Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing Requirements for Certain High Production Volume Chemical Substances, 15609-15617 [2012-6430]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ACTION:
Withdrawal of direct final rule.
The EPA issued ‘‘Revisions to
Final Response to Petition From New
Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From
the Portland Generating Station’’ as a
direct final rule on December 22, 2011.
Because the EPA received an adverse
comment to the parallel proposal issued
under the same name on December 22,
2011, we are withdrawing the direct
final rule amendments to ‘‘Revisions to
Final Response to Petition From New
Jersey Regarding SO2 Emissions From
the Portland Generating Station’’
published in the Federal Register on
December 22, 2011.
DATES: As of March 16, 2012, the EPA
withdraws the direct final rule
amendments published on December
22, 2011. See 76 FR 79541.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0081. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Todd Hawes (919) 541–5591,
hawes.todd@epa.gov, or Ms. Gobeail
McKinley (919) 541–5246,
mckinley.gobeail@epa.gov, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Policy Division, Mail Code
C539–04, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
I. Background Information
The EPA issued ‘‘Revisions to Final
Response to Petition From New Jersey
Regarding SO2 Emissions From the
Portland Generating Station’’ as a direct
final rule on December 22, 2011. See 76
FR 79541. The direct final rule revised
the preamble and rule text to the ‘‘Final
Response to Petition From New Jersey
Regarding SO2 Emissions From the
Portland Generating Station’’ (Portland)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
published November 7, 2011, to clarify
that Portland significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 1-hour sulfur
dioxide national ambient air quality
standard in the State of New Jersey, and
not in specific counties within the state.
See 76 FR 69052. The revisions did not
change the conclusions that the EPA
made in the final rule and did not affect
the emission limits, increments of
progress, compliance schedules, or
reporting provisions.
The EPA issued a parallel proposal
under the same name on December 22,
2011, that proposed to make the same
revisions outlined in the direct final and
solicited comment on those revisions.
See 76 FR 79574. We stated in the direct
final rule amendments that if we
received adverse comment to the
parallel proposal by February 21, 2012,
we would publish a timely notice of
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register. We received one
adverse comment on the proposed
amendments on February 21, 2012. We
are consequently withdrawing the
‘‘Revisions to Final Response to Petition
From New Jersey Regarding SO2
Emissions From the Portland Generating
Station’’ published as a direct final rule
in the Federal Register on December 22,
2012 as of March 16, 2012. See 76 FR
79541. The EPA will address the
adverse comment in a subsequent final
action based on the parallel proposal
also published on December 22, 2011.
See 76 FR 79574. As stated in the
parallel proposal, we will not institute
a second comment period on this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Approval and promulgation of
implementation plans, Environmental
protection, Administrative practice and
procedures, Air pollution control,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: March 12, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
PART 52—[AMENDED]
Accordingly, the amendments to the
rule published in the Federal Register
on December 22, 2011 (76 FR 79541) on
pages 79541–79544 are withdrawn as of
March 16, 2012.
[FR Doc. 2012–6427 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15609
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 799
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033; FRL–9335–6]
RIN 2070–AD16
Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing
Requirements for Certain High
Production Volume Chemical
Substances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is revoking certain
testing requirements for six chemical
substances and all the testing
requirements for four chemical
substances. EPA is basing its decision to
take this action on information received
since publication of the first test rule for
certain high production volume
chemical substances (HPV1). HPV1
established testing requirements for
those 10 chemical substances. On the
effective date of this direct final rule,
persons who export or intend to export
the four chemical substances for which
all the testing requirements are revoked
are no longer subject to section 12(b) of
the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)
export notification requirements
triggered by HPV1.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
May 15, 2012 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment
in writing, or a request to present
comment orally, on or before April 16,
2012. If EPA receives adverse comment,
or a written request for an opportunity
to present oral comments, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public
that this direct final rule, or relevant
portions of this direct final rule, will not
take effect. If you write EPA to request
an opportunity to present oral
comments on or before April 16, 2012,
EPA will hold a public meeting on this
direct final rule in Washington, DC. The
announcement of the meeting will be
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033, by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
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.,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15610
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033.
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–
2005–0033. EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the docket without change and may be
made available online 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 email comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your email 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,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in the electronic
docket 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical information contact: Catherine
Roman, Chemical Control Division,
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 564–8157; email address:
roman.catherine@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public
in general and may be of particular
interest to those persons who
manufacture (defined by statute to
include import), process, or export the
chemical substances identified in this
direct final rule. Because other persons
may also be interested, the Agency has
not attempted to describe all the specific
persons that may be affected by this
action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the
technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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 email. 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
II. Statutory Authority
Section 4(a) of TSCA authorizes EPA
to require testing if certain findings are
made. EPA is amending the chemical
testing requirements for certain HPV
chemical substances in 40 CFR 799.5085
because some of the findings that EPA
made for 10 chemical substances are no
longer supported. These findings were
that:
1. The chemical substances were
produced in substantial quantities.
2. There are insufficient data upon
which the effects of manufacture,
distribution, processing, use, or disposal
of those chemical substances on health
or the environment can reasonably be
determined or predicted.
3. Testing of the chemical substance
with respect to such effects is necessary
to develop such data. (See TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii); also, see Ref.
1).
Unit III. discusses which findings are
not supported for each specific chemical
substance subject to this direct final
rule.
III. Amendment to Chemical Testing
Requirements
EPA is amending the chemical testing
requirements for certain HPV chemical
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
substances in 40 CFR 799.5085 by direct
final rule. Specifically, this direct final
rule revokes the testing requirements for
the following four chemical substances:
Acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75–36–5);
imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No.
108–19–0); methane, isocyanato- (CAS
No. 624–83–9); and urea, reaction
products with formaldehyde (CAS No.
68611–64–3). This direct final rule also
revokes some of the testing
requirements for the following six
chemical substances: 9,10–
Anthracenedione (CAS No. 84–65–1);
1-chlorododecane (CAS No. 112–52–7);
phenol, 4,4′-methylenebis [2,6-bis(1,1dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118–82–1);
methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,
monosodium salt (CAS No. 149–44–0);
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)2,5-cyclohexadien-1ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS
No. 1324–76–1); and C.I. Solvent Black
7 (CAS No. 8005–02–5). EPA is basing
its decision to revoke all testing
requirements for four chemical
substances and some of the testing
requirements for six other chemical
substances on information received
since publication of HPV1 (40 CFR
799.5085), as described in this unit.
A. Revocation of All Testing
Requirements for Four Chemical
Substances
1. Acetyl chloride. EPA is revoking all
testing requirements for acetyl chloride
(CAS No. 75–36–5) because there is no
longer support for the TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(i) ‘‘substantial production’’
finding for this chemical substance.
‘‘Substantial production’’ of a chemical
substance under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(i) is generally interpreted by
EPA to be an aggregate production
(including import) volume equaling or
exceeding 1 million pounds per year.
See EPA’s TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B) Final
Statement of Policy (‘‘B’’ policy) (Ref. 2).
The ‘‘substantial production’’ finding
for this chemical substance was based
on reports from several companies to
the 2002 TSCA Inventory Update
Reporting (IUR) rule. The Albemarle
Corporation which manufactured and
imported the largest volume of acetyl
chloride, without which a finding of
substantial production could not have
been made, informed EPA in 2007 that
its manufacture and importation of
acetyl chloride at the time the test rule
was promulgated were only for nonTSCA purposes (i.e., for use in
pharmaceuticals) (Ref. 3), and was,
therefore, not subject to HPV1.
Three other companies had reported
importing smaller volumes of acetyl
chloride in the 2002 IUR, the sum of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
which would not have provided support
for a finding of substantial production.
Two of these companies, Tessenderlo
Kerley, Inc., and a company, which
claimed its name as CBI, have since
ceased importation of acetyl chloride.
Tessenderlo Kerley ceased importation
several years ago, and the other
company ceased importation over a year
prior to the effective date of HPV1, April
17, 2006 (Ref. 4). Neither of these
companies is, therefore, subject to
HPV1. The third small importer,
Chartkit Chemical Corporation, reported
that it imported only a small amount of
acetyl chloride after the effective date of
HPV1 in 2006, but none since (Ref. 5).
EPA’s review of data in the 2006 IUR
(which required reporting on chemical
substances manufactured or imported
during calendar year 2005) did not
identify any companies manufacturing
or importing acetyl chloride. (Chartkit
Chemical Corporation did not import
acetyl chloride in 2005, making a report
to the 2006 IUR unnecessary.) Because
the finding for substantial production
for acetyl chloride was not supported
when HPV1 was promulgated, the
Agency is revoking all the testing
requirements for acetyl chloride (CAS
No. 75–36–5) by removing it from Table
2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
2. Imidodicarbonic diamide. EPA is
revoking all the testing requirements for
imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No.
108–19–0), also known as biuret, by
removing imidodicarbonic diamide
from Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). EPA
considers the test requirements for this
chemical substance unnecessary at this
time because sufficient data have been
provided to allow the Agency to reverse
its finding under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(ii) for ‘‘insufficient data.’’
Information that satisfied HPV1’s
requirements was voluntarily submitted
by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) on
behalf of a member company that
manufactures the chemical substance as
an impurity in its products. EPA
considers a company that manufactures
a chemical substance only as an
impurity to be a Tier 2 manufacturer
with regard to its obligations under
HPV1. Although subject to HPV1 and
responsible for providing
reimbursement to persons in Tier 1, Tier
2 manufacturers do not have to respond
to HPV1 with a letter of intent to test or
a request for exemption, unless directed
to do so by EPA through a document
published in the Federal Register.
Although EPA did not publish such a
document, TFI, acting on behalf of its
member company, volunteered to
provide information to EPA on the
endpoints specified by HPV1 for that
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15611
chemical substance. This information
(Refs. 6–8) was provided to the Agency
and found to meet the standards
prescribed by EPA (Refs. 9–11) and is
being made available in the docket for
this direct final rule and will be added
to the High Production Volume
Information System (HPVIS).
