend to
export a chemical substance identified
in a final test rule are subject to the
export notification provisions of TSCA
section 12(b). Regulations that interpret
TSCA section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
part 707, subpart D, notices of export
under section 12(b).
2. SNUR. General provisions for
SNURs appear under 40 CFR part 721,
subpart A. These provisions describe
persons subject to the rule,
recordkeeping requirements,
exemptions to reporting requirements,
and applicability of the rule to uses
occurring before the effective date of the
final rule. Provisions relating to user
fees appear at 40 CFR part 700.
According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons
subject to SNURs must comply with the
same notice requirements and EPA
regulatory procedures as submitters of
Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) under
TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A). In particular,
these requirements include the
information submission requirements of
TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the
exemptions authorized by TSCA section
5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(5), and the
regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once
EPA receives a SNUN, EPA may take
regulatory action under TSCA section
5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7 to control the activities
on which it has received the SNUN. If
EPA does not take action, EPA is
required under TSCA section 5(g) to
explain in the Federal Register its
reasons for not taking action.
D. What is the agency’s ‘‘B Policy’’?
TSCA section 2(b) states that it is the
policy of the United States that: (1)
Adequate data should be developed
with respect to the effect of chemical
substances and mixtures on health and
the environment and that the
development of such data should be the
responsibility of those who manufacture
and those who process such chemical
substances and mixtures; (2) adequate
authority should exist to regulate
chemical substances and mixtures
which present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment and
to take action with respect to chemical
substances and mixtures which are
imminent hazards; and (3) authority
over chemical substances and mixtures
should be exercised in such a manner as
not to impede unduly or create
unnecessary economic barriers to
technological innovation while fulfilling
the primary purpose of this Act to
assure that such innovation and
commerce in such chemical substances
and mixtures do not present an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or
the environment (15 U.S.C. 2601(b)(1)).
TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B) authorizes
and requires EPA to issue a test rule for
a chemical substance if EPA finds,
among other things, that the chemical
substance ‘‘is or will be produced in
substantial quantities’’ and either
‘‘enters or may reasonably be
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
anticipated to enter the environment in
substantial quantities’’ or ‘‘there is or
may be significant or substantial human
exposure.’’
TSCA, however, does not say what is
‘‘significant’’ or ‘‘substantial’’ under
TSCA section (4)(a)(1)(B). EPA,
therefore, published a policy, known as
the ‘‘B Policy,’’ in 1993 (Ref. 2) for
aiding in the determination of when
production or environmental release is
substantial or when human exposure is
either significant or substantial for the
purpose of issuing a test rule under
TSCA section (4)(a)(1)(B). Under the ‘‘B
Policy,’’ ‘‘produced in substantial
quantities’’ generally means
manufactured or imported in one
million pounds or more per year; a
‘‘substantial environmental release’’ is
generally either one million pounds per
year or ten percent of total
manufactured and imported volume,
whichever is less; and ‘‘substantial
human exposure’’ is generally 100,000
or more people in the general
population, or 10,000 or more
consumers, or 1,000 or more workers.
E. Why is the agency proposing both a
test rule and a SNUR?
EPA is proposing these two actions
together because the Agency believes
the actions are complementary and will
best ensure these HPV chemicals are
adequately evaluated by the Agency. For
example, if EPA receives comments on
this proposal sufficient to establish that
one of the 23 chemical substances
proposed to be regulated under the test
rule is not used in a way that meets the
substantial exposure criteria, but
information received indicates that the
chemical substance meets the criteria
for the SNUR, EPA intends to include
the chemical substance in the final
SNUR rather than the test rule, without
further public notice and comment.
Simply removing such a chemical
substance from the test rule in such
circumstances, without including it in
the SNUR, would not provide a
regulatory mechanism for timely
notification to EPA in the event of
changed circumstances that would
likely justify the issuance of a test rule
for the chemical substance. Further, if
public comment on these proposed
actions is sufficient to establish that any
of the uses to be covered for the 22
chemical substances proposed in the
SNUR are, in fact, on-going, yet such
comments also establish that there is
already substantial exposure to the
chemical substance, EPA intends to
review the status of the chemical
substance and, as warranted, take
appropriate steps to promulgate a test
rule rather than a SNUR for the
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
chemical substance. Unit IV. of this
document details the proposed findings
to issue a test rule for the 23 chemical
substances listed in Table A. and
provides additional discussion
pertaining to whether the promulgation
of a test rule for 22 chemical substances
listed in Table B. may be warranted.
Unit V. of this document details the
proposed findings to issue a SNUR for
the 22 chemical substances listed in
Table B. and the basis to issue a SNUR
for the 23 chemical substances listed in
Table A. in the event that public
comments provide additional data
establishing that, for one or more of
such chemical substances, there is no
ongoing use in a consumer product and
no ongoing use reasonably likely to
expose 1,000 or more workers.
F. What are some future considerations?
One of EPA’s top priorities is to
assure the safety of chemical substances
in commerce. Under TSCA, EPA has a
primary mission to identify and, where
appropriate, control unreasonable risks
of manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, and
disposal of chemical substances. It is
essential that chemical substance review
be supported by information sufficient
to allow informed decision making and
that information and decisions are of
high quality and are widely
understandable. As such, EPA continues
to collect information from existing
sources, to request new and better
information where it is determined to be
needed, and to make all supporting
information publicly available, to the
extent permitted under TSCA section 14
and 40 CFR part 2. Open access to
information allows individuals,
communities, businesses, and
governments to make informed
decisions and policies that incorporate
environmental and health
considerations and minimize external
and/or unintended harmful impacts.
Therefore, EPA intends to continue to
focus on filling data needs on priority
chemical substances, including high
production volume chemical
substances. EPA is interested in
stakeholder input on a number of issues
described in this section. Some specific
issues EPA has identified to date follow.
1. Coordination of simultaneous test
rule and SNUR proposals. In this action,
EPA is simultaneously proposing a test
rule and SNUR to regulate two sets of
chemical substances. EPA believes that
this is an efficient way to require
submission of test data on chemical
substances that meet all of the necessary
test rule criteria and (for the latter group
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
of chemical substances) to require
submission of advance notification to
EPA of use in a consumer product or of
any use, or combination of uses, that is
reasonably likely to expose 1,000 or
more workers. With respect to chemical
substances that meet some, but
potentially not all test rule criteria, the
SNUR also facilitates efficiency by
mitigating the need for EPA to
continually reevaluate each HPV
chemical substance to determine
whether exposure potential has
changed. EPA is considering issuing
further coordinated proposals of test
rules and SNURs. This would occur in
conjunction with future Inventory
Update Reporting (IUR) rule data
releases, covering all newly-HPV
chemical substances. EPA requests
comment on this approach. In
September 2011, the IUR was renamed
Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) and
moved from 40 CFR part 710 subpart C
to 40 CFR part 711 (76 FR 50816,
August 16, 2011) (FRL–8872–9). For
more information on this change go to
https://www.epa.gov/cdr.
2. Minimum data set. For more than
15 years, EPA has used OECD’s SIDS to
facilitate and standardize the screening
of the relatively large number of HPV
chemical substances on the TSCA
Inventory. EPA requests comment on
whether SIDS continues to be the most
appropriate data set to screen chemical
substances for potential environmental
and health hazards. Are additional or
different tests also appropriate? Should
EPA consider having more than one
screening data set depending on the
nature of exposures (e.g., a different set
of tests for children’s exposures or
environmental releases)?
3. Computational toxicology. The U.S.
National Academy of Sciences National
Research Council in their 2007 report
‘‘Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A
Vision and a Strategy’’ (Ref. 3)
encouraged ‘‘work[ing] towards a
transition to new integrative and
predictive molecular and computational
techniques to enhance efficiency and
accuracy and to reduce reliance on
animal testing.’’ EPA requests
suggestions on practical, implementable
ways to work toward this goal in its
actions under TSCA. Should tools such
as ToxCast (at https://www.epa.gov/
comptox/toxcast) (Ref. 4) be used to
prioritize chemical substances and
support hazard findings for testing?
III. Chemical Substances Subject to
This Action
The 45 chemical substances included
in this action are the remaining
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65583
unsponsored/orphan chemical
substances, which have not previously
been subject to test rules or other HPV
Challenge-related follow-up actions.
EPA is proposing to issue a test rule
under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B) for the 23
chemical substances listed in Table A.
in this unit and proposing to establish
a SNUR under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for
the other 22 chemical substances (see
Table B. in this unit). Respecting the 23
chemical substances proposed for a
section 4(a)(1)(B) test rule (i.e., those in
Table A.), in the event that public
comments provide additional data
respecting any of these chemical
substances, establishing that there is no
ongoing use in a consumer product and
no ongoing use reasonably likely to
expose 1,000 or more workers for any
such substance, EPA intends to finalize
a SNUR for each such chemical
substance. Finally, with respect to the
22 chemical substances proposed for a
SNUR (i.e., those in Table B.), in the
event that public comments provide
additional data establishing that there is
already substantial exposure to the
chemical substance, EPA intends to
review the status of the chemical
substance and, as warranted, take
appropriate steps to promulgate a
section 4(a)(1)(B) test rule for the
chemical substance. For each of these
chemical substances, Tables A. and B.
provide the Chemical Abstract (CA)
Index Name, Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) Registry Number (CASRN), and
2006 IUR information on production
volume, number of workers exposed,
and commercial/consumer uses.
Substantial worker exposure is deduced
from the number of workers reported.
Substantial consumer exposure is
deduced from production volume and
consumer uses if production volume
exceeds one million pounds per year
and consumer uses are indicated, it is
likely that consumer exposure exceeds
ten thousand people.
For each of the test rule candidate
chemical substances, EPA has used the
2006 IUR information to preliminarily
determine that the chemical substance
is produced in substantial quantities
and that there is substantial human
exposure. For each of the significant
new use (SNU) candidates, EPA has
considered the 2006 IUR information in
determining the proposed SNU
designations. These findings are
discussed further in Unit IV.A.1., Unit
V.A., and Ref. 5.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65584
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE A—CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES FOR WHICH A TEST RULE IS PROPOSED AND FOR WHICH A SNUR IS BEING
CONSIDERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION
CASRN
CA Index name
2006 IUR
production
volume
(million lbs.)
2006 IUR
number of
workers
exposed
Chemical
substance
meets the
‘‘B
finding’’
criteria of
≥1,000 workers exposed
56–40–6 .......
67–72–1 .......
78–00–2 .......
Glycine .....................................
Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2,2-hexachloroPlumbane, tetraethyl- ...............
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
1,000+ .........
100–999 ......
Yes ..............
Yes ..............
No ................
95–14–7 .......
1H-Benzotriazole ......................
1 ≤ 10 ..........
100–999 ......
No ................
118–48–9 .....
2H-3,1-Benzoxazine-2,4(1H)dione.
1,2-Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one,
1,1-dioxide, sodium salt (1:1).
Glycine,
N-(carboxymethyl)-,
sodium salt (1:2).
Phosphonic acid, dibutyl ester
2,5-Furandione, 3-(dodecen-1yl)dihydro-.
2,5-Furandione,
dihydro-3(tetrapropenyl)-.
10 ≤ 50 ........
100–999 ......
No ................
1 ≤ 10 ..........
100–999 ......
500 ≤ 1,000
Butanedioic
acid,2(tetrapropenyl)-.
2,5-Furandione,
dihydro-3(octadecen-1-yl)-.
1H-Benzotriazole,
6(or75)methyl-.
2,5-Furandione, 3-(hexadecen1-yl)dihydro-.
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, chlorides.
1H-Benzotriazole, 6(or7)-methyl-, sodium salt.
Naphthenic acids, reaction
products
with
diethylenetriamine.
Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction
products
with
diethylenetriamine, acetates.
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
benzyl-C12-16alkyldimethyl, chlorides.
2-Butenediamide, (2E)-, N1,N4bis[2-(4,5-dihydro-2-nortall-oil
alkyl-1H-imidazol-1-yl)ethyl]
derivs.
Quaternary ammonium compounds,
(oxydi-2,1ethanediyl)bis[coco
alkyldimethyl, dichlorides.
Pyridinium, 1-(phenylmethyl)-,
Et Me derivs., chlorides.
Benzene, decylphenoxy- ..........
128–44–9 .....
928–72–3 .....
1809–19–4 ...
25377–73–5
26544–38–7
27859–58–1
28777–98–2
29385–43–1
32072–96–1
61789–73–9
64665–57–2
68131–13–5
68153–60–6
68424–85–1
68442–77–3
68607–28–3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
68909–18–2
69834–17–9
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:58 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
Commercial/Consumer uses
indicated in 2006 IUR
Chemical
substance
meets the
‘‘B finding’’
criteria of
≥10,000
consumers
exposed
No ................
Other; CBI ................................
None .........................................
Lubricants, greases and fuel
additives.
Lubricants, greases and fuel
additives; metal products;
other.
Agricultural products (non-pesticidal); other.
Other ........................................
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
1,000+ .........
Yes ..............
None .........................................
No.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
1–99 ............
Yes ..............
No ................
CBI ...........................................
Other ........................................
Yes.
Yes.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
100–999 ......
No ................
Yes.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
Yes ..............
10 ≤ 50 ........
100–999 ......
No ................
Lubricants, greases and fuel
additives; paints and coatings; not readily obtainable
(NRO).
Lubricants, greases and fuel
additives; CBI.
Paper products .........................
1 ≤ 10 ..........
100–999 ......
No ................
50 ≤ 100 ......
1,000+ .........
1 ≤ 10 ..........
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes ..............
Lubricants, greases and fuel
additives.
Paper products .........................
Yes.
100–999 ......
No ................
CBI ...........................................
Yes.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
100–999 ......
No ................
Other ........................................
Yes.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
Yes ..............
None .........................................
No.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
Yes ..............
None .........................................
No.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
Yes ..............
Other; CBI ................................
Yes.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
Yes ..............
None .........................................
No.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
Yes ..............
Other ........................................
Yes.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
1,000+ .........
Yes ..............
Other ........................................
Yes.
1 ≤ 10 ..........
100–999 ......
No ................
Soaps and detergents ..............
Yes.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Yes.
65585
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE B—LIST OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES FOR WHICH A SNUR IS PROPOSED AND FOR WHICH A TEST RULE IS BEING
CONSIDERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION
2006 IUR
number of
workers
exposed
Chemical
substance
meets the
‘‘B finding’’
criteria of
≥ 1,000
workers
exposed
......
......
......
......
......
......
......
1–99 ........
1–99 .........
1–99 .........
100–999 ..
100–999 ..
100–999 ..
100–999 ..
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
1 ≤ 10 ......
10 ≤ 50 ....
1 ≤ 10 ......
1 ≤ 10 ......
10 ≤ 50 ....
10 ≤ 50 ....
1 ≤ 10 ......
1–99 ........
100–999 ..
1–99 ........
100–999 ...
1–99 ........
1–99 ........
100–999 ..
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1 ≤ 10 ......
1 ≤ 10 ......
2006 IUR
production
volume
(million
lbs.)
CASRN
CA Index name
98–16–8 ........
100–53–8 ......
104–91–6 ......
110–03–2 ......
124–63–0 ......
142–30–3 ......
460–00–4 ......
Benzenamine, 3-(trifluoromethyl)- .........................
Benzenemethanethiol ............................................
Phenol, 4-nitroso- ..................................................
2,5-Hexanediol, 2,5-dimethyl- ...............................
Methanesulfonyl chloride .......................................
3-Hexyne-2,5-diol, 2,5-dimethyl- ...........................
Benzene, 1-bromo-4-fluoro- ..................................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
542–92–7 ......
553–26–4 ......
8007–45–2 ....
28106–30–1 ..
35203–06–6 ..
35203–08–8 ..
37734–45–5 ..
1,3-Cyclopentadiene ..............................................
4,4′-Bipyridine ........................................................
Tar, coal ................................................................
Benzene, ethenylethyl- ..........................................
Benzenamine, 2-ethyl-6-methyl-N-methylene- ......
Benzenamine, 2,6-diethyl-N-methylene- ...............
Carbonochloridothioic acid, S-(phenylmethyl)
ester.
Acetamide, 2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propen-1-yl- .....
Quaternary
ammonium
compounds,
benzyl(hydrogenated
tallow
alkyl)dimethyl,
chlorides.
Naphthenic acids, sodium salts ............................
Distillates (coal tar), upper ....................................
Tail
gas
(petroleum),
cracked
distillate
hydrotreater stripper.
Residues (petroleum), steam-cracked petroleum
distillates
cyclopentadiene
conc.,
C4cyclopentadiene-free.
Alkenes, C6-10, hydroformylation products, highboiling.
Ethanol, 2,2′-oxybis-, reaction products with ammonia, morpholine derivs. residues.
37764–25–3 ..
61789–72–8 ..
61790–13–4 ..
65996–91–0 ..
68308–01–0 ..
68478–20–6 ..
68526–82–9 ..
68909–77–3 ..
IV. Proposed Section 4(a)(1)(B) Test
Rule and Basis to Also Consider Table
B. Chemical Substances for a Section
4(a)(1)(B) Test Rule
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
A. What are the proposed findings?
1. Exposure findings. EPA is
proposing to require testing of the
chemical substances listed in Table A.
based on its preliminary findings under
TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i) relating to
‘‘substantial’’ production and
‘‘substantial human exposure,’’ as well
as findings under TSCA sections
4(a)(1)(B)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(iii) relating to
insufficient data and the need for
testing. The chemical substances in
Table A. are also listed in Table 2. of
§ 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory
text along with their CASRNs.
i. Are these chemical substances
produced in substantial quantities? EPA
has made preliminary findings that each
of the chemical substances included in
this proposed test rule are produced in
substantial quantities. In accordance
with the ‘‘B policy’’ (discussed in Unit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
≤
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
Not readily obtainable (NRO).
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
1–99 .........
100–999 ...
No ............
No ............
None ......................
None ......................
No.
No.
1 ≤ 10 ......
1 ≤ 10 ......
10 ≤ 50 ....
100–999 ..
100–999 ..
100–999 ...
No ............
No ............
No ............
None ......................
None ......................
None ......................
No.
No.
No.
10 ≤ 50 ....
1–99 .........
No ............
None ......................
No.
1 ≤ 10 ......
100–999 ..
No ............
NRO .......................
No.
1 ≤ 10 ......
100–999 ...
No ............
None ......................
No.
II.D.), each of these substances is
manufactured (which, as noted in Unit
I.A., includes imported) in an amount
equal to or greater than 1 million lbs.
per year (Ref. 5). These findings are
based on information gathered in the
2006 IUR the most recently available
compilation of IUR (now CDR) data.
ii. Are a substantial number of
workers exposed to these chemical
substances? EPA has made preliminary
findings that the manufacture,
processing, and use of 12 of the 23
chemical substances listed in Table A.
result or may result in exposure of a
substantial number of workers to the
chemical substances (Ref. 5).
For chemical substances whose total
production volume (manufactured and
imported) exceeded 300,000 lbs. at a site
during calendar year 2005,
manufacturers (which as noted in Unit
I.A., includes importers) were required
through the 2006 IUR to report the
number of potentially exposed workers
during industrial processing and use to
the extent the information was readily
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Commercial/consumer uses indicated in 2006 IUR
Chemical
substance
meets the
‘‘B finding’’
criteria of
≥ 10,000
consumers
exposed
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
No.
No
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
obtainable. Manufacturers of 12 of the
23 chemical substances listed in Table
A. reported that more than 1,000
workers or more were potentially
exposed to these chemical substances.
Based on the threshold values stated in
EPA’s ‘‘B Policy,’’ EPA believes that an
exposure of 1,000 workers or more on a
routine or episodic basis to a chemical
substance or mixture is ‘‘substantial’’ as
that term is used with reference to
‘‘human exposure’’ in TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(i). Therefore, EPA’s
preliminary finding is that there is or
may be substantial human exposure
(workers) to 12 of these 23 chemical
substances.
iii. Are a substantial number of
consumers exposed to these chemical
substances? EPA has made preliminary
findings that the manufacture,
processing, and use of 18 of the 23
chemical substances listed in Table A.
result or may result in exposure of a
substantial number of consumers to the
chemical substances (Ref. 5).
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
65586
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
In addition to worker exposure
information, manufacturers of more
than 300,000 lbs. of a given chemical
substance at a site during calendar year
2005 were required to provide
information regarding the commercial
and consumer uses of the chemical
substance. EPA reviewed the consumer
use information reported for the 2006
IUR and carefully considered the nature
of those uses. These 18 chemical
substances were found to be used in
such products as tires, footwear,
flooring, bottles, sporting equipment,
games, soaps and detergents, and paper
products. Based on this review, EPA has
preliminarily concluded that the
reported consumer uses may result in
exposures to at least 10,000 consumers.
Based on the threshold values stated in
EPA’s ‘‘B Policy,’’ EPA believes that an
exposure of 10,000 consumers or more
to a chemical substance is ‘‘substantial’’
as that term is used with reference to
‘‘human exposure’’ in TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(i). Therefore, EPA’s
preliminary finding is that there is or
may be substantial human exposure
(consumers) to 18 of these 23 chemical
substances.
2. Are sufficient data available to
evaluate these chemical substances?
Under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(ii), EPA
has preliminarily determined for the
chemical substances in Table A. that
there are insufficient data and
experience to reasonably determine or
predict the effects of the manufacture,
distribution in commerce, processing,
use, or disposal of these chemical
substances, or of any combination of
such activities, on human health or the
environment.
In developing the testing
requirements for chemical substances
contained in Table A., EPA searched for
available information on chemical/
physical properties, environmental fate,
ecotoxicity and human health effects,
using the data sources outlined in the
OECD guidelines found in section 3.1
(Reliability, Relevance and Adequacy)
of the ‘‘Manual for the Investigation of
HPV Chemicals’’ (Ref. 1) such as: The
Beilstein Database, Chemical Rubber
Company’s Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics, Hawley’s Condensed Chemical
Dictionary, Illustrated Handbooks of
Physical-Chemical Properties and
Environmental Fate for Organic
Chemicals, Merck Index, Hazardous
Substances Data Bank (HSDB),
Toxicology Literature Online
(TOXLINE), and the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS). EPA also
searched for available data as
summarized in its HPV Information
System (HPVIS) (Ref. 6). When
appropriate, the Federal Research In
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
Progress (FEDRIP) database was also
searched. Any information that was
obtained from these searches was
evaluated for data acceptability using
the guidelines described on EPA’s HPV
Challenge Web site (https://
www.epa.gov/hpv): ‘‘Guidance for
Meeting the SIDS Requirements (the
SIDS Guide)’’ and ‘‘Guidance for
Assessing the Adequacy of Existing
Data.’’ Furthermore, data adequacy and
reliability were evaluated using the
OECD guidelines which can be found in
section 3.1 of the OECD ‘‘Manual for the
Investigation of HPV Chemicals’’ (Ref.
1). The results of EPA’s data adequacy
analysis can be found in the HPV4 Data
Adequacy Evaluations document
(Ref. 7).
Section 799.5090(j) of the proposed
regulatory text lists each chemical
substance and the SIDS tests for which
adequate data are not currently available
to the Agency. The Agency
preliminarily finds that the existing data
for one or more of the SIDS testing
endpoints for each of the chemical
substances listed in Table 2. in
§ 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory
text (i.e., chemical substances in Table
A.) are insufficient to enable EPA to
reasonably determine or predict the
human health and environmental effects
resulting from manufacture, distribution
in commerce, processing, use, and
disposal of these chemical substances.
