Addition of ortho-Nitrotoluene; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, 15913-15920 [2013-05812]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
conditional approval will automatically
become a disapproval on that date and
EPA will issue a finding of disapproval.
EPA is not required to propose the
finding of disapproval. If the
conditional approval is converted to a
disapproval, the final disapproval
triggers the Federal Implementation
Plan requirement under section 110(c).
However, if the State meets its
commitment within the applicable
timeframe, the conditionally approved
submission will remain a part of the SIP
until EPA takes final action approving
or disapproving the new submittal.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve several
SIP revisions submitted to EPA by the
State of North Carolina, through NC
DENR, to address the NOX RACT
requirements for the North Carolina
portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to
approve in part, and conditionally
approve in part several SIP revisions to
address the VOC RACT requirements
and related CTG requirements.
Specifically, North Carolina submitted
SIP revisions on October 14, 2004, April
6, 2007, June 15, 2007, January 31, 2008,
November 19, 2008, September 18,
2009, February 3, 2010, April 6, 2010,
and November 9, 2010, to address NOX
RACT, VOC RACT and CTG
requirements. Together, these SIP
revisions establish the RACT
requirements for the major sources
located in the North Carolina portion of
the bi-state Charlotte Area. In a separate
rulemaking, EPA has already taken
action on RACT and CTG requirements
for the South Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area.
EPA has evaluated the proposed
revisions to North Carolina’s SIP, and
has made the preliminary determination
that they are consistent with statutory
and regulatory requirements and EPA
guidance except for the applicability for
some CTG VOC sources. Consistent with
section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA is
relying upon a commitment by North
Carolina to include appropriate
applicability thresholds for VOC RACT
for the all sources addressed by CTG in
the Area as a basis for conditionally
approving North Carolina’s SIP
revisions as they relate to VOC RACT.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this proposal action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the
determination does not have substantial
direct effects on an Indian Tribe. There
are no Indian Tribes located within the
North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte nonattainment area.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15913
Dated: March 5, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013–05838 Filed 3–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–0111; FRL–9785–9]
RIN 2025–AA35
Addition of ortho-Nitrotoluene;
Community Right-to-Know Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to add
ortho-nitrotoluene (o-nitrotoluene) to
the list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and
section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention
Act (PPA) of 1990. o-Nitrotoluene has
been classified by the National
Toxicology Program in their 12th Report
on Carcinogens as ‘‘reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen.’’
EPA believes that o-nitrotoluene meets
the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria
because it can reasonably be anticipated
to cause cancer in humans. Based on a
review of the available production and
use information, o-nitrotoluene is
expected to be manufactured, processed,
or otherwise used in quantities that
would exceed the EPCRA section 313
reporting thresholds.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 13, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
TRI–2012–0111, by one of the following
methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: oei.docket@epa.gov
• Mail: Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
15914
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
0111. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.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 www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
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, avoid any
form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. This Docket
Facility 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, and the telephone number for
the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental
Analysis Division, Office of Information
Analysis and Access (2842T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566–
0743; fax number: 202–566–0677; email:
bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for specific
information on this notice. For general
information on EPCRA section 313,
contact the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll
free at (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–
9810 in Virginia and Alaska or toll free,
TDD (800) 553–7672, https://
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this notice apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture, process,
or otherwise use o-nitrotoluene.
Potentially affected categories and
entities may include, but are not limited
to:
Category
Examples of potentially affected entities
Industry ..................................................................
Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to SIC codes
20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327,
331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*,
212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220,
512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*.
*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.
Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC
codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (correspond to SIC 10, Metal
Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121,
221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (correspond to SIC 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC
5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds
to SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219,
562920 (Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (correspond to SIC 4953, Refuse Systems).
Federal facilities
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Government ..............................................
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Some of the
entities listed in the table have
exemptions and/or limitations regarding
coverage, and other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be affected.
To determine whether your facility
would be affected by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in part 372 subpart
B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
B. How should I submit CBI to the
agency?
Do not submit CBI information to EPA
through www.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 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.
II. Introduction
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C.
11023, requires certain facilities that
manufacture, process, or otherwise use
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
listed toxic chemicals in amounts above
reporting threshold levels to report their
environmental releases and other waste
management quantities of such
chemicals annually. These facilities
must also report pollution prevention
and recycling data for such chemicals,
pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA, 42
U.S.C. 13106. Congress established an
initial list of toxic chemicals that
comprised more than 300 chemicals and
20 chemical categories.
EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA
to add or delete chemicals from the list
and sets criteria for these actions.
EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that EPA
may add a chemical to the list if any of
the listing criteria in Section 313(d)(2)
are met. Therefore, to add a chemical,
EPA must demonstrate that at least one
criterion is met, but need not determine
whether any other criterion is met.
Conversely, to remove a chemical from
the list, EPCRA section 313(d)(3)
dictates that EPA must demonstrate that
none of the listing criteria in Section
313(d)(2) are met. The EPCRA section
313(d)(2) criteria are:
(A) The chemical is known to cause
or can reasonably be anticipated to
cause significant adverse acute human
health effects at concentration levels
that are reasonably likely to exist
beyond facility site boundaries as a
result of continuous, or frequently
recurring, releases.
(B) The chemical is known to cause or
can reasonably be anticipated to cause
in humans–
(i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or
(ii) serious or irreversible—
(I) reproductive dysfunctions,
(II) neurological disorders,
(III) heritable genetic mutations, or
(IV) other chronic health effects.
(C) The chemical is known to cause or
can be reasonably anticipated to cause,
because of
(i) its toxicity,
(ii) its toxicity and persistence in the
environment, or
(iii) its toxicity and tendency to
bioaccumulate in the environment, a
significant adverse effect on the
environment of sufficient seriousness,
in the judgment of the Administrator, to
warrant reporting under this section.
EPA often refers to the section
313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the ‘‘acute
human health effects criterion;’’ the
section 313(d)(2)(B) criterion as the
‘‘chronic human health effects
criterion;’’ and the section 313(d)(2)(C)
criterion as the ‘‘environmental effects
criterion.’’
EPA has published in the Federal
Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR
61432) a statement clarifying its
interpretation of the section 313(d)(2)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the
section 313 list of toxic chemicals.
III. Background Information
A. What is the NTP and the report on
Carcinogens?
The National Toxicology Program
(NTP) is an interagency program within
the Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) headquartered at the
National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). The mission
of the NTP is to evaluate chemicals of
public health concern by developing
and applying tools of modern toxicology
and molecular biology. The NTP
program maintains an objective,
science-based approach in dealing with
critical issues in toxicology and is
committed to using the best science
available to prioritize, design, conduct,
and interpret its studies. The mission of
the NTP includes the evaluation of
chemicals for their potential to cause
cancer in humans.