3. Methane, isocyanato. EPA is
revoking all the testing requirements for
methane, isocyanato- (CAS No. 624–83–
9) by removing it from Table 2 in 40
CFR 799.5085(j). On May 11, 2007,
Bayer CropScience submitted a test plan
and robust summaries of existing data
for methane, isocyanato- along with a
request that EPA determine if the robust
summaries satisfied the Agency’s need
for data on physical/chemical properties
(Ref. 12). In the same letter, Bayer
CropScience requested a waiver for the
requirement to determine an octanolwater partition coefficient and the
requirement to conduct aquatic toxicity
tests because of the extreme reactivity in
water of methane, isocyanato-. Bayer
CropScience also asked EPA to
consider, as a substitute for aquatic
toxicity studies of methane, isocyanato, robust summaries of aquatic toxicity
studies of dimethyl urea (CAS No. 96–
31–1) (DMU), one of the two
degradation products of methane,
isocyanato- in water, the other being
carbon dioxide. EPA concluded that the
submitted data satisfied the Agency’s
need for data on the physical/chemical
properties of boiling point, melting
point, vapor pressure, and water
solubility (Ref. 13). EPA also agreed that
methane, isocyanato- hydrolyzes very
rapidly and, as a result, an octanolwater partition coefficient is not
relevant (Ref. 13). Because of the rapid
hydrolysis of methane, isocyanato- to
carbon dioxide and DMU, EPA is
revoking the requirement to test for
aquatic toxicity (fish acute toxicity,
Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to
algae). EPA believes that the aquatic
toxicity studies of DMU, provided by
Bayer CropScience, which the Agency
reviewed and found adequate, provide
information on the aquatic effects of
methane, isocyanato- (Ref. 14).
Therefore, EPA, in this direct final rule,
is revoking the testing requirements for
boiling point, melting point, vapor
pressure, octanol-water partition
coefficient, water solubility, fish acute
toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, and
toxicity to algae for methane,
isocyanato- by removing it from Table 2
in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
4. Urea, reaction products with
formaldehyde. EPA is revoking all the
testing requirements for urea, reaction
products with formaldehyde (CAS No.
68611–64–3) by removing it from Table
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
15612
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). EPA considers
the test requirements for this chemical
substance unnecessary at this time
because sufficient data have been
provided to allow the Agency to reverse
its finding under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(ii) for ‘‘insufficient data.’’
Information which satisfied HPV1’s
requirements was voluntarily submitted
by TFI on behalf of its member
companies that manufacture this
chemical substance as an impurity in
their products. EPA considers
companies that manufacture a chemical
substance only as an impurity to be Tier
2 manufacturers with regard to their
obligations under HPV1. Although
subject to HPV1 and responsible for
providing reimbursement to persons in
Tier 1, Tier 2 manufacturers did not
have to respond to HPV1 with a letter
of intent to test or a request for
exemption, unless directed to do so by
EPA through a document published in
the Federal Register. Despite the lack of
an EPA published Federal Register
document, TFI, acting on behalf of its
member companies, volunteered to
provide information to EPA on the
endpoints specified by HPV1 for this
chemical substance. This information
(Refs. 7 and 16) has been provided to
the Agency and found to meet the
standards for testing prescribed by EPA
(Refs. 17–19) and is being made
available in the docket for this direct
final rule and will be added to HPVIS.
B. Revocation of Some Test
Requirements for Six Chemical
Substances
1. 9,10-Anthracenedione. In a letter
dated July 10, 2006, the Chemical
Products Corporation (CPC) requested
EPA’s permission to submit the values
for boiling point and vapor pressure of
9,10-anthracenedione (CAS No. 84–65–
1) contained in the International
Uniform Chemical Information Database
(IUCLID) instead of conducting the tests
required by HPV1 (Ref. 20). CPC stated
that the ASTM methods specified by
HPV1 would not work for 9,10anthracenedione because the boiling
point and vapor pressure listed for that
chemical substance in IUCLID and the
boiling point listed for that chemical
substance in the ‘‘Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics’’ (Ref. 21) fell
outside the determination ranges of the
ASTM methods. EPA agreed and
approved CPC’s request to submit
IUCLID and other existing values
because those values matched or were
in close agreement with measured
values in various literature sources (Ref.
22). CPC also requested a modification
of the ASTM method E 324 to determine
the melting point for 9,10-
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
anthracenedione (Ref. 23). While
evaluating this request, EPA reviewed
available data on measured melting
points of 9,10-anthracenedione and
found the existing data to be in
sufficiently close agreement that they
could be used to satisfy the Agency’s
data need for that endpoint (Ref. 22).
EPA is, therefore, revoking the
requirement that the boiling point,
vapor pressure, and melting point of
9,10-anthracenedione be determined by
the ASTM methods specified in HPV1
and accepts the submitted existing data
as sufficient to satisfy those data needs,
making the testing requirements
unnecessary. Therefore, EPA is revoking
the testing requirements for boiling
point, vapor pressure, and melting point
for 9,10-anthracenedione by removing
those requirements from those listed for
9,10-anthracenedione in Table 2 in 40
CFR 799.5085(j). The test requirements
for 9,10-anthracenedione that are not
revoked by this direct final rule include
tests to determine octanol/water
partition coefficient and water
solubility, and to screen for
reproduction/developmental toxicity.
Studies responding to those test
requirements have been submitted to
the Agency (Ref. 24).
2. 1-Chlorododecane. In a letter dated
February 21, 2008, EPA informed Lonza,
Inc., that the testing of 1chlorododecane (CAS No. 112–52–7),
which Lonza had committed to sponsor,
did not have to include a test for
melting point because, in publicly
available documents, 1-chlorododecane
is reported to be a liquid (Ref. 25).
Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing
requirement for melting point for 1chlorododecane by removing that
requirement from those listed for 1chlorododecane in Table 2 in 40 CFR
799.5085(j). The test requirements for 1chlorododecane that are not revoked by
this direct final rule include tests for
boiling point, vapor pressure, octanol/
water partition coefficient, water
solubility, biodegradation, Daphnia
chronic toxicity, toxicity to algae, acute
mammalian toxicity, mutagenicity,
chromosomal damage, and 28-day
repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity
screen. Studies responding to those test
requirements have been submitted to
the Agency (Ref. 26).
3. Phenol, 4,4′-methylenebis[2,6bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]-. In letters dated
May 12, 2006, July 14, 2006, May 1,
2007, and May 16, 2007 (Refs. 27–30),
the Albemarle Corporation requested
EPA to review existing data that it was
submitting for phenol, 4,4′methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118–82–1) to
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
determine if they satisfied the Agency’s
need for data on water solubility,
octanol/water partition coefficient,
acute mammalian toxicity, bacterial
reverse mutation, and screening level
reproduction/developmental toxicity.
EPA found that the data satisfied the
Agency’s data needs for those testing
endpoints in HPV1, making the testing
requirements unnecessary (Refs. 31–33).
Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing
requirements for water solubility,
octanol/water partition coefficient,
acute mammalian toxicity, bacterial
reverse mutation assay, and a
reproduction/developmental toxicity
screen for phenol, 4,4′methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1dimethylethyl)]- by removing those
requirements from Table 2 in 40 CFR
799.5085(j). The test requirements for
phenol, 4,4′-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1dimethylethyl)]- that are not revoked by
this direct final rule include tests for
melting point, boiling point, vapor
pressure, inherent biodegradation, and
chromosomal damage. Studies
responding to those test requirements
have been submitted to the Agency (Ref.
34).
4. Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,
monosodium salt. On May 14, 2007, the
Sodium Formaldehyde Sulfoxylate
Consortium (SFS Consortium) formed
under the auspices of the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association (SOCMA) submitted
existing data to satisfy some of the
testing requirements for methanesulfinic
acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt (CAS
No. 149–44–0) (Ref. 35). The submitted
studies used the dihydrate form of
methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,
monosodium salt (CAS No. 6035–47–8)
as the test substance to address the
endpoints of inherent biodegradation,
fish acute toxicity, Daphnia acute
toxicity, and toxicity to algae (Ref. 35).
Although the hydrated form is
identified by a different CAS number, in
general, EPA does not recognize a
hydrate as a separate entity from the
corresponding anhydrous material for
TSCA purposes, and accepts studies of
the hydrated form of a chemical
substance as predictive of the effects of
the anhydrous chemical (Ref. 15). EPA
found that the submitted study on ready
biodegradation satisfied the need for
information on biodegradability, making
the test requirement for inherent
biodegradation unnecessary (Refs. 36
and 37). The existing studies on fish
acute toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity,
and toxicity to algae were reviewed by
the Agency and found to satisfy EPA’s
data needs for those endpoints (Ref. 38).
In the test plan submitted with the
May 14, 2007 letter, the SFS Consortium
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
requested that EPA revoke the
requirement to determine vapor
pressure because the chemical
substance is an organo-metallic salt that
does not volatilize (Ref. 35). The SFS
Consortium also requested that EPA
revoke the requirement to determine the
octanol/water partition coefficient (log
Kow) because its estimated value was
¥6.17 and HPV1 did not require a
determination of octanol/water partition
coefficient if its estimated value is less
than zero (Ref. 35). EPA agreed with the
SFS Consortium’s position that testing
was not needed to determine vapor
pressure (Ref. 39) and octanol/water
partition coefficient (Ref. 40). Also, in
the test plan submitted on May 14,
2007, (Ref. 35), the SFS Consortium
reported that in a test to determine
boiling point, the test substance
decomposed. EPA, therefore, is waiving
the test for boiling point (Ref. 41).
EPA is revoking the testing
requirements for boiling point, vapor
pressure, octanol/water partition
coefficient, biodegradation, fish acute
toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, and
toxicity to algae for methanesulfinic
acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt by
removing those requirements from those
listed for that chemical substance in
Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). The
testing requirements for methanesulfinic
acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt that
are not revoked by this direct final rule
include tests for melting point, water
solubility, chromosomal damage, and
28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity
screen. Studies responding to those test
requirements, also using the dihydrate
form of methanesulfinic acid,
hydroxyl-, monosodium salt, were
submitted to the Agency (Ref. 42).
5. Benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)2,5-cyclohexadien-1ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]-. On July
17, 2006, the Color Pigments
Manufacturers Association (CPMA)
submitted a test plan for
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)2,5-cyclohexadien-1ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS
No. 1324–76–1), also known as C.I.
Pigment Blue 61. CPMA also submitted
robust summaries of existing data which
CPMA asked EPA to accept as satisfying
some of the Agency’s data needs for C.I.