To the extent that additional studies
relevant to the testing proposed in this
rulemaking are known to exist, EPA
strongly encourages the submission of
this information as comments to the
proposed rule, including full citations
for publications and full copies of
unpublished studies. If EPA judges such
data to be sufficient, corresponding
testing will not be included in the final
rule. Commenters may prepare a robust
summary (Ref. 8) for each such study to
facilitate EPA’s review of the full study
report or publication.
Persons who believe that adequate
information regarding a chemical
substance subject to this proposed rule
can be developed using a category or the
Structure-Activity Relationships (SAR)
approach are encouraged to submit
appropriate information, along with
their rationale substantiating this belief,
during the comment period on this
proposed rule. If, based on submitted
information and other information
available to EPA, the Agency agrees,
EPA will take such measures as are
needed to avoid unnecessary testing in
the final rule.
3. Is testing necessary for these
chemical substances? EPA has also
found preliminarily that testing the 23
chemical substances identified in Table
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A. is necessary to develop the needed
data (TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(iii)). EPA
has not identified any ‘‘additional
factors’’ as discussed in the ‘‘B Policy’’
(Ref. 2, p. 28743) to cause the Agency
to use decision making criteria other
than those described in the ‘‘B Policy.’’
EPA knows of no other means to
generate the SIDS data other than the
testing proposed in this document, and
therefore has preliminarily found that
conducting the needed SIDS testing
identified for the 23 chemical
substances in Table A. is necessary to
provide data relevant to a determination
of whether the manufacture, processing,
and use of the chemical substances does
or does not present an unreasonable risk
of injury to human health and the
environment.
B. What is the basis to also consider
chemical substances from Table B. for
testing under section 4(a)(1)(B)?
As an alternative to issuing a SNUR,
EPA is considering requiring testing of
one or more of the chemical substances
listed in Table B. EPA will consider this
approach based on its preliminary
findings under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(i) relating to ‘‘substantial’’
production, its further analysis of the
factors listed under TSCA sections 4
(a)(1)(B)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(iii) relating to
insufficient data and the need for testing
and additional data received in public
comments. If information received in
public comments establishes that
consumer uses, or uses that could affect
1,000 workers or more, are already
ongoing, then that information may
indicate that a SNUR is inappropriate
for the particular chemical substance
listed in Table B. The same information,
however, may prompt EPA to conclude
that a test rule is appropriate for such
a substance, since evidence of ongoing
use may also be evidence of substantial
human exposure. If public comments
provide the basis to conclude that there
is already or may be substantial human
exposure to one of the chemical
substances in Table B., and there is a
basis to make the other findings
required under TSCA sections 4
(a)(1)(B)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(iii), then EPA
intends to review the status of the
chemical substance and, as warranted,
take appropriate steps to promulgate a
test rule rather than a SNUR for the
chemical substance.
EPA has made preliminary findings
that each of the chemical substances
listed in Table B. are produced in
substantial quantities (manufactured,
including imported, in an amount equal
to or greater than 1 million lbs. per year
(Ref. 5)). These findings are based on
information gathered in the 2006 IUR
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
rule. The 2006 data are the most
recently available compilation of IUR
(now CDR) data.
C. What testing is being proposed in this
action and is also being considered for
chemical substances in Table B.?
EPA is proposing specific testing and
reporting requirements for the chemical
substances from Table A. (specified in
§ 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory
text) and is also considering the same
requirements with respect to the
chemical substances listed in Table B.
All of the proposed testing requirements
are listed in Table 2. in § 799.5090(j) of
the proposed regulatory text and consist
of a series of test methods covering
many of the endpoints in the OECD
HPV SIDS testing battery.
EPA’s TSCA 799 test guidelines (40
CFR part 799, subparts E and H) have
been harmonized with the OECD test
guidelines. However, EPA is specifying
that the American Society for Testing
and Materials International (ASTM
International) or the TSCA 799 test
guidelines be used rather than OECD
test guidelines because the language in
the ASTM International standards and
the TSCA 799 test guidelines makes
clear which steps are mandatory and
which steps are only recommended.
Accordingly, to comply with the testing
being proposed, EPA is proposing that
testing must be conducted in
accordance with ASTM International or
TSCA 799 test guidelines. Note: ASTM
issues its test methods under a fixed
designation (e.g., E1719); the number
immediately following the designation
indicates the year of original adoption
or, in the case of revision, the year of
last revision. A number in parentheses
indicates the year of last re-approval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an
editorial change since the last revision
or re-approval. Most of the proposed
testing requirements for a particular
endpoint are specified in one test
standard. In the case of certain
endpoints, however, any of multiple
listed methods could be used. For
several of the proposed test standards,
EPA has identified and is proposing
certain ‘‘special conditions’’ as
discussed in this unit. The following
endpoints and test standards are
included in this proposed test rule.
1. Physical/chemical properties.
Melting Point: ASTM E 324–99
(capillary tube) (Refs. 9 and 10).
Boiling Point: ASTM E 1719–05
(ebulliometry) (Ref. 11). Vapor Pressure:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
ASTM E 1782–08 (thermal analysis)
(Ref. 12). n-Octanol/Water Partition
Coefficient: Method A (40 CFR
799.6755—shake flask); Method B
(ASTM E 1147–92(2005)—liquid
chromatography) (Ref. 13); Method C
(40 CFR 799.6756—generator column).
Water Solubility: Method A (ASTM E
1148–02—shake flask) (Ref. 14); Method
B (40 CFR 799.6784—shake flask);
Method C (40 CFR 799.6784—column
elution); Method D (40 CFR 799.6786—
generator column).
For those chemical substances
needing melting points determinations,
EPA is proposing that melting points be
determined according to ASTM method
E 324–99. Although ASTM International
indicates on its Web site, https://www.
astm.org/DATABASE.CART/
WITHDRAWN/E324.htm, that ASTM E
324–99 has been withdrawn, ASTM
International’s withdrawal of the
method means only that ASTM
International no longer continues to
develop and improve the method. It
does not mean that ASTM International
no longer considers the method to be
valid. ASTM International has
explained that ASTM E 324–99 was
withdrawn because:
The standard utilizes old, well-developed
technology; it is highly unlikely that any
additional [changes] and/or modifications
will ever be pursued by the E15 [committee].
The time and effort needed to maintain these
documents detract from the time available to
develop new standards which use modern
technology (Ref. 15).
ASTM International still makes the
method available for informational
purposes and it can still be purchased
from ASTM International at the address
listed in § 799.5090(h) of the proposed
regulatory text.
EPA concludes that ASTM
International’s withdrawal of ASTM E
324–99 does not have negative
implications on the validity of the
method, and EPA is proposing that
melting points be determined according
to ASTM E 324–99.
For those chemical substances that are
liquid at room temperature, EPA is
proposing a measured freezing point to
meet the obligation to report the melting
point. Since ASTM E 324–99 (capillary
tube) does not specifically include
instructions for determining freezing
point, EPA is instead proposing to
require, for substances which are liquid
at room temperature, OECD 102
(melting point/melting range), which
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65587
includes guidance for determining
freezing point (Ref. 10).
For the ‘‘n-Octanol/Water Partition
Coefficient (log 10 basis)’’ and water
solubility endpoints, EPA is proposing
that certain ‘‘special conditions’’ be
considered by test sponsors in
determining the appropriate test method
that would be used from among those
included for these endpoints in Table C.
of this unit and in Table 3. in
§ 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory
text.
For the ‘‘n-Octanol/Water Partition
Coefficient (log 10 basis)’’ endpoint, also
known as log Kow, EPA proposes that an
appropriate selection be made from
among three alternative methods for
measuring the chemical substance’s nOctanol/Water Partition Coefficient (log
10 basis; ‘‘log Kow’’). Prior to
determining the appropriate standard to
use, if any, to measure the n-Octanol/
Water Partition Coefficient, EPA is
recommending that the log Kow be
quantitatively estimated. EPA
recommends that the method described
in ‘‘Atom/Fragment Contribution
Method for Estimating Octanol-Water
Partition Coefficients’’ (Ref. 16) be used
in making such estimation. EPA is
proposing that test sponsors must
submit with the final study report the
underlying rationale for the test
standard selected for this endpoint. EPA
is proposing this approach recognizing
that, depending on the chemical
substance’s log Kow, one or more test
methods may provide adequate
information for determining the log Kow,
but that in some instances one
particular test method may be more
appropriate. In general, EPA believes
that the more hydrophobic a subject
chemical substance is, the less well
Method A (40 CFR 799.6755—shake
flask) will work and Method B (ASTM
E 1147–92(2005)) and Method C (40
CFR 799.6756—generator column)
become more suitable, especially
Method C. The proposed test
methodologies have been developed to
meet a wide variety of needs and, as
such, are silent on experimental
conditions related to pH. Therefore,
EPA highly recommends that all
required n-Octanol/Water Partition
Coefficient tests be conducted at pH 7
to ensure environmental relevance.’’
Table C. of this unit shows the proposed
test standards and log Kow ranges that
would determine which tests must be
conducted for this endpoint.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65588
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE C—TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR THE n-OCTANOL/WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT ENDPOINT
Testing category
Test requirements and references
Special conditions
Physical/chemical properties ..............................
n-Octanol/water partition coefficient (log 10
basis) or log Kow:
The appropriate log Kow test, if any,
would be selected from those listed in
this column—see special conditions in
the adjacent column.
Method A: 40 CFR 799.6755 (shake
flask)
Method B: ASTM E 1147–92 (2005) (liquid chromatography)
Method C: 40 CFR 799.6756 (generator
column)
n-Octanol/water partition coefficient or log
Kow:
Which method is required, if any, is determined by the test substance’s estimated log Kow as follows:
log Kow < 0: no testing required.
log Kow range 0–1: Method A or B.
log Kow range > 1–4: Method A or B or C.
log Kow range > 4–6: Method B or C.
log Kow > 6: Method C.
Test sponsors must provide in the final
study report the underlying rationale for
the method and pH selected. In order
to ensure environmental relevance,
EPA highly recommends that the selected study be conducted at pH 7.
For the ‘‘Water Solubility’’ endpoint,
EPA proposes an appropriate selection
be made from among four alternative
methods for measuring that endpoint.
The test method used, if any, would be
determined by first quantitatively
estimating the test substance’s water
solubility. One recommended method
for estimating water solubility is
described in ‘‘Improved Method for
Estimating Water Solubility from
Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient’’
(Ref. 17). EPA is also proposing that test
sponsors be required to submit in the
final study report the underlying
rationale for the test standard selected
for this endpoint. The proposed test
methodologies have been developed to
meet a wide variety of needs and, as
such, are silent on experimental
conditions related to pH. Therefore,
EPA proposes that all required water
solubility tests be conducted starting at
pH 7 to ensure environmental relevance.
The estimated water solubility ranges
that EPA is proposing for use in
selecting an appropriate proposed test
standard are shown in Table D. of this
unit.
TABLE D—TEST REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WATER SOLUBILITY ENDPOINT
Test requirements and references
Special conditions
Physical/chemical properties ..............................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Testing category
Water solubility:
The appropriate method to use, if any, to
test for water solubility would be selected from those listed in this column—see special conditions in the adjacent column
Method A: ASTM E 1148–02 (Re-approved 2008) (shake flask)
Method B: 40 CFR 799.6784 (shake
flask)
Method C: 40 CFR 799.6784 (column
elution)
Method D: 40 CFR 799.6786 (generator
column)
Water solubility:
Which method is required, if any, would
be determined by the test substance’s
estimated water solubility. Test sponsors must provide in the final study report the underlying rationale for the
method and pH selected. In order to
ensure environmental relevance, EPA
highly recommends that the selected
study be conducted starting at pH 7.
> 5,000 milligrams/liters (mg/L): Method A
or B.
> 10 mg/L–5,000 mg/L: Method A, B, C,
or D.
> 0.001 mg/L—10 mg/L: Method C or D.
≤ 0.001 mg/L: No testing required.
2. Environmental fate and pathways.
Ready Biodegradation: Method A—
ASTM E 1720–01(Reapproved 2008)
(Sealed vessel CO2 production test) (Ref.
18); Method B—International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
14593 (CO2 headspace test) (Ref. 19);
Method C— ISO 7827 (Method by
analysis of dissolved organic carbon
(DOC)) (Ref. 20); Method D—ISO 9408
(Determination of oxygen demand in a
closed respirometer) (Ref. 21); Method
E—ISO 9439 (Carbon dioxide evolution
test) (Ref. 22); Method F—ISO 10707
(Closed bottle test) (Ref. 23); Method
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:00 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
G—ISO 10708 (Two-phase closed bottle
test) (Ref. 24).
For the ‘‘Ready Biodegradation’’
endpoint, EPA proposes an appropriate
selection be made from among seven
alternative methods for measuring the
chemical substance’s ready
biodegradability. For most test
substances, EPA considers Method A
(ASTM E 1720–01) and Method B (ISO
14593) to be generally applicable, cost
effective, and widely accepted
internationally. However, any test
method used will depend on the
physical and chemical properties of the
test substance, including its water
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
solubility. An additional document, ISO
10631 (Ref. 25), provides guidance for
selection of an appropriate test method
for a given test substance considering
the substance’s physical and chemical
properties. EPA is also proposing that
test sponsors be required to submit in
the final study report the underlying
rationale for the test standard selected
for this endpoint.
3. Aquatic toxicity. Test Group 1:
Acute toxicity to fish (ASTM E 729–96
(2007)) (Ref. 26); Acute toxicity to
Daphnia (ASTM E 729–96(2007)) (Ref.
26); and Toxicity to plants (algae)
(ASTM E 1218–04e1) (Ref. 27). Test
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Group 2: Chronic toxicity to Daphnia
(ASTM E 1193–97 (2004)) (Ref. 28); and
Toxicity to plants (algae) (ASTM E
1218–04e1) (Ref. 27).
For the ‘‘Aquatic Toxicity’’ endpoint,
the OECD HPV SIDS Program recognizes
that, for certain chemical substances,
acute toxicity studies are of limited
value in assessing the chemical
substance’s aquatic toxicity. This issue
arises when considering chemical
substances with high log Kow values. In
such cases, toxicity is unlikely to be
observed over the duration of acute
toxicity studies because of reduced
uptake and the extended amount of time
required for such chemical substances
to reach steady state or toxic
concentrations in the test organism. For
such situations, the OECD HPV SIDS
Program recommends use of chronic
toxicity testing in Daphnia in place of
acute toxicity testing in fish and
Daphnia. EPA is proposing that the
aquatic toxicity testing requirement be
determined based on the test chemical
substance’s measured log Kow as
determined by using the approach
outlined in this unit in the discussion
of ‘‘n-Octanol/Water Coefficient,’’ and
in Table 3. in § 799.5090(j) of the
proposed regulatory text. For test
chemical substances determined to have
a log Kow of less than 4.2, one or more
of the following tests (described as ‘‘Test
Group 1’’ in Table 3. in § 799.5090(j) of
the proposed regulatory text) are
proposed: Acute toxicity to fish (ASTM
E 729–96 (2007)); Acute toxicity to
Daphnia (ASTM E 729–96 (2007)); and
Toxicity to plants (algae) (ASTM E
1218–04e1). For test chemical
substances determined to have a log Kow
that is greater than or equal to 4.2, one
or both of the following tests (described
as ‘‘Test Group 2’’ in Table 3. in
§ 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory
text) are proposed: Chronic toxicity to
Daphnia (ASTM E 1193–97 (2004)) and
Toxicity to plants (algae) (ASTM E
1218–04e1). As outlined in Unit IV.C.3.
and in § 799.5090(j) of the proposed
regulatory text, depending on the testing
proposed in Test Group 1, the Test
Group 2 chronic Daphnia test may
substitute for either or both the acute
fish toxicity test and the acute Daphnia
test.
Using SAR, a log Kow of 4.2
corresponds with a fish
bioconcentration factor (BCF) of about
1,000 (Refs. 17, 29, and 30). A chemical
substance with a fish BCF value of 1,000
or more is characterized as having a
tendency to accumulate in living
organisms relative to the concentration
of the chemical substance in the
surrounding environment (Ref. 30). For
the purposes of this proposed rule,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
EPA’s use of a log Kow equal to or greater
than 4.2 (which corresponds with a fish
BCF value of 1,000) is consistent with
the approach taken in the Agency’s
Final Policy Statement under TSCA
section 5 entitled ‘‘Category for
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
New Chemical Substances’’ (Ref. 31).
EPA has also used a measured BCF that
is equal to or greater than 1,000 or, in
the absence of bioconcentration data, a
log P [same as log Kow] value equal to
or greater than 4.3 to help define the
potential of a new chemical substance to
cause significant adverse environmental
effects (‘‘Significant New Use Rules;
General Provisions For New Chemical
Follow-Up’’ under TSCA sections 5 and
26(c) (Ref. 32; see also 40 CFR 721.3)).
EPA considers the difference between
the log Kow of 4.3 cited in the 1989
Federal Register document (Ref. 32) and
the log Kow value of 4.2 cited in this
proposed TSCA section 4 test rule to be
negligible.
EPA recognizes that in some
circumstances, acute aquatic toxicity
testing (Test Group 1) may be relevant
for certain chemical substances having a
log Kow equal to or greater than 4.2.
Chemical substances that are dispersible
in water (e.g., surfactants, detergents,
aliphatic amines, and cationic dyes)
may have log Kow values greater than 4.2
and may still be acutely toxic to aquatic
organisms. For any chemical substance
listed in Table 3. in § 799.5090(j) of the
proposed regulatory text for which a test
sponsor believes that an alternative to
the log Kow threshold of 4.2 is
appropriate, the test sponsor may
request a modification of the test
standard in the final rule as described
in 40 CFR 790.55. Based upon the
supporting rationale provided by the
test sponsor, EPA may allow an
alternative threshold or method to be
used for determining whether acute or
chronic aquatic toxicity testing must be
performed for a specific test substance.
EPA is soliciting public comment on
this approach as well as other
alternative approaches in this area.
4. Mammalian toxicity—acute. Acute
Inhalation Toxicity (rat): Method A (40
CFR 799.9130). Acute Oral Toxicity
(rat): Method B (ASTM E 1163–98(2002)
(Ref. 33) or 40 CFR 799.9110(d)(1)(i)(A)).
For the ‘‘Mammalian Toxicity—
Acute’’ endpoint, EPA is proposing that
certain special conditions such as the
chemical substance’s physical/chemical
properties or physical state be
considered in determining the
appropriate test method from among
those included for this endpoint in
Table 3. in § 799.5090(j) of the
proposed regulatory text. The OECD
HPV SIDS Program recognizes that, for
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65589
most chemical substances, the oral route
of administration will suffice for this
endpoint. However, consistent with the
approach taken under the voluntary
HPV Challenge, EPA is proposing that,
for test chemical substances that are
gases at room temperature (25 °C), the
acute mammalian toxicity study be
conducted using inhalation as the
exposure route (described as Method A
(40 CFR 799.9130) in Table 3. in
§ 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory
text). In the case of a potentially
explosive test chemical substance, care
must be taken to avoid the generation of
explosive concentrations. For all other
chemical substances (i.e., those that are
either liquids or solids at room
temperature), EPA is proposing that
acute toxicity testing be conducted via
oral administration using an ‘‘Up/
Down’’ test method (described as
Method B (ASTM E 1163–98 (2002) or
40 CFR 799.9110(d)(1)(i)(A)) in Table 3.
in § 799.5090(j) of the proposed
regulatory text). Consistent with the
voluntary HPV Challenge, EPA is
proposing to allow the use of the
Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) basal
cytotoxicity assay to select the starting
dose for the acute oral toxicity test (Refs.
34 and 35). This test is included as a
Special Condition in Table 3. in
§ 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory
text. A document developed by National
Institutes of Health/National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIH/
NIEHS) provides guidance on how to
use the NRU assay to estimate a starting
dose for an acute oral toxicity test (Ref.
36). Recent versions of the standardized
protocols for the NRU assay are
available at the NIEHS/Interagency
Coordinating Committee on the
Validation of Alternative Methods
(ICCVAM) Web site, https://
iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/
acutetox/invitrocyto/invcyt_proto.htm
(Refs. 34, 35, and 37).
Dermal toxicity testing is not
proposed in this rulemaking, and the
Agency does not intend to include any
dermal toxicity testing in any TSCA
section 4 HPV SIDS rulemakings.
5. Mammalian toxicity—genotoxicity.
Gene Mutations. Bacterial Reverse
Mutation Test (in vitro): 40 CFR
799.9510 Chromosomal Damage.
In Vitro Mammalian Chromosome
Aberration Test (40 CFR 799.9537), or
the In Vivo Mammalian Bone Marrow
Chromosomal Aberration Test (rodents:
Mouse (preferred species), rat, or
Chinese hamster) (40 CFR 799.9538), or
the In Vivo Mammalian Erythrocyte
Micronucleus Test (sampled in bone
marrow) (rodents: Mouse (preferred
species), rat, or Chinese hamster) (40
CFR 799.9539).
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
65590
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Persons who would be required to
conduct testing for chromosomal
damage are encouraged to use in vitro
genetic toxicity testing (i.e., the
Mammalian Chromosome Aberration
Test) to generate the needed genetic
toxicity screening data, unless known
chemical properties preclude its use.
These could include, for example,
physical chemical properties or
chemical class characteristics. A
primary focus of both the voluntary
HPV Challenge and this proposed rule
is to implement this program in a
manner consistent with the OECD HPV
SIDS Program and as part of a larger
international activity with global
involvement. This proposed approach
provides the same degree of flexibility
as that which currently exists under the
OECD HPV SIDS testing program (Ref.
1). A person subject to this rule who
uses one of the in vivo methods instead
of the in vitro method to address this
end-point would be required to submit
to EPA in the final report a rationale for
conducting that alternate test.
6. Mammalian toxicity—repeated
dose/reproduction/developmental.
Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity
Study with the Reproduction/
Developmental Toxicity Screening Test:
40 CFR 799.9365. Reproduction/
Developmental Toxicity Screening Test:
40 CFR 799.9355. Repeated Dose 28-Day
Oral Toxicity Study: 40 CFR 799.9305.
For the ‘‘Mammalian Toxicity—
Repeated Dose/Reproduction/
Developmental’’ endpoint, EPA
recommends the use of the Combined
Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the
Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity
Screening Test (40 CFR 799.9365) as the
test of choice. EPA recognizes, however,
that there may be reasons to test a
particular chemical substance using
both the Reproduction/Developmental
Toxicity Screening Test (40 CFR
799.9355) and the Repeated Dose 28Day Oral Toxicity Study (40 CFR
799.9305) instead of the Combined
Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the
Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity
Screening Test (40 CFR 799.9365). With
regard to such cases, EPA is proposing
that a person subject to this rule, who
uses the combination of the
Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity
Screening Test and the Repeated Dose
28-Day Oral Toxicity Study in place of
the Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity
Study with Reproduction/
Developmental Toxicity Screen would
be required to submit to EPA in the final
study reports a rationale for conducting
these alternate tests.