As part of their cancer evaluation
work, the NTP periodically publishes a
Report on Carcinogens (RoC) document.
The RoC was mandated by the U.S.
Congress, as part of the Public Health
Service Act (Section 301(b)(4), as
amended). The NTP describes the RoC
as an informational scientific and public
health document that identifies and
discusses agents, substances, mixtures,
or exposure circumstances that may
pose a hazard to human health by virtue
of their carcinogenicity. The NTP RoC
serves as a meaningful and useful
compilation of data on (1) the
carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer),
genotoxicity (ability to damage genes),
and biologic mechanisms (modes of
action in the body) of the RoC-listed
substances in humans and/or in
animals, (2) the potential for human
exposure to these substances, and (3)
the regulations and guidelines
promulgated by Federal agencies to
limit exposures to RoC-listed
substances. The NTP RoC is published
periodically, with the most recently
published 12th RoC having been
released on June 10, 2011. The 12th RoC
contains the NTP cancer classifications
from the most recent chemical
evaluations as well as the classifications
from previous versions of the RoC.
B. What are the NTP cancer
classifications and criteria?
The NTP RoC classifies chemicals as
either ‘‘known to be a human
carcinogen’’ or ‘‘reasonably anticipated
to be a human carcinogen.’’ The criteria
that the NTP uses to list an agent,
substance, mixture, or exposure
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15915
circumstance under each classification
in the RoC (Ref. 1) are as follows:
‘‘Known To Be Human Carcinogen:
There is sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity from studies in
humans*, which indicates a causal
relationship between exposure to the
agent, substance, or mixture, and human
cancer.
Reasonably Anticipated To Be Human
Carcinogen:
There is limited evidence of
carcinogenicity from studies in
humans*, which indicates that causal
interpretation is credible, but that
alternative explanations, such as
chance, bias, or confounding factors,
could not adequately be excluded,
or
there is sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity from studies in
experimental animals, which indicates
there is an increased incidence of
malignant and/or a combination of
malignant and benign tumors (1) in
multiple species or at multiple tissue
sites, or (2) by multiple routes of
exposure, or (3) to an unusual degree
with regard to incidence, site, or type of
tumor, or age at onset,
or
there is less than sufficient evidence
of carcinogenicity in humans or
laboratory animals; however, the agent,
substance, or mixture belongs to a welldefined, structurally related class of
substances whose members are listed in
a previous Report on Carcinogens as
either known to be a human carcinogen
or reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen, or there is convincing
relevant information that the agent acts
through mechanisms indicating it
would likely cause cancer in humans.
Conclusions regarding carcinogenicity
in humans or experimental animals are
based on scientific judgment, with
consideration given to all relevant
information. Relevant information
includes, but is not limited to, dose
response, route of exposure, chemical
structure, metabolism,
pharmacokinetics, sensitive subpopulations, genetic effects, or other
data relating to mechanism of action or
factors that may be unique to a given
substance. For example, there may be
substances for which there is evidence
of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals,
but there are compelling data indicating
that the agent acts through mechanisms
which do not operate in humans and
would therefore not reasonably be
anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
*This evidence can include
traditional cancer epidemiology studies,
data from clinical studies, and/or data
derived from the study of tissues or cells
from humans exposed to the substance
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
15916
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
in question, which can be useful for
evaluating whether a relevant cancer
mechanism is operating in humans.’’
The NTP classifications for the
potential for a chemical to cause cancer
are very similar to the EPCRA section
313(d)(2)(B) statutory criteria for listing
a chemical on the list of toxic chemicals
subject to reporting under EPCRA
section 313: ‘‘(B) The chemical is known
to cause or can reasonably be
anticipated to cause in humans—(i)
cancer * * *’’ The specific data used by
the NTP to classify a chemical as
‘‘Known To Be Human Carcinogen’’ or
‘‘Reasonably Anticipated To Be Human
Carcinogen’’ are consistent with data
used by EPA to evaluate chemicals for
their potential to cause cancer and
classify chemicals as either
‘‘Carcinogenic to Humans’’ or ‘‘Likely to
Be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ (Ref. 2).
C. What is the review process for the
RoC?
Specific details of the nomination and
review process for the development of
the 12th RoC are described in the NTP
Report on Carcinogens Review Process
section of the 12th RoC (Ref. 1). In
general, the RoC review process
includes evaluations by scientists from
the NTP, other Federal health research
and regulatory agencies (including
EPA), and nongovernmental
institutions. The RoC review process
includes external peer review and
several opportunities for public
comment. For the 12th RoC, during the
entire nomination, selection, and review
process there were four opportunities
for public comment. For each candidate
substance, an expert panel was
convened to peer review the NTP
background document prepared for each
candidate substance. The NTP also
asked the expert panels to (1) apply the
RoC listing criteria to the relevant
scientific evidence and make a
recommendation regarding the listing
status for the candidate substance and
(2) to provide the scientific justification
for that recommendation. For the 12th
RoC, the next step was a review by the
Interagency Scientific Review Group
(which included an EPA representative)
followed by a review by the NIEHS/NTP
Scientific Review Group. After these
reviews, the NTP prepared a draft
substance profile for each candidate
substance which was peer reviewed by
the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors
which then prepared and submitted a
peer review report to the NTP. The NTP
then drafted the 12th RoC and
submitted it to the NTP Director for
review. The Director distributed the
draft 12th RoC to the NTP Executive
Committee for consultation, review, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
comment. After approval of the draft
12th RoC by the NTP Director, the final
draft of the 12th RoC was prepared and
was submitted to the Secretary, DHHS,
for review and approval. Once
approved, the Secretary submitted the
12th RoC to the U.S. Congress as a final
document. The 12th RoC was released
to the public on June 10, 2011.
IV. EPA’s review of the 12th RoC
A. How did EPA select the NTP RoC
chemical being proposed for addition?
The most recent version of the NTP
RoC that EPA previously reviewed for
possible additions to the EPCRA section
313 list was the 11th RoC (April 6, 2010,
75 FR 17333). Each new version of the
RoC adds newly classified chemicals to
the existing list. EPA’s present review of
the 12th RoC identified four newly
listed chemicals that are not on or
covered by the EPCRA section list
(aristolochic acids, captafol, onitrotoluene, and riddelliine). Of the
four chemicals, only o-nitrotoluene is
commercially produced and thus would
be an appropriate candidate for listing
under EPCRA section 313 since no
reports would be expected for the other
chemicals.