Pigment Blue 61. Some of the existing
data described in the summaries
addressed C.I. Pigment Blue 56, a close
analog of C.I. Pigment Blue 61, which
CPMA requested EPA to accept as
satisfying the Agency’s data needs for
C.I. Pigment Blue 61, providing a
structure-activity relationship (SAR)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
argument in the test plan to justify that
request (Refs. 43 and 44). CPMA also
asked EPA to accept results for water
solubility and octanol/water partition
coefficient which were obtained by
using an alternative method, due to the
extremely low predicted solubility of
C.I. Pigment Blue 61, instead of the
methods specified by the test rule (Ref.
43). Finally, CPMA asked EPA to accept
that determining a melting point for C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 was not relevant
because the pigment thermally
decomposes before it melts (Ref. 43).
EPA reviewed the submitted
information on physical/chemical
properties and decided that melting
point, boiling point, and vapor pressure
determinations were not relevant
because C.I. Pigment Blue 61
decomposes before it melts and the
decomposition temperature had been
reported (Ref. 45). EPA accepted the
submitted data on water solubility as
satisfying the Agency’s data needs for
that endpoint, but did not accept the
calculated value submitted to satisfy the
testing requirement for octanol/water
partition coefficient (Ref. 45). EPA
believes the calculated value would,
most likely, underestimate the measured
value (Ref. 45) required to be
determined by HPV1.
EPA reviewed CPMA’s SAR argument
concerning C.I. Pigment Blue 61 and C.I.
Pigment Blue 56 and agreed that C.I.
Pigment Blue 56 is an acceptable
surrogate for C.I. Pigment Blue 61,
thereby allowing adequate data on C.I.
Pigment Blue 56 to satisfy data needs for
C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (Ref. 46). As a
result, a biodegradation study of C.I.
Pigment Blue 56, found adequate by an
EPA review, satisfies the need for
biodegradation data on C.I. Pigment
Blue 61 (Ref. 46). Likewise, a
chromosomal damage test of C.I.
Pigment Blue 56, which EPA reviewed
and found adequate, will satisfy the data
need for that endpoint (Ref. 47) for C.I.
Pigment Blue 61. EPA’s review of the
existing data on C.I. Pigment Blue 61
found the studies on fish acute toxicity,
mammalian acute toxicity, and bacterial
mutation assay to be adequate to satisfy
the data needs for those endpoints (Ref.
47). The existing study on repeated-dose
toxicity, however, did not satisfy the
test requirement for that endpoint (Ref.
47).
Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing
requirements for melting point, boiling
point, vapor pressure, water solubility,
biodegradation, fish acute toxicity,
mammalian acute toxicity, bacterial
reverse mutation, and chromosomal
damage for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 by
removing those requirements from those
listed for that chemical substance in
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15613
Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). In order
to clarify that test requirements for acute
toxicity to Daphnia and toxicity to algae
had not been satisfied by existing
studies, and that the fish acute toxicity
test requirement had been satisfied, the
test symbol C2 replaces C1 for C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 in Table 2 in 40 CFR
799.5085(j). The testing requirements for
C.I. Pigment Blue 61 that are not
revoked by this direct final rule include
tests for octanol/water partition
coefficient, acute toxicity to Daphnia,
toxicity to algae, and combined 28-day
repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity
screen. Studies responding to those test
requirements were submitted to the
Agency. The full studies were claimed
to be CBI and are not available to the
public, but robust summaries of those
studies (Ref. 48) are in the docket.
6. C.I. Solvent Black 7. On July 29,
2006 and August 4, 2006, the Solvent
Black 7 Consortium formed under the
auspices of SOCMA submitted eight
existing studies on C.I. Solvent Black 7
(CAS No. 8005–02–5) and requested
EPA to determine if they satisfied some
of the Agency’s data needs specified in
HPV1 (Ref. 49). EPA found that the
studies satisfied the need for data on
inherent biodegradation, fish acute
toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, toxicity
to algae, acute mammalian toxicity,
chromosomal damage, and repeateddose 28-day oral toxicity in rodents,
making those test requirements for C.I.
Solvent Black 7 unnecessary (Ref. 50).
Although the 28-day oral toxicity study
in rodents was accepted, it lacked a
required screening test for reproduction/
developmental toxicity. Although a test
for chronic toxicity to Daphnia was not
required for this chemical substance,
SOCMA submitted a Daphnia magna
reproduction test because the log Kow of
C.I. solvent Black 7 is close to 4.2 and
a log Kow greater than 4.2 would have
made a Daphnia chronic toxicity test a
requirement (Refs. 1 and 51). The
submitted study was evaluated and was
not found adequate to satisfy the
objectives of a Daphnia chronic toxicity
study because the study was only 10
days long instead of 21 days, and only
one concentration was tested and it was
lethal, preventing observation of sublethal endpoints (Ref. 52).
Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing
requirements for inherent
biodegradation, fish acute toxicity,
Daphnia acute toxicity, toxicity to algae,
acute mammalian toxicity,
chromosomal damage, and repeateddose 28-day oral toxicity in rodents for
C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No. 8005–02–
5) by removing those requirements from
those listed for that chemical substance
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
15614
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). In
order to clarify that the requirement for
a reproduction/developmental toxicity
screening test had not been satisfied, but
that the requirement for a repeated-dose
28-day oral toxicity test had been
satisfied, the test symbol F2 replaces F1
for C.I. Solvent Black 7 in Table 2 in 40
CFR 799.5085(j). The testing
requirements not revoked by this direct
final rule include the tests to determine
five physical/chemical properties and to
screen for reproduction/developmental
toxicity. Studies responding to those
test requirements have been submitted
to the Agency (Refs. 51 and 53).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
IV. Economic Analysis
In the economic impact analysis of
this direct final rule, the Agency
estimated the total testing cost to
industry to be $4.03 million for all 17
chemical substances, with an average of
approximately $237,000 per chemical
substance (Ref. 54). This total included
an additional 25% in administrative
costs. An amendment to HPV1 revoking
testing requirements for Coke-Oven
Light Oil (Coal) reduced the total cost to
industry to an estimated $3.7 million for
the remaining 16 chemical substances,
with an average compliance cost of
approximately $232,000 per chemical
substance. This direct final rule would
have the effect of further reducing the
total testing cost by an estimated $1.5
million (approximately 41%), by
eliminating all the testing requirements
for acetyl chloride; imidodicarbonic
diamide; methane, isocyanato-; and
urea, reaction products with
formaldehyde; as well as some of the
testing requirements for 9,10anthracenedione; 1-chlorododecane;
phenol, 4,4′-methylenebis [2,6-bis (1,1dimethylethyl)]-; methanesulfinic acid,
hydroxy-, monosodium salt;
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylmino)2,5-cyclohexadien-1ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]-; and C.I.
Solvent Black 7 (Ref. 55). In addition,
the 25% administrative costs would be
eliminated for these tests. The reduced
total cost for the remaining 12 chemical
substances with testing requirements is
estimated to be $2.2 million (i.e., $3.7
million minus $1.5 million), with an
average compliance cost per chemical
substance of approximately $184,000
(Ref. 55).
V. Export Notification
On the effective date of the
revocations in this direct final rule of
the TSCA section 4 testing requirements
for acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75–36–5);
imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No.
108–19–0), methane, isocyanato- (CAS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
No. 624–83–9); and urea, reaction
products with formaldehyde (CAS No.
68611–64–3), persons who export or
intend to export those chemical
substances will no longer be subject to
any TSCA section 12(b) export
notification requirements triggered by
HPV1 (See 40 CFR part 707, subpart D).
The export notification requirements
remain the same for the other six
chemical substances discussed in the
preamble of this direct final rule that are
listed as subject to the requirements of
HPV1 (Ref. 1); these chemical
substances are 9,10-anthracenedione
(CAS No. 84–65–1); 1-chlorododecane
(CAS No. 112–52–7); phenol, 4,4′methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118–82–1);
methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-,
monosodium salt (CAS No. 149–44–0);
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)2,5-cyclohexadien-1ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS
No. 1324–76–1); and C.I. Solvent Black
7 (CAS No. 8005–02–5).
VI. Direct Final Rule Procedures
EPA is publishing this direct final
rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment as this
action simply revokes testing which is
not feasible, or testing for which the
substantial production finding was not
supported, or testing for which EPA has
adequate data at this time. This direct
final rule is effective May 15, 2012
without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse comment or a written
request for an opportunity to present
oral comments on or before April 16,
2012. If EPA receives adverse comment
or a written request for an opportunity
to present oral comments on one or
more distinct amendments, paragraphs,
or sections of this direct final rule, the
Agency will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register
indicating which provisions will
become effective and which provisions
are being withdrawn due to adverse
comment or a written request for an
opportunity to present oral comments.
Any distinct amendment, paragraph, or
section of this direct final rule for which
the Agency does not receive adverse
comment or a request for an opportunity
to present oral comments is effective
May 15, 2012, notwithstanding any
adverse comment or request on any
other distinct amendment, paragraph, or
section of this direct final rule. For any
distinct amendment, paragraph, or
section of this direct final rule that is
withdrawn due to adverse comment or
a request for an opportunity to present
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
oral comments, EPA will publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking in a
future issue of the Federal Register. The
Agency will address the comment or
request for an opportunity to present
oral comments on any such distinct
amendment, paragraph, or section as
part of that notice of proposed
rulemaking.
VII. References
Each reference listed in this unit has
a docket ID number (EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033) followed by a four-digit
document ID number. All document ID
numbers are listed in numerical order in
the docket. To access a particular
document in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions.
1. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production
Volume Chemicals; Final Rule. Federal
Register (71 FR 13708, March 16, 2006)
(FRL–7335–2). (Document ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0001).
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) (FRL–4059–9). (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0060).
3. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from M.G.
Clisby to Catherine Roman, Chemical
Information and Testing Branch (CITB),
Chemical Control Division (CCD), Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT), EPA. April 16, 2007. (Document
ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0344).
4. Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. Email from Dawn
Kominski to Catherine Roman, CITB,
CCD, OPPT, EPA. March 23, 2007.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0342).
5. Charkit Chemical Corporation. Letter from
Bryant Hinnant to Document Control
Office, OPPT, EPA. December 7, 2006.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0220).