Certain of the chemical substances for
which Mammalian Toxicity—Repeated
Dose/Reproduction/Developmental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
testing is proposed may be used solely
as ‘‘closed system intermediates,’’ as
described in the EPA guidance
document developed for the voluntary
HPV Challenge (Ref. 38). As described
in that guidance, such chemical
substances may be eligible for a reduced
testing battery which substitutes a
developmental toxicity study for the
SIDS requirement to address repeated
dose (e.g., subchronic), reproductive,
and developmental toxicity. In other
words, since only the developmental
toxicity study would be conducted for
those chemical substances that qualify
for a reduced testing battery, repeated
dose (e.g., subchronic) and reproductive
studies would not be conducted. At the
present time, EPA does not have
sufficient information to know with any
degree of certainty which if any of the
chemical substances that are listed in
the proposed regulatory text are solely
closed system intermediates as defined
in the voluntary HPV Challenge
guidance document (Ref. 38). Persons
who believe that a chemical substance
fully satisfies the terms outlined in the
guidance document are encouraged to
submit appropriate information along
with their comments on this proposed
rule which substantiate this belief. If,
based on submitted information and
other information available to EPA, the
Agency believes that a chemical
substance is considered likely to meet
the requirements for use solely as a
closed system intermediate, EPA would
not address any developmental toxicity
testing needs in this proposed rule.
D. When would any testing imposed by
this proposed rule begin?
The testing requirements contained in
this proposed rule are not effective until
and unless the Agency issues a final test
rule. Based on the effective date of the
final test rule, which is typically 30
days after the publication of a final rule
in the Federal Register, the test sponsor
may plan the initiation of any required
testing as appropriate to submit the
required final report by the deadline
indicated in § 799.5090(i) of the
proposed regulatory text.
E. How would the studies proposed
under this test rule be conducted?
Persons required to comply with the
final rule would have to conduct the
necessary testing in accordance with the
testing and reporting requirements
established in the regulatory text of the
final rule, with 40 CFR part 790—
Procedures Governing Testing Consent
Agreements and Test Rules (except for
paragraphs (a), (d), (e), and (f) of
§ 790.45; § 790.48; paragraph (a)(2) and
paragraph (b) of § 790.80; paragraph
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(e)(1) of § 790.82; and § 790.85), and
with 40 CFR part 792—Good Laboratory
Practice Standards.
F. What forms of chemical substances
would be tested under this rule?
EPA is proposing two distinct
approaches for identifying the specific
chemical substances that would be
tested under a final rule originating
from this proposed rule, the application
of which would depend on whether the
chemical substance is considered to be
a ‘‘Class 1’’ or a ‘‘Class 2’’ chemical
substance. First introduced when EPA
compiled the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory, the term Class 1 chemical
substance refers to a chemical substance
having a chemical composition that
consists of a single chemical species
(not including impurities) that can be
represented by a specific, complete
structure diagram. By contrast, a Class 2
chemical substance has a composition
that cannot be represented by a specific,
complete chemical structure diagram,
because such a substance generally
contains two or more different chemical
species (not including impurities). Table
2. in § 799.5090(j) of the proposed
regulatory text identifies the listed
chemical substances as either Class 1 or
Class 2 chemical substances.
EPA is proposing that, for the Class 1
chemical substances that are listed in
this proposed rule, the test chemical
substance have a purity of 99% or
greater. EPA has generally applied this
standard of purity to the testing of Class
1 chemical substances in the past under
TSCA section 4(a) testing actions,
except for chemical substances where it
has been shown that such purity is
unattainable. EPA is soliciting comment
on whether a purity level of 99% or
greater cannot be attained for any of the
Class 1 chemical substances listed in
this proposed rule. For the Class 2
chemical substances that are listed in
this proposed rule, EPA is proposing
that the test chemical substance be any
representative form of the chemical
substance, to be defined by the test
sponsor(s).
EPA solicits comment on the
proposed alternative approach to the
testing of Class 2 chemical substances
included in this proposed rule.
G. Who would be required to test under
this rule?
1. Would I be subject to this rule? If
this proposed rule becomes final, you
would be subject to the final rule and
may be required to test if you
manufacture (which is defined by
statute to include import) or process, or
intend to manufacture or process, one or
more chemical substances listed in this
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule during the time period
described in this unit. However, if you
do not know or cannot reasonably
ascertain that you manufacture or
process a listed test rule chemical
substance (based on all information in
your possession or control, as well as all
information that a reasonable person
similarly situated might be expected to
possess, control, or know, or could
obtain without unreasonable burden),
you would not be subject to the rule for
that listed chemical substance.
2. When would my manufacture or
processing (or my intent to do so) cause
me to be subject to this rule? You would
be subject to this rule if you
manufacture or process, or intend to
manufacture or process, a chemical
substance listed in the rule at any time
from the effective date of the final test
rule to the end of the test data
reimbursement period. The term
‘‘reimbursement period’’ is defined at 40
CFR 791.3(h) and may vary in length for
each substance to be tested under a final
TSCA section 4(a) test rule, depending
on what testing is required and when
testing is completed.
3. Would I be required to test if I were
subject to the rule? It depends on the
nature of your activities. All persons
who would be subject to this TSCA
section 4(a) test rule, which, unless
otherwise noted in the regulatory text,
incorporates EPA’s generic procedures
applicable to TSCA section 4(a) test
rules (contained within 40 CFR part
790), would fall into one of two groups,
designated here as Tier 1 and Tier 2.
Persons in Tier 1 (those who would
have to initially comply with the final
rule) would either submit to EPA letters
of intent to conduct testing, conduct this
testing, and submit the test data to EPA,
or apply to and obtain from EPA
65591
exemptions from testing. Addresses of
the EPA Document Control Office where
this information should be sent are
found in this document under
ADDRESSES.
Persons in Tier 2 (those who would
not have to initially comply with the
final rule) would not need to take any
action unless they are notified by EPA
that they are required to do so (because,
for example, no person in Tier 1 had
submitted a letter of intent to conduct
testing). Note that both persons in Tier
1 who obtain exemptions and persons in
Tier 2 would nonetheless be subject to
providing reimbursement to persons
who actually conduct the testing.
4. Who would be in Tier 1 and Tier
2? All persons who would be subject to
the final rule are considered to be in
Tier 1 unless they fall within Tier 2.
Table E. of this unit describes who is in
Tier 1 and Tier 2.
TABLE E—PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE RULE: TIER 1 AND TIER 2
Tier 2 (persons not initially required to comply)
Persons who manufacture (as defined at TSCA section 3(7)) or intend
to manufacture, a test rule chemical substance, and who are not listed under Tier 2.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Tier 1 (persons initially required to comply)
A. Persons who manufacture (as defined at TSCA section 3(7)) or intend to manufacture a test rule chemical substance solely as one or
more of the following:
—As a byproduct (as defined at 40 CFR 791.3(c));
—As an impurity (as defined at 40 CFR 790.3);
—As a naturally occurring chemical substance (as defined at 40
CFR 710.4(b));
—As a non-isolated intermediate (as defined at 40 CFR 704.3);
—As a component of a Class 2 substance (as described at 40
CFR 720.45(a)(1)(i));
—In amounts of less than 500 kilograms (kg) (1,100 lbs.) annually
(as described at 40 CFR 790.42(a)(4)); or
—In small quantities solely for research and development (R & D)
(as described at 40 CFR 790.42(a)(5)).
B. Persons who process (as defined at TSCA section 3(10)) or intend
to process a test rule substance (see 40 CFR 790.42(a)(2)).
Under 40 CFR 790.2, EPA may
establish procedures for specific test
rules that differ from the generic
procedures governing TSCA section 4(a)
test rules in 40 CFR part 790. For
purposes of this proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to establish certain
requirements that differ from those
under 40 CFR part 790.
In this proposed test rule, EPA has
configured the tiers in 40 CFR 790.42 as
in previous HPV test rules (Refs. 39, 40,
and 41). In addition to processors,
manufacturers of less than 500 kg (1,100
lbs.) per year (‘‘small-volume
manufacturers’’), and manufacturers of
small quantities for research and
development (‘‘R&D manufacturers’’),
EPA has added the following persons to
Tier 2: Byproduct manufacturers,
impurity manufacturers, manufacturers
of naturally occurring chemical
substances, manufacturers of nonisolated intermediates, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
manufacturers of components of Class 2
chemical substances. The Agency took
administrative burden and complexity
into account in determining who was to
be in Tier 1 in this proposed rule. EPA
believes that those persons in Tier 1
who would conduct testing under this
proposed rule, when finalized, would
generally be large manufacturers of
chemical substances who, in the
experience of the Agency, have
traditionally conducted testing or
participated in testing consortia under
previous TSCA section 4(a) test rules.
The Agency also believes that
byproduct manufacturers, impurity
manufacturers, manufacturers of
naturally occurring chemical
substances, manufacturers of nonisolated intermediates, and
manufacturers of components of Class 2
chemical substances historically have
not themselves participated in testing or
contributed to reimbursement of those
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
persons who have conducted testing.
EPA understands that these
manufacturers may include persons for
whom the marginal transaction costs
involved in negotiating and
administering testing arrangements are
deemed likely to raise the expense and
burden of testing to a level that is
disproportional to the additional
benefits of including these persons in
Tier 1. Therefore, EPA does not believe
that the likelihood of the persons
proposed to be added to Tier 2 actually
conducting the testing is sufficiently
high to justify burdening these persons
with Tier 1 requirements (e.g.,
submitting requests for exemptions).
Nevertheless, these persons, along with
all other persons in Tier 2, would be
subject to reimbursement obligations to
persons who actually conduct the
testing.
TSCA section 4(b)(3)(B) requires all
manufacturers and/or processors of a
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
65592
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
chemical substance to test that chemical
substance if EPA has made findings
under TSCA sections 4(a)(1)(A)(ii) or
(a)(1)(B)(ii) for that chemical substance,
and issued a TSCA section 4(a) test rule
requiring testing. However, practicality
must be a factor in determining who is
subject to a particular test rule. Thus,
persons who do not know or cannot
reasonably ascertain that they are
manufacturing or processing a chemical
substance subject to this proposed rule,
e.g., manufacturers or processors of a
chemical substance as a trace
contaminant who are not aware of and
cannot reasonably ascertain these
activities, would not be subject to the
rule. See § 799.5090(b)(2) of the
proposed regulatory text.
5. Who is in the Tier 2 subdivisions?
The Agency is proposing to prioritize
which persons in Tier 2 would be
required to perform testing, if needed.
Specifically, the Agency is proposing
that Tier 2 entities be subdivided into:
i. Tier 2A—manufacturers, i.e., those
who manufacture, or intend to
manufacture, a test rule chemical
substance solely as one or more of the
following: A byproduct, an impurity, a
naturally occurring chemical substance,
a non-isolated intermediate, a
component of a Class 2 chemical
substance, in amounts less than 1,100
lbs. annually, or in small quantities
solely for research and development.
ii. Tier 2B—processors, i.e., those who
process, or intend to process, a test rule
chemical substance (in any form). The
terms ‘‘process’’ and ‘‘processor’’ are
defined by TSCA sections 3(10) and
3(11), respectively.
If the Agency needs testing from
persons in Tier 2, EPA would seek
testing from persons in Tier 2A before
proceeding to Tier 2B. It is appropriate
to require manufacturers in Tier 2A to
submit letters of intent to test or
exemption applications before
processors are called upon because the
Agency believes that testing costs are
traditionally passed by manufacturers
along to processors, enabling them to
share in the costs of testing (Ref. 42). In
addition, as stated by EPA in the Data
Reimbursement rule, ‘‘[t]here are
[typically] so many processors [of a
given test rule chemical substance] that
it would be difficult to include them all
in the technical decisions about the tests
and in the financial decisions about
how to allocate the costs’’ (Ref. 43).
6. When would it be appropriate for
a person who would be required to
comply with the rule to apply for an
exemption rather than to submit a letter
of intent to conduct testing? You may
apply for an exemption if you believe
that the required testing will be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
performed by another person (or a
consortium of persons formed under
TSCA section 4(b)(3)(A)). Procedures
relating to exemptions are in 40 CFR
790.80 through 790.99, and
§ 799.5090(c)(2), (c)(5), (c)(7), and
(c)(11) of the proposed regulatory text.
In this proposed rule, EPA would not
require the submission of equivalence
data (i.e., data demonstrating that your
chemical substance is equivalent to the
chemical substance actually being
tested) as a condition for approval of
your exemption. Therefore, 40 CFR
790.82(e)(1) and 40 CFR 790.85 would
not apply to this proposed rule.
7. What would happen if I submitted
an exemption application? If EPA has
received a letter of intent to test from
another source or has received (or
expects to receive) the test data that
would be required under this rule, the
Agency may conditionally approve your
exemption application under 40 CFR
790.87.
The Agency would terminate
conditional exemptions if a problem
occurs with the initiation, conduct, or
completion of the required testing, or
with the submission of the required data
to EPA. EPA may then require you to
submit a notice of intent to test or an
exemption application. See 40 CFR
790.93 and § 799.5090(c)(8) of the
proposed regulatory text for details on
submitting this notice. In addition, the
Agency would terminate a conditional
exemption if no letter of intent to test
has been received from persons required
to comply with the rule. See, e.g.,
§ 799.5090(c)(6) of the proposed
regulatory text. Note that the provisions
at 40 CFR 790.48(b) have been
incorporated into the regulatory text of
this proposed rule; thus, persons subject
to the final rule are not required to
comply with 40 CFR 790.48 itself (see
§ 799.5090(c)(4)–(c)(7) and
§ 799.5090(d)(3) of the proposed
regulatory text). Persons who obtain
exemptions or receive them
automatically would nonetheless be
subject to providing reimbursement to
persons who do actually conduct the
testing, as described in Unit IV.G.4.
8. What would my obligations be if I
were in Tier 2? If you are in Tier 2, you
would be subject to the rule and you
would be responsible for providing
reimbursement to persons in Tier 1. The
obligation to provide reimbursement is
not affected by placement in Tier 2A or
Tier 2B. Concerning testing, if you are
in Tier 2, you are considered to have an
automatic conditional exemption. You
would not need to submit a letter of
intent to test or an exemption
application unless you are notified by
EPA that you are required to do so. As
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
previously noted, Tier 2A
manufacturers would be notified to test
before Tier 2B processors.
If a problem occurs with the
initiation, conduct, or completion of the
required testing, or with the submission
of the required data to EPA, the Agency
may require you to submit a notice of
intent to test or an exemption
application. See 40 CFR 790.93 and
§ 799.5090(c)(10) of the proposed
regulatory text.
In addition, you would need to
submit a notice of intent to test or an
exemption application if: i. no
manufacturer in Tier 1 has notified EPA
of its intent to conduct testing; and ii.
EPA has published a Federal Register
document directing persons in Tier 2 to
submit to EPA letters of intent to
conduct testing or exemption
applications. See § 799.5090(c)(4), (c)(5),
(c)(6), and (c)(7) of the proposed
regulatory text. EPA is not aware of any
circumstances in which test rule Tier 1
entities have sought reimbursement
from Tier 2 entities either through
private agreements or by soliciting the
involvement of the Agency under the
reimbursement regulations at 40 CFR
part 791.
9. What would happen if no one
submitted a letter of intent to conduct
testing? EPA anticipates that it will
receive letters of intent to conduct
testing for all of the tests specified and
chemical substances included in the
final rule. However, in the event it does
not receive a letter of intent for one or
more of the tests required by the final
rule for any of the chemical substances
in the final rule within 30 days after the
publication of a Federal Register
document notifying Tier 2 processors of
the obligation to submit a letter of intent
to conduct testing or to apply for an
exemption from testing, EPA would
notify all manufacturers and processors
of the chemical substance of this fact by
certified letter or by publishing a
Federal Register document specifying
the test(s) for which no letter of intent
has been submitted. This letter or
Federal Register document would
additionally notify all manufacturers
and processors that all exemption
applications concerning the test(s) have
been denied, and would give them an
opportunity to take corrective action. If
no one has notified EPA of its intent to
conduct the required testing of the
chemical substance within 30 days after
receipt of the certified letter or
publication of the Federal Register
document, all manufacturers and
processors subject to the final rule with
respect to that chemical substance who
are not already in violation of the final
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
rule would be in violation of the final
rule.
10. What are the reimbursement
procedures? In the past, persons subject
to test rules have independently worked
out among themselves their respective
financial contributions to those persons
who have actually conducted the
testing. However, if persons are unable
to agree privately on reimbursement,
they may take advantage of EPA’s
reimbursement procedures at 40 CFR
part 791, promulgated under the
authority of TSCA section 4(a). These
procedures include: The opportunity for
a hearing with the American Arbitration
Association; publication by EPA of a
document in the Federal Register
concerning the request for a hearing;
and the appointment of a hearing officer
to propose an order for fair and
equitable reimbursement. The hearing
officer may base his or her proposed
order on the production volume formula
set out at 40 CFR 791.48, but is not
obligated to do so. Under this proposed
rule, amounts manufactured as
impurities would be included in
production volume (40 CFR 791.48(b)),
subject to the discretion of the hearing
officer (40 CFR 791.40(a)). The hearing
officer’s proposed order may become the
Agency’s final order, which is
reviewable in Federal court (40 CFR
791.60).
H. What reporting requirements would
be required under this test rule?
For each test for each chemical
substance, you would be required to
submit a study plan 90 days after the
effective date of the final rule and a final
report for a specific test by the deadline
indicated as the number of months after
the effective date of the final rule, which
would be shown in § 799.5090(i) of the
regulatory text. Addresses of the EPA
Document Control Office where this
information should be sent are found in
this document under ADDRESSES.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
I. What would I need to do if I cannot
complete the testing required by the
final rule?
A company who submits a letter of
intent to test under the final rule and
who subsequently anticipates
difficulties in completing the testing by
the deadline set forth in the final rule
may submit a modification request to
the Agency, pursuant to 40 CFR 790.55.
EPA will determine whether
modification of the test schedule is
appropriate, and may first seek public
comment on the modification.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
J. Would there be sufficient test facilities
and personnel to undertake the testing
proposed under this test rule?
EPA’s most recent analysis of
laboratory capacity (Ref. 44) indicates
that available test facilities and
personnel would adequately
accommodate the testing proposed in
this rule.
K. Might EPA seek further testing of the
chemical substances in this proposed
test rule?
If EPA determines that it needs
additional data regarding any of the
chemical substances included in this
proposed rule, the Agency would seek
further health and/or environmental
effects testing for these chemical
substances. Should the Agency decide
to seek such additional testing via a test
rule, EPA would initiate a separate
action for this purpose.
V. Proposed TSCA Section 5(a)(2)
SNUR and Basis To Potentially Add
One or More Chemical Substances
From Table A. to the SNUR
EPA has preliminarily determined
that each of the 45 substances listed in
Tables A. and B. in Unit III. is produced
in substantial quantities (≥1 million
lbs./yr) and made preliminary findings
that there may be substantial human
exposure to 23 of these substances.
However, for 22 of the 45 chemical
substances, the Agency does not
currently have exposure information
that would adequately support such
findings under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B).
For those remaining 22 chemical
substances (i.e., Table B.), EPA is
proposing to establish significant new
use reporting and recordkeeping
requirements under TSCA section
5(a)(2) that would require EPA
notification prior to worker or consumer
exposures rising to substantial levels.
A. What are the rationale and objectives
for taking this action?
1. Rationale. Each of the chemical
substances included in Table B. is
produced in substantial quantities. EPA
considered the factors set out in TSCA
section 5(a)(2) and the longstanding use
of the exposure thresholds in the ‘‘B
Policy’’ (see Unit V.B.) to determine that
manufacturers and processors of any of
these chemical substances should be
required to notify EPA if exposure to
any of these chemical substances is
expected to increase significantly.
Accordingly, the significant new uses
are: Any use in a consumer product, and
any use or combination of uses that is
reasonably likely to expose 1,000 or
more workers at a single corporate
entity (defined as the aggregate of all of
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65593
the domestic facilities owned or
operated by an individual corporation).
The SNUR facilitates efficiency by
mitigating the need for EPA to
continually reevaluate each HPV
chemical substance to determine
whether exposure potential has
increased so that there is or may be
substantial human exposure. EPA
recognizes, however, that the proposed
SNU designation would not encompass
every new use that could potentially
give rise to significant or substantial
human exposure.
Consistent with EPA’s past practice
for issuing SNURs under TSCA Section
5(a)(2), EPA’s decision to propose a
SNUR for a particular chemical use
need not be based on an extensive
evaluation of the hazard, exposure, or
potential risk associated with that use.
Rather, the Agency’s action is based on
EPA’s determination that if the use
begins or resumes, it may present a risk
that EPA should evaluate before the
manufacturing or processing for that use
begins. Since the new use does not
currently exist, deferring a detailed
consideration of potential risks or
hazards related to that use is an effective
use of resources. If a person decides to
begin manufacturing or processing the
chemical for the use, the notice to EPA
allows EPA to evaluate the use
according to the specific parameters and
circumstances surrounding that
intended use.
2. Objectives. Under TSCA section
5(a)(1)(B), any person intending to
manufacture, import, or process any of
these chemical substances for one or
more of the designated SNUs would be
required to notify EPA with a SNUN
before that activity begins. EPA would
then have an opportunity to review and
evaluate data submitted in a SNUN and,
if warranted pursuant to TSCA sections
5(e), 5(f), 6 or 7, EPA would be able to
regulate prospective manufacturers
(which, as noted in Unit I.A., includes
importers) or processors of the chemical
substances before the designated SNUs
of the chemical substance occurs.
B. How were the significant new uses
determined?
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that
EPA’s determination that a use of a
chemical substance is a SNU must be
made after consideration of all relevant
factors including:
1. The projected volume of
manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
2. The extent to which a use changes
the type or form of exposure of human
beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
65594
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
3. The extent to which a use increases
the magnitude and duration of exposure
of human beings or the environment to
a chemical substance.
4. The reasonably anticipated manner
and methods of manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and disposal of a chemical substance.
In addition to these factors, the statute
authorizes EPA to consider any other
relevant factors. To determine what
would constitute a SNU of the chemical
substances listed in Table B. and of the
chemical substances listed in Table A.,
EPA considered the section 5(a)(2)
factors, as well as EPA’s 1993 ‘‘B
Policy’’ (Ref. 2), discussed in Unit II.D.
For the first section 5(a)(2) factor,
production volume, EPA considered the
fact that all 22 of the chemical
substances in Table B., and all 23 of the
chemical substances in Table A., have
been produced in substantial amounts,
i.e., volumes above one million lbs./
year. EPA would expect that increased
or expanded use of these chemical
substances could correspond to a further
increase in annual production volume
and thereby increase exposures.
Next, EPA considered the extent to
which a use changes the type or form of
exposure of human beings or the
environment to a chemical substance.
Current IUR information available to
EPA indicates that all but 2 of the 22
chemical substances in Table B. are
used solely for industrial purposes. For
the remaining two chemical substances
in Table B., EPA could find no evidence
of any ongoing consumer uses. With
respect to these 22 chemical substances
(i.e., Table B.), any use in consumer
products would likely result in new
consumer exposures to these chemical
substances. These potential new users
could be exposed via pathways different
from industrial users, and consumers
may be less likely to use, or have access
to, appropriate protective equipment
(e.g. gloves or respirators) than
industrial users. An expansion into use
in consumer products may also include
new environmental releases, deliberate
or accidental (e.g., consumers may
dispose of a chemical substance by
pouring it down a storm drain or
household sink).