Section 313(d)(2) of EPCRA provides
EPA the discretion to add chemicals to
the TRI list when there is sufficient
evidence to establish any of the listing
criteria. EPA can add a chemical that
meets one criterion regardless of its
production volume or whether any
reports would be filed. But as in past
chemical reviews (e.g., January 12, 1994,
59 FR 1788), EPA adopted a production
volume screen for the development of
this proposed rule to make sure that
reports would be expected to be
submitted for the chemicals proposed to
be listed. If a chemical that did not meet
the production volume screen was
listed, there would be an economic
burden for firms that would have to
determine that they did not exceed the
reporting threshold. Yet, as no reports
would be filed, there would be no
information to the public on such a
chemical. EPA feels it is appropriate at
this time to focus on chemicals for
which reports are likely to be filed.
EPA reviewed the NTP 12th RoC
chemical profile and supporting
materials for o-nitrotoluene (Ref. 3).
Given the extensive scientific reviews
conducted by the NTP for their RoC
documents, EPA’s review focused on
ensuring that there were no
inconsistencies with how the Agency
would consider the available data.
EPA’s review of the o-nitrotoluene
chemical profile and supporting
material found no inconsistencies
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
between how the data were interpreted
by the NTP and how that same data
would be interpreted under EPA’s
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment (Ref. 2). Therefore, EPA
agrees with the hazard conclusions of
the NTP 12th RoC for o-nitrotoluene.
B. What technical data supports the
NTP RoC classification and EPA’s
proposed addition of o-nitrotoluene to
the EPCRA section 313 list?
This section presents the data that
supported the NTP 12th RoC
classification of o-nitrotoluene and why
EPA believes the data support the
addition of this chemical to the EPCRA
section 313 list. The NTP chemical
profile, the NTP chemical background
document, and the references cited
within the portion of the NTP 12th RoC
chemical profile quoted here, are all
included in the docket for this
rulemaking. While they are contained in
the docket and are part of the
rulemaking record, the references
within the quotation cited from the NTP
12th RoC profile document are not
included in the list of references in Unit
VI. of this Federal Register notice. The
full citations for the references
contained in the quotation can be found
in the NTP 12th RoC profile document
(Ref. 4).
1. o-Nitrotoluene (CAS No. 88–72–2)
(Refs. NTP Profile/Background
document (Refs. 4 and 5)). The NTP has
classified o-nitrotoluene as ‘‘reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen.’’
The classification is based on sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity in
experimental animals and supporting
data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis.
The NTP substance profile for onitrotoluene (Ref. 4) included the
following summary information of the
evidence of carcinogenicity:
‘‘Carcinogenicity
o-Nitrotoluene is reasonably
anticipated to be a human carcinogen
based on sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity from studies in
experimental animals and supporting
data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis.
Cancer Studies in Experimental
Animals
Oral exposure to o-nitrotoluene
caused tumors at several different tissue
sites in rats and mice and early onset of
cancer in male rats. Malignant
mesothelioma and mesothelial-cell
hyperplasia of the tunica vaginalis of
the epididymis were observed in male
rats administered o-nitrotoluene in their
feed for 13 weeks (NTP 1992). Bile-duct
cancer (cholangiocarcinoma) was
observed after 26 weeks, both in rats
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
exposed to o-nitrotoluene for 26 weeks
and in rats exposed for 13 weeks and
then observed for 13 more weeks
without exposure (NTP 1996). oNitrotoluene caused cancer at several
tissue sites in two-year chronic
exposure studies of rats and mice of
both sexes and in a study in which male
rats were exposed to o-nitrotoluene for
13 weeks and evaluated at two years
(NTP 2002). In rats, o-nitrotoluene
caused (1) subcutaneous skin tumors
and mammary-gland tumors
(fibroadenoma) in both sexes, (2)
malignant mesothelioma and benign or
malignant tumors of the liver
(hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma
or cholangiocarcinoma) and lung
(alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or
carcinoma) in males, and (3) benign
liver tumors (hepatocellular adenoma)
in females. In mice, it caused malignant
blood-vessel tumors (hemangiosarcoma)
in both sexes, malignant tumors of the
large intestine (cecal carcinoma) in
males, and benign or malignant liver
tumors (hepatocellular adenoma or
carcinoma) in females (NTP 2002).
Studies on Mechanisms of
Carcinogenesis
Following oral administration to rats
and mice, o-nitrotoluene is absorbed
into the blood and rapidly cleared; the
serum half-life is 1.5 hours in rats (NTP
2002). In the rat liver, o-nitrotoluene is
metabolized to o-nitrobenzyl alcohol
and can follow several metabolic
pathways: (1) glucuronidation to onitrobenzyl glucuronide, (2) sulfation
and subsequent reaction with
glutathione and acetylcysteine to onitrobenzyl sulfate, S-(onitrobenzyl)glutathione, and S-(onitrobenzyl)-N-acetylcysteine, or (3)
metabolism to o-aminobenzyl alcohol
followed by oxidation to oaminobenzoic acid. The metabolites are
eliminated primarily in the urine. The
major metabolites are o-nitrobenzyl
glucuronide and o-nitrobenzoic acid
major metabolites in rats and mice and
o-aminobenzyl alcohol and S-(onitrobenzyl)-N-acetylcysteine in rats.
Female rats excrete less than half as
much of the dose in the form of oaminobenzyl alcohol, o-nitrobenzyl
alcohol, or S-(o-nitrobenzyl)-Nacetylcysteine as male rats (NTP 2002).
The glucuronidated form can also be
excreted in the bile; when the
glucuronidated form in the bile is
excreted into the small intestine,
intestinal bacteria can deconjugate it
and reduce the nitro group to an amino
group, forming aminobenzyl alcohol.
Aminobenzyl alcohol can be reabsorbed
from the intestine and further
metabolized by the liver to reactive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
compounds (carbonium and nitrenium
ions) that can covalently bind to DNA
or to proteins (Chism and Rickert 1985,
NTP 2002, 2008). Thus, microbial
metabolism in the intestine is an
important step in the carcinogenicity of
o-nitrotoluene. However, neither oaminobenzyl alcohol nor its metabolites
have been detected in mouse urine after
exposure to o-nitrotoluene (NTP 2002);
therefore, other unidentified
biochemical pathways leading to tumor
formation most likely are involved.