6. TFI. Submission for fulfillment of data
requirements for biuret under TSCA
section 4. July 2007. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0343).
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD). Screening
Information Data Set (SIDS), Urea, CAS
No.: 57–13–6. Also, a supporting
document for biuret. 1994. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0360).
8. IUCLID Data Set, Biuret, CAS No. 108–19–
0. March 7, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0359).
9. EPA. Memorandum from Tracy
Williamson, Industrial Chemistry Branch
(ICB), Economics, Exposure, and
Technology Division (EETD), OPPT, to
Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review
of the physical-chemical endpoints for
HPV orphan chemical biuret (CAS No.
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
108–19–0). Sept 17, 2007. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0356).
10. EPA. Email from Robert Boethling,
Exposure Assessment Branch (EAB),
EETD, OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. Review of TFI submission
on biuret. August 20, 2007. (Document
ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0347).
11. EPA. Email from David Brooks, High
Production Volume Chemical Branch
(HPVCB), Risk Assessment Division
(RAD), OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. Review of biuret (CAS No.
108–19–0). October 2, 2007. (Document
ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0358).
12. Bayer CropScience. Letter to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, submitting a
test plan and request for review of
existing data on physical chemical
properties and aquatic toxicity. May 11,
2007. (Document ID number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0249).
13. EPA. Email from Tracy Williamson, ICB,
EETD, OPPT, to Catherine Roman, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. June 18, 2007. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0281).
14. EPA. Email and attached review of
aquatic studies of methane, isocyanato
from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT,
to Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT.
August 29, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0284).
15. EPA. Emails on acceptability of studies
on dihydrate form of CAS No. 149–44–
0. August 18, 2009. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0357).
16. TFI. Submission for Fulfillment of Data
Requirements for Urea, Reaction
Products with Formaldehyde under
TSCA Section 4. Revised March 2008.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0361).
17. EPA. Memorandum from Kathryn
Schechter, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. September
13, 2007. (Document ID number EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0345).
18. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB,
RAD, OPPT, to Mike Mattheisen and
Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT.
April 23, 2008. (Document ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0346).
19. EPA. Email from Robert Boethling, EAB,
EETD, OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. August 14, 2007. Includes
copyrighted attachment: Ahapir, Nir, et
al. Purification and Characterization of
TrzF: Biuret Hydrolysis by Allophanate
Hydrolase Supports Growth. Applied
and Environmental Microbiology.
72(4):2941–2495 (2006). (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0363).
20. CPC. Letter from Jerry A. Cook to
Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA,
concerning existing data on boiling point
and vapor pressure. July 10, 2006.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0182).
21. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
85th Edition. David R. Lide, ed., CRC
Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2004.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
22. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB,
CCD, OPPT, to Jerry A. Cook, CPC,
concerning acceptance of existing data
on boiling point, vapor pressure, and
melting point. August 30, 2006.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0211).
23. CPC. Email from Jerry Cook to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT, EPA,
concerning determination of melting
point. July 24, 2006. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0348).
24. CPC. Studies submitted for 9,10anthracenedione on octanol/water
partition coefficient, water solubility,
and a screen for reproduction/
developmental toxicity. Submitted on
February 15, 2007. (Document ID
numbers EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0222.1, EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0222.1, and EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–
0033–0222.2, respectively).
25. EPA. Letter from Mike Mattheisen, CITB,
CCD, OPPT, to John Van Miller,
Toxicology/Regulatory Services,
Charlottesville, VA. February 21, 2008.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0291).
26. Lonza, Inc. Studies submitted for 1chlorododecane on boiling point, vapor
pressure, octanol/water partition
coefficient, water solubility,
biodegradation, Daphnia chronic
toxicity, toxicity to algae, acute
mammalian toxicity, mutagenicity,
chromosomal damage, and 28-day
repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity
screen. Submitted on September 17,
2008. (Document ID numbers EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.6, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–314.10, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.8, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.11, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.9, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.7, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.5, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.1, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.2, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0314.3, and EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0314.4,
respectively).
27. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from
Ronald Zumstein to Document Control
Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning existing
data on water solubility and octanolwater partition coefficient. May 12, 2006.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0163).
28. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim
Boudreaux to Document Control Office,
OPPT, EPA, concerning existing data on
acute toxicity, gene mutation, and
reproductive/developmental toxicity.
July 14, 2006. (Document ID numbers
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0181, EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0181.1, EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0181.2, and
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0181.3).
29. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim
Boudreaux to Document Control Office,
OPPT, EPA, concerning an existing
Ames study. May 1, 2007. (Document ID
numbers EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0250, EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
15615
0250.1, and EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–
0033–0250.2).
30. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim
Boudreaux to Document Control Office,
OPPT, EPA, concerning existing data on
repeated-dose toxicity and reproduction/
developmental toxicity screening. May
16, 2007. (Document ID number EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0247).
31. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB,
CCD, OPPT, to Ronald Zumstein and
Kim Boudreaux, Albemarle Corporation,
concerning EPA’s acceptance of existing
data on water solubility and octanolwater partition coefficient. August 9,
2006. (Document ID number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0210).
32. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB,
CCD, OPPT, to Kim Boudreaux,
Albemarle Corporation, concerning
EPA’s acceptance of existing data on
mammalian acute toxicity. April 5, 2007.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0237).
33. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB,
CCD, OPPT, to Kim Boudreaux,
Albemarle Corporation, concerning
EPA’s acceptance of existing data on
bacterial reverse mutation and
reproductive/developmental toxicity.
October 23, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0285).
34. Albemarle Corporation. Studies
submitted for phenol, 4,4’methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1dimethylethyl)]- on melting point,
boiling point, vapor pressure, inherent
biodegradation, and chromosomal
aberration. Submitted on October 31,
2007 and November 1, 2007. (Document
ID numbers EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–
0033–0274, EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–
0033–0274, EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–
0033–0274, EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–
0033–0275.1, and EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0257, respectively).
35. SFS Consortium, SOCMA. Letter to
Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA,
submitting a test plan and request for
review of existing data on biodegradation
and aquatic toxicity. May 14, 2007.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0238).
36. EPA. Memorandum from Robert
Boethling, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, concerning
biodegradation test requirement. July 6,
2007. (Document ID number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0277).
37. EPA. Memorandum from Jed Costanza,
EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen,CITB, CCD, OPPT. October 9,
2008. (Document ID number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0352).
38. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB,
RAD, OPPT, to Catherine Roman, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. Review of CAS No. 149–44–
0. August 13, 2009. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0349).
39. EPA. Memorandum from Daniel Lin, ICB,
EETD, OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB,
CCD, OPPT, concerning vapor pressure
requirement. June 19, 2007. (Document
ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0278).
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
15616
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
40. EPA. Letter from Charles Auer, OPPT, to
Tucker Helmes, SOCMA. May 28, 2008.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0307).
41. EPA. Memorandum from Greg Fritz, ICB,
EETD, OPPT, to Mike Mattheisen, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. August 25, 2008. (Document
ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0351).
42. SOCMA. Studies submitted for
methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,
monosodium salt on melting point, water
solubility, chromosomal damage, and 28day repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity
screen. Submitted on June 16, 2008.
(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–
2005–0033–0309).
43. CPMA. Letter to Document Control
Office, OPPT, EPA, from J. Lawrence
Robinson concerning existing data and
test plan. July 17, 2006. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0185).
44. CPMA. Letter to Document Control
Office, OPPT, EPA, from J. Lawrence
Robinson concerning existing data and
test plan. May 9, 2007. (Document ID
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0246).
45. EPA. Memorandum from Diana Darling,
ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg Schweer,
CITB, CCD, OPPT. Testing requirements
and existing data for physical/chemical
properties of the HPV test rule chemical,
C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324–76–
1). May 17, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0280).
46. EPA. Memorandum from Robert
Boethling, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of
SAR argument and a biodegradation test
concerning an HPV test rule chemical,
C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324–76–
1). May 15, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0279).
47. EPA. Email and attached review from
David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to
Greg Schweer and Catherine Roman,
CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of C.I.
Pigment Blue (CAS No. 1324–76–1).
August 22, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0286).
48. SOCMA. Robust summaries submitted for
C.I. Pigment Blue 61 on octanol/water
partition coefficient, acute toxicity to
Daphnia, toxicity to algae, and combined
28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity
screen. Submitted on November 14,
2008. (Document ID number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0318).
49. SOCMA. Letters from C. Tucker Helmes
to Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA.
Submission of existing data on C.I.
Solvent Black 7. June 29, 2006 and
August 4, 2006. (Document ID numbers
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0168, EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0169, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0170, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0171, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0172, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0173, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0174, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0175, EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0176, and EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0184).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
50. EPA. Memorandum from Mark
Townsend, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. November
27, 2006. (Document ID number EPA–
HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0283).
51. SOCMA. Letter from C. Tucker Helmes to
Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA.
Justification for providing Daphnia
reproduction study for C.I. Solvent Black
7. February 28, 2008. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0290).
52. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB,
RAD, OPPT, to Mike Mattheisen, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. July 15, 2008. (Document ID
number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0353).
53. SOCMA. Studies submitted for C.I.
Solvent Black 7 on physical/chemical
properties and prenatal developmental
toxicity. Submitted on February 28,
2008. (Document ID numbers EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0290.2 and EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2005–0033–0290.4).
54. EPA, EPAB, EETD, OPPT. Economic
Analysis for the Final Section 4 Test
Rule for High Production Volume
Chemicals. October 28, 2005. (Document
ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0131).
55. EPA. Email from Stephanie Suazo, EPAB,
EETD, OPPT, to Catherine Roman, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. RE: ‘‘Revised Economic
Analysis for Revocation of Testing
Requirements’’ with attached economic
analysis. December 14, 2009. (Document
ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–
0350).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This direct final rule only eliminates
existing requirements; it does not
otherwise impose any new or revised
requirements. As such, this action is not
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) as a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, entitled
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does it
impose or change any information
collection burden that requires
additional review by OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Because this direct final rule
eliminates existing requirements
without imposing any new or revised
requirements, the Agency certifies
pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
For the same reasons, it is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538), and
does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments or impose a
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
significant intergovernmental mandate,
as described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. This direct final rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), or federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
Since this action is not economically
significant under Executive Order
12866, it is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), and 13211, ‘‘Actions
concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001).