With respect to the chemical
substances listed in Table A., EPA has
information indicating that ongoing use
of certain of these chemical substances
already involves the exposure of 10,000
or more consumers. If public comment
on this proposal is accompanied by
additional information that contradicts
the information upon which EPA has
based its preliminary conclusions (i.e.,
less than 10,000 consumers are
exposed), that information could
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
potentially also establish that there are
no ongoing uses of the chemical
substance in consumer products. If EPA
concludes, on the basis of public
comments, that there is an inadequate
basis to issue a test rule for the chemical
substance, it would also conclude, as a
general matter, that there is an adequate
basis to issue a SNUR for the chemical
substance. In such a case, EPA intends
to incorporate the chemical substance
into the final SNUR without further
opportunity for public notice and
comment. EPA believes that the
commencement of consumer uses of the
chemical substances in Table A. (if such
uses are not currently ongoing) would
be a SNU of the chemical substances.
This is because potential new users
could be exposed via pathways different
from industrial users, and may be less
likely to use appropriate protective
equipment (e.g. gloves or respirators)
than industrial users. An expansion into
use in consumer products may also
include new environmental releases
(e.g., consumers may dispose of a
chemical substance by pouring it down
a storm drain or household sink).
EPA also considered the extent to
which a use increases the magnitude
and duration of human or
environmental exposure to a chemical
substance. Commencement of a
chemical substance’s use in a consumer
product would increase the amount and
time that consumers were exposed to
the chemical substance. In determining
substantial consumer exposure, EPA
considered the production volume and
consumer uses. If production volume
exceeds one million pounds per year
and consumer uses are indicated, it is
likely that consumer exposure exceeds
the substantial threshold of ten
thousand people as defined by the ‘‘B
Policy.’’ EPA has reached this
conclusion with respect to the chemical
substances in Table B. and the chemical
substances in Table A. (to the extent
that use of the chemical substances in
Table A. in consumer products is not
already ongoing).
EPA also considered how the number
of workers exposed (as reported under
the IUR rule) might change if use of a
chemical substance changed or
expanded. For example, the
commencement of additional new uses
may increase the total production
volume of a chemical substance, thereby
increasing the magnitude and duration
of exposure for industrial workers. None
of the 22 chemical substances listed in
Table B. are known to meet the ‘‘B
Policy’’ threshold for substantial worker
exposure (≥ 1,000 workers) at this time.
However, if exposure were to increase
such that 1,000 or more workers at a
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
single corporate entity were reasonably
likely to be exposed, EPA believes that
the increased exposure would be a
significant change. In this context,
‘‘single corporate entity’’ refers to the
aggregate of all of the domestic facilities
owned or operated by an individual
corporation. Therefore, the SNUR
notification requirements would be
triggered 90 days before the sum of all
potentially exposed workers at domestic
facilities comprising the single
corporate entity was expected to reach
1,000 workers or more.
With respect to the chemical
substances listed in Table A., EPA has
information that ongoing use of certain
of these chemical substances already
involves the exposure of 1,000 or more
workers. If EPA concludes, on the basis
of public comments, that there is no
basis to issue a test rule for such
chemical substance then it would also
conclude, as a general matter, that there
is an adequate basis to issue a SNUR for
the chemical substance. In such a case,
EPA intends to incorporate the chemical
substance into the final SNUR without
further opportunity for public notice
and comment. Chemical substances
from Table A., like the chemical
substances from Table B., are high
production volume chemical
substances. If exposure to a Table A.
chemical substance were to increase
such that 1,000 or more workers at a
single corporate entity were to become
reasonably likely to be exposed, EPA
believes that the increased exposure
would be a significant change.
With respect to the chemical
substances in Tables A. and B., EPA also
considered the reasonably anticipated
manner and methods of manufacturing,
processing, distribution in commerce,
and disposal of these chemical
substances in determining what would
be a SNU. Given the production volume
of these chemical substances, any
change in these methods or practices
could affect human or environmental
exposures, but the lack of available
toxicity data, and of more detailed
information about existing methods and
practices, hampers EPA’s ability to more
fully consider this fourth factor.
Finally, EPA considered the ‘‘B
Policy.’’ Since 1993, EPA has used the
production, exposure, and release
benchmarks in the ‘‘B Policy’’ for
making TSCA section 4 test rule
findings. EPA has also considered and
incorporated the production, worker,
and consumer exposure benchmarks in
the selection of chemical substances to
be included and development of the
SNUs included in today’s proposed
action. These chemical substances have
already been in production at high
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
volumes, and at least some workers are
exposed. EPA is proposing to
incorporate certain ‘‘B Policy’’ exposure
thresholds into its rationale for the
proposed SNUs because they are clear
numeric criteria that have been used to
determine substantial human exposure
since 1993. They have provided a clear
threshold—well understood by EPA,
industry, and other stakeholders—of
levels of worker or consumer exposure
that are important under TSCA. EPA is
interested in receiving comment
concerning use of the ‘‘B Policy’’ in this
context.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
C. What were the alternatives to
proposing this SNUR?
Before proposing this SNUR, EPA
considered promulgating a TSCA
section 8(a) reporting rule. Under a
TSCA section 8(a) rule, EPA could,
among other things, generally require
persons to report information to the
Agency when they intend to
manufacture, import, or process a listed
chemical substance for a specific use or
any use. However, if EPA were to
require reporting under TSCA section
8(a) instead of TSCA section 5(a), EPA
would not have the opportunity to
assess the risk of the new use prior to
commencement of that activity, or, if
warranted, to take immediate follow-up
regulatory action under TSCA sections
5(e) or 5(f) to prohibit or limit the
activity before it begins.
D. What would be the applicability of
the final rule to uses occurring before
the effective date of the final rule?
As discussed in the Federal Register
of April 24, 1990 (55 FR 17376), EPA
has decided that the intent of section
5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA is best served by
designating a use as a SNU as of the date
of publication of the proposed rule
rather than as of the effective date of the
final rule. If uses begun after publication
of the proposed rule were considered
ongoing rather than new, it would be
difficult for EPA to establish SNUR
notice requirements, because a person
could defeat the SNUR by initiating the
proposed SNU before the rule became
final, and then argue that the use was
ongoing as of the effective date of the
final rule. Thus, persons who, after
publication of the proposed SNUR,
begin commercial manufacture, import,
or processing of the chemical
substance(s) listed in Table B. for a use
proposed in this action for a SNU would
have to cease any such activity before
the effective date of the rule if and when
finalized. To resume their activities,
these persons would have to comply
with all applicable SNUR notice
requirements and wait until the notice
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
review period, including all extensions,
expires. EPA has promulgated
provisions to allow persons to comply
with SNURs before the effective date. If
a person were to meet the conditions of
advance compliance under § 721.45(h),
that person would be considered to have
met the requirements of the final SNUR
for those activities.
E. Do test data and other information
have to be submitted?
TSCA section 5 does not require
developing any particular test data
before submission of a SNUN, except
where the chemical substance is also
subject to a test rule under TSCA
section 4 (see TSCA section 5(b)), or
when a chemical substance is included
on the list described under section
5(b)(4). Unless submission of data is
required under section 4 or 5(b)(4),
persons are required only to submit test
data in their possession or control and
to describe any other data known to or
reasonably ascertainable by them (40
CFR 721.25). However, as a general
matter, EPA recommends that SNUN
submitters include data that would
permit a reasoned evaluation of risks
posed by the chemical substance during
its manufacture, import, processing, use,
distribution in commerce, or disposal.
EPA encourages persons to consult with
the Agency before submitting a SNUN.
As part of this optional pre-notice
consultation, EPA would discuss
specific data it believes may be useful
in evaluating a significant new use.
SNUNs submitted for significant new
uses without any test data may increase
the likelihood that EPA will take action
under TSCA section 5(e) to prohibit or
limit activities associated with this
chemical substance.
SNUN submitters should be aware
that EPA will be better able to evaluate
SNUNs that provide detailed
information on:
1. Human exposure and
environmental releases that may result
from the significant new uses of the
chemical substances.
2. Potential benefits of the chemical
substances.
3. Information on risks posed by the
chemical substances compared to risks
posed by potential substitutes.
F. How do I submit a SNUN?
EPA recommends that submitters
consult with the Agency prior to
submitting a SNUN to discuss what data
may be useful in evaluating a SNU.
Discussions with the Agency prior to
submission can afford ample time to
conduct any tests that might be helpful
in evaluating risks posed by the
substance. According to 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65595
721.1(c), persons submitting a SNUN
must comply with the same notice
requirements and EPA regulatory
procedures as persons submitting a
PMN, including submission of test data
on health and environmental effects as
described in 40 CFR 720.50. SNUNs
must be submitted to EPA, on EPA Form
No. 7710–25 in accordance with the
procedures set forth in 40 CFR 721.25
and 40 CFR 720.40.
EPA published a final rule on January
6, 2010 (75 FR 773) (FRL–8794–5), that
established standards and requirements
for the use of the electronic-PMN (ePMN) software and EPA’s Central Data
Exchange (CDX) to electronically submit
these notices. The Agency is
introducing electronic reporting via
CDX using the e-PMN in three phases
over a two-year period. The effective
date of the rule was April 6, 2010. Until
April 6, 2011, submissions were
permitted via CDX, optical disc, or
paper. After April 6, 2011, paper
submissions are no longer being
accepted. After April 6, 2012, all
submissions will be required to be
submitted electronically via CDX.
Regardless of the delivery method, EPA
requires that all submissions be
generated using the new e-PMN
software. For additional information
and instructions go to: https://
www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/
epmn/epmn-index.htm. Until April 6,
2012, SNUNs may still be mailed to the
Environmental Protection Agency,
OPPT Document Control Office
(7407M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
G. What are the recordkeeping
requirements?
EPA is proposing that persons subject
to this proposed SNUR be required to
maintain several records in addition to
those required by 40 CFR 721.40
(persons required to submit a SNUN
must retain documentation of
information contained in that SNUN).
EPA is proposing to require
manufacturers and processors to
maintain the records described in 40
CFR 721.125 (a), (b), and (c) in this
SNUR. Section 721.125(a) requires
records documenting manufacture and
importation volume and dates;
§ 721.125(b) documents volumes
purchased in the U.S. by processors, the
names and addresses of suppliers, and
the dates of purchase; and § 721.125(c)
requires records documenting the names
and addresses (including shipment
destination address, if different) of all
persons outside the site of manufacture,
importation, or processing to whom the
manufacturer, importer, or processor
directly sells or transfers the chemical
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65596
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
substance, the date, and the quantity of
each sale or transfer. These records
would help EPA to determine
compliance with the SNUR.
VI. Export Notification Requirements
Test rule: Any person who exports, or
intends to export, one of the chemical
substances contained in this proposed
test rule in any form (e.g., as
byproducts, impurities, components of
Class 2 chemical substances, etc.) will
be subject to the export notification
requirements in TSCA section 12(b)(1)
and at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D, but
only after the final rule is issued and
only if the chemical substance is
contained in the final rule. Export
notification is generally not required for
articles, as provided by 40 CFR
707.60(b). Section 12(b) of TSCA states,
in part, that any person who exports or
intends to export to a foreign country a
chemical substance or mixture for
which the submission of data is
required under TSCA section 4 must
notify the EPA Administrator of such
export or intent to export. The EPA
Administrator in turn will notify the
government of the importing country of
the availability of data.
VII. Economic Impacts
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
A. What would be the economic impacts
of the proposed test rule?
EPA has prepared an economic
assessment entitled ‘‘Economic Analysis
for the Proposed High Production
Volume Challenge Chemicals Test
Rule—Fourth Group of Chemicals’’ (Ref.
45), a copy of which has been placed in
the docket for this proposed rule. This
economic assessment evaluates the
potential for significant economic
impacts as a result of the testing that
would be required by this proposed
rule. The analysis covers 23 chemical
substances. The total social cost of
providing test data on the 23 chemical
substances that were evaluated in this
economic analysis is estimated to be
$7.72 million assuming an average cost
scenario. Total costs of compliance to
industry are estimated at $7.65 million
(Ref. 45).
While legally subject to this test rule,
processors of a subject chemical
substance would be required to comply
with the requirements of the final rule
only if they are directed to do so by EPA
as described in § 799.5090(c)(5) and
(c)(6) of the proposed regulatory text.
EPA would only require processors to
test if no person in Tier 1 has submitted
a notice of its intent to conduct testing,
or if under 40 CFR 790.93, a problem
occurs with the initiation, conduct, or
completion of the required testing or the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
submission of the required data to EPA.
Because EPA has identified at least one
manufacturer in Tier 1 for each subject
chemical substance, the Agency
assumes that, for each chemical
substance in this proposed rule, at least
one such person will submit a letter of
intent to conduct the required testing
and that person will conduct such
testing and will submit the test data to
EPA. Because processors would not
need to comply with the proposed rule
initially, the economic assessment does
not address processors.
Compliance costs include costs of
testing and administering the testing, as
well as reporting costs. In addition, they
include the estimated cost of the TSCA
section 12(b) export notification
requirements, which, under the final
rule, would be required for the first
export to a particular country of a
chemical substance subject to the final
rule, estimated to range from $27.50 per
notice to $86.99 per notice (Ref. 45).
These export notification requirements
(included in the total and annualized
cost estimates) that would be triggered
by the final rule are expected to have a
negligible impact on exporters.
The potential for adverse economic
impact as a result of the rule is expected
to be higher for smaller businesses.
Smaller businesses are less likely to
have additional revenue sources to
cover the compliance costs. Therefore,
the Agency compared the costs of
compliance to company sales for small
businesses. EPA estimates that there are
25 small entities that would be affected
by this proposed rule. Of these, EPA
estimates that there is no small business
for which the cost impact of the testing
exceeds 1 percent of the company’s
revenue. EPA believes, on the basis of
these calculations, that the proposed
testing of the chemical substances
presents a low potential for adverse
economic impact for the majority of
chemical substances.
The benefits resulting from this
proposed test rule are discussed
qualitatively in the ‘‘Economic Analysis
for the Proposed High Production
Volume Challenge Chemicals Test RuleFourth Group of Chemicals’’ (Ref. 45).
EPA believes that the net benefits of this
proposed rule are positive, but
quantification of the benefits of the
proposed rule would require more
specific information about use patterns
and preferences than is available.
B. What would be the economic impacts
of the proposed SNUR?
1. SNUNs. EPA has evaluated the
potential costs of establishing SNUR
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for potential
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
manufacturers, importers, and
processors of the chemical substance
included in this proposed rule. While
most businesses are subject to a $2,500
user fee required by 40 CFR
700.45(b)(2)(iii), small businesses with
an annual sales of less than $40 million
when combined with those of the parent
company (if any) are subject to a
reduced user fee of $100 (40 CFR
700.45(b)(1)). The costs of submission of
SNUNs will not be incurred by any
company unless a company decides to
pursue a SNU as defined in this
proposed SNUR. However there are
limited costs associated with the
recordkeeping requirements required by
this SNUR, whether or not a SNUN is
submitted. Furthermore, while the
expense of a notice and the
uncertainties of possible EPA regulation
may discourage certain innovations, that
impact would be limited because such
factors are unlikely to discourage an
innovation that has high potential value.
EPA’s complete economic analysis is
available in the public docket for this
proposed rule (Ref. 46).
2. Export notification. Under section
12(b) of TSCA and the implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 707, subpart
D, exporters must notify EPA if they
export or intend to export a chemical
substance or mixture for which, among
other things, a rule has been proposed
or promulgated under TSCA section 5.
For persons exporting a chemical
substance the subject of a proposed or
final SNUR, a one-time notice must be
provided for the first export or intended
export to a particular country. The total
costs of export notification will vary by
chemical substance, depending on the
number of required notifications (i.e.,
the number of countries to which the
chemical substance is exported).
Although EPA estimates that an
exporting company making notifications
may need to prepare 12 notifications per
year at a cost of $78.56 each, EPA is
unable to make any estimate of the
likely number of export notifications for
the chemical substances covered in this
proposed SNUR (Ref. 46).
VIII. Request for Public Comment
EPA is interested in stakeholder input
on a number of issues in this action as
well as future actions on high
production volume chemical
substances.
1. In this document, EPA is proposing
either a test rule or SNUR to regulate a
given set of chemical substances. EPA
believes that this is an efficient way to
require submission of test data on
chemical substances that meet all of the
necessary exposure criteria and require
submission of a notification to EPA if
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and when additional exposure criteria
are met. The SNUR also facilitates
efficiency by mitigating the need for
EPA to continually reevaluate each HPV
chemical substance to determine
whether conditions have changed so as
to increase potential exposure. EPA is
considering proposing further combined
test rules/SNURs in conjunction with
future CDR data releases, covering all
newly-HPV chemical substances. EPA
requests comment on this approach.
2. EPA is proposing to incorporate the
‘‘B Policy’’ worker exposure threshold
into the proposed SNU designations
because it is a clear, numeric criterion
that has been used to determine
substantial human exposure since 1993.
EPA is interested in receiving comment
concerning use of the ‘‘B Policy’’ in this
context.
3. EPA solicits comment on whether
any of the chemical substances
proposed for the SNUR are already
being manufactured or processed for
one of the significant new uses listed in
Unit V., and should consequently be
included in the test rule. Analogously,
EPA solicits comment on whether any
of the chemical substances proposed for
the test rule are no longer used in
applications that meet the substantial
human exposure finding described in
the ‘‘B Policy’’ and should consequently
be included in the SNUR.
4. EPA solicits comment on whether
any of the chemical substances
proposed for the test rule or the SNUR
should be subject to neither a test rule
nor a SNUR. EPA requests comment on
this topic so as to confirm or refute the
Agency’s general expectation that either
a SNUR or a test rule is warranted for
each chemical substance listed in Tables
A. and B. of Unit III. EPA’s general
expectation is as follows: If additional
information indicates that a test rule is
not warranted for a particular chemical
substance listed in Table A. because
particular uses are not ongoing, EPA
generally anticipates that such
information would indicate that a SNUR
is warranted instead. Conversely, if
additional information indicates that a
SNUR is not warranted for a particular
chemical substance listed in Table B.
because particular uses are already
ongoing, EPA generally anticipates that
such information would indicate that a
test rule is warranted instead.
5. EPA solicits comment on whether
there is a better alternative to proposing
the SNUR trigger of ≥1000 workers
exposed at a single corporate entity. The
test rule findings are based on ≥1000
workers exposed at the national level.
EPA asks for comment on whether there
is an approach that would reduce the
discrepancy between the corporate level
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
for the SNUR and national level for the
test rule.
6. EPA solicits comment respecting
relevant trends in production volume
for the chemical substances proposed to
be subject to either a test rule or a
SNUR. EPA is especially interested in
such trend information in the case that
a commenter believes that neither a test
rule nor a SNUR is warranted for a
chemical substance because the
chemical substance currently has an
overall production volume of less than
1 million lbs. per year. Because
production volume may vary from year
to year, EPA does not believe that the
mere fact that the most recent annual
production volume is less than 1
million pounds would necessarily
establish that a test rule is not warranted
(and such information would not by
itself suggest that a SNUR is
unwarranted, since substantial
production is not a required finding for
SNURs). More detailed comments,
distinguishing a long-term decline in
production volume from a short-term
dip, would be especially helpful to the
Agency in evaluating any comments
that current production volumes are too
low to warrant the regulatory action
proposed.
7. As described in Unit IV.B., to the
extent that EPA learns that consumer
uses, or uses that could affect 1,000
workers or more, are already ongoing for
a chemical substance listed in Table B.,
it intends to evaluate whether taking
steps to promulgate a test rule for the
chemical substance is warranted. To
assist the Agency in such
circumstances, EPA solicits comment
respecting the sufficiency of the
available data and the need for
additional testing on the chemical
substances in Table B., consistent with
the standards set forth in TSCA sections
4 (a)(1)(B)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(iii).
8. The U.S. National Academy of
Sciences National Research Council in
their 2007 report ‘‘Toxicity Testing in
21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy’’
encouraged ‘‘work[ing] towards a
transition to new integrative and
predictive molecular and computational
techniques to enhance efficiency and
accuracy and to reduce reliance on
animal testing.’’ EPA requests
suggestions on practical, implementable
ways to work toward this goal in its
actions under TSCA. Should tools such
as ToxCast (https://www.epa.gov/ncct/
toxcast/) be used to prioritize chemical
substances and support hazard findings
for testing in the future?
9. EPA solicits comments which
identify existing data that may meet the
requirements of studies under the
proposed test rule. To the extent that
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65597
data relevant to the testing specified in
the proposed rule are known to exist,
EPA strongly encourages the submission
of this information as comments to the
proposed rule. Data submitted to EPA to
meet the requirements of testing under
the proposed rule must be in the form
of full copies of unpublished studies or
full citations of published studies, and
may be accompanied by a robust
summary (Ref. 8). To the extent that
studies required under the proposed
rule are currently available, and the data
are judged sufficient by EPA, testing for
the endpoint/chemical substance
combination will not be required in the
final test rule based on this proposed
rule.
10. Persons who believe that adequate
information regarding a chemical
substance subject to the proposed test
rule can be developed using a category
or the SAR approach are encouraged to
submit appropriate information, along
with their rationale substantiating this
belief, during the comment period on
the proposed rule.
11. EPA solicits comment on the
proposed test rule approaches for Class
1 and Class 2 chemical substances.
Should each Class 1 chemical substance
be tested at a purity of 99% or more?
Should the proposed test substance
purity for Class 1 chemical substances
be applied to any Class 2 chemical
substances? Should the proposed
approach for testing Class 2 chemical
substances (i.e., that a representative
sample of each Class 2 chemical
substance be tested) be applied to any
Class 1 chemical substances?
12. For more than 15 years, EPA has
used OECD’s SIDS to facilitate and
standardize the screening of the
relatively large number of chemical
substances on the TSCA Inventory. EPA
requests comment on whether SIDS
continues to be the most appropriate
data set to screen chemical substances
for potential environmental and health
hazards and whether EPA should
consider other data sets in the event of
any future test rule on new HPV
chemical substances. Are additional or
different tests also appropriate? Should
EPA consider having more than one
screening data set depending on the
nature of exposures, e.g., a different set
of tests for children’s exposures or
environmental releases?
13. At the present time, EPA does not
have sufficient information to know
with any degree of certainty which if
any of the chemical substances that are
listed in the proposed regulatory text are
solely closed system intermediates as
defined in the voluntary HPV Challenge
guidance document (Ref. 38). Persons
who believe that a chemical substance
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65598
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
fully satisfies the terms outlined in the
guidance document are encouraged to
submit appropriate information along
with their comments on this proposed
rule which substantiate this belief.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
IX. Materials in the Docket
As indicated under ADDRESSES, a
docket has been established for this
proposed rule under docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0520. The
following is a listing of the documents
that have been placed in the docket for
this proposed rule. The docket includes
information considered by EPA in
developing this proposed rule,
including the documents listed in this
unit, which are physically located in the
docket. In addition, interested parties
should consult documents that are
referenced in the documents that EPA
has placed in the docket, regardless of
whether these referenced documents are
physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating documents that
are referenced in documents that EPA
has placed in the docket, but that are
not physically located in the docket,
please consult either technical person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. The docket is available for
review as specified under ADDRESSES.