o-Nitrotoluene did not cause
mutations in bacteria. In studies of its
ability to cause genetic damage in
cultured mammalian cells, the results
were mixed. o-Nitrotoluene caused (1)
sister chromatid exchange in Chinese
hamster ovary (CHO) cells, (2)
chromosomal aberrations in Chinese
hamster lung (CHL) cells and human
peripheral lymphocytes but not in CHO
cells, (3) micronucleus formation in
CHL cells but not in CHO–K1 cells, and
(4) DNA damage in L5178Y mouse
lymphoma cells (NTP 2008). It did not
induce DNA repair in rat or human
hepatocytes (NTP 2008). In rats and
mice exposed in vivo, o-nitrotoluene
caused a slight increase in micronucleus
formation in peripheral normochromatic
erythrocytes in male mice at a high dose
level; this finding was not considered
conclusive. o-Nitrotoluene did not
induce micronucleus formation in
peripheral normochromatic erythrocytes
in female mice or in polychromatic
erythrocytes in the bone marrow of male
rats or mice (NTP 2002). Following in
vivo exposure of rats to o-nitrotoluene,
DNA repair was increased in liver cells
isolated from males, but not from
females or germ-free males. These
results, together with o-nitrotoluene’s
inability to induce DNA repair in
hepatocytes in vitro, suggest that
activation of o-nitrotoluene to become
genotoxic is sex-specific and depends
on both mammalian metabolism and
metabolism by intestinal bacteria
(Doolittle et al. 1983). However, onitrotoluene also caused tumors in other
tissues in rats and mice of both sexes,
suggesting that other activation
mechanisms exist.
In rats exposed to o-nitrotoluene in
vivo, DNA adducts were detected in the
liver of males but not females (NTP
2008). Formation of DNA adducts was
consistent with the reaction of
intermediate compounds derived from
o-aminobenzyl alcohol with guanine or
adenine bases (Jones et al. 2003). The
pattern of mutations in oncogenes from
o-nitrotoluene-induced tumors was also
consistent with guanine adduct
formation: the majority of p53 mutations
in hemangiosarcomas were G:C to A:T
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15917
transitions, and almost all the K-ras
mutations in cecal carcinomas were G:C
to T:A transversions (Hong et al. 2003,
Sills et al. 2004). Mutations in the p53,
b-catenin, and K-ras genes also were
found in hemangiosarcomas from mice
exposed to o-nitrotoluene, but not in
spontaneously occurring
hemangiosarcomas from unexposed
mice (Hong et al. 2003).
In factory workers exposed to onitrotoluene, o-nitrotoluene–
hemoglobin adducts were detected in
the blood (Jones et al. 2005a), and onitrobenzoic acid and o-nitrobenzyl
alcohol were detected in the urine
(Jones et al. 2005b), providing evidence
that human exposure to o-nitrotoluene
results in production of a reactive
metabolite(s). In addition, adducts
between hemoglobin and 2methylaniline (a metabolite of onitrotoluene) were identified in both
exposed workers and exposed rats, and
the level of 2-methylaniline–
hemoglobin adducts in the blood of rats
was proportional to the level of 2methylaniline–DNA adducts in the
livers of rats (Jones and Sabbioni 2003,
Jones et al. 2003).
Cancer Studies in Humans
The data available from
epidemiological studies are inadequate
to evaluate the relationship between
human cancer and exposure specifically
to o-nitrotoluene. One cohort study of
workers involved in the manufacture of
magenta dye mentioned exposure of
workers to o-nitrotoluene as part of the
manufacturing process. A large excess of
bladder cancer was reported; however,
the workers were also exposed to other
chemicals—o-toluidine (2methylaniline) and 4,4′-methylenebis(2methylaniline)—that are suspected of
causing bladder cancer (Rubino et al.
1982). Two other studies of magenta
manufacturing workers also reported an
excess of bladder cancer, but did not
report whether the workers were
exposed to o-nitrotoluene (Case and
Pearson 1954, Vineis and Magnani
1985).’’
EPA has reviewed the NTP
assessment for o-nitrotoluene and agrees
that o-nitrotoluene can reasonably be
anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
EPA believes that the evidence is
sufficient for listing o-nitrotoluene on
EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the
available carcinogenicity data for this
chemical.
V. Rationale for listing
The NTP RoC document undergoes
significant scientific review and public
comment. The NTP review mirrors the
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
15918
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
review EPA has historically done to
assess chemicals for listing under
EPCRA section 313 on the basis of
carcinogenicity. The conclusions
regarding the potential for chemicals in
the NTP RoC to cause cancer in humans
are based on established sound
scientific principles. EPA believes that
the NTP RoC is an excellent and reliable
source of information on the potential
for chemicals covered in the NTP RoC
to cause cancer in humans (see Unit III).
Based on EPA’s review of the data
contained in the 12th NTP RoC, EPA
has determined that o-nitrotoluene can
reasonably be anticipated to cause
cancer (Ref. 3). Therefore, EPA believes
that the evidence is sufficient for listing
o-nitrotoluene on the EPCRA section
313 toxic chemical list pursuant to
EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on
the available carcinogenicity data
presented in the 12th RoC.
EPA considers chemicals that can
reasonably be anticipated to cause
cancer to have moderately high to high
chronic toxicity. EPA does not believe
that it is appropriate to consider
exposure for chemicals that are
moderately high to highly toxic based
on a hazard assessment when
determining if a chemical can be added
for chronic effects pursuant to EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(B) (see 59 FR 61440–
61442). Therefore, in accordance with
EPA’s standard policy on the use of
exposure assessments (59 FR 61432),
EPA does not believe that an exposure
assessment is necessary or appropriate
for determining whether o-nitrotoluene
meets the criteria of EPCRA section
313(d)(2)(B).
VI. References
EPA has established an official public
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–0111. The
public docket includes information
considered by EPA in developing this
action, including the documents listed
below, which are electronically or
physically located in the docket. In
addition, interested parties should
consult documents that are referenced
in the documents that EPA has placed
in the docket, regardless of whether
these referenced documents are
electronically or physically located in
the docket. For assistance in locating
documents that are referenced in
documents that EPA has placed in the
docket, but that are not electronically or
physically located in the docket, please
consult the person listed in the above
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
1. NTP, 2011. National Toxicology
Program. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth
Edition. Released June 10, 2011. U.S.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, National Toxicology
Program, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
2. USEPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, March 2005.
3. USEPA, OEI. Memorandum from Martin
Gehlhaus, Toxicologist, Analytical Support
Branch to Larry Reisman, Chief, Analytical
Support Branch. June 30, 2011. Subject:
Review of National Toxicology Program
(NTP) Cancer Classification Data for onitrotoluene.
4. NTP, 2011. National Toxicology
Program. 12th Report on Carcinogens—oNitrotoluene Substance Profile. Released
June 10, 2011. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service,
National Toxicology Program, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709.
5. NTP, 2008. Report on Carcinogens
Background Document for o-Nitrotoluene.
June 20, 2008. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Services,
National Toxicology Program, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709.
6. USEPA, OEI. Economic Analysis of the
Proposed Rule to add ortho-Nitrotoluene to
the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic
Chemicals. February 9, 2012.