This action does not involve technical
standards; thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not
apply.
This direct final rule does not involve
special consideration of environmental
justice related issues as specified in
Executive Order 12898, entitled
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
IX. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799
Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 9, 2012.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.
PART 799—[AMENDED]
2. In § 799.5085, revise the section
heading and Table 2 of paragraph (j) to
read as follows:
■
1. The authority citation for part 799
continues to read as follows:
■
15617
§ 799.5085 Chemical testing requirements
for first group of high production volume
chemicals (HPV1).
*
*
*
(j) * * *
*
*
TABLE 2—CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS
Required tests
(see table 3 of this section)
CAS No.
Chemical name
74–95–3 ............
78–11–5 ............
84–65–1 ............
110–44–1 ..........
112–52–7 ..........
Methane, dibromo- ..............................................................................................
1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-, dinitrate (ester) ...............................
9,10-Anthracenedione .........................................................................................
2,4-Hexadienoic acid, (E,E)- ...............................................................................
1-Chlorododecane ...............................................................................................
1
1
1
1
1
118–82–1 ..........
149–44–0 ..........
409–02–9 ..........
594–42–3 ..........
1324–76–1 ........
1
1
2
1
2
2941–64–2 ........
8005–02–5 ........
Phenol, 4,4’-methylenebis[2,6bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- .........................................
Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt ...............................................
Heptenone, methyl- .............................................................................................
Methanesulfenyl chloride, trichloro- .....................................................................
Benzenesulfonic
acid,
[[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]-.
Carbonochloridothioic acid, S-ethyl ester ............................................................
C.I. Solvent Black 7 .............................................................................................
A, C1, E2, F2.
A4, A5, B, C6, F2.
A4, A5, F2.
A, C4.
A2, A3, A4, A5, B, C3, D,
E1, E2, F1.
A1, A2, A3, B, E2.
A1, A5, E2, F1.
A, B, C1, D, E1, E2, F1.
A, B, C1, E1, E2, F2.
A4, C2, F1.
1
2
A, B, C1, E2, F1.
A, F2.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–6430 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0079;
FXES11130900000C3–123–FF09E30000]
RIN 1018–AX27
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Establishing a Manatee
Refuge in Kings Bay, Citrus County, FL
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, establish a manatee
refuge in Citrus County, Florida, in the
waters of Kings Bay, including its
tributaries and connected waters. This
action is based on our determination
that there is substantial evidence
showing that certain waterborne
activities would result in the taking of
one or more manatees and that certain
waterborne activities must be restricted
to prevent the taking of one or more
manatees in Kings Bay. In making this
rule final, we considered the biological
needs of the manatee, the level of take
at these sites, and the likelihood of
additional take of manatees due to
human activity at these sites.
This final rule is modified from the
proposed rule to ensure that the
provisions do not compromise human
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
Class
safety and to clarify certain aspects. The
modifications are not considered
significant as they are within the scope
of the proposed rule. To avoid creation
of a hazard to human safety, watercraft
may be operated at 25 miles per hour
during daylight hours in a portion of the
manatee refuge from June 1 through
August 15. The portion of the rule
prohibiting use of mooring and
floatlines that can entangle manatees
has been removed. Language regarding
prohibitions on waterborne activities in
Three Sisters Spring has been revised to
improve clarity. We also announce the
availability of a final environmental
assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for this action.
DATES: This rule is effective March 16,
2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, and
supporting documentation, including
public comments, are available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2010–0079.
Comments and materials received, as
well as supporting documentation used
in preparing this final rule, are also
available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, North Florida Ecological
Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way,
Suite 200, Jacksonville, Florida, 32256.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, North Florida Ecological
Services Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way,
Suite 200, Jacksonville, Florida, 32256;
by telephone (904/731–3336); by
facsimile (904/731–3045); by email:
manatee@fws.gov; or on-line at https://
www.fws.gov/northflorida. Persons who
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Previous Federal Actions
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus
manatus) was listed as an endangered
species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491),
under the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969 and this status
was retained under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the
population is further protected as a
depleted stock under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as
amended (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.). On October 22, 1979, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) adopted a
regulatory process to provide a means
for establishing manatee protection
areas in waters under the jurisdiction of
the United States where manatees were
taken by waterborne activities (44 FR
60964). The first manatee protection
areas were designated in Kings Bay on
November 12, 1980, for the purpose of
preventing the take of manatees by
harassment from waterborne activities
and included the Banana Island
Sanctuary (including King Spring), the
Sunset Shores Sanctuary, and the
Magnolia Springs Sanctuary (45 FR
74880). The Service subsequently
designated four additional manatee
protection areas in Kings Bay on May
12, 1994, and on October 16, 1998,
(including the Buzzard Island
Sanctuary, Tarpon Springs Sanctuary,
Warden Key Sanctuary, and Three
E:\FR\FM\16MRR1.SGM
16MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15609-15617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6430]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 799
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033; FRL-9335-6]
RIN 2070-AD16
Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing Requirements for Certain
High Production Volume Chemical Substances
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain testing requirements for six chemical
substances and all the testing requirements for four chemical
substances. EPA is basing its decision to take this action on
information received since publication of the first test rule for
certain high production volume chemical substances (HPV1). HPV1
established testing requirements for those 10 chemical substances. On
the effective date of this direct final rule, persons who export or
intend to export the four chemical substances for which all the testing
requirements are revoked are no longer subject to section 12(b) of the
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) export notification requirements
triggered by HPV1.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective May 15, 2012 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment in writing, or a request to
present comment orally, on or before April 16, 2012. If EPA receives
adverse comment, or a written request for an opportunity to present
oral comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that this direct final rule, or relevant
portions of this direct final rule, will not take effect. If you write
EPA to request an opportunity to present oral comments on or before
April 16, 2012, EPA will hold a public meeting on this direct final
rule in Washington, DC. The announcement of the meeting will be
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online 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.,
[[Page 15610]]
Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket
ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033. 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-
2005-0033. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available online 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 email comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
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, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available in the electronic docket 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Catherine Roman, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8157; email address: roman.catherine@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
particular interest to those persons who manufacture (defined by
statute to include import), process, or export the chemical substances
identified in this direct final rule. Because other persons may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
persons that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
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 email. 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
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.
II. Statutory Authority
Section 4(a) of TSCA authorizes EPA to require testing if certain
findings are made. EPA is amending the chemical testing requirements
for certain HPV chemical substances in 40 CFR 799.5085 because some of
the findings that EPA made for 10 chemical substances are no longer
supported. These findings were that:
1. The chemical substances were produced in substantial quantities.
2. There are insufficient data upon which the effects of
manufacture, distribution, processing, use, or disposal of those
chemical substances on health or the environment can reasonably be
determined or predicted.
3. Testing of the chemical substance with respect to such effects
is necessary to develop such data. (See TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i),
(ii), and (iii); also, see Ref. 1).
Unit III. discusses which findings are not supported for each
specific chemical substance subject to this direct final rule.
III. Amendment to Chemical Testing Requirements
EPA is amending the chemical testing requirements for certain HPV
chemical
[[Page 15611]]
substances in 40 CFR 799.5085 by direct final rule. Specifically, this
direct final rule revokes the testing requirements for the following
four chemical substances: Acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75-36-5);
imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No. 108-19-0); methane, isocyanato- (CAS
No. 624-83-9); and urea, reaction products with formaldehyde (CAS No.
68611-64-3). This direct final rule also revokes some of the testing
requirements for the following six chemical substances: 9,10-
Anthracenedione (CAS No. 84-65-1); 1-chlorododecane (CAS No. 112-52-7);
phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis [2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118-
82-1); methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt (CAS No. 149-
44-0); benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-
(phenylimino)-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS
No. 1324-76-1); and C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No. 8005-02-5). EPA is
basing its decision to revoke all testing requirements for four
chemical substances and some of the testing requirements for six other
chemical substances on information received since publication of HPV1
(40 CFR 799.5085), as described in this unit.
A. Revocation of All Testing Requirements for Four Chemical Substances
1. Acetyl chloride. EPA is revoking all testing requirements for
acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75-36-5) because there is no longer support
for the TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i) ``substantial production'' finding
for this chemical substance. ``Substantial production'' of a chemical
substance under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i) is generally interpreted by
EPA to be an aggregate production (including import) volume equaling or
exceeding 1 million pounds per year. See EPA's TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)
Final Statement of Policy (``B'' policy) (Ref. 2). The ``substantial
production'' finding for this chemical substance was based on reports
from several companies to the 2002 TSCA Inventory Update Reporting
(IUR) rule. The Albemarle Corporation which manufactured and imported
the largest volume of acetyl chloride, without which a finding of
substantial production could not have been made, informed EPA in 2007
that its manufacture and importation of acetyl chloride at the time the
test rule was promulgated were only for non-TSCA purposes (i.e., for
use in pharmaceuticals) (Ref. 3), and was, therefore, not subject to
HPV1.
Three other companies had reported importing smaller volumes of
acetyl chloride in the 2002 IUR, the sum of which would not have
provided support for a finding of substantial production. Two of these
companies, Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., and a company, which claimed its
name as CBI, have since ceased importation of acetyl chloride.
Tessenderlo Kerley ceased importation several years ago, and the other
company ceased importation over a year prior to the effective date of
HPV1, April 17, 2006 (Ref. 4). Neither of these companies is,
therefore, subject to HPV1. The third small importer, Chartkit Chemical
Corporation, reported that it imported only a small amount of acetyl
chloride after the effective date of HPV1 in 2006, but none since (Ref.
5). EPA's review of data in the 2006 IUR (which required reporting on
chemical substances manufactured or imported during calendar year 2005)
did not identify any companies manufacturing or importing acetyl
chloride. (Chartkit Chemical Corporation did not import acetyl chloride
in 2005, making a report to the 2006 IUR unnecessary.) Because the
finding for substantial production for acetyl chloride was not
supported when HPV1 was promulgated, the Agency is revoking all the
testing requirements for acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75-36-5) by removing
it from Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
2. Imidodicarbonic diamide. EPA is revoking all the testing
requirements for imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No. 108-19-0), also known
as biuret, by removing imidodicarbonic diamide from Table 2 in 40 CFR
799.5085(j). EPA considers the test requirements for this chemical
substance unnecessary at this time because sufficient data have been
provided to allow the Agency to reverse its finding under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(ii) for ``insufficient data.'' Information that satisfied
HPV1's requirements was voluntarily submitted by The Fertilizer
Institute (TFI) on behalf of a member company that manufactures the
chemical substance as an impurity in its products. EPA considers a
company that manufactures a chemical substance only as an impurity to
be a Tier 2 manufacturer with regard to its obligations under HPV1.