1. OECD Secretariat. Manual for the
Investigation of HPV Chemicals. OECD
Programme on the Co-Operative
Investigation of High Production Volume
Chemicals. Paris, France. December,
2009. Available on-line at: https://www.
oecd.org/document/7/0,3746,en_2649
_34379_1947463_1_1_1_1,00.html.
2. EPA. TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B) Final
Statement of Policy; Criteria for
Evaluating Substantial Production,
Substantial Release, and Substantial or
Significant Human Exposure; Notice.
Federal Register (58 FR 28736, May 14,
1993).
3. U.S. National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council. ‘‘Toxicity
Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision
and a Strategy.’’ 2007. Available on-line
at: https://dels.nas.edu/resources/staticassets/materials-based-on-reports/
reports-in-brief/Toxicity_Testing_final.
pdf.
4. EPA. National Center for Computational
Toxicology. ToxCastTM. 2007. https://
www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/.
5. EPA. OPPT. Testing of Certain High
Production Volume Chemicals-4
(Exposure Findings Supporting
Information). Prepared by OPPT,
Economics, Exposure and Technology
Division. March, 2011.
6. EPA. OPPT. High Production Volume
Chemical Data Information System
(HPVIS). Data from HPVIS on 23 HPV
chemicals. June 2011.
7. EPA. OPPT. Risk Assessment Division.
HPV4 Data Adequacy Evaluations. 2010.
8. EPA. OPPT. Draft Guidance on Developing
Robust Summaries. October 22, 1999.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
Available on-line at: https://www.epa.
gov/chemrtk/pubs/general/robsumgd.
htm.
9. ASTM International. Standard Test
Method for Relative Initial and Final
Melting Points and the Melting Range of
Organic Chemicals. ASTM E 324–99.
1999.
10. OECD. Guideline for the Testing of
Chemicals: Melting Point/Melting Range.
OECD 102. July 27, 1995.
11. ASTM International. Standard Test
Method for Vapor Pressure of Liquids by
Ebulliometry. ASTM E 1719–05. 2005.
12. ASTM International. Standard Test
Method for Determining Vapor Pressure
by Thermal Analysis. ASTM E 1782–03
(2008).
13. ASTM International. Standard Test
Method for Partition Coefficient (nOctanol/Water) Estimation by Liquid
Chromatography. ASTM E 1147–92
(2005).
14. ASTM International. Standard Test
Method for Measurements of Aqueous
Solubility. ASTM E 1148–02 (2008).
15. ASTM International. Question about
ASTM E 324. E-mail from Diane Rehiel,
ASTM, to Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD,
OPPT, EPA. September 15, 2004.
16. Meylan, W.M. and Howard, P.H. Atom/
Fragment Contribution Method for
Estimating Octanol-Water Partition
Coefficients. Journal of Pharmaceutical
Sciences. Vol. 84(1):83–92. 1995.
17. Meylan, W.M., Howard, P.H., and
Boethling, R.S. Improved Method for
Estimating Water Solubility From
Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient.
Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. Vol. 15(2):100–106. 1996.
18. ASTM International. Standard Test
Method for Determining Ready,
Ultimate, Biodegradability of Organic
Chemicals in a Sealed Vessel CO2
Production Test. ASTM E 1720–01.
(Reapproved 2008).
19. ISO. Water quality—Evaluation of
ultimate aerobic biodegradability of
organic compounds in aqueous
medium—Method by analysis of
inorganic carbon in sealed vessels (CO2
headspace test). ISO 14593. 1999.
20. ISO. Water quality—Evaluation in an
aqueous medium of the ‘‘ultimate’’
aerobic biodegradability of organic
compounds—Method by analysis of
dissolved organic carbon (DOC). ISO
7827. 1994.
21. ISO. Water quality—Evaluation of
ultimate aerobic biodegradability of
organic compounds in aqueous medium
by determination of oxygen demand in a
closed respirometer. ISO 9408. 1999.
22. ISO. Water quality—Evaluation of
ultimate aerobic biodegradability of
organic compounds in aqueous
medium—Carbon dioxide evolution test.
ISO 9439. 1999.
23. ISO. Water quality—Evaluation in an
aqueous medium of the ‘‘ultimate’’
aerobic biodegradability of organic
compounds—Method by analysis of
biochemical oxygen demand (closed
bottle test). ISO 10707. 1994.
24. ISO. Water quality—Evaluation in an
aqueous medium of the ultimate aerobic
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
biodegradability of organic compounds—
Determination of biochemical oxygen
demand in a two-phase closed bottle test
(available in English only). ISO 10708.
1997.
25. ISO. Water quality—Guidance for the
preparation and treatment of poorly
water-soluble organic compounds for the
subsequent evaluation of their
biodegradability in an aqueous medium.
ISO 10631. 1995.
26. ASTM International. Standard Guide for
Conducting Acute Toxicity Tests on Test
Materials with Fishes,
Macroinvertebrates, and Amphibians.
ASTM E 729–96 (2007).
27. ASTM International. Standard Guide for
Conducting Static Toxicity Tests with
Microalgae. ASTM E 1218–04e1. 2004.
28. ASTM International. Standard Guide for
Conducting Daphnia magna Life-Cycle
Toxicity Tests. ASTM E 1193–97 (2004).
29. Veith, G.D. and Kosian, P. Estimating
bioconcentration potential from Octanol/
Water Partition Coefficients, in Physical
Behavior of PCBs in the Great Lakes
(MacKay, Paterson, Eisenreich, and
Simmons, eds.), Ann Arbor Science, Ann
Arbor, MI. 1982.
30. Bintein, S.; DeVillers, J.; and Karcher, W.
Nonlinear dependence of fish
bioconcentration on n-Octanol/Water
Partition Coefficient. SAR and QSAR in
Environmental Research. Vol. 1, pp. 29–
39. 1993.
31. EPA. Category for Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New
Chemical Substances; Notice. Federal
Register (64 FR 60194, November 4,
1999) (FRL–6097–7). Available online at:
https://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/
pubs/pbtpolcy.htm.
32. EPA. Significant New Use Rules; General
Provisions for New Chemical Follow-Up;
Final Rule. Federal Register (54 FR
31298, July 27, 1989).
33. ASTM International. Standard Test
Method for Estimating Acute Oral
Toxicity in Rats. ASTM E 1163–98
(2002).
34. NIEHS 2003b. Test Method Protocol for
the BALB/c 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake
Cytotoxicity Test, a Test for Basal
Cytotoxicity for an in vitro Validation
Study—Phase III. NTP/NICEATM.
November 4, 2003. Available online at:
https://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/
acutetox/invidocs/phIIIprot/3t3phIII.pdf.
35. NIEHS 2003c. Test Method Protocol for
the NHK Neutral Red Uptake
Cytotoxicity Test, a Test for Basal
Cytotoxicity for an in vitro Validation
Study—Phase III. NTP/NICEATM.
November 4, 2003. Available online at:
https://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/
acutetox/invidocs/phIIIprot/nhkphIII.
pdf.
36. NIEHS 2001b. Guidance Document on
Using In Vitro Data to Estimate In Vivo
Starting Doses for Acute Toxicity. NIH
Publication No. 01–4500. August 2001.
Available online at: https://iccvam.niehs.
nih.gov/methods/acutetox/inv_cyto_
guide.htm.
37. NIEHS 2003a. Test Method Protocol for
Solubility Determination, in vitro
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Cytotoxicity Validation Study—Phase III.
National Toxicology Program (NTP)
Interagency Center for the Evaluation of
Alternative Toxicological Methods
(NICEATM). September 24, 2003.
Available online at: https://iccvam.niehs.
nih.gov/methods/acutetox/invidocs/
phIIIprot/solphIII.pdf.
38. EPA. OPPT. Guidance for Testing Closed
System Intermediates for the HPV
Challenge Program (Draft) (March 17,
1999). Available online at: https://www.
epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/general/
closed9.htm.
39. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production
Volume Chemicals; Final Rule. Federal
Register (71 FR 13708, March 16, 2006)
(FRL–7335–2).
40. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production
Volume Chemicals; Second Group of
Chemicals; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register (73 FR 43314, July 24, 2008)
(FRL–8373–9).
41. EPA. Proposed Test Rule for the Testing
of Certain High Production Volume
Chemicals; Third Group of Chemicals.
Federal Register (75 FR, February 25,
2010) (FRL–9116–2).
42. EPA. Toxic Substances; Test Rule
Development and Exemption
Procedures; Interim Final Rule. Federal
Register (50 FR 20652, May 17, 1985).
43. EPA. Toxic Substances Control Act; Data
Reimbursement; Final Rule. Federal
Register (48 FR 31786, July 11, 1983).
44. EPA. Analysis of Laboratory Capacity to
Support U.S. EPA Chemical Testing
Program Initiatives. Economic and Policy
Analysis Branch. Washington, DC.
October 28, 2010.
45. EPA. OPPT. Economic Analysis for the
Proposed High Production Volume
Challenge Chemicals Test Rule—Fourth
Group of Chemicals. Prepared by the
Economic and Policy Analysis Branch,
Economics, Exposure and Technology
Division. August 15, 2011.
46. EPA. OPPT. Economic Analysis of the
Significant New Use Rule for High
Production Volume Chemical
Substances. Prepared by the Economic
and Policy Analysis Branch, Economics,
Exposure and Technology Division.
May 26, 2011.
X. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, entitled
Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563,
entitled (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Activities
According to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 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 approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the PRA, unless it has been approved by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
OMB and displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in title 40
of the CFR, after appearing in the
Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, and included on the related
collection instrument, or form, if
applicable.
As defined by PRA and 5 CFR
1320.3(b), ‘‘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; 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.
For this rulemaking, the paperwork
activities are addressed in 3 parts, based
on the separate activities.
1. Paperwork activities related to
testing. The proposed testing in this
rulemaking does not impose any new or
amended paperwork collection
requirements that would require
additional review and/or approval by
OMB under the PRA. Although the
activities are approved, OMB has
specified that the additional burden
associated with a new test rule is not
covered by the ICR until the final rule
is effective. The information collection
requirements contained in TSCA section
4 test rules have already been approved
by OMB under PRA, and have been
assigned OMB control number 2070–
0033 (EPA ICR No. 1139). In the context
of developing a new test rule, the
Agency must determine whether the
total annual burden covered by the
approved ICR needs to be amended to
accommodate the burden associated
with the new test rule. If so, the Agency
must submit an Information Correction
Worksheet (ICW) to OMB and obtain
OMB approval of an increase in the total
approved annual burden in the OMB
inventory. The Agency’s estimated
burden for this proposed test rule is
provided in the economic analysis (Ref.
45).
The standard chemical substance
testing program involves the submission
of letters of intent to test (or exemption
applications), study plans, semi-annual
progress reports, test results, and some
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65599
administrative costs. For this proposed
rule, EPA estimates the public reporting
burden for all 23 chemical substances is
38,000 hours (average cost scenario).
EPA assumes that industry will form a
‘‘task force’’ or panel to coordinate
testing where appropriate. A consortium
represents all the manufacturers of a
chemical substance. EPA estimates 23
consortia for the proposed rule; with an
estimated burden per consortium of
2,000 hours (rounded) (Ref. 45).
2. Paperwork activities related to
SNUNs. The information collection
requirements related to the proposed
SNUR have already been approved by
OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB
control number 2070–0038 (EPA ICR
No. 1188). This action does not impose
any burden requiring additional OMB
approval.
If an entity were to submit a SNUN to
the Agency, the annual burden is
estimated to average 91.68 hours per
response. This burden estimate includes
the time needed to review instructions,
search existing data sources, gather and
maintain the data needed, and
complete, review, and submit the
required SNUN. In addition, depending
on whether or not an entity submits a
SNUN, EPA has estimated the burden of
the associated recordkeeping
requirements (Ref. 46).
3. Paperwork activities related to
export notifications. The information
collection activities related to export
notification under TSCA section
12(b)(1) are already approved under
OMB control number 2070–0030 (EPA
ICR No. 0795). This proposed rule does
not propose any new or changes to the
export notification requirements, and is
not expected to result in any substantive
changes in the burden estimates for EPA
ICR No. 0795 that would require
additional review and/or approval by
OMB.
The estimated burden of the
information collection activities related
to export notification is estimated to
average 1 burden hour for each chemical
substance/country combination for an
initial notification and 0.5 hours for
each subsequent notification (Ref. 46).
In estimating the total burden hours
approved for the information collection
activities related to export notification,
the Agency has included sufficient
burden hours to accommodate any
export notifications that may be
required by the Agency’s issuance of
final chemical substance test rules. As
such, EPA does not expect to need to
request an increase in the total burden
hours approved by OMB for export
notifications.
Comments are requested on the
Agency’s need for this information, the
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65600
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques. Send comments
to EPA as part of your overall comments
on this proposed rule in the manner
specified under ADDRESSES. In
developing the final rule, the Agency
will address any comments received
regarding the information collection
requirements contained in this proposed
rule.
C. Small Entity Impacts
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., after considering the
potential economic impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities, the
Agency hereby certifies that this
proposed rule would not have a
significant adverse economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The factual basis for the Agency’s
determination is presented in the small
entity impact analysis prepared as part
of each of the economic analyses for this
proposed rule (Refs. 45 and 46), which
are summarized in Unit VII., and copies
of which are available in the docket for
this proposed rule. The following is a
brief summary of the factual basis for
this certification.
Under RFA, small entities include
small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of
this proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined in accordance
with RFA as:
• A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201.
• A small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district
with a population of less than 50,000.
• A small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
Based on the industry profile that
EPA prepared as part of the economic
analysis for this proposed rule (Ref. 45),
EPA has determined that this proposed
rule is not expected to impact any small
not-for-profit organizations or small
governmental jurisdictions. As such, the
Agency’s analysis presents only the
estimated potential impacts on small
business.
For this rulemaking, EPA considered
the potential impact on small entities
associated with the proposed testing,
SNU notifications, and export
notifications.
1. Potential small entity impacts
related to the proposed testing. Two
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
factors are examined in EPA’s small
entity impact analysis (Ref. 45) in order
to characterize the potential small entity
impacts of the proposed testing on small
business:
• The size of the adverse economic
impact (measured as the ratio of the cost
to sales or revenue).
• The total number of small entities
that experience the adverse economic
impact.
Section 601(3) of RFA establishes as
the default definition of ‘‘small
business’’ the definition used in section
3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632, under which SBA establishes small
business size standards (13 CFR
121.201). For this proposed rule, EPA
has analyzed the potential small
business impacts using the size
standards established under this default
definition. The SBA size standards,
which are primarily intended to
determine whether a business entity is
eligible for government programs and
preferences reserved for small
businesses (13 CFR 121.101), ‘‘seek to
ensure that a concern that meets a
specific size standard is not dominant in
its field of operation.’’ (13 CFR
121.102(b)). See section 632(a)(1) of the
Small Business Act. In analyzing
potential impacts, RFA recognizes that
it may be appropriate at times to use an
alternate definition of small business.
As such, section 601(3) of RFA provides
that an agency may establish a different
definition of small business after
consultation with the SBA Office of
Advocacy and after notice and an
opportunity for public comment. Even
though the Agency has used the default
SBA definition of small business to
conduct its analysis of potential small
business impacts for this proposed rule,
EPA does not believe that the SBA size
standards are generally the best size
standards to use in assessing potential
small entity impacts with regard to
TSCA section 4(a) test rules.
The SBA size standard is generally
based on the number of employees an
entity in a particular industrial sector
may have. For example, in the chemical
substance manufacturing industrial
sector (i.e., NAICS code 325 and NAICS
code 324110), approximately 98% of the
firms would be classified as small
businesses under the default SBA
definition. The SBA size standard for
75% of this industry sector is 500
employees, and the size standard for
23% of this industry sector is either 750,
1,000, or 1,500 employees. When
assessing the potential impacts of test
rules on chemical substance
manufacturers, EPA believes that a
standard based on total annual sales
may provide a more appropriate means
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to judge the ability of a chemical
substance manufacturing firm to
support chemical substance testing
without significant costs or burdens.
EPA is currently determining what
level of annual sales would provide the
most appropriate size cutoff with regard
to various segments of the chemical
substance industry usually impacted by
TSCA section 4(a) test rules, but has not
yet reached a determination. As stated
in this unit, therefore, the factual basis
for the RFA determination for this
proposed rule is based on an analysis
using the default SBA size standards.
Although EPA is not currently
proposing to establish an alternate
definition for use in the analysis
conducted for this proposed rule, the
analysis for this proposed rule also
presents the results of calculations using
a standard based on total annual sales
(40 CFR 704.3). EPA is interested in
receiving comments on whether the
Agency should consider establishing an
alternate definition for small business to
use in the small entity impact analyses
for future TSCA section 4(a) test rules
and what size cutoff may be
appropriate.
SBA has developed 6-digit NAICS
code-specific size standards based on
employment thresholds. These size
standards range from 500 to 1,500
employees for the various 6-digit NAICS
codes that are potentially affected (Ref.
45). For a conservative estimate of the
number of small businesses affected by
the HPV rules, the Agency uses an
employment threshold of less than
1,500 employees for all businesses
regardless of the NAIC-specific
threshold to determine small business
status (Ref. 45).
For each manufacturer of the 23
chemical substances covered by the
proposed testing, the parent company
(ultimate corporate entity or UCE) was
identified and sales and employment
data were obtained for companies where
data was publicly available. The search
determined that there were 59 affected
UCEs. Sales data could be found for 52
of these UCE’s and employment data
could be found for 57 of these UCEs.
Two companies could not be classified
as small or large because there were no
employment data available (Ref. 45).
Parent company sales data were
collected to identify companies that
qualified as a ‘‘small business’’ for
purposes of RFA analysis. Based on the
SBA size standard applied (1,500
employees or less), 25 companies
(42.4%) were identified as small (Ref.
45).
The potential significance of the
proposed testing’s impact on small
businesses was analyzed by examining
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the number of small entities that
experienced different levels of costs as
a percentage of their sales. Small
businesses were placed in the following
categories on the basis of cost-to sales
ratios: Less than 1%, greater than 1%,
and greater than 3%. This analysis was
conducted under both a least and
average cost scenario (Ref. 45).
Of the 25 businesses designated as
small business, none had cost-to-sales
ratios of greater than 1% and 3% under
both the least and average cost
scenarios. For the chemical substances
where sales data were unavailable, EPA
used the median revenue of all other
small businesses equal to $2.56 million.
The costs for these companies were
estimated to be well below 1% of this
sales level. Given these results, the
Agency has determined that there is not
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities as
a result of the proposed testing, if
finalized (Ref. 45).
2. Potential small entity impacts
related to the SNUR. A SNUR applies to
any person (including small or large
entities) who intends to engage in any
activity described in the rule as a
‘‘significant new use.’’ By definition of
the word ‘‘new’’ and based on all
information currently available to EPA,
it appears that no small or large entities
presently engage in such activity. Since
a SNUR only requires that any person
who intends to engage in such activity
in the future must first notify EPA by
submitting a SNUN, there are no costs
associated with the SNUN until it is
submitted. However there are limited
costs associated with the recordkeeping
requirements required by this SNUR,
whether or not a SNUN is submitted.
Although some small entities may
decide to conduct such activities in the
future, EPA cannot presently determine
how many, if any, there may be.
EPA’s experience to date is that, in
response to the promulgation of over
1,000 SNURs, the Agency receives on
average less than 10 notices per year. Of
those SNUNs submitted, none appear to
be from small entities in response to any
SNUR. In addition, the estimated
reporting cost for submission of a SNUN
(see Unit VII.), are minimal regardless of
the size of the firm. Therefore, EPA
believes that the potential economic
impact of complying with this SNUR is
not expected to be significant or
adversely impact a substantial number
of small entities. In a SNUR that
published on June 2, 1997 (62 FR 29684)
(FRL–5597–1), the Agency presented its
general determination that proposed
and final SNURs are not expected to
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
which was also provided to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (Ref. 46).
3. Potential small entity impacts
related to export notifications. The
estimated cost of the TSCA section
12(b)(1) export notification, which, as a
result of the final rule, would be
required for the first export to a
particular country of a chemical
substance subject to the final rule, is
estimated to be $85.70 for the first time
that an exporter must comply with
TSCA section 12(b)(1) export
notification requirements, and $26.86
for each subsequent export notification
submitted by that exporter (Refs. 45 and
46). EPA has concluded that the costs of
TSCA section 12(b)(1) export
notification would have a negligible
impact on exporters of the chemical
substances in the final rule, regardless
of the size of the exporter.
Any comments regarding the potential
adverse economic impacts that this
action may impose on small entities, or
regarding whether the Agency should
consider establishing an alternate
definition of small business to be used
for analytical purposes for future test
rules and what size cutoff may be
appropriate, should be submitted to the
Agency in the manner specified under
ADDRESSES.
D. Unfunded Mandates
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA),
2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does
not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. It is
estimated that the total aggregate costs
of this proposed rule to the private
sector, which are summarized in Unit
VII., would be $7.65 million. The total
annualized costs of this proposed rule to
the private sector are estimated to be
$2.71 and $2.92 million using a 3% and
7% discount rate over 3 years (average
cost scenario).
In addition, since EPA does not have
any information to indicate that any
State, local, or Tribal government
manufactures or processes the chemical
substances covered by this action such
that the final rule would apply directly
to State, local, or Tribal governments,
EPA has determined that this proposed
test rule and SNUR would not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Accordingly, this
proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202, 203, 204,
and 205 of UMRA.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
65601
E. Federalism
Under Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), EPA has determined
that this proposed rule does not have
‘‘federalism implications’’ because they
will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in the executive order. This
proposed rule would establish testing
and recordkeeping requirements that
apply to manufacturers (including
importers) and processors of certain
chemical substances. Because EPA has
no information to indicate that any State
or local government manufactures or
processes the chemical substances
covered by these actions, this proposed
test rule and SNUR is not expected to
affect any State or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
F. Indian Tribal Government
Implications
Under Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR
22951, November 9, 2000), EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does
not have Tribal implications because it
will not have substantial direct effects
on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian Tribes, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, as
specified in the Executive Order. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this proposed rule.
G. Protection of Children
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because the rulemaking does not
establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety
risks, will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more,
nor does it otherwise have a
disproportionate effect on children. This
proposed rule would establish testing,
notification and recordkeeping
requirements that apply to
manufacturers (including importers)
and processors of certain chemical
substances. The development of data
about those chemical substances can
subsequently be used to assist the
Agency and others in determining
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65602
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
whether the chemical substances in this
proposed rule present potential risks,
allowing the Agency and others to take
appropriate action to investigate and
mitigate those risks.
H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution,
or Use
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. Technical Standards
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note,
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
The proposed test rule involves
technical standards because it proposes
to require the use of particular test
methods. If the Agency makes findings
under TSCA section 4(a), EPA is
required by TSCA section 4(b) to
include specific standards or test
methods that are to be used for the
development of the data required in the
test rules issued under TSCA section 4.