VII. What are the Statutory and
Executive Order reviews associated
with this action?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and is therefore not
subject to review under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain
any new information collection
requirements that require additional
approval by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et.
seq. Currently, the facilities subject to
the reporting requirements under
EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use
either the EPA Toxic Chemicals Release
Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350–
1), or the EPA Toxic Chemicals Release
Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350–
2). The Form R must be completed if a
facility manufactures, processes, or
otherwise uses any listed chemical
above threshold quantities and meets
certain other criteria. For the Form A,
EPA established an alternative threshold
for facilities with low annual reportable
amounts of a listed toxic chemical. A
facility that meets the appropriate
reporting thresholds, but estimates that
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the total annual reportable amount of
the chemical does not exceed 500
pounds per year, can take advantage of
an alternative manufacture, process, or
otherwise use threshold of 1 million
pounds per year of the chemical,
provided that certain conditions are
met, and submit the Form A instead of
the Form R. In addition, respondents
may designate the specific chemical
identity of a substance as a trade secret
pursuant to EPCRA section 322 42
U.S.C. 11042: 40 CFR part 350.
OMB has approved the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements related to
Forms A and R, supplier notification,
and petitions under OMB Control
number 2025–0009 (EPA Information
Collection Request (ICR) No. 1363) and
those related to trade secret designations
under OMB Control 2050–0078 (EPA
ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 CFR
1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), an Agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers relevant to
EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, 48 CFR chapter 15, and
displayed on the information collection
instruments (e.g., forms, instructions).
For the 17 Form Rs and 5 Form As
expected to be filed, EPA estimates the
industry reporting and recordkeeping
burden for collecting this information to
average, in the first year, $76,143 (based
on 1,506 total burden hours). In
subsequent years, the burden for
collecting this information is estimated
to average $36,252 (based on 717 total
burden hours). These estimates include
the time needed to become familiar with
the requirement (first year only); review
instructions; search existing data
sources; gather and maintain the data
needed; complete and review the
collection information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information. The
actual burden on any facility may be
different from this estimate depending
on the complexity of the facility’s
operations and the profile of the releases
at the facility. Upon promulgation of a
final rule, the Agency may determine
that the existing burden estimates in the
ICRs need to be amended in order to
account for an increase in burden
associated with the final action. If so,
the Agency will submit an information
collection worksheet (ICW) to OMB
requesting that the total burden in each
ICR be amended, as appropriate.
The Agency would appreciate any
comments or information that could be
used to: (1) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Agency, including
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) evaluate the
reasonableness of the Agency’s estimate
of the burden of the propose collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and, (4) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through
the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses. Please submit your
comments within 90 days as specified at
the beginning of this proposal. Copies of
the existing ICRs may be obtained from
Rick Westlund, Collection Strategies
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling (202) 566–1672.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
under the Administrative Procedure Act
or any other statute unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of
today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A business that
is classified as a ‘‘small business’’ by the
Small Business Administration at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s rule on small entities,
I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Of
the 22 entities estimated to be impacted
by this proposed rule, 6 are small
businesses. Of the affected small
businesses, all 6 have cost-to-revenue
impacts of less than 1% in both the first
and subsequent years of the rulemaking.
No small businesses are projected to
have a cost impact of the first year, of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
15919
the 1% or greater. In 6 estimated cost
impacts, there is a maximum impact of
0.204%. Facilities eligible to use Form
A (those meeting the appropriate
activity threshold which have 500
pounds per year or less of reportable
amounts of the chemical) will have a
lower burden. No small governments or
small organizations are expected to be
affected by this action. Thus this rule is
not expected to have a significant
adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. A
more detailed analysis of the impacts on
small entities is located in EPA’s
economic analysis support document
(Ref. 6). We continue to be interested in
the potential impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action is not subject to EO 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because
it is not economically significant as
defined in EO 12866, and because the
Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This
action relates to toxic chemical
reporting under EPCRA section 313,
which primarily affects private sector
facilities.
This rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector in any one year.
EPA’s economic analysis indicates that
the total cost of this rule is estimated to
be $76,143 in the first year of reporting.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Small governments are not subject to the
EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This action
relates to toxic chemical reporting under
EPCRA section 313, which primarily
affects private sector facilities. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local
officials.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). This action relates to toxic
chemical reporting under EPCRA
section 313, which primarily affects
private sector facilities. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action. In the spirit of Executive Order
13175, and consistent with EPA policy
to promote communications between
EPA and Indian Tribal Governments,
EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed action from
tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
15920
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This proposed rule
adds an additional chemical to the
EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements. By adding a chemical to
the list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting under section 313 of EPCRA,
EPA would be providing communities
across the United States (including
minority populations and low income
populations) with access to data which
they may use to seek lower exposures
and consequently reductions in
chemical risks for themselves and their
children. This information can also be
used by government agencies and others
to identify potential problems, set
priorities, and take appropriate steps to
reduce any potential risks to human
health and the environment. Therefore,
the informational benefits of the
proposed rule will have a positive
impact on the human health and
environmental impacts of minority
populations, low-income populations,
and children.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection,
Community right-to-know, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, and
Toxic chemicals.
Dated: March 5, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
part 372 be amended as follows:
PART 372—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 372
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
2. Section 372.65 is amended by
adding in the table of paragraph (a) ‘‘oNitrotoluene’’ in alphabetical order and
adding in the table of paragraph (b)
‘‘00088–72–2’’ in numerical order to
read as follows:
■
§ 372.65 Chemicals and chemical
categories to which the part applies.
*
*
*
(a) * * *
Chemical name
*
*
CAS No.
*
*
*
*
*
o-Nitrotoluene ...................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
Effective date
*
00088–72–2
*
*
*
*
⁄
1 14
(b) * * *
CAS No.
Chemical name
*
*
*
*
*
00088–72–2 .....................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2013–05812 Filed 3–12–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
This document proposes to
amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 110 to make it
clear that special trailer (ST) tires are
permitted to be installed on new trailers
with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less.
It also proposes to exclude these trailers
from a vehicle testing requirement that
a tire must be retained on its rim when
subjected to a sudden loss of tire
pressure when brought to a controlled
stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). After
careful review, the agency believes that
these two revisions are appropriate and
would not result in any degradation of
motor vehicle safety.