Although subject to HPV1 and responsible for providing reimbursement to
persons in Tier 1, Tier 2 manufacturers do not have to respond to HPV1
with a letter of intent to test or a request for exemption, unless
directed to do so by EPA through a document published in the Federal
Register. Although EPA did not publish such a document, TFI, acting on
behalf of its member company, volunteered to provide information to EPA
on the endpoints specified by HPV1 for that chemical substance. This
information (Refs. 6-8) was provided to the Agency and found to meet
the standards prescribed by EPA (Refs. 9-11) and is being made
available in the docket for this direct final rule and will be added to
the High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS).
3. Methane, isocyanato. EPA is revoking all the testing
requirements for methane, isocyanato- (CAS No. 624-83-9) by removing it
from Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). On May 11, 2007, Bayer CropScience
submitted a test plan and robust summaries of existing data for
methane, isocyanato- along with a request that EPA determine if the
robust summaries satisfied the Agency's need for data on physical/
chemical properties (Ref. 12). In the same letter, Bayer CropScience
requested a waiver for the requirement to determine an octanol-water
partition coefficient and the requirement to conduct aquatic toxicity
tests because of the extreme reactivity in water of methane,
isocyanato-. Bayer CropScience also asked EPA to consider, as a
substitute for aquatic toxicity studies of methane, isocyanato-, robust
summaries of aquatic toxicity studies of dimethyl urea (CAS No. 96-31-
1) (DMU), one of the two degradation products of methane, isocyanato-
in water, the other being carbon dioxide. EPA concluded that the
submitted data satisfied the Agency's need for data on the physical/
chemical properties of boiling point, melting point, vapor pressure,
and water solubility (Ref. 13). EPA also agreed that methane,
isocyanato- hydrolyzes very rapidly and, as a result, an octanol-water
partition coefficient is not relevant (Ref. 13). Because of the rapid
hydrolysis of methane, isocyanato- to carbon dioxide and DMU, EPA is
revoking the requirement to test for aquatic toxicity (fish acute
toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to algae). EPA believes
that the aquatic toxicity studies of DMU, provided by Bayer
CropScience, which the Agency reviewed and found adequate, provide
information on the aquatic effects of methane, isocyanato- (Ref. 14).
Therefore, EPA, in this direct final rule, is revoking the testing
requirements for boiling point, melting point, vapor pressure, octanol-
water partition coefficient, water solubility, fish acute toxicity,
Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to algae for methane, isocyanato-
by removing it from Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
4. Urea, reaction products with formaldehyde. EPA is revoking all
the testing requirements for urea, reaction products with formaldehyde
(CAS No. 68611-64-3) by removing it from Table
[[Page 15612]]
2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). EPA considers the test requirements for this
chemical substance unnecessary at this time because sufficient data
have been provided to allow the Agency to reverse its finding under
TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(ii) for ``insufficient data.'' Information
which satisfied HPV1's requirements was voluntarily submitted by TFI on
behalf of its member companies that manufacture this chemical substance
as an impurity in their products. EPA considers companies that
manufacture a chemical substance only as an impurity to be Tier 2
manufacturers with regard to their obligations under HPV1. Although
subject to HPV1 and responsible for providing reimbursement to persons
in Tier 1, Tier 2 manufacturers did not have to respond to HPV1 with a
letter of intent to test or a request for exemption, unless directed to
do so by EPA through a document published in the Federal Register.
Despite the lack of an EPA published Federal Register document, TFI,
acting on behalf of its member companies, volunteered to provide
information to EPA on the endpoints specified by HPV1 for this chemical
substance. This information (Refs. 7 and 16) has been provided to the
Agency and found to meet the standards for testing prescribed by EPA
(Refs. 17-19) and is being made available in the docket for this direct
final rule and will be added to HPVIS.
B. Revocation of Some Test Requirements for Six Chemical Substances
1. 9,10-Anthracenedione. In a letter dated July 10, 2006, the
Chemical Products Corporation (CPC) requested EPA's permission to
submit the values for boiling point and vapor pressure of 9,10-
anthracenedione (CAS No. 84-65-1) contained in the International
Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID) instead of conducting
the tests required by HPV1 (Ref. 20). CPC stated that the ASTM methods
specified by HPV1 would not work for 9,10-anthracenedione because the
boiling point and vapor pressure listed for that chemical substance in
IUCLID and the boiling point listed for that chemical substance in the
``Handbook of Chemistry and Physics'' (Ref. 21) fell outside the
determination ranges of the ASTM methods. EPA agreed and approved CPC's
request to submit IUCLID and other existing values because those values
matched or were in close agreement with measured values in various
literature sources (Ref. 22). CPC also requested a modification of the
ASTM method E 324 to determine the melting point for 9,10-
anthracenedione (Ref. 23). While evaluating this request, EPA reviewed
available data on measured melting points of 9,10-anthracenedione and
found the existing data to be in sufficiently close agreement that they
could be used to satisfy the Agency's data need for that endpoint (Ref.
22). EPA is, therefore, revoking the requirement that the boiling
point, vapor pressure, and melting point of 9,10-anthracenedione be
determined by the ASTM methods specified in HPV1 and accepts the
submitted existing data as sufficient to satisfy those data needs,
making the testing requirements unnecessary. Therefore, EPA is revoking
the testing requirements for boiling point, vapor pressure, and melting
point for 9,10-anthracenedione by removing those requirements from
those listed for 9,10-anthracenedione in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
The test requirements for 9,10-anthracenedione that are not revoked by
this direct final rule include tests to determine octanol/water
partition coefficient and water solubility, and to screen for
reproduction/developmental toxicity. Studies responding to those test
requirements have been submitted to the Agency (Ref. 24).
2. 1-Chlorododecane. In a letter dated February 21, 2008, EPA
informed Lonza, Inc., that the testing of 1-chlorododecane (CAS No.
112-52-7), which Lonza had committed to sponsor, did not have to
include a test for melting point because, in publicly available
documents, 1-chlorododecane is reported to be a liquid (Ref. 25).
Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirement for melting point
for 1-chlorododecane by removing that requirement from those listed for
1-chlorododecane in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). The test
requirements for 1-chlorododecane that are not revoked by this direct
final rule include tests for boiling point, vapor pressure, octanol/
water partition coefficient, water solubility, biodegradation, Daphnia
chronic toxicity, toxicity to algae, acute mammalian toxicity,
mutagenicity, chromosomal damage, and 28-day repeated-dose toxicity
with a reproduction/developmental toxicity screen. Studies responding
to those test requirements have been submitted to the Agency (Ref. 26).
3. Phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]-. In
letters dated May 12, 2006, July 14, 2006, May 1, 2007, and May 16,
2007 (Refs. 27-30), the Albemarle Corporation requested EPA to review
existing data that it was submitting for phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-
bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118-82-1) to determine if they
satisfied the Agency's need for data on water solubility, octanol/water
partition coefficient, acute mammalian toxicity, bacterial reverse
mutation, and screening level reproduction/developmental toxicity. EPA
found that the data satisfied the Agency's data needs for those testing
endpoints in HPV1, making the testing requirements unnecessary (Refs.
31-33). Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirements for water
solubility, octanol/water partition coefficient, acute mammalian
toxicity, bacterial reverse mutation assay, and a reproduction/
developmental toxicity screen for phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-
bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- by removing those requirements from Table 2 in
40 CFR 799.5085(j). The test requirements for phenol, 4,4'-
methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- that are not revoked by this
direct final rule include tests for melting point, boiling point, vapor
pressure, inherent biodegradation, and chromosomal damage. Studies
responding to those test requirements have been submitted to the Agency
(Ref. 34).
4. Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt. On May 14,
2007, the Sodium Formaldehyde Sulfoxylate Consortium (SFS Consortium)
formed under the auspices of the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) submitted existing data to satisfy
some of the testing requirements for methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,
monosodium salt (CAS No. 149-44-0) (Ref. 35). The submitted studies
used the dihydrate form of methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium
salt (CAS No. 6035-47-8) as the test substance to address the endpoints
of inherent biodegradation, fish acute toxicity, Daphnia acute
toxicity, and toxicity to algae (Ref. 35). Although the hydrated form
is identified by a different CAS number, in general, EPA does not
recognize a hydrate as a separate entity from the corresponding
anhydrous material for TSCA purposes, and accepts studies of the
hydrated form of a chemical substance as predictive of the effects of
the anhydrous chemical (Ref. 15). EPA found that the submitted study on
ready biodegradation satisfied the need for information on
biodegradability, making the test requirement for inherent
biodegradation unnecessary (Refs. 36 and 37). The existing studies on
fish acute toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to algae were
reviewed by the Agency and found to satisfy EPA's data needs for those
endpoints (Ref. 38).
In the test plan submitted with the May 14, 2007 letter, the SFS
Consortium
[[Page 15613]]
requested that EPA revoke the requirement to determine vapor pressure
because the chemical substance is an organo-metallic salt that does not
volatilize (Ref. 35). The SFS Consortium also requested that EPA revoke
the requirement to determine the octanol/water partition coefficient
(log Kow) because its estimated value was -6.17 and HPV1 did
not require a determination of octanol/water partition coefficient if
its estimated value is less than zero (Ref. 35). EPA agreed with the
SFS Consortium's position that testing was not needed to determine
vapor pressure (Ref. 39) and octanol/water partition coefficient (Ref.
40). Also, in the test plan submitted on May 14, 2007, (Ref. 35), the
SFS Consortium reported that in a test to determine boiling point, the
test substance decomposed. EPA, therefore, is waiving the test for
boiling point (Ref. 41).
EPA is revoking the testing requirements for boiling point, vapor
pressure, octanol/water partition coefficient, biodegradation, fish
acute toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to algae for
methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt by removing those
requirements from those listed for that chemical substance in Table 2
in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). The testing requirements for methanesulfinic
acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt that are not revoked by this direct
final rule include tests for melting point, water solubility,
chromosomal damage, and 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity screen. Studies responding to those
test requirements, also using the dihydrate form of methanesulfinic
acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt, were submitted to the Agency (Ref.