For some of the testing that would be
required by the final rule, EPA is
proposing the use of voluntary
consensus standards issued by ASTM
International and ISO which evaluate
the same type of toxicity as the TSCA
799 test guidelines and OECD test
guidelines, where applicable. Copies of
the 17 ASTM International and ISO
standards referenced in the proposed
regulatory text at § 799.5090(h) have
been placed in the docket for this
proposed rule. You may obtain copies of
the ASTM International standards from
the American Society for Testing and
Materials International, 100 Bar Harbor
Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428–
2959, and copies of the ISO standards
from the International Organization for
Standardization, Case Postale, 56 CH–
1211 Geneve 20 Switzerland. In the
final rule, EPA intends to seek approval
from the Director of the Federal Register
for the incorporation by reference of the
ASTM International and ISO standards
used in the final rule in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
EPA is not aware of any potentially
applicable voluntary consensus
standards which evaluate partition
coefficient (n-octanol/water) generator
column, water solubility (column
elution and generator column), acute
inhalation toxicity, bacterial reverse
mutations, in vivo mammalian bone
marrow chromosomal aberrations,
combined repeated dose with
reproductive/developmental toxicity
screen, repeated dose 28-day oral
toxicity screen, or the reproductive
developmental toxicity screen which
could be considered in lieu of the TSCA
799 test guidelines, 40 CFR 799.6756,
799.6784, 799.6786, 799.9130, 799.9510,
799.9538, 799.9365, 799.9305, and
799.9355, respectively, upon which the
test standards in this proposed rule are
based.
The Agency invites comment on the
potential use of voluntary consensus
standards in this proposed rule, and,
specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially applicable
consensus standard(s) and to explain
why such standard(s) should be used
here.
J. Environmental Justice
This proposed rule does not have an
adverse impact on the environmental
and health conditions in low-income
and minority communities that require
special consideration by the Agency
under Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994). The Agency believes that the
information collected under this
proposed test rule, if finalized, will
assist EPA and others in determining
the potential hazards and risks
associated with the chemical substances
covered by this proposed test rule.
Although not directly impacting
environmental justice-related concerns,
this information will enable the Agency
to better protect human health and the
environment, including in low-income
and minority communities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 721
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 799
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Laboratories,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 28, 2011.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
PART 721—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 721
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and
2625(c).
2. Add § 721.10228 to subpart E to
read as follows:
§ 721.10228 High production volume
challenge program chemical substances.
(a) Chemical substances and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substances identified
in Table 1. are subject to reporting
under this section for the significant
new uses described in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
TABLE 1—LIST OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES INCLUDED IN THE SNUR
Chemical abstract service
registry number
(CASRN)
98–16–8 ..............................
100–53–8 ............................
104–91–6 ............................
110–03–2 ............................
124–63–0 ............................
142–30–3 ............................
460–00–4 ............................
542–92–7 ............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Chemical abstract (CA) index name
Benzenamine, 3-(trifluoromethyl)-.
Benzenemethanethiol.
Phenol, 4-nitroso-.
2,5-Hexanediol, 2,5-dimethyl-.
Methanesulfonyl chloride.
3-Hexyne-2,5-diol, 2,5-dimethyl-.
Benzene, 1-bromo-4-fluoro-.
1,3-Cyclopentadiene.
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
65603
TABLE 1—LIST OF CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES INCLUDED IN THE SNUR—Continued
Chemical abstract service
registry number
(CASRN)
Chemical abstract (CA) index name
553–26–4 ............................
8007–45–2 ..........................
28106–30–1 ........................
35203–06–6 ........................
35203–08–8 ........................
37734–45–5 ........................
37764–25–3 ........................
61789–72–8 ........................
61790–13–4 ........................
65996–91–0 ........................
68308–01–0 ........................
68478–20–6 ........................
68526–82–9 ........................
68909–77–3 ........................
4,4′-Bipyridine.
Tar, coal.
Benzene, ethenylethyl-.
Benzenamine, 2-ethyl-6-methyl-N-methylene-.
Benzenamine, 2,6-diethyl-N-methylene-.
Carbonochloridothioic acid, S-(phenylmethyl) ester.
Acetamide, 2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propen-1-yl-.
Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, chlorides.
Naphthenic acids, sodium salts.
Distillates (coal tar), upper.
Tail gas (petroleum), cracked distillate hydrotreater stripper.
Residues (petroleum), steam-cracked petroleum distillates cyclopentadiene conc., C4-cyclopentadiene-free.
Alkenes, C6–10, hydroformylation products, high-boiling.
Ethanol, 2,2′-oxybis-, reaction products with ammonia, morpholine derivs. residues.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Use in a consumer product.
(ii) Any use, or combination of uses,
that is reasonably likely to expose 1,000
or more workers at a single corporate
entity (defined as the aggregate of all of
the domestic facilities owned or
operated by an individual corporation).
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph.
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in § 721.125
(a), (b), and (c) are applicable to
manufacturers, importers, and
processors of these substances.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
PART 799—[AMENDED]
3. The authority citation for part 799
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.
4. Add § 799.5090 to subpart D to read
as follows:
§ 799.5090 Chemical testing requirements
for certain high production volume
chemicals; fourth group of chemicals.
(a) What substances will be tested
under this section? Table 2. in
paragraph (j) of this section identifies
the chemical substances that must be
tested under this section. For the
chemical substances identified as ‘‘Class
1’’ chemical substances in Table 2. in
paragraph (j) of this section, the purity
of each chemical substance must be
99% or greater, unless otherwise
specified in this section. For the
chemical substances identified as ‘‘Class
2’’ chemical substances in Table 2. in
paragraph (j), a representative form of
each chemical substance must be tested.
The representative form selected for a
given Class 2 chemical substance should
meet industry or consensus standards
where they exist.
(b) Am I subject to this section? (1) If
you manufacture (including import) or
intend to manufacture, or process or
intend to process, any chemical
substance listed in Table 2. in paragraph
(j) of this section at any time from the
effective date of the final rule to the end
of the test data reimbursement period as
defined in 40 CFR 791.3(h), you are
subject to this section with respect to
that chemical substance.
(2) If you do not know or cannot
reasonably ascertain that you
manufacture or process a chemical
substance listed in Table 2. in paragraph
(j) of this section during the time period
described in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section (based on all information in
your possession or control, as well as all
information that a reasonable person
similarly situated might be expected to
possess, control, or know, or could
obtain without unreasonable burden),
you are not subject to this section with
respect to that chemical substance.
(c) If I am subject to this section, when
must I comply with it? (1)(i) Persons
subject to this section are divided into
two groups, as set forth in Table 1. of
this paragraph: Tier 1 (persons initially
required to comply) and Tier 2 (persons
not initially required to comply). If you
are subject to this section, you must
determine if you fall within Tier 1 or
Tier 2, based on Table 1. of this
paragraph.
TABLE 1—PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE RULE: PERSONS IN TIER 1 AND TIER 2
Persons not initially required to comply with this section (Tier 2)
Persons not otherwise specified in column 2 of this table that manufacture (as defined at TSCA section 3(7)) or intend to manufacture a
chemical substance included in this section.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Persons initially required to comply with this section (Tier 1)
Tier 2A. Persons who manufacture (as defined at TSCA section 3(7))
or intend to manufacture a chemical substance included in this section solely as one or more of the following:
—As a byproduct (as defined at 40 CFR 791.3(c));
—As an impurity (as defined at 40 CFR 790.3);
—As a naturally occurring substance (as defined at 40 CFR
710.4(b));
—As a non-isolated intermediate (as defined at 40 CFR 704.3);
—As a component of a Class 2 chemical substance (as described
at 40 CFR 720.45(a)(1)(i));
—In amounts of less than 500 kg (1,100 lbs.) annually (as described at 40 CFR 790.42(a)(4)); or
—For research and development (as described at 40 CFR
790.42(a)(5)).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:38 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65604
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PERSONS SUBJECT TO THE RULE: PERSONS IN TIER 1 AND TIER 2—Continued
Persons initially required to comply with this section (Tier 1)
Persons not initially required to comply with this section (Tier 2)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Tier 2B. Persons who process (as defined at TSCA section 3(10)) or
intend to process a chemical substance included in this section (see
40 CFR 790.42(a)(2)).
(ii) Table 1. of paragraph (c)(1)(i) of
this section expands the list of persons
in Tier 2, that is those persons specified
in 40 CFR 790.42(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(5),
who, while legally subject to this
section, must comply with the
requirements of this section only if
directed to do so by EPA under the
circumstances set forth in paragraphs
(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(10) of
this section.
(2) If you are in Tier 1 with respect
to a chemical substance listed in Table
2. in paragraph (j) of this section, you
must, for each test required under this
section for that chemical substance,
either submit to EPA a letter of intent
to test or apply to EPA for an exemption
from testing. The letter of intent to test
or the exemption application must be
received by EPA no later than 30 days
after the effective date of the final rule.
(3) If you are in Tier 2 with respect
to a chemical substance listed in Table
2. in paragraph (j) of this section, you
are considered to have an automatic
conditional exemption and you will be
required to comply with this section
with regard to that chemical substance
only if directed to do so by EPA under
paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(7), or (c)(10) of this
section.
(4) If no person in Tier 1 has notified
EPA of its intent to conduct one or more
of the tests required by this section on
any chemical substance listed in Table
2. in paragraph (j) of this section within
30 days after the effective date of the
final rule, EPA will publish a Federal
Register document that would specify
the test(s) and the chemical substance(s)
for which no letter of intent has been
submitted and notify manufacturers in
Tier 2A of their obligation to submit a
letter of intent to test or to apply for an
exemption from testing.
(5) If you are in Tier 2A (as specified
in Table 1. in paragraph (c) of this
section) with respect to a chemical
substance listed in Table 2. in paragraph
(j) of this section, and if you
manufacture, or intend to manufacture,
this chemical substance as of [date 30
days after date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register], or
within 30 days after publication of the
Federal Register document described in
paragraph (c)(4) of this section, you
must, for each test specified for that
chemical substance in the document
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:01 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
described in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section, either submit to EPA a letter of
intent to test or apply to EPA for an
exemption from testing. The letter of
intent to test or the exemption
application must be received by EPA no
later than 30 days after publication of
the Federal Register document
described in paragraph (c)(4) of this
section.
(6) If no manufacturer in Tier 1 or Tier
2A has notified EPA of its intent to
conduct one or more of the tests
required by this section on any chemical
substance listed in Table 2. in paragraph
(j) of this section within 30 days after
the publication of the Federal Register
document described in paragraph (c)(4)
of this section, EPA will publish another
Federal Register document that would
specify the test(s) and the chemical
substance(s) for which no letter of intent
has been submitted, and notify
processors in Tier 2B of their obligation
to submit a letter of intent to test or to
apply for an exemption from testing.
(7) If you are in Tier 2B (as specified
in Table 1. in paragraph (c) of this
section) with respect to a chemical
substance listed in Table 2. in paragraph
(j) of this section, and if you process, or
intend to process, this chemical
substance as of [date 30 days after date
of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], or within 30 days
after publication of the Federal Register
document described in paragraph (c)(6)
of this section, you must, for each test
specified for that chemical substance in
the Federal Register document
described in paragraph (c)(6) of this
section, either submit to EPA a letter of
intent to test or apply to EPA for an
exemption from testing. The letter of
intent to test or the exemption
application must be received by EPA no
later than 30 days after publication of
the Federal Register document
described in paragraph (c)(6) of this
section.
(8) If no manufacturer or processor
has notified EPA of its intent to conduct
one or more of the tests required by this
section for any of the chemical
substances listed in Table 2. in
paragraph (j) of this section within 30
days after the publication of the Federal
Register document described in
paragraph (c)(6) of this section, EPA will
notify all manufacturers and processors
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of those chemical substances of this fact
by certified letter or by publishing a
Federal Register document specifying
the test(s) for which no letter of intent
has been submitted. This letter or
Federal Register document will
additionally notify all manufacturers
and processors that all exemption
applications concerning the test(s) have
been denied, and will give the
manufacturers and processors of the
chemical substance(s) an opportunity to
take corrective action.
(9) If no manufacturer or processor
has notified EPA of its intent to conduct
one or more of the tests required by this
section for any of the chemical
substances listed in Table 2. in
paragraph (j) of this section within 30
days after receipt of the certified letter
or publication of the Federal Register
document described in paragraph (c)(8)
of this section, all manufacturers and
processors subject to this section with
respect to that chemical substance who
are not already in violation of this
section will be in violation of this
section.
(10) If a problem occurs with the
initiation, conduct, or completion of the
required testing or the submission of the
required data with respect to a chemical
substance listed in Table 2. in paragraph
(j) of this section, under the procedures
in 40 CFR 790.93 and 790.97, EPA may
initiate termination proceedings for all
testing exemptions with respect to that
chemical substance and may notify
persons in Tier 1 and Tier 2 that they
are required to submit letters of intent
to test or exemption applications within
a specified period of time.
(11) If you are required to comply
with this section, but your manufacture
or processing of, or intent to
manufacture or process, a chemical
substance listed in Table 2. in paragraph
(j) of this section begins after the
applicable compliance date referred to
in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(5), or (c)(6) of
this section, you must either submit a
letter of intent to test or apply to EPA
for an exemption. The letter of intent to
test or the exemption application must
be received by EPA no later than the day
you begin manufacture or processing.
(d) What must I do to comply with
this section? (1) To comply with this
section you must either submit to EPA
a letter of intent to test, or apply to and
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
obtain from EPA an exemption from
testing.
(2) For each test with respect to which
you submit to EPA a letter of intent to
test, you must conduct the testing
specified in paragraph (h) of this section
and submit the test data to EPA.
(3) You must also comply with the
procedures governing test rule
requirements in part 790 of this chapter,
as modified by this section, including
the submission of letters of intent to test
or exemption applications, the
submission of study plans prior to
testing, the conduct of testing, and the
submission of data; 40 CFR part 792—
Good Laboratory Practice Standards;
and this section. The following
provisions of 40 CFR part 790 do not
apply to this section: Paragraphs (a), (d),
(e), and (f) of § 790.45; § 790.48;
paragraph (a)(2) and paragraph (b) of
§ 790.80; paragraph (e)(1) of § 790.82;
and § 790.85.
(e) If I do not comply with this section,
when will I be considered in violation of
it? You will be considered in violation
of this section as of one day after the
date by which you are required to
comply with this section.
(f) How are EPA’s data reimbursement
procedures affected for purposes of this
section? If persons subject to this section
are unable to agree on the amount or
method of reimbursement for test data
development for one or more chemical
substances included in this section, any
person may request a hearing as
described in 40 CFR part 791. In the
determination of fair reimbursement
shares under this section, if the hearing
officer chooses to use a formula based
on production volume, the total
production volume amount will include
amounts of a chemical substance
produced as an impurity.
(g) Who must comply with the export
notification requirements? Any person
who exports, or intends to export, a
chemical substance listed in Table 2. in
paragraph (j) of this section is subject to
40 CFR part 707, subpart D.
(h) How must I conduct my testing?
The tests that are required for each
chemical substance are indicated in
Table 2. in paragraph (j) of this section.
The test methods that must be followed
are provided in Table 3. in paragraph (j)
of this section. You must proceed in
accordance with these test methods as
required according to Table 3. in
paragraph (j) of this section, or as
appropriate if more than one alternative
is allowed according to Table 3. in
paragraph (j) of this section.
(i) Reporting requirements. A final
report for each specific test for each
subject chemical substance must be
received by EPA by [date 13 months
after the effective date of publication of
65605
the final rule in the Federal Register]
unless an extension is granted in writing
pursuant to 40 CFR 790.55. A robust
summary of the final report for each
specific test may be submitted
electronically in addition to and at the
same time as the final report. The term
‘‘robust summary’’ is used to describe
the technical information necessary to
adequately describe an experiment or
study and includes the objectives,
methods, results, and conclusions of the
full study report which can be either an
experiment or in some cases an
estimation or prediction method.
Guidance for the compilation of robust
summaries is described in a document
entitled ‘‘Draft Guidance on Developing
Robust Summaries’’ which is available
on-line at: https://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/
pubs/general/robsumgd.htm.
(j) Designation of specific chemical
substances and testing requirements.
The chemical substances identified by
chemical substance name, Chemical
Abstract Service Registry Number
(CASRN), and class in Table 2. of this
paragraph must be tested in accordance
with the requirements designated in
Tables 2. and 3. of this paragraph, and
the requirements described in 40 CFR
part 792—Good Laboratory Practice
Standards.
TABLE 2—CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS
Chemical abstract (CA) index name
56–40–6 .....................
67–72–1 .....................
78–00–2 .....................
95–14–7 .....................
118–48–9 ...................
128–44–9 ...................
928–72–3 ...................
1809–19–4 .................
25377–73–5 ...............
Glycine ....................................................................................................
Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2,2-hexachloro- .............................................................
Plumbane, tetraethyl- .............................................................................
1H-Benzotriazole ....................................................................................
2H-3,1-Benzoxazine-2,4(1H)-dione ........................................................
1,2–Benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one, 1,1-dioxide, sodium salt (1:1) ...............
Glycine, N-(carboxymethyl)-, sodium salt (1:2) ......................................
Phosphonic acid, dibutyl ester ...............................................................
2,5-Furandione, 3-(dodecen-1-yl)dihydro- ..............................................
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
26544–38–7 ...............
2,5-Furandione, dihydro-3-(tetrapropenyl)- ............................................
1
27859–58–1 ...............
Butanedioic acid, 2-(tetrapropenyl)- .......................................................
1
28777–98–2 ...............
29385–43–1 ...............
32072–96–1 ...............
2,5-Furandione, dihydro-3-(octadecen-1-yl)- ..........................................
1H-Benzotriazole, 6(or 7)-methyl- ..........................................................
2,5-Furandione, 3-(hexadecen-1-yl)dihydro- ..........................................
1
1
1
61789–73–9 ...............
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Chemical abstract
service registry
number
(CASRN)
Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow
alkyl)methyl, chlorides.
1H-Benzotriazole, 6(or 7)-methyl-, sodium salt ......................................
Naphthenic acids, reaction products with diethylenetriamine ................
Fatty acids, tall-oil, reaction products with diethylenetriamine, acetates
2
64665–57–2 ...............
68131–13–5 ...............
68153–60–6 ...............
68424–85–1 ...............
68442–77–3 ...............
68607–28–3 ...............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Quaternary
ammonium
compounds,
benzyl-C12–16alkyldimethyl,chlorides.
2-Butenediamide, (2E)-, N1,N4-bis[2-(4,5-dihydro-2-nortall-oil alkyl-1Himidazol-1-yl)ethyl] derivs.
Quaternary ammonium compounds, (oxydi-2,1-ethanediyl)bis[coco
alkyldimethyl, dichlorides.
20:01 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Required tests
(see Table 3. of this section)
Class
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
1
2
2
1
2
2
A3
C6
A4, A5, C6, E2
A3, C6, F1
A3, A4, A5, C3, E1, E2, F1
A2, A3, A4, A5, C1, F1
A1, A3, A4, A5, B
A1, A4, C1, E1, E2, F1
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B, C1, D, E2,
F1
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B, C1, D, E1,
E2, F1
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, C1, D, E1, E2,
F1
A2, A3, A4, A5, C1, D, E1, E2, F1
A3, A4, A5, E2, F1
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B, C1, D, E1,
E2, F1
A3
A1, A3, A4, A5, E1, E2, F1,
C1, D, E1, E2, F1
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B, C1, D, E1,
E2, F1
A1, A2, A3
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B,
C1, D, E1, E2, F1
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
21OCP3
65606
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Chemical abstract
service registry
number
(CASRN)
Chemical abstract (CA) index name
68909–18–2 ...............
Pyridinium, 1-(phenylmethyl)-, Et Me derivs., chlorides .........................
2
69834–17–9 ...............
Benzene, decylphenoxy- ........................................................................
1
Required tests
(see Table 3. of this section)
Class
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, C1, D, E1, E2,
F1
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B, C1, D, E1,
E2, F1
TABLE 3—KEY TO THE TEST REQUIREMENTS DENOTED BY ALPHANUMERIC SYMBOLS IN TABLE 2
Test
symbol
Test requirements and references
Physical/chemical properties.
A
Physical/chemical properties (continued).
A
1. Melting Point: ASTM E 324–99 (capillary tube), if
a Freezing Point: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 102 (melting
point/melting range).
2. Boiling Point: ASTM E 1719–05 (ebulliometry).
3. Vapor Pressure: ASTM E 1782–03 (thermal
analysis).
4. n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (log 10
basis) or log Kow: (see special conditions for the
log Kow test requirement and select the appropriate method to use, if any, from those listed in
this column).
Method A: 40 CFR 799.6755 (shake flask).
Method B: ASTM E 1147–92(2005) (liquid chromatography).
Method C: 40 CFR 799.6756 (generator column)
Testing category
Special conditions
5. Water Solubility: (See special conditions for the
water solubility test requirement and select the
appropriate method to use, if any, from those listed in this column).
Method A: ASTM E 1148–02 (shake flask)
Method B: 40 CFR 799.6784 (shake flask)
Method C: 40 CFR 799.6784 (column elution)
Method D: 40 CFR 799.6786 (generator column)
B
Aquatic toxicity ..................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Environmental fate and
pathways—ready biodegradation.
C1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:01 Oct 20, 2011
For B, consult ISO 10631 for guidance, and choose
one of the methods listed in this column:
1. ASTM 1720–01 (sealed vessel CO2 production
test) or
2. ISO 14593 (CO2 headspace test) or
3. ISO 7827 (analysis of DOC) or
4. ISO 9408 (determination of oxygen demand in a
closed respirometer) or
5. ISO 9439 (CO2 evolution test) or
6. ISO 10707 (closed bottle test) or
7. ISO 10708 (two-phase closed bottle test).
For C1, Test Group 1 or Test Group 2 listed in this
column must be used to fulfill the testing requirements—see special conditions.
Test Group 1 for C1:
1. Acute Toxicity To Fish: ASTM E 729–96
(2007).
2. Acute Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E 729–96
(2007).
3. Toxicity To Plants (Algae): ASTM E 1218–
04e1.
Test Group 2 for C1:
1. Chronic Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E
1193–97 (2004)
2. Toxicity To Plants (Algae): ASTM E 1218–
04e1.
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient or log Kow:
Which method is required, if any, is determined
by the test substance’s estimated 1 log Kow as
follows:
log Kow <0: no testing required.
log Kow range 0–1: Method A or B.
log Kow range > 1–4: Method A or B or C.
log Kow range > 4–6: Method B or C.
log Kow > 6: Method C.
Test sponsors must provide in the final study report
the underlying rationale for the method and pH
selected. In order to ensure environmental relevance, EPA highly recommends that the selected study be conducted at pH 7.
Water Solubility:
Which method is required, if any, is determined by
the test substance’s estimated 2 water solubility.
Test sponsors must provide in the final study report the underlying rationale for the method and
pH selected. In order to ensure environmental
relevance, EPA highly recommends that the selected study be conducted starting at pH 7.
> 5,000 mg/L: Method A or B.
> 10 mg/L–5,000 mg/L: Method A, B, C, or D.
> 0.001 mg/L–10 mg/L: Method C or D.
≤ 0.001 mg/L: No testing required.
Which method is required, if any, is determined by
the test substance’s physical and chemical properties, including its water solubility. ISO 10631
provides guidance for selection of an appropriate
test method for a given test substance. Test
sponsors must provide in the final study report
the underlying rationale for the method selected.
The following are the special conditions for C1, C2,
C3, C4, C5, and C7 testing; there are no special
conditions for C6.