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0030]
RIN 2127–AL24
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Tire Selection and Rims
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:48 Mar 12, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
*
o-Nitrotoluene
Sfmt 4702
*
Effective date
*
⁄
1 14
*
Submit comments on or before
May 13, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
electronically to the docket identified in
the heading of this document by visiting
the following Web site:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Alternatively, you can file comments
using the following methods:
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\13MRP1.SGM
13MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15913-15920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05812]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0111; FRL-9785-9]
RIN 2025-AA35
Addition of ortho-Nitrotoluene; Community Right-to-Know Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to add ortho-nitrotoluene (o-nitrotoluene) to
the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986
and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. o-
Nitrotoluene has been classified by the National Toxicology Program in
their 12th Report on Carcinogens as ``reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen.'' EPA believes that o-nitrotoluene meets the EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because it can reasonably be anticipated
to cause cancer in humans. Based on a review of the available
production and use information, o-nitrotoluene is expected to be
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities that would
exceed the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
TRI-2012-0111, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: oei.docket@epa.gov
Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-
2012-
[[Page 15914]]
0111. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.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 www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public 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, avoid any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility 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, and the telephone number for the OEI
Docket is (202) 566-1752.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental
Analysis Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access (2842T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0743; fax number: 202-
566-0677; email: bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for specific information on
this notice. For general information on EPCRA section 313, contact the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll free at
(800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in Virginia and Alaska or toll free,
TDD (800) 553-7672, https://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this notice apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
process, or otherwise use o-nitrotoluene. Potentially affected
categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of potentially affected
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Facilities included in the following
NAICS manufacturing codes
(corresponding to SIC codes 20
through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*,
314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*,
324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332,
333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*,
111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*,
212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110,
511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191,
511199, 512220, 512230*, 519130*,
541712*, or 811490*.
*Exceptions and/or limitations exist
for these NAICS codes.
Facilities included in the following
NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC
codes other than SIC codes 20
through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113
(correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining
(except 1241)); or 212221, 212222,
212231, 212234, 212299 (correspond
to SIC 10, Metal Mining (except
1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111,
221112, 221113, 221119, 221121,
221122, 221330 (Limited to
facilities that combust coal and/or
oil for the purpose of generating
power for distribution in commerce)
(correspond to SIC 4911, 4931, and
4939, Electric Utilities); or
424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to
facilities previously classified in
SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied
Products, Not Elsewhere
Classified); or 424710 (corresponds
to SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk
Terminals and Plants); or 562112
(Limited to facilities primarily
engaged in solvent recovery
services on a contract or fee basis
(previously classified under SIC
7389, Business Services, NEC)); or
562211, 562212, 562213, 562219,
562920 (Limited to facilities
regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act,
subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.)
(correspond to SIC 4953, Refuse
Systems).
Federal Government................ Federal facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Some of the entities listed in the table have exemptions and/or
limitations regarding coverage, and other types of entities not listed
in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility
would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in part 372 subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. How should I submit CBI to the agency?
Do not submit CBI information to EPA through www.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 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.
II. Introduction
Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023, requires certain facilities
that manufacture, process, or otherwise use
[[Page 15915]]
listed toxic chemicals in amounts above reporting threshold levels to
report their environmental releases and other waste management
quantities of such chemicals annually. These facilities must also
report pollution prevention and recycling data for such chemicals,
pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13106. Congress
established an initial list of toxic chemicals that comprised more than
300 chemicals and 20 chemical categories.
EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from
the list and sets criteria for these actions. EPCRA section 313(d)(2)
states that EPA may add a chemical to the list if any of the listing
criteria in Section 313(d)(2) are met. Therefore, to add a chemical,
EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but need not
determine whether any other criterion is met. Conversely, to remove a
chemical from the list, EPCRA section 313(d)(3) dictates that EPA must
demonstrate that none of the listing criteria in Section 313(d)(2) are
met. The EPCRA section 313(d)(2) criteria are:
(A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated
to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at
concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond
facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently
recurring, releases.
(B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated
to cause in humans-
(i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or
(ii) serious or irreversible--
(I) reproductive dysfunctions,
(II) neurological disorders,
(III) heritable genetic mutations, or
(IV) other chronic health effects.
(C) The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably anticipated
to cause, because of
(i) its toxicity,
(ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or
(iii) its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the
environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of
sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to
warrant reporting under this section.
EPA often refers to the section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the
``acute human health effects criterion;'' the section 313(d)(2)(B)
criterion as the ``chronic human health effects criterion;'' and the
section 313(d)(2)(C) criterion as the ``environmental effects
criterion.''
EPA has published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59
FR 61432) a statement clarifying its interpretation of the section
313(d)(2) and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the section 313 list of
toxic chemicals.
III. Background Information
A. What is the NTP and the report on Carcinogens?
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is an interagency program
within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) headquartered
at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The mission of the NTP is to
evaluate chemicals of public health concern by developing and applying
tools of modern toxicology and molecular biology. The NTP program
maintains an objective, science-based approach in dealing with critical
issues in toxicology and is committed to using the best science
available to prioritize, design, conduct, and interpret its studies.
The mission of the NTP includes the evaluation of chemicals for their
potential to cause cancer in humans.
As part of their cancer evaluation work, the NTP periodically
publishes a Report on Carcinogens (RoC) document. The RoC was mandated
by the U.S. Congress, as part of the Public Health Service Act (Section
301(b)(4), as amended). The NTP describes the RoC as an informational
scientific and public health document that identifies and discusses
agents, substances, mixtures, or exposure circumstances that may pose a
hazard to human health by virtue of their carcinogenicity. The NTP RoC
serves as a meaningful and useful compilation of data on (1) the
carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer), genotoxicity (ability to
damage genes), and biologic mechanisms (modes of action in the body) of
the RoC-listed substances in humans and/or in animals, (2) the
potential for human exposure to these substances, and (3) the
regulations and guidelines promulgated by Federal agencies to limit
exposures to RoC-listed substances. The NTP RoC is published
periodically, with the most recently published 12th RoC having been
released on June 10, 2011. The 12th RoC contains the NTP cancer
classifications from the most recent chemical evaluations as well as
the classifications from previous versions of the RoC.
B. What are the NTP cancer classifications and criteria?
The NTP RoC classifies chemicals as either ``known to be a human
carcinogen'' or ``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.''
The criteria that the NTP uses to list an agent, substance, mixture, or
exposure circumstance under each classification in the RoC (Ref. 1) are
as follows:
``Known To Be Human Carcinogen:
There is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
humans*, which indicates a causal relationship between exposure to the
agent, substance, or mixture, and human cancer.