42).
5. Benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-
(phenylimino)-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]-. On
July 17, 2006, the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association (CPMA)
submitted a test plan for benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-
(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-
ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS No. 1324-76-1), also known as C.I.
Pigment Blue 61. CPMA also submitted robust summaries of existing data
which CPMA asked EPA to accept as satisfying some of the Agency's data
needs for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. Some of the existing data described in
the summaries addressed C.I. Pigment Blue 56, a close analog of C.I.
Pigment Blue 61, which CPMA requested EPA to accept as satisfying the
Agency's data needs for C.I. Pigment Blue 61, providing a structure-
activity relationship (SAR) argument in the test plan to justify that
request (Refs. 43 and 44). CPMA also asked EPA to accept results for
water solubility and octanol/water partition coefficient which were
obtained by using an alternative method, due to the extremely low
predicted solubility of C.I. Pigment Blue 61, instead of the methods
specified by the test rule (Ref. 43). Finally, CPMA asked EPA to accept
that determining a melting point for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 was not
relevant because the pigment thermally decomposes before it melts (Ref.
43).
EPA reviewed the submitted information on physical/chemical
properties and decided that melting point, boiling point, and vapor
pressure determinations were not relevant because C.I. Pigment Blue 61
decomposes before it melts and the decomposition temperature had been
reported (Ref. 45). EPA accepted the submitted data on water solubility
as satisfying the Agency's data needs for that endpoint, but did not
accept the calculated value submitted to satisfy the testing
requirement for octanol/water partition coefficient (Ref. 45). EPA
believes the calculated value would, most likely, underestimate the
measured value (Ref. 45) required to be determined by HPV1.
EPA reviewed CPMA's SAR argument concerning C.I. Pigment Blue 61
and C.I. Pigment Blue 56 and agreed that C.I. Pigment Blue 56 is an
acceptable surrogate for C.I. Pigment Blue 61, thereby allowing
adequate data on C.I. Pigment Blue 56 to satisfy data needs for C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 (Ref. 46). As a result, a biodegradation study of C.I.
Pigment Blue 56, found adequate by an EPA review, satisfies the need
for biodegradation data on C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (Ref. 46). Likewise, a
chromosomal damage test of C.I. Pigment Blue 56, which EPA reviewed and
found adequate, will satisfy the data need for that endpoint (Ref. 47)
for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. EPA's review of the existing data on C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 found the studies on fish acute toxicity, mammalian
acute toxicity, and bacterial mutation assay to be adequate to satisfy
the data needs for those endpoints (Ref. 47). The existing study on
repeated-dose toxicity, however, did not satisfy the test requirement
for that endpoint (Ref. 47).
Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirements for melting
point, boiling point, vapor pressure, water solubility, biodegradation,
fish acute toxicity, mammalian acute toxicity, bacterial reverse
mutation, and chromosomal damage for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 by removing
those requirements from those listed for that chemical substance in
Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). In order to clarify that test
requirements for acute toxicity to Daphnia and toxicity to algae had
not been satisfied by existing studies, and that the fish acute
toxicity test requirement had been satisfied, the test symbol C2
replaces C1 for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
The testing requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 that are not revoked
by this direct final rule include tests for octanol/water partition
coefficient, acute toxicity to Daphnia, toxicity to algae, and combined
28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a reproduction/developmental
toxicity screen. Studies responding to those test requirements were
submitted to the Agency. The full studies were claimed to be CBI and
are not available to the public, but robust summaries of those studies
(Ref. 48) are in the docket.
6. C.I. Solvent Black 7. On July 29, 2006 and August 4, 2006, the
Solvent Black 7 Consortium formed under the auspices of SOCMA submitted
eight existing studies on C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No. 8005-02-5) and
requested EPA to determine if they satisfied some of the Agency's data
needs specified in HPV1 (Ref. 49). EPA found that the studies satisfied
the need for data on inherent biodegradation, fish acute toxicity,
Daphnia acute toxicity, toxicity to algae, acute mammalian toxicity,
chromosomal damage, and repeated-dose 28-day oral toxicity in rodents,
making those test requirements for C.I. Solvent Black 7 unnecessary
(Ref. 50). Although the 28-day oral toxicity study in rodents was
accepted, it lacked a required screening test for reproduction/
developmental toxicity. Although a test for chronic toxicity to Daphnia
was not required for this chemical substance, SOCMA submitted a Daphnia
magna reproduction test because the log Kow of C.I. solvent
Black 7 is close to 4.2 and a log Kow greater than 4.2 would
have made a Daphnia chronic toxicity test a requirement (Refs. 1 and
51). The submitted study was evaluated and was not found adequate to
satisfy the objectives of a Daphnia chronic toxicity study because the
study was only 10 days long instead of 21 days, and only one
concentration was tested and it was lethal, preventing observation of
sub-lethal endpoints (Ref. 52).
Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirements for inherent
biodegradation, fish acute toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, toxicity
to algae, acute mammalian toxicity, chromosomal damage, and repeated-
dose 28-day oral toxicity in rodents for C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No.
8005-02-5) by removing those requirements from those listed for that
chemical substance
[[Page 15614]]
in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). In order to clarify that the
requirement for a reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test
had not been satisfied, but that the requirement for a repeated-dose
28-day oral toxicity test had been satisfied, the test symbol F2
replaces F1 for C.I. Solvent Black 7 in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
The testing requirements not revoked by this direct final rule include
the tests to determine five physical/chemical properties and to screen
for reproduction/developmental toxicity. Studies responding to those
test requirements have been submitted to the Agency (Refs. 51 and 53).
IV. Economic Analysis
In the economic impact analysis of this direct final rule, the
Agency estimated the total testing cost to industry to be $4.03 million
for all 17 chemical substances, with an average of approximately
$237,000 per chemical substance (Ref. 54). This total included an
additional 25% in administrative costs. An amendment to HPV1 revoking
testing requirements for Coke-Oven Light Oil (Coal) reduced the total
cost to industry to an estimated $3.7 million for the remaining 16
chemical substances, with an average compliance cost of approximately
$232,000 per chemical substance. This direct final rule would have the
effect of further reducing the total testing cost by an estimated $1.5
million (approximately 41%), by eliminating all the testing
requirements for acetyl chloride; imidodicarbonic diamide; methane,
isocyanato-; and urea, reaction products with formaldehyde; as well as
some of the testing requirements for 9,10-anthracenedione; 1-
chlorododecane; phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis [2,6-bis (1,1-
dimethylethyl)]-; methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt;
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylmino)-2,5-
cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]-; and C.I. Solvent Black 7
(Ref. 55). In addition, the 25% administrative costs would be
eliminated for these tests. The reduced total cost for the remaining 12
chemical substances with testing requirements is estimated to be $2.2
million (i.e., $3.7 million minus $1.5 million), with an average
compliance cost per chemical substance of approximately $184,000 (Ref.
55).
V. Export Notification
On the effective date of the revocations in this direct final rule
of the TSCA section 4 testing requirements for acetyl chloride (CAS No.
75-36-5); imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No. 108-19-0), methane,
isocyanato- (CAS No. 624-83-9); and urea, reaction products with
formaldehyde (CAS No. 68611-64-3), persons who export or intend to
export those chemical substances will no longer be subject to any TSCA
section 12(b) export notification requirements triggered by HPV1 (See
40 CFR part 707, subpart D). The export notification requirements
remain the same for the other six chemical substances discussed in the
preamble of this direct final rule that are listed as subject to the
requirements of HPV1 (Ref. 1); these chemical substances are 9,10-
anthracenedione (CAS No. 84-65-1); 1-chlorododecane (CAS No. 112-52-7);
phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118-82-
1); methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt (CAS No. 149-44-0);
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5-
cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS No. 1324-76-1); and
C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No. 8005-02-5).
VI. Direct Final Rule Procedures
EPA is publishing this direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment as this action simply revokes testing
which is not feasible, or testing for which the substantial production
finding was not supported, or testing for which EPA has adequate data
at this time. This direct final rule is effective May 15, 2012 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment or a written
request for an opportunity to present oral comments on or before April
16, 2012. If EPA receives adverse comment or a written request for an
opportunity to present oral comments on one or more distinct
amendments, paragraphs, or sections of this direct final rule, the
Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
indicating which provisions will become effective and which provisions
are being withdrawn due to adverse comment or a written request for an
opportunity to present oral comments. Any distinct amendment,
paragraph, or section of this direct final rule for which the Agency
does not receive adverse comment or a request for an opportunity to
present oral comments is effective May 15, 2012, notwithstanding any
adverse comment or request on any other distinct amendment, paragraph,
or section of this direct final rule. For any distinct amendment,
paragraph, or section of this direct final rule that is withdrawn due
to adverse comment or a request for an opportunity to present oral
comments, EPA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in a future
issue of the Federal Register. The Agency will address the comment or
request for an opportunity to present oral comments on any such
distinct amendment, paragraph, or section as part of that notice of
proposed rulemaking.
VII. References
Each reference listed in this unit has a docket ID number (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033) followed by a four-digit document ID number. All
document ID numbers are listed in numerical order in the docket. To
access a particular document in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions.
1. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Final
Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 13708, March 16, 2006) (FRL-7335-2).
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0001).
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) (FRL-4059-9). (Document ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0060).
3. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from M.G. Clisby to Catherine
Roman, Chemical Information and Testing Branch (CITB), Chemical
Control Division (CCD), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT), EPA. April 16, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0344).
4. Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. Email from Dawn Kominski to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT, EPA. March 23, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0342).
5. Charkit Chemical Corporation. Letter from Bryant Hinnant to
Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA. December 7, 2006. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0220).
6. TFI. Submission for fulfillment of data requirements for biuret
under TSCA section 4. July 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0343).
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Screening Information Data Set (SIDS), Urea, CAS No.: 57-13-6. Also,
a supporting document for biuret. 1994. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0360).
8. IUCLID Data Set, Biuret, CAS No. 108-19-0. March 7, 2007.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0359).
9. EPA. Memorandum from Tracy Williamson, Industrial Chemistry
Branch (ICB), Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division (EETD),
OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of the physical-
chemical endpoints for HPV orphan chemical biuret (CAS No.