Which test group is required is determined by the
test substance’s measured log Kow as obtained
under Test Category A, or using an existing
measured log Kow.3
If log Kow <4.2: Test Group 1 is required.
If log Kow ≥ 4.2: Test Group 2 is required.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
65607
TABLE 3—KEY TO THE TEST REQUIREMENTS DENOTED BY ALPHANUMERIC SYMBOLS IN TABLE 2—Continued
Test
symbol
Test requirements and references
C2
Testing category
For C2, Test Group 1 or Test Group 2 listed in this
column must be used to fulfill the testing requirements—See special conditions.
Test Group 1 for C2:
1. Acute Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E 729–96
(2007).
2. Toxicity To Plants (Algae): ASTM E 1218–
04e1
Test Group 2 for C2:
1. Chronic Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E
1193–97 (2004).
2. Toxicity To Plants (Algae): ASTM E 1218–
04e1.
For C3, Test Group 1 or Test Group 2 listed in this
column must be used to fulfill the testing requirements—see special conditions.
Test Group 1 for C3:
1. Acute Toxicity To Fish: ASTM E 729–96
(2007).
2. Toxicity To Plants (Algae): ASTM E 1218–
04e1.
Test Group 2 for C3:
1. Chronic Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E
1193–97 (2004).
2. Toxicity To Plants (Algae): ASTM E 1218–
04e1.
For C4, Test Group 1 or Test Group 2 listed in this
column must be used to fulfill the testing requirements—see special conditions.
Test Group 1 for C4:
1. Acute Toxicity To Fish: ASTM E 729–96
(2007).
2. Acute Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E 729–96
(2007).
Test Group 2 for C4:
1. Chronic Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E
1193–97 (2004).
For C5, Test Group 1 or Test Group 2 listed in this
column must be used to fulfill the testing requirements—see special conditions.
Test Group 1 for C5:
1. Acute Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E 729–96
(2007).
Test Group 2 for C5:
1. Chronic Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E
1193–97 (2004).
Toxicity To Plants (Algae): ASTM E 1218–04e1.
For C7, Test Group 1 or Test Group 2 listed in this
column must be used to fulfill the testing requirements—see special conditions.
Test Group 1 for C7:
1. Acute Toxicity To Fish: ASTM E 729–96
(2007).
Test Group 2 for C7:
1. Chronic Toxicity To Daphnia: ASTM E
1193–97 (2004).
See special conditions for this test requirement and
select the method that must be used from those
listed in this column.
Method A: Acute Inhalation Toxicity (rat): 40 CFR
799.9130.
Method B: either:
1. Acute (Up/Down) Oral Toxicity (rat): ASTM
E 1163–98 (2002)
or
2. Acute (Up/Down) Oral Toxicity (rat): 40 CFR
799.9110(d)(1)(i)(A).
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Mammalian toxicity—acute
D
Mammalian toxicity—
genotox-icity.
E1
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:04 Oct 20, 2011
Special conditions
Bacterial Reverse Mutation Test (in vitro): 40 CFR
799.9510.
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Which testing method is required is determined by
the test substance’s physical state at room temperature (25 °C). For those test substances that
are gases at room temperature, Method A is required; otherwise, use either of the two methods
listed under Method B.
In Method B, 40 CFR 799.9110(d)(1)(i)(A) refers to
the OECD 425 Up/Down Procedure.4
Estimating starting dose for Method B: Data from
the neutral red uptake basal cytotoxicity assay 5
using normal human keratinocytes or mouse
BALB/c 3T3 cells may be used to estimate the
starting dose.
None.
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
65608
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—KEY TO THE TEST REQUIREMENTS DENOTED BY ALPHANUMERIC SYMBOLS IN TABLE 2—Continued
Test
symbol
Test requirements and references
Special conditions
E2
Testing category
Conduct any one of the following three tests for
chromosomal damage:
In vitro Mammalian Chromosome Aberration
Test: 40 CFR 799.9537
or
Mammalian Bone Marrow Chromosomal Aberration Test (in vivo in rodents: Mouse (preferred species), rat, or Chinese hamster): 40
CFR 799.9538
or
Mammalian Erythrocyte Micronucleus Test
[sampled in bone marrow] (in vivo in rodents:
mouse (preferred species), rat, or Chinese
hamster): 40 CFR 799.9539.
Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the
Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening
Test: 40 CFR 799.9365.
or
Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening
Test: 40 CFR 799.9355
and
Repeated Dose 28-Day Oral Toxicity Study in rodents: 40 CFR 799.9305.
Persons required to conduct testing for chromosomal damage are encouraged to use the in vitro
Mammalian Chromosome Aberration Test (40
CFR 799.9537) to generate the needed data unless known chemical properties (e.g., physical/
chemical properties, chemical class characteristics) preclude its use. A subject person who uses
one of the in vivo methods instead of the in vitro
method to address a chromosomal damage test
requirement must submit to EPA a rationale for
conducting that alternate test in the final study report.
Mammalian toxicity—repeated dose/reproduction/developmental.
F1
F2
F3
Where F1 is required, EPA recommends use of the
Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with
the Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test (40 CFR 799.9365). However, there may
be valid reasons to test a particular chemical
substance using both 40 CFR 799.9355 and 40
CFR 799.9305 to fill Mammalian Toxicity—Repeated Dose/Reproduction/Developmental data
needs. A subject person who uses the combination of 40 CFR 799.9355 and 40 CFR 799.9305
in place of 40 CFR 799.9365 must submit to EPA
a rationale for conducting these alternate tests in
the final study reports. Where F2 or F3 is required, no rationale for conducting the required
test need be provided in the final study report.
Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening
Test: 40 CFR 799.9355.
Repeated Dose 28-Day Oral Toxicity Study in rodents: 40 CFR 799.9305.
1 EPA recommends, but does not require, that log K
ow be quantitatively estimated prior to initiating this study. One method, among many similar methods, for estimating log Kow is described in the article entitled Atom/Fragment Contribution Method for Estimating Octanol-Water Partition
Coefficients) by W.M. Meylan and P.H. Howard in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 84(1):83–92. January 1992. This reference is available under docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0520 at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. 3331 in the EPA West Building located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
2 EPA recommends, but does not require, that water solubility be quantitatively estimated prior to initiating this study. One method, among
many similar methods, for estimating water solubility is described in the article entitled Improved Method for Estimating Water Solubility From Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient by W.M. Meylan, P.H. Howard, and R.S. Boethling in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 15(2):100–106.
1996. This reference is available under docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0520 at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. 3331 in the EPA West
Building located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
3 Chemical substances that are dispersible in water may have log Kow values greater than 4.2 and may still be acutely toxic to aquatic organisms. Test sponsors who wish to conduct Test Group 1 studies on such chemical substances may request a modification to the test standard
as described in 40 CFR 790.55. Based upon the supporting rationale provided by the test sponsor, EPA may allow an alternative threshold or
method be used for determining whether acute or chronic aquatic toxicity testing be performed for a specific substance.
4 The OECD 425 Up/Down Procedure, revised by OECD in December 2001, is available under docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0520
at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. 3331 in the EPA West Building located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
5 The neutral red uptake basal cytotoxicity assay, which may be used to estimate the starting dose for the mammalian toxicity-acute endpoint,
is available under docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0520 at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. 3331 in the EPA West Building located at
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
(k) Effective date. This section is
effective on [date 30 days after date of
publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
[FR Doc. 2011–26894 Filed 10–20–11; 8:45 am]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:01 Oct 20, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\21OCP3.SGM
21OCP3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 204 (Friday, October 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65580-65608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26894]
[[Page 65579]]
Vol. 76
Friday,
No. 204
October 21, 2011
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 721 and 799
Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Test Rule and Significant New
Use Rule; Fourth Group of Chemicals; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 204 / Friday, October 21, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65580]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 721 and 799
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0520; FRL-8876-6]
RIN 2070-AJ66
Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Test Rule and
Significant New Use Rule; Fourth Group of Chemicals
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to issue a test rule under Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) section 4(a)(1)(B) to require manufacturers and
processors of 23 high production volume (HPV) chemical substances to
develop screening-level health, environmental, and fate data based on
the potential for substantial exposures of workers and consumers to
these chemicals. EPA is also proposing to issue simultaneously a
significant new use rule (SNUR) for another 22 HPV chemical substances
under TSCA section 5(a)(2). The SNUR would require persons to file a
significant new use notice (SNUN) with EPA prior to manufacturing,
importing, or processing any of these chemical substances for use in a
consumer product or for any use, or combination of uses, that is
reasonably likely to expose 1,000 or more workers at a single corporate
entity. The required notification would provide EPA with the
opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit
or limit that activity before it occurs. EPA is also soliciting comment
on a number of issues with regard to both the test rule and the SNUR.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 19, 2012.
You may submit a request for an opportunity to present oral
comments. This request must be made in writing. If such a request is
received on or before January 19, 2012, EPA will hold a public meeting
on this proposed rule in Washington, DC.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0520, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0520. The DCO is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2010-0520. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of
operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room
is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is
(202) 566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.
Submission of requests: You may submit a request for an opportunity
to present oral comments. This request must be made in writing and
submitted to the mailing or hand delivery addresses provided in this
unit. If such a request is received, EPA will announce the scheduling
of the public meeting in a subsequent document in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Robert Jones (test rule) or Amy Breedlove (SNUR), Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8161 or (202)
564-9823; e-mail address: jones.robert@epa.gov or
breedlove.amy@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by these actions if you manufacture
(defined by statute to include import) or process any of the chemical
substances that are listed in Tables A. or B. in Unit III. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Manufacturers (defined by statute to include importers) of
one or more of the subject chemical substances (NAICS codes 325 and
324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing and petroleum refineries.
Processors of one or more of the subject chemical
substances (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturing
and petroleum refineries.
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of
[[Page 65581]]
entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been
provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action
might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing
import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. See Unit
VI. for export notification requirements.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. Can I request an opportunity to present oral comments to the agency?
You may submit a request for an opportunity to present oral
comments. This request must be made in writing. If such a request is
received on or before January 19, 2012, EPA will hold a public meeting
on this proposed rule in Washington, DC. This written request must be
submitted to the mailing or hand delivery addresses provided under
ADDRESSES. If such a request is received, EPA will announce the
scheduling of the public meeting in a subsequent document in the
Federal Register. If a public meeting is announced, and if you are
interested in attending or presenting oral and/or written comments at
the public meeting, you should follow the instructions provided in the
subsequent Federal Register document announcing the public meeting.
II. Background
A. What action is the agency taking and why?
Congress gave EPA (also referred to as ``Agency'') broad authority
to require testing of chemical substances when EPA can establish a
minimum level of risk concern for a chemical substance (hazard and
exposure are considered), and/or when EPA can establish that there is
or may be substantial production and release or exposure of a chemical
substance (production volume and exposure are considered). HPV chemical
substances often have either significant release or human exposure
scenarios that would stimulate EPA interest and support an EPA decision
to require testing or to require notification before additional
exposures occur. EPA is proposing to regulate 45 HPV chemical
substances with either a test rule or a SNUR. EPA is proposing a test
rule under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B) for 23 of these 45 HPV chemical
substances and a SNUR under TSCA section 5(a)(2) for the other 22 HPV
chemical substances (see Tables A. and B. in Unit III.).
These 45 HPV chemical substances are among the chemical substances
that were included in EPA's HPV Challenge Program (hereafter HPV
Challenge) initiated in 1998. Of the 2,782 chemical substances
originally included in the HPV Challenge, 1,858 were officially
sponsored either directly in the HPV Challenge or indirectly through
international efforts, although 5 were later withdrawn. Another 416 of
the 2,782 chemical substances were removed from the scope of the HPV
Challenge for a variety of reasons (e.g., polymers, inorganics, etc.).
The remaining 508 of the 2,782 chemical substances were termed
``orphans'' because they were not sponsored and there were no other
factors that removed the chemical substances from the scope of the HPV
Challenge. Of the 508 orphans, 405 are no longer produced at HPV
levels. Of the remaining 103 chemical substances, 63 have been included
in one of three test rules, or EPA has otherwise received data adequate
to meet its needs. The remaining 40, plus the 5 chemical substances
whose HPV Challenge sponsorships were withdrawn, are the subject of
this proposed test rule and SNUR. For more information on the HPV
Challenge go to https://www.epa.gov/hpv/ or see the Federal Register of
March 16, 2008 (71 FR 13708) (FRL-7335-2). This action contains the
fourth and final test rule in the series and includes the last
unsponsored/orphan chemical substances in the HPV Challenge.
The data that EPA seeks through the HPV Challenge is the Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS) developed by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD), of which the United States is a
member. SIDS consists of tests for six endpoints (Ref. 1), including
acute toxicity, repeated dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive
toxicity, genetic toxicity, ecotoxicity, and environmental fate. The
six SIDS endpoints provide a minimum, internationally-agreed-upon set
of test data for screening HPV chemical substances for human and
environmental hazards, and assist EPA and others in making an informed,
preliminary judgment about the hazards of HPV chemical substances.
B. What is the agency's authority for taking these actions?
1. Test rule. EPA is proposing this test rule under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B) which directs EPA to require by rule that manufacturers and/
or processors of chemical substances and mixtures conduct testing, if
the EPA Administrator finds that:
i. A chemical substance or mixture is or will be produced in
substantial quantities, and (1) it enters or may reasonably be
anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or (2)
there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to such
substance or mixture.
ii. There are insufficient data and experience upon which the
effects of the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use,
or disposal of such
[[Page 65582]]
substance or mixture or of any combination of such activities on health
or the environment can reasonably be determined or predicted.
iii. Testing of such substance or mixture with respect to such
effects is necessary to develop such data.
2. SNUR. Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA authorizes EPA to determine that a
use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new use.'' EPA must make
this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors,
including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines
that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA
section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a SNUN to EPA at least 90
days before they manufacture, import, or process the chemical substance
for that use.
C. Applicability of General Provisions
1. Test rule. General provisions for test rules appear under 40 CFR
part 790 (subparts A, B, C, and E), 40 CFR part 791, 40 CFR part 792,
and 40 CFR part 799 (subpart A). 40 CFR part 790, subpart A, describes
the scope, purpose, and authority for test rules and consent
agreements, provisions for submitting information to the Agency, and
the treatment of confidential business information. 40 CFR part 790,
subpart B covers the procedures for developing consent agreements and
test rules. 40 CFR part 790, subpart C covers the implementation,
enforcement, and modification of test rules. This subpart includes
information about persons subject to testing and required to submit
letters-of-intent to conduct testing and persons who must submit
testing exemption applications, and includes information about the
submission of study plans and how to modify test standards and
schedules if necessary. Subpart E of 40 CFR part 790 provides detailed
information about exemptions from test rules. 40 CFR parts 791 and 792
respectively cover provisions for data reimbursement and required good
laboratory practice standards. 40 CFR part 799, subpart A, provides
additional information on the scope and purpose of the rule, the
applicability of the rule, submitting information, test standards, the
availability of test guidelines, distinguishing positive and negative
results, the effects of non-compliance, chemicals for which the testing
reimbursement period has passed, and imports and exports.
Persons who export or intend to export a chemical substance
identified in a final test rule are subject to the export notification
provisions of TSCA section 12(b). Regulations that interpret TSCA
section 12(b) appear at 40 CFR part 707, subpart D, notices of export
under section 12(b).
2. SNUR. General provisions for SNURs appear under 40 CFR part 721,
subpart A. These provisions describe persons subject to the rule,
recordkeeping requirements, exemptions to reporting requirements, and
applicability of the rule to uses occurring before the effective date
of the final rule. Provisions relating to user fees appear at 40 CFR
part 700. According to 40 CFR 721.1(c), persons subject to SNURs must
comply with the same notice requirements and EPA regulatory procedures
as submitters of Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) under TSCA section
5(a)(1)(A). In particular, these requirements include the information
submission requirements of TSCA section 5(b) and 5(d)(1), the
exemptions authorized by TSCA section 5(h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and
(h)(5), and the regulations at 40 CFR part 720. Once EPA receives a
SNUN, EPA may take regulatory action under TSCA section 5(e), 5(f), 6
or 7 to control the activities on which it has received the SNUN. If
EPA does not take action, EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to
explain in the Federal Register its reasons for not taking action.
D. What is the agency's ``B Policy''?
TSCA section 2(b) states that it is the policy of the United States
that: (1) Adequate data should be developed with respect to the effect
of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the environment and
that the development of such data should be the responsibility of those
who manufacture and those who process such chemical substances and
mixtures; (2) adequate authority should exist to regulate chemical
substances and mixtures which present an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and to take action with respect to chemical
substances and mixtures which are imminent hazards; and (3) authority
over chemical substances and mixtures should be exercised in such a
manner as not to impede unduly or create unnecessary economic barriers
to technological innovation while fulfilling the primary purpose of
this Act to assure that such innovation and commerce in such chemical
substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment (15 U.S.C. 2601(b)(1)).
TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B) authorizes and requires EPA to issue a test
rule for a chemical substance if EPA finds, among other things, that
the chemical substance ``is or will be produced in substantial
quantities'' and either ``enters or may reasonably be anticipated to
enter the environment in substantial quantities'' or ``there is or may
be significant or substantial human exposure.''
TSCA, however, does not say what is ``significant'' or
``substantial'' under TSCA section (4)(a)(1)(B). EPA, therefore,
published a policy, known as the ``B Policy,'' in 1993 (Ref. 2) for
aiding in the determination of when production or environmental release
is substantial or when human exposure is either significant or
substantial for the purpose of issuing a test rule under TSCA section
(4)(a)(1)(B). Under the ``B Policy,'' ``produced in substantial
quantities'' generally means manufactured or imported in one million
pounds or more per year; a ``substantial environmental release'' is
generally either one million pounds per year or ten percent of total
manufactured and imported volume, whichever is less; and ``substantial
human exposure'' is generally 100,000 or more people in the general
population, or 10,000 or more consumers, or 1,000 or more workers.
E. Why is the agency proposing both a test rule and a SNUR?
EPA is proposing these two actions together because the Agency
believes the actions are complementary and will best ensure these HPV
chemicals are adequately evaluated by the Agency. For example, if EPA
receives comments on this proposal sufficient to establish that one of
the 23 chemical substances proposed to be regulated under the test rule
is not used in a way that meets the substantial exposure criteria, but
information received indicates that the chemical substance meets the
criteria for the SNUR, EPA intends to include the chemical substance in
the final SNUR rather than the test rule, without further public notice
and comment. Simply removing such a chemical substance from the test
rule in such circumstances, without including it in the SNUR, would not
provide a regulatory mechanism for timely notification to EPA in the
event of changed circumstances that would likely justify the issuance
of a test rule for the chemical substance. Further, if public comment
on these proposed actions is sufficient to establish that any of the
uses to be covered for the 22 chemical substances proposed in the SNUR
are, in fact, on-going, yet such comments also establish that there is
already substantial exposure to the chemical substance, EPA intends to
review the status of the chemical substance and, as warranted, take
appropriate steps to promulgate a test rule rather than a SNUR for the
[[Page 65583]]
chemical substance. Unit IV. of this document details the proposed
findings to issue a test rule for the 23 chemical substances listed in
Table A. and provides additional discussion pertaining to whether the
promulgation of a test rule for 22 chemical substances listed in Table
B. may be warranted. Unit V. of this document details the proposed
findings to issue a SNUR for the 22 chemical substances listed in Table
B. and the basis to issue a SNUR for the 23 chemical substances listed
in Table A. in the event that public comments provide additional data
establishing that, for one or more of such chemical substances, there
is no ongoing use in a consumer product and no ongoing use reasonably
likely to expose 1,000 or more workers.
F. What are some future considerations?
One of EPA's top priorities is to assure the safety of chemical
substances in commerce. Under TSCA, EPA has a primary mission to
identify and, where appropriate, control unreasonable risks of
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal
of chemical substances. It is essential that chemical substance review
be supported by information sufficient to allow informed decision
making and that information and decisions are of high quality and are
widely understandable. As such, EPA continues to collect information
from existing sources, to request new and better information where it
is determined to be needed, and to make all supporting information
publicly available, to the extent permitted under TSCA section 14 and
40 CFR part 2. Open access to information allows individuals,
communities, businesses, and governments to make informed decisions and
policies that incorporate environmental and health considerations and
minimize external and/or unintended harmful impacts. Therefore, EPA
intends to continue to focus on filling data needs on priority chemical
substances, including high production volume chemical substances. EPA
is interested in stakeholder input on a number of issues described in
this section. Some specific issues EPA has identified to date follow.
1. Coordination of simultaneous test rule and SNUR proposals. In
this action, EPA is simultaneously proposing a test rule and SNUR to
regulate two sets of chemical substances. EPA believes that this is an
efficient way to require submission of test data on chemical substances
that meet all of the necessary test rule criteria and (for the latter
group of chemical substances) to require submission of advance
notification to EPA of use in a consumer product or of any use, or
combination of uses, that is reasonably likely to expose 1,000 or more
workers. With respect to chemical substances that meet some, but
potentially not all test rule criteria, the SNUR also facilitates
efficiency by mitigating the need for EPA to continually reevaluate
each HPV chemical substance to determine whether exposure potential has
changed. EPA is considering issuing further coordinated proposals of
test rules and SNURs. This would occur in conjunction with future
Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule data releases, covering all
newly-HPV chemical substances. EPA requests comment on this approach.
In September 2011, the IUR was renamed Chemical Data Reporting (CDR)
and moved from 40 CFR part 710 subpart C to 40 CFR part 711 (76 FR
50816, August 16, 2011) (FRL-8872-9). For more information on this
change go to https://www.epa.gov/cdr.
2. Minimum data set. For more than 15 years, EPA has used OECD's
SIDS to facilitate and standardize the screening of the relatively
large number of HPV chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory. EPA
requests comment on whether SIDS continues to be the most appropriate
data set to screen chemical substances for potential environmental and
health hazards. Are additional or different tests also appropriate?
Should EPA consider having more than one screening data set depending
on the nature of exposures (e.g., a different set of tests for
children's exposures or environmental releases)?
3. Computational toxicology. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences
National Research Council in their 2007 report ``Toxicity Testing in
the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy'' (Ref. 3) encouraged
``work[ing] towards a transition to new integrative and predictive
molecular and computational techniques to enhance efficiency and
accuracy and to reduce reliance on animal testing.'' EPA requests
suggestions on practical, implementable ways to work toward this goal
in its actions under TSCA. Should tools such as ToxCast (at https://www.epa.gov/comptox/toxcast) (Ref. 4) be used to prioritize chemical
substances and support hazard findings for testing?
III. Chemical Substances Subject to This Action
The 45 chemical substances included in this action are the
remaining unsponsored/orphan chemical substances, which have not
previously been subject to test rules or other HPV Challenge-related
follow-up actions. EPA is proposing to issue a test rule under TSCA
section 4(a)(1)(B) for the 23 chemical substances listed in Table A. in
this unit and proposing to establish a SNUR under TSCA section 5(a)(2)
for the other 22 chemical substances (see Table B. in this unit).