Reasonably Anticipated To Be Human Carcinogen:
There is limited evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
humans*, which indicates that causal interpretation is credible, but
that alternative explanations, such as chance, bias, or confounding
factors, could not adequately be excluded,
or
there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
experimental animals, which indicates there is an increased incidence
of malignant and/or a combination of malignant and benign tumors (1) in
multiple species or at multiple tissue sites, or (2) by multiple routes
of exposure, or (3) to an unusual degree with regard to incidence,
site, or type of tumor, or age at onset,
or
there is less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans
or laboratory animals; however, the agent, substance, or mixture
belongs to a well-defined, structurally related class of substances
whose members are listed in a previous Report on Carcinogens as either
known to be a human carcinogen or reasonably anticipated to be a human
carcinogen, or there is convincing relevant information that the agent
acts through mechanisms indicating it would likely cause cancer in
humans.
Conclusions regarding carcinogenicity in humans or experimental
animals are based on scientific judgment, with consideration given to
all relevant information. Relevant information includes, but is not
limited to, dose response, route of exposure, chemical structure,
metabolism, pharmacokinetics, sensitive sub-populations, genetic
effects, or other data relating to mechanism of action or factors that
may be unique to a given substance. For example, there may be
substances for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in laboratory
animals, but there are compelling data indicating that the agent acts
through mechanisms which do not operate in humans and would therefore
not reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
*This evidence can include traditional cancer epidemiology studies,
data from clinical studies, and/or data derived from the study of
tissues or cells from humans exposed to the substance
[[Page 15916]]
in question, which can be useful for evaluating whether a relevant
cancer mechanism is operating in humans.''
The NTP classifications for the potential for a chemical to cause
cancer are very similar to the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) statutory
criteria for listing a chemical on the list of toxic chemicals subject
to reporting under EPCRA section 313: ``(B) The chemical is known to
cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans--(i) cancer *
* *'' The specific data used by the NTP to classify a chemical as
``Known To Be Human Carcinogen'' or ``Reasonably Anticipated To Be
Human Carcinogen'' are consistent with data used by EPA to evaluate
chemicals for their potential to cause cancer and classify chemicals as
either ``Carcinogenic to Humans'' or ``Likely to Be Carcinogenic to
Humans'' (Ref. 2).
C. What is the review process for the RoC?
Specific details of the nomination and review process for the
development of the 12th RoC are described in the NTP Report on
Carcinogens Review Process section of the 12th RoC (Ref. 1). In
general, the RoC review process includes evaluations by scientists from
the NTP, other Federal health research and regulatory agencies
(including EPA), and nongovernmental institutions. The RoC review
process includes external peer review and several opportunities for
public comment. For the 12th RoC, during the entire nomination,
selection, and review process there were four opportunities for public
comment. For each candidate substance, an expert panel was convened to
peer review the NTP background document prepared for each candidate
substance. The NTP also asked the expert panels to (1) apply the RoC
listing criteria to the relevant scientific evidence and make a
recommendation regarding the listing status for the candidate substance
and (2) to provide the scientific justification for that
recommendation. For the 12th RoC, the next step was a review by the
Interagency Scientific Review Group (which included an EPA
representative) followed by a review by the NIEHS/NTP Scientific Review
Group. After these reviews, the NTP prepared a draft substance profile
for each candidate substance which was peer reviewed by the NTP Board
of Scientific Counselors which then prepared and submitted a peer
review report to the NTP. The NTP then drafted the 12th RoC and
submitted it to the NTP Director for review. The Director distributed
the draft 12th RoC to the NTP Executive Committee for consultation,
review, and comment. After approval of the draft 12th RoC by the NTP
Director, the final draft of the 12th RoC was prepared and was
submitted to the Secretary, DHHS, for review and approval. Once
approved, the Secretary submitted the 12th RoC to the U.S. Congress as
a final document. The 12th RoC was released to the public on June 10,
2011.
IV. EPA's review of the 12th RoC
A. How did EPA select the NTP RoC chemical being proposed for addition?
The most recent version of the NTP RoC that EPA previously reviewed
for possible additions to the EPCRA section 313 list was the 11th RoC
(April 6, 2010, 75 FR 17333). Each new version of the RoC adds newly
classified chemicals to the existing list. EPA's present review of the
12th RoC identified four newly listed chemicals that are not on or
covered by the EPCRA section list (aristolochic acids, captafol, o-
nitrotoluene, and riddelliine). Of the four chemicals, only o-
nitrotoluene is commercially produced and thus would be an appropriate
candidate for listing under EPCRA section 313 since no reports would be
expected for the other chemicals.
Section 313(d)(2) of EPCRA provides EPA the discretion to add
chemicals to the TRI list when there is sufficient evidence to
establish any of the listing criteria. EPA can add a chemical that
meets one criterion regardless of its production volume or whether any
reports would be filed. But as in past chemical reviews (e.g., January
12, 1994, 59 FR 1788), EPA adopted a production volume screen for the
development of this proposed rule to make sure that reports would be
expected to be submitted for the chemicals proposed to be listed. If a
chemical that did not meet the production volume screen was listed,
there would be an economic burden for firms that would have to
determine that they did not exceed the reporting threshold. Yet, as no
reports would be filed, there would be no information to the public on
such a chemical. EPA feels it is appropriate at this time to focus on
chemicals for which reports are likely to be filed.
EPA reviewed the NTP 12th RoC chemical profile and supporting
materials for o-nitrotoluene (Ref. 3). Given the extensive scientific
reviews conducted by the NTP for their RoC documents, EPA's review
focused on ensuring that there were no inconsistencies with how the
Agency would consider the available data. EPA's review of the o-
nitrotoluene chemical profile and supporting material found no
inconsistencies between how the data were interpreted by the NTP and
how that same data would be interpreted under EPA's Guidelines for
Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Ref. 2). Therefore, EPA agrees with the
hazard conclusions of the NTP 12th RoC for o-nitrotoluene.
B. What technical data supports the NTP RoC classification and EPA's
proposed addition of o-nitrotoluene to the EPCRA section 313 list?
This section presents the data that supported the NTP 12th RoC
classification of o-nitrotoluene and why EPA believes the data support
the addition of this chemical to the EPCRA section 313 list. The NTP
chemical profile, the NTP chemical background document, and the
references cited within the portion of the NTP 12th RoC chemical
profile quoted here, are all included in the docket for this
rulemaking. While they are contained in the docket and are part of the
rulemaking record, the references within the quotation cited from the
NTP 12th RoC profile document are not included in the list of
references in Unit VI. of this Federal Register notice. The full
citations for the references contained in the quotation can be found in
the NTP 12th RoC profile document (Ref. 4).
1. o-Nitrotoluene (CAS No. 88-72-2) (Refs. NTP Profile/Background
document (Refs. 4 and 5)). The NTP has classified o-nitrotoluene as
``reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.'' The classification
is based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental
animals and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The NTP
substance profile for o-nitrotoluene (Ref. 4) included the following
summary information of the evidence of carcinogenicity:
``Carcinogenicity
o-Nitrotoluene is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen
based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
experimental animals and supporting data on mechanisms of
carcinogenesis.