[[Page 15615]]
108-19-0). Sept 17, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-
0356).
10. EPA. Email from Robert Boethling, Exposure Assessment Branch
(EAB), EETD, OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of TFI
submission on biuret. August 20, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0347).
11. EPA. Email from David Brooks, High Production Volume Chemical
Branch (HPVCB), Risk Assessment Division (RAD), OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of biuret (CAS No. 108-19-0).
October 2, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0358).
12. Bayer CropScience. Letter to Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA,
submitting a test plan and request for review of existing data on
physical chemical properties and aquatic toxicity. May 11, 2007.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0249).
13. EPA. Email from Tracy Williamson, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. June 18, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0281).
14. EPA. Email and attached review of aquatic studies of methane,
isocyanato from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Greg Schweer,
CITB, CCD, OPPT. August 29, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0284).
15. EPA. Emails on acceptability of studies on dihydrate form of CAS
No. 149-44-0. August 18, 2009. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0357).
16. TFI. Submission for Fulfillment of Data Requirements for Urea,
Reaction Products with Formaldehyde under TSCA Section 4. Revised
March 2008. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0361).
17. EPA. Memorandum from Kathryn Schechter, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. September 13, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0345).
18. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen and Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. April 23, 2008.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0346).
19. EPA. Email from Robert Boethling, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. August 14, 2007. Includes copyrighted
attachment: Ahapir, Nir, et al. Purification and Characterization of
TrzF: Biuret Hydrolysis by Allophanate Hydrolase Supports Growth.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 72(4):2941-2495 (2006).
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0363).
20. CPC. Letter from Jerry A. Cook to Document Control Office, OPPT,
EPA, concerning existing data on boiling point and vapor pressure.
July 10, 2006. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0182).
21. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 85th Edition. David R.
Lide, ed., CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2004.
22. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to Jerry A.
Cook, CPC, concerning acceptance of existing data on boiling point,
vapor pressure, and melting point. August 30, 2006. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0211).
23. CPC. Email from Jerry Cook to Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT,
EPA, concerning determination of melting point. July 24, 2006.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0348).
24. CPC. Studies submitted for 9,10-anthracenedione on octanol/water
partition coefficient, water solubility, and a screen for
reproduction/developmental toxicity. Submitted on February 15, 2007.
(Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0222.1, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0222.1, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0222.2, respectively).
25. EPA. Letter from Mike Mattheisen, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to John Van
Miller, Toxicology/Regulatory Services, Charlottesville, VA.
February 21, 2008. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0291).
26. Lonza, Inc. Studies submitted for 1-chlorododecane on boiling
point, vapor pressure, octanol/water partition coefficient, water
solubility, biodegradation, Daphnia chronic toxicity, toxicity to
algae, acute mammalian toxicity, mutagenicity, chromosomal damage,
and 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a reproduction/developmental
toxicity screen. Submitted on September 17, 2008. (Document ID
numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.6, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-314.10,
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.8, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.11, EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0314.9, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.7, EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0314.5, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.1, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0314.2, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.3, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0314.4, respectively).
27. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Ronald Zumstein to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning existing data on water
solubility and octanol-water partition coefficient. May 12, 2006.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0163).
28. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim Boudreaux to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning existing data on acute
toxicity, gene mutation, and reproductive/developmental toxicity.
July 14, 2006. (Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0181, EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0181.1, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0181.2, and EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0181.3).
29. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim Boudreaux to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning an existing Ames study. May 1,
2007. (Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0250, EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0250.1, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0250.2).
30. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim Boudreaux to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning existing data on repeated-dose
toxicity and reproduction/developmental toxicity screening. May 16,
2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0247).
31. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to Ronald
Zumstein and Kim Boudreaux, Albemarle Corporation, concerning EPA's
acceptance of existing data on water solubility and octanol-water
partition coefficient. August 9, 2006. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0210).
32. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to Kim
Boudreaux, Albemarle Corporation, concerning EPA's acceptance of
existing data on mammalian acute toxicity. April 5, 2007. (Document
ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0237).
33. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to Kim
Boudreaux, Albemarle Corporation, concerning EPA's acceptance of
existing data on bacterial reverse mutation and reproductive/
developmental toxicity. October 23, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0285).
34. Albemarle Corporation. Studies submitted for phenol, 4,4'-
methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- on melting point, boiling
point, vapor pressure, inherent biodegradation, and chromosomal
aberration. Submitted on October 31, 2007 and November 1, 2007.
(Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0274, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0274, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0274, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0275.1,
and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0257, respectively).
35. SFS Consortium, SOCMA. Letter to Document Control Office, OPPT,
EPA, submitting a test plan and request for review of existing data
on biodegradation and aquatic toxicity. May 14, 2007. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0238).
36. EPA. Memorandum from Robert Boethling, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, concerning biodegradation test
requirement. July 6, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0277).
37. EPA. Memorandum from Jed Costanza, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen,CITB, CCD, OPPT. October 9, 2008. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0352).
38. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of CAS No. 149-44-0. August 13, 2009.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0349).
39. EPA. Memorandum from Daniel Lin, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, concerning vapor pressure requirement.
June 19, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0278).
[[Page 15616]]
40. EPA. Letter from Charles Auer, OPPT, to Tucker Helmes, SOCMA.
May 28, 2008. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0307).
41. EPA. Memorandum from Greg Fritz, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen, CITB, CCD, OPPT. August 25, 2008. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0351).
42. SOCMA. Studies submitted for methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,
monosodium salt on melting point, water solubility, chromosomal
damage, and 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a reproduction/
developmental toxicity screen. Submitted on June 16, 2008. (Document
ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0309).
43. CPMA. Letter to Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA, from J.
Lawrence Robinson concerning existing data and test plan. July 17,
2006. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0185).
44. CPMA. Letter to Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA, from J.
Lawrence Robinson concerning existing data and test plan. May 9,
2007. (Document ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0246).
45. EPA. Memorandum from Diana Darling, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Testing requirements and existing data for
physical/chemical properties of the HPV test rule chemical, C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324-76-1). May 17, 2007. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0280).
46. EPA. Memorandum from Robert Boethling, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of SAR argument and a
biodegradation test concerning an HPV test rule chemical, C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324-76-1). May 15, 2007. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0279).
47. EPA. Email and attached review from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD,
OPPT, to Greg Schweer and Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review
of C.I. Pigment Blue (CAS No. 1324-76-1). August 22, 2007. (Document
ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0286).
48. SOCMA. Robust summaries submitted for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 on
octanol/water partition coefficient, acute toxicity to Daphnia,
toxicity to algae, and combined 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity screen. Submitted on November
14, 2008. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0318).
49. SOCMA. Letters from C. Tucker Helmes to Document Control Office,
OPPT, EPA. Submission of existing data on C.I. Solvent Black 7. June
29, 2006 and August 4, 2006. (Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0168, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0169, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0170,
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0171, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0172, EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0173, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0174, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-
0175, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0176, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0184).
50. EPA. Memorandum from Mark Townsend, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. November 27, 2006. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0283).
51. SOCMA. Letter from C. Tucker Helmes to Document Control Office,
OPPT, EPA. Justification for providing Daphnia reproduction study
for C.I. Solvent Black 7. February 28, 2008. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0290).
52. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen, CITB, CCD, OPPT. July 15, 2008. (Document ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0353).
53. SOCMA. Studies submitted for C.I. Solvent Black 7 on physical/
chemical properties and prenatal developmental toxicity. Submitted
on February 28, 2008. (Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0290.2
and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0290.4).
54. EPA, EPAB, EETD, OPPT. Economic Analysis for the Final Section 4
Test Rule for High Production Volume Chemicals. October 28, 2005.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0131).
55. EPA. Email from Stephanie Suazo, EPAB, EETD, OPPT, to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. RE: ``Revised Economic Analysis for
Revocation of Testing Requirements'' with attached economic
analysis. December 14, 2009. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0350).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This direct final rule only eliminates existing requirements; it
does not otherwise impose any new or revised requirements. As such,
this action is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) as a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Nor does it impose or change any information
collection burden that requires additional review by OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Because this direct final rule eliminates existing requirements
without imposing any new or revised requirements, the Agency certifies
pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For the same reasons, it is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538), and does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as
described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This direct final rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), or federalism
implications as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
Since this action is not economically significant under Executive
Order 12866, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and 13211, ``Actions concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This direct final rule does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order
12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
IX. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 9, 2012.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:
[[Page 15617]]
PART 799--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 799 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.
0
2. In Sec. 799.5085, revise the section heading and Table 2 of
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 799.5085 Chemical testing requirements for first group of high
production volume chemicals (HPV1).
* * * * *
(j) * * *
Table 2--Chemical Substances and Testing Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required tests (see table 3 of this
CAS No. Chemical name Class section)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74-95-3..................... Methane, dibromo-...... 1 A, C1, E2, F2.
78-11-5..................... 1,3-Propanediol, 2,2- 1 A4, A5, B, C6, F2.
bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-
, dinitrate (ester).
84-65-1..................... 9,10-Anthracenedione... 1 A4, A5, F2.
110-44-1.................... 2,4-Hexadienoic acid, 1 A, C4.
(E,E)-.
112-52-7.................... 1-Chlorododecane....... 1 A2, A3, A4, A5, B, C3, D, E1, E2, F1.
118-82-1.................... Phenol, 4,4'- 1 A1, A2, A3, B, E2.
methylenebis[2,6bis(1,
1-dimethylethyl)]-.
149-44-0.................... Methanesulfinic acid, 1 A1, A5, E2, F1.
hydroxy-, monosodium
salt.
409-02-9.................... Heptenone, methyl-..... 2 A, B, C1, D, E1, E2, F1.
594-42-3.................... Methanesulfenyl 1 A, B, C1, E1, E2, F2.
chloride, trichloro-.
1324-76-1................... Benzenesulfonic acid, 2 A4, C2, F1.
[[4-[[4-
(phenylamino)phenyl][4-
(phenylimino)-2,5-
cyclohexadien-1-
ylidene]methyl]phenyl]
amino]-.
2941-64-2................... Carbonochloridothioic 1 A, B, C1, E2, F1.
acid, S-ethyl ester.
8005-02-5................... C.I. Solvent Black 7... 2 A, F2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-6430 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