Respecting the 23 chemical substances proposed for a section 4(a)(1)(B)
test rule (i.e., those in Table A.), in the event that public comments
provide additional data respecting any of these chemical substances,
establishing that there is no ongoing use in a consumer product and no
ongoing use reasonably likely to expose 1,000 or more workers for any
such substance, EPA intends to finalize a SNUR for each such chemical
substance. Finally, with respect to the 22 chemical substances proposed
for a SNUR (i.e., those in Table B.), in the event that public comments
provide additional data establishing that there is already substantial
exposure to the chemical substance, EPA intends to review the status of
the chemical substance and, as warranted, take appropriate steps to
promulgate a section 4(a)(1)(B) test rule for the chemical substance.
For each of these chemical substances, Tables A. and B. provide the
Chemical Abstract (CA) Index Name, Chemical Abstract Service (CAS)
Registry Number (CASRN), and 2006 IUR information on production volume,
number of workers exposed, and commercial/consumer uses. Substantial
worker exposure is deduced from the number of workers reported.
Substantial consumer exposure is deduced from production volume and
consumer uses if production volume exceeds one million pounds per year
and consumer uses are indicated, it is likely that consumer exposure
exceeds ten thousand people.
For each of the test rule candidate chemical substances, EPA has
used the 2006 IUR information to preliminarily determine that the
chemical substance is produced in substantial quantities and that there
is substantial human exposure. For each of the significant new use
(SNU) candidates, EPA has considered the 2006 IUR information in
determining the proposed SNU designations. These findings are discussed
further in Unit IV.A.1., Unit V.A., and Ref. 5.
[[Page 65584]]
Table A--Chemical Substances for Which a Test Rule Is Proposed and for Which a SNUR Is Being Considered as an Alternative Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical substance Chemical substance
2006 IUR production meets the ``B Commercial/Consumer meets the ``B
CASRN CA Index name volume (million 2006 IUR number of finding'' criteria uses indicated in finding'' criteria
lbs.) workers exposed of >=1,000 workers 2006 IUR of >=10,000
exposed consumers exposed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56-40-6.............. Glycine............. 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. Other; CBI......... Yes.
67-72-1.............. Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2,2- 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. None............... No.
hexachloro-.
78-00-2.............. Plumbane, tetraethyl- 1 <= 10............. 100-999............. No.................. Lubricants, greases Yes.
. and fuel additives.
95-14-7.............. 1H-Benzotriazole.... 1 <= 10............. 100-999............. No.................. Lubricants, greases Yes.
and fuel
additives; metal
products; other.
118-48-9............. 2H-3,1-Benzoxazine- 10 <= 50............ 100-999............. No.................. Agricultural Yes.
2,4(1H)-dione. products (non-
pesticidal); other.
128-44-9............. 1,2-Benzisothiazol- 1 <= 10............. 100-999............. No.................. Other.............. Yes.
3(2H)-one, 1,1-
dioxide, sodium
salt (1:1).
928-72-3............. Glycine, N- 500 <= 1,000........ 1,000+.............. Yes................. None............... No.
(carboxymethyl)-,
sodium salt (1:2).
1809-19-4............ Phosphonic acid, 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. CBI................ Yes.
dibutyl ester.
25377-73-5........... 2,5-Furandione, 3- 1 <= 10............. 1-99................ No.................. Other.............. Yes.
(dodecen-1-
yl)dihydro-.
26544-38-7........... 2,5-Furandione, 1 <= 10............. 100-999............. No.................. Lubricants, greases Yes.
dihydro-3- and fuel
(tetrapropenyl)-. additives; paints
and coatings; not
readily obtainable
(NRO).
27859-58-1........... Butanedioic acid,2- 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. Lubricants, greases Yes.
(tetrapropenyl)-. and fuel
additives; CBI.
28777-98-2........... 2,5-Furandione, 10 <= 50............ 100-999............. No.................. Paper products..... Yes.
dihydro-3-
(octadecen-1-yl)-.
29385-43-1........... 1H-Benzotriazole, 1 <= 10............. 100-999............. No.................. Lubricants, greases Yes.
6(or75)-methyl-. and fuel additives.
32072-96-1........... 2,5-Furandione, 3- 50 <= 100........... 1,000+.............. Yes................. Paper products..... Yes.
(hexadecen-1-
yl)dihydro-.
61789-73-9........... Quaternary ammonium 1 <= 10............. 100-999............. No.................. CBI................ Yes.
compounds,
benzylbis(hydrogena
ted tallow
alkyl)methyl,
chlorides.
64665-57-2........... 1H-Benzotriazole, 1 <= 10............. 100-999............. No.................. Other.............. Yes.
6(or7)-methyl-,
sodium salt.
68131-13-5........... Naphthenic acids, 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. None............... No.
reaction products
with
diethylenetriamine.
68153-60-6........... Fatty acids, tall- 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. None............... No.
oil, reaction
products with
diethylenetriamine,
acetates.
68424-85-1........... Quaternary ammonium 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. Other; CBI......... Yes.
compounds, benzyl-
C12-16-
alkyldimethyl,
chlorides.
68442-77-3........... 2-Butenediamide, 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. None............... No.
(2E)-, N1,N4-bis[2-
(4,5-dihydro-2-
nortall-oil alkyl-
1H-imidazol-1-
yl)ethyl] derivs.
68607-28-3........... Quaternary ammonium 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. Other.............. Yes.
compounds, (oxydi-
2,1-
ethanediyl)bis[coco
alkyldimethyl,
dichlorides.
68909-18-2........... Pyridinium, 1- 1 <= 10............. 1,000+.............. Yes................. Other.............. Yes.
(phenylmethyl)-, Et
Me derivs.,
chlorides.
69834-17-9........... Benzene, 1 <= 10............. 100-999............. No.................. Soaps and Yes.
decylphenoxy-. detergents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65585]]
Table B--List of Chemical Substances for Which a SNUR Is Proposed and for Which a Test Rule Is Being Considered as an Alternative Option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical substance Chemical substance
2006 IUR meets the ``B Commercial/consumer meets the ``B
CASRN CA Index name production volume 2006 IUR number of finding'' criteria uses indicated in finding'' criteria
(million lbs.) workers exposed of >= 1,000 2006 IUR of >= 10,000
workers exposed consumers exposed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98-16-8.............. Benzenamine, 3- 1 <= 10........... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
(trifluoromethyl)-.
100-53-8............. Benzenemethanethiol...... 1 <= 10........... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
104-91-6............. Phenol, 4-nitroso-....... 1 <= 10........... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
110-03-2............. 2,5-Hexanediol, 2,5- 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
dimethyl-.
124-63-0............. Methanesulfonyl chloride. 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
142-30-3............. 3-Hexyne-2,5-diol, 2,5- 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
dimethyl-.
460-00-4............. Benzene, 1-bromo-4-fluoro- 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ Not readily No.
. obtainable (NRO).
542-92-7............. 1,3-Cyclopentadiene...... 1 <= 10........... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
553-26-4............. 4,4'-Bipyridine.......... 10 <= 50.......... 100-999........... No................ None................ No
8007-45-2............ Tar, coal................ 1 <= 10........... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
28106-30-1........... Benzene, ethenylethyl-... 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
35203-06-6........... Benzenamine, 2-ethyl-6- 10 <= 50.......... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
methyl-N-methylene-.
35203-08-8........... Benzenamine, 2,6-diethyl- 10 <= 50.......... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
N-methylene-.
37734-45-5........... Carbonochloridothioic 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
acid, S-(phenylmethyl)
ester.
37764-25-3........... Acetamide, 2,2-dichloro- 1 <= 10........... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
N,N-di-2-propen-1-yl-.
61789-72-8........... Quaternary ammonium 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
compounds,
benzyl(hydrogenated
tallow alkyl)dimethyl,
chlorides.
61790-13-4........... Naphthenic acids, sodium 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
salts.
65996-91-0........... Distillates (coal tar), 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
upper.
68308-01-0........... Tail gas (petroleum), 10 <= 50.......... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
cracked distillate
hydrotreater stripper.
68478-20-6........... Residues (petroleum), 10 <= 50.......... 1-99.............. No................ None................ No.
steam-cracked petroleum
distillates
cyclopentadiene conc.,
C4-cyclopentadiene-free.
68526-82-9........... Alkenes, C6-10, 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ NRO................. No.
hydroformylation
products, high-boiling.
68909-77-3........... Ethanol, 2,2'-oxybis-, 1 <= 10........... 100-999........... No................ None................ No.
reaction products with
ammonia, morpholine
derivs. residues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Section 4(a)(1)(B) Test Rule and Basis to Also Consider
Table B. Chemical Substances for a Section 4(a)(1)(B) Test Rule
A. What are the proposed findings?
1. Exposure findings. EPA is proposing to require testing of the
chemical substances listed in Table A. based on its preliminary
findings under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i) relating to ``substantial''
production and ``substantial human exposure,'' as well as findings
under TSCA sections 4(a)(1)(B)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(iii) relating to
insufficient data and the need for testing. The chemical substances in
Table A. are also listed in Table 2. of Sec. 799.5090(j) of the
proposed regulatory text along with their CASRNs.
i. Are these chemical substances produced in substantial
quantities? EPA has made preliminary findings that each of the chemical
substances included in this proposed test rule are produced in
substantial quantities. In accordance with the ``B policy'' (discussed
in Unit II.D.), each of these substances is manufactured (which, as
noted in Unit I.A., includes imported) in an amount equal to or greater
than 1 million lbs. per year (Ref. 5). These findings are based on
information gathered in the 2006 IUR the most recently available
compilation of IUR (now CDR) data.
ii. Are a substantial number of workers exposed to these chemical
substances? EPA has made preliminary findings that the manufacture,
processing, and use of 12 of the 23 chemical substances listed in Table
A. result or may result in exposure of a substantial number of workers
to the chemical substances (Ref. 5).
For chemical substances whose total production volume (manufactured
and imported) exceeded 300,000 lbs. at a site during calendar year
2005, manufacturers (which as noted in Unit I.A., includes importers)
were required through the 2006 IUR to report the number of potentially
exposed workers during industrial processing and use to the extent the
information was readily obtainable. Manufacturers of 12 of the 23
chemical substances listed in Table A. reported that more than 1,000
workers or more were potentially exposed to these chemical substances.
Based on the threshold values stated in EPA's ``B Policy,'' EPA
believes that an exposure of 1,000 workers or more on a routine or
episodic basis to a chemical substance or mixture is ``substantial'' as
that term is used with reference to ``human exposure'' in TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(i). Therefore, EPA's preliminary finding is that there is or
may be substantial human exposure (workers) to 12 of these 23 chemical
substances.
iii. Are a substantial number of consumers exposed to these
chemical substances? EPA has made preliminary findings that the
manufacture, processing, and use of 18 of the 23 chemical substances
listed in Table A. result or may result in exposure of a substantial
number of consumers to the chemical substances (Ref. 5).
[[Page 65586]]
In addition to worker exposure information, manufacturers of more
than 300,000 lbs. of a given chemical substance at a site during
calendar year 2005 were required to provide information regarding the
commercial and consumer uses of the chemical substance. EPA reviewed
the consumer use information reported for the 2006 IUR and carefully
considered the nature of those uses. These 18 chemical substances were
found to be used in such products as tires, footwear, flooring,
bottles, sporting equipment, games, soaps and detergents, and paper
products. Based on this review, EPA has preliminarily concluded that
the reported consumer uses may result in exposures to at least 10,000
consumers. Based on the threshold values stated in EPA's ``B Policy,''
EPA believes that an exposure of 10,000 consumers or more to a chemical
substance is ``substantial'' as that term is used with reference to
``human exposure'' in TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i). Therefore, EPA's
preliminary finding is that there is or may be substantial human
exposure (consumers) to 18 of these 23 chemical substances.
2. Are sufficient data available to evaluate these chemical
substances? Under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(ii), EPA has preliminarily
determined for the chemical substances in Table A. that there are
insufficient data and experience to reasonably determine or predict the
effects of the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use,
or disposal of these chemical substances, or of any combination of such
activities, on human health or the environment.
In developing the testing requirements for chemical substances
contained in Table A., EPA searched for available information on
chemical/physical properties, environmental fate, ecotoxicity and human
health effects, using the data sources outlined in the OECD guidelines
found in section 3.1 (Reliability, Relevance and Adequacy) of the
``Manual for the Investigation of HPV Chemicals'' (Ref. 1) such as: The
Beilstein Database, Chemical Rubber Company's Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics, Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Illustrated Handbooks
of Physical-Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic
Chemicals, Merck Index, Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB),
Toxicology Literature Online (TOXLINE), and the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS). EPA also searched for available data as
summarized in its HPV Information System (HPVIS) (Ref. 6). When
appropriate, the Federal Research In Progress (FEDRIP) database was
also searched. Any information that was obtained from these searches
was evaluated for data acceptability using the guidelines described on
EPA's HPV Challenge Web site (https://www.epa.gov/hpv): ``Guidance for
Meeting the SIDS Requirements (the SIDS Guide)'' and ``Guidance for
Assessing the Adequacy of Existing Data.'' Furthermore, data adequacy
and reliability were evaluated using the OECD guidelines which can be
found in section 3.1 of the OECD ``Manual for the Investigation of HPV
Chemicals'' (Ref. 1). The results of EPA's data adequacy analysis can
be found in the HPV4 Data Adequacy Evaluations document (Ref. 7).
Section 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory text lists each
chemical substance and the SIDS tests for which adequate data are not
currently available to the Agency. The Agency preliminarily finds that
the existing data for one or more of the SIDS testing endpoints for
each of the chemical substances listed in Table 2. in Sec. 799.5090(j)
of the proposed regulatory text (i.e., chemical substances in Table A.)
are insufficient to enable EPA to reasonably determine or predict the
human health and environmental effects resulting from manufacture,
distribution in commerce, processing, use, and disposal of these
chemical substances.
To the extent that additional studies relevant to the testing
proposed in this rulemaking are known to exist, EPA strongly encourages
the submission of this information as comments to the proposed rule,
including full citations for publications and full copies of
unpublished studies. If EPA judges such data to be sufficient,
corresponding testing will not be included in the final rule.
Commenters may prepare a robust summary (Ref. 8) for each such study to
facilitate EPA's review of the full study report or publication.
Persons who believe that adequate information regarding a chemical
substance subject to this proposed rule can be developed using a
category or the Structure-Activity Relationships (SAR) approach are
encouraged to submit appropriate information, along with their
rationale substantiating this belief, during the comment period on this
proposed rule. If, based on submitted information and other information
available to EPA, the Agency agrees, EPA will take such measures as are
needed to avoid unnecessary testing in the final rule.
3. Is testing necessary for these chemical substances? EPA has also
found preliminarily that testing the 23 chemical substances identified
in Table A. is necessary to develop the needed data (TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(iii)). EPA has not identified any ``additional factors'' as
discussed in the ``B Policy'' (Ref. 2, p. 28743) to cause the Agency to
use decision making criteria other than those described in the ``B
Policy.'' EPA knows of no other means to generate the SIDS data other
than the testing proposed in this document, and therefore has
preliminarily found that conducting the needed SIDS testing identified
for the 23 chemical substances in Table A. is necessary to provide data
relevant to a determination of whether the manufacture, processing, and
use of the chemical substances does or does not present an unreasonable
risk of injury to human health and the environment.
B. What is the basis to also consider chemical substances from Table B.
for testing under section 4(a)(1)(B)?
As an alternative to issuing a SNUR, EPA is considering requiring
testing of one or more of the chemical substances listed in Table B.
EPA will consider this approach based on its preliminary findings under
TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i) relating to ``substantial'' production, its
further analysis of the factors listed under TSCA sections 4
(a)(1)(B)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(iii) relating to insufficient data and the
need for testing and additional data received in public comments. If
information received in public comments establishes that consumer uses,
or uses that could affect 1,000 workers or more, are already ongoing,
then that information may indicate that a SNUR is inappropriate for the
particular chemical substance listed in Table B. The same information,
however, may prompt EPA to conclude that a test rule is appropriate for
such a substance, since evidence of ongoing use may also be evidence of
substantial human exposure. If public comments provide the basis to
conclude that there is already or may be substantial human exposure to
one of the chemical substances in Table B., and there is a basis to
make the other findings required under TSCA sections 4 (a)(1)(B)(ii)
and (a)(1)(B)(iii), then EPA intends to review the status of the
chemical substance and, as warranted, take appropriate steps to
promulgate a test rule rather than a SNUR for the chemical substance.
EPA has made preliminary findings that each of the chemical
substances listed in Table B. are produced in substantial quantities
(manufactured, including imported, in an amount equal to or greater
than 1 million lbs. per year (Ref. 5)). These findings are based on
information gathered in the 2006 IUR
[[Page 65587]]
rule. The 2006 data are the most recently available compilation of IUR
(now CDR) data.
C. What testing is being proposed in this action and is also being
considered for chemical substances in Table B.?
EPA is proposing specific testing and reporting requirements for
the chemical substances from Table A. (specified in Sec.
[emsp14]799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory text) and is also
considering the same requirements with respect to the chemical
substances listed in Table B. All of the proposed testing requirements
are listed in Table 2. in Sec. 799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory
text and consist of a series of test methods covering many of the
endpoints in the OECD HPV SIDS testing battery.
EPA's TSCA 799 test guidelines (40 CFR part 799, subparts E and H)
have been harmonized with the OECD test guidelines. However, EPA is
specifying that the American Society for Testing and Materials
International (ASTM International) or the TSCA 799 test guidelines be
used rather than OECD test guidelines because the language in the ASTM
International standards and the TSCA 799 test guidelines makes clear
which steps are mandatory and which steps are only recommended.
Accordingly, to comply with the testing being proposed, EPA is
proposing that testing must be conducted in accordance with ASTM
International or TSCA 799 test guidelines. Note: ASTM issues its test
methods under a fixed designation (e.g., E1719); the number immediately
following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or,
in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in
parentheses indicates the year of last re-approval. A superscript
epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or
re-approval. Most of the proposed testing requirements for a particular
endpoint are specified in one test standard. In the case of certain
endpoints, however, any of multiple listed methods could be used. For
several of the proposed test standards, EPA has identified and is
proposing certain ``special conditions'' as discussed in this unit. The
following endpoints and test standards are included in this proposed
test rule.
1. Physical/chemical properties. Melting Point: ASTM E 324-99
(capillary tube) (Refs. 9 and 10).
Boiling Point: ASTM E 1719-05 (ebulliometry) (Ref. 11). Vapor
Pressure: ASTM E 1782-08 (thermal analysis) (Ref. 12). n-Octanol/Water
Partition Coefficient: Method A (40 CFR 799.6755--shake flask); Method
B (ASTM E 1147-92(2005)--liquid chromatography) (Ref. 13); Method C (40
CFR 799.6756--generator column).
Water Solubility: Method A (ASTM E 1148-02--shake flask) (Ref. 14);
Method B (40 CFR 799.6784--shake flask); Method C (40 CFR 799.6784--
column elution); Method D (40 CFR 799.6786--generator column).
For those chemical substances needing melting points
determinations, EPA is proposing that melting points be determined
according to ASTM method E 324-99. Although ASTM International
indicates on its Web site, https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WITHDRAWN/E324.htm, that ASTM E 324-99 has been withdrawn, ASTM International's
withdrawal of the method means only that ASTM International no longer
continues to develop and improve the method. It does not mean that ASTM
International no longer considers the method to be valid. ASTM
International has explained that ASTM E 324-99 was withdrawn because:
The standard utilizes old, well-developed technology; it is
highly unlikely that any additional [changes] and/or modifications
will ever be pursued by the E15 [committee]. The time and effort
needed to maintain these documents detract from the time available
to develop new standards which use modern technology (Ref. 15).
ASTM International still makes the method available for
informational purposes and it can still be purchased from ASTM
International at the address listed in Sec. 799.5090(h) of the
proposed regulatory text.
EPA concludes that ASTM International's withdrawal of ASTM E 324-99
does not have negative implications on the validity of the method, and
EPA is proposing that melting points be determined according to ASTM E
324-99.
For those chemical substances that are liquid at room temperature,
EPA is proposing a measured freezing point to meet the obligation to
report the melting point. Since ASTM E 324-99 (capillary tube) does not
specifically include instructions for determining freezing point, EPA
is instead proposing to require, for substances which are liquid at
room temperature, OECD 102 (melting point/melting range), which
includes guidance for determining freezing point (Ref. 10).
For the ``n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (log 10 basis)''
and water solubility endpoints, EPA is proposing that certain ``special
conditions'' be considered by test sponsors in determining the
appropriate test method that would be used from among those included
for these endpoints in Table C. of this unit and in Table 3. in Sec.
799.5090(j) of the proposed regulatory text.
For the ``n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (log 10 basis)''
endpoint, also known as log Kow, EPA proposes that an
appropriate selection be made from among three alternative methods for
measuring the chemical substance's n-Octanol/Water Partition
Coefficient (log 10 basis; ``log Kow''). Prior to
determining the appropriate standard to use, if any, to measure the n-
Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient, EPA is recommending that the log
Kow be quantitatively estimated. EPA recommends that the
method described in ``Atom/Fragment Contribution Method for Estimating
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients'' (Ref. 16) be used in making such
estimation. EPA is proposing that test sponsors must submit with the
final study report the underlying rationale for the test standard
selected for this endpoint. EPA is proposing this approach recognizing
that, depending on the chemical substance's log Kow, one or
more test methods may provide adequate information for determining the
log Kow, but that in some instances one particular test
method may be more appropriate. In general, EPA believes that the more
hydrophobic a subject chemical substance is, the less well Method A (40
CFR 799.6755--shake flask) will work and Method B (ASTM E 1147-
92(2005)) and Method C (40 CFR 799.6756--generator column) become more
suitable, especially Method C. The proposed test methodologies have
been developed to meet a wide variety of needs and, as such, are silent
on experimental conditions related to pH. Therefore, EPA highly
recommends that all required n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient
tests be conducted at pH 7 to ensure environmental relevance.'' Table
C. of this unit shows the proposed test standards and log
Kow ranges that would determine which tests must be
conducted for this endpoint.
[[Page 65588]]
Table C--Test Requirements for the n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient
Endpoint
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test requirements
Testing category and references Special conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical/chemical properties n-Octanol/water n-Octanol/water
partition partition
coefficient (log 10 coefficient or log
basis) or log Kow: Kow:
The appropriate log Which method is
Kow test, if any, required, if
would be selected any, is
from those listed determined by
in this column--see the test
special conditions substance's
in the adjacent estimated log
column. Kow as follows:
Method A: 40 CFR log Kow < 0: no
799.6755 (shake testing required.
flask). log Kow range 0-1:
Method B: ASTM E Method A or B.
1147-92 (2005) log Kow range > 1-4:
(liquid Method A or B or C.
chromatography). log Kow range > 4-6:
Method C: 40 CFR Method B or C.
799.6756 (generator log Kow > 6: Method
column). C.
Test sponsors must
provide in the
final study report
the underlying
rationale for the
method and pH
selected. In order
to ensure
environmental
relevance, EPA
highly recommends
that the selected
study be conducted
at pH 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the ``Water Solubility'' endpoint, EPA proposes an appropriate
selection be made from among four alternative methods for measuring
that endpoint. The test method used, if any, would be determined by
first quantitatively estimating the test substance's water solubility.
One recommended method for estimating water solubility is described in
``Improved Method for Estimating Water Solubility from Octanol/Water
Partition Coefficient'' (Ref. 17). EPA is also proposing that test
sponsors be required to submit in the final study report the underlying
rationale for th