Cancer Studies in Experimental Animals
Oral exposure to o-nitrotoluene caused tumors at several different
tissue sites in rats and mice and early onset of cancer in male rats.
Malignant mesothelioma and mesothelial-cell hyperplasia of the tunica
vaginalis of the epididymis were observed in male rats administered o-
nitrotoluene in their feed for 13 weeks (NTP 1992). Bile-duct cancer
(cholangiocarcinoma) was observed after 26 weeks, both in rats
[[Page 15917]]
exposed to o-nitrotoluene for 26 weeks and in rats exposed for 13 weeks
and then observed for 13 more weeks without exposure (NTP 1996). o-
Nitrotoluene caused cancer at several tissue sites in two-year chronic
exposure studies of rats and mice of both sexes and in a study in which
male rats were exposed to o-nitrotoluene for 13 weeks and evaluated at
two years (NTP 2002). In rats, o-nitrotoluene caused (1) subcutaneous
skin tumors and mammary-gland tumors (fibroadenoma) in both sexes, (2)
malignant mesothelioma and benign or malignant tumors of the liver
(hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma) and lung
(alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or carcinoma) in males, and (3) benign
liver tumors (hepatocellular adenoma) in females. In mice, it caused
malignant blood-vessel tumors (hemangiosarcoma) in both sexes,
malignant tumors of the large intestine (cecal carcinoma) in males, and
benign or malignant liver tumors (hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma)
in females (NTP 2002).
Studies on Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis
Following oral administration to rats and mice, o-nitrotoluene is
absorbed into the blood and rapidly cleared; the serum half-life is 1.5
hours in rats (NTP 2002). In the rat liver, o-nitrotoluene is
metabolized to o-nitrobenzyl alcohol and can follow several metabolic
pathways: (1) glucuronidation to o-nitrobenzyl glucuronide, (2)
sulfation and subsequent reaction with glutathione and acetylcysteine
to o-nitrobenzyl sulfate, S-(o-nitrobenzyl)glutathione, and S-(o-
nitrobenzyl)-N-acetylcysteine, or (3) metabolism to o-aminobenzyl
alcohol followed by oxidation to o-aminobenzoic acid. The metabolites
are eliminated primarily in the urine. The major metabolites are o-
nitrobenzyl glucuronide and o-nitrobenzoic acid major metabolites in
rats and mice and o-aminobenzyl alcohol and S-(o-nitrobenzyl)-N-
acetylcysteine in rats. Female rats excrete less than half as much of
the dose in the form of o-aminobenzyl alcohol, o-nitrobenzyl alcohol,
or S-(o-nitrobenzyl)-N-acetylcysteine as male rats (NTP 2002). The
glucuronidated form can also be excreted in the bile; when the
glucuronidated form in the bile is excreted into the small intestine,
intestinal bacteria can deconjugate it and reduce the nitro group to an
amino group, forming aminobenzyl alcohol. Aminobenzyl alcohol can be
reabsorbed from the intestine and further metabolized by the liver to
reactive compounds (carbonium and nitrenium ions) that can covalently
bind to DNA or to proteins (Chism and Rickert 1985, NTP 2002, 2008).
Thus, microbial metabolism in the intestine is an important step in the
carcinogenicity of o-nitrotoluene. However, neither o-aminobenzyl
alcohol nor its metabolites have been detected in mouse urine after
exposure to o-nitrotoluene (NTP 2002); therefore, other unidentified
biochemical pathways leading to tumor formation most likely are
involved.
o-Nitrotoluene did not cause mutations in bacteria. In studies of
its ability to cause genetic damage in cultured mammalian cells, the
results were mixed. o-Nitrotoluene caused (1) sister chromatid exchange
in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells, (2) chromosomal aberrations in
Chinese hamster lung (CHL) cells and human peripheral lymphocytes but
not in CHO cells, (3) micronucleus formation in CHL cells but not in
CHO-K1 cells, and (4) DNA damage in L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells (NTP
2008). It did not induce DNA repair in rat or human hepatocytes (NTP
2008). In rats and mice exposed in vivo, o-nitrotoluene caused a slight
increase in micronucleus formation in peripheral normochromatic
erythrocytes in male mice at a high dose level; this finding was not
considered conclusive. o-Nitrotoluene did not induce micronucleus
formation in peripheral normochromatic erythrocytes in female mice or
in polychromatic erythrocytes in the bone marrow of male rats or mice
(NTP 2002). Following in vivo exposure of rats to o-nitrotoluene, DNA
repair was increased in liver cells isolated from males, but not from
females or germ-free males. These results, together with o-
nitrotoluene's inability to induce DNA repair in hepatocytes in vitro,
suggest that activation of o-nitrotoluene to become genotoxic is sex-
specific and depends on both mammalian metabolism and metabolism by
intestinal bacteria (Doolittle et al. 1983). However, o-nitrotoluene
also caused tumors in other tissues in rats and mice of both sexes,
suggesting that other activation mechanisms exist.
In rats exposed to o-nitrotoluene in vivo, DNA adducts were
detected in the liver of males but not females (NTP 2008). Formation of
DNA adducts was consistent with the reaction of intermediate compounds
derived from o-aminobenzyl alcohol with guanine or adenine bases (Jones
et al. 2003). The pattern of mutations in oncogenes from o-
nitrotoluene-induced tumors was also consistent with guanine adduct
formation: the majority of p53 mutations in hemangiosarcomas were G:C
to A:T transitions, and almost all the K-ras mutations in cecal
carcinomas were G:C to T:A transversions (Hong et al. 2003, Sills et
al. 2004). Mutations in the p53, [beta]-catenin, and K-ras genes also
were found in hemangiosarcomas from mice exposed to o-nitrotoluene, but
not in spontaneously occurring hemangiosarcomas from unexposed mice
(Hong et al. 2003).
In factory workers exposed to o-nitrotoluene, o-nitrotoluene-
hemoglobin adducts were detected in the blood (Jones et al. 2005a), and
o-nitrobenzoic acid and o-nitrobenzyl alcohol were detected in the
urine (Jones et al. 2005b), providing evidence that human exposure to
o-nitrotoluene results in production of a reactive metabolite(s). In
addition, adducts between hemoglobin and 2-methylaniline (a metabolite
of o-nitrotoluene) were identified in both exposed workers and exposed
rats, and the level of 2-methylaniline-hemoglobin adducts in the blood
of rats was proportional to the level of 2-methylaniline-DNA adducts in
the livers of rats (Jones and Sabbioni 2003, Jones et al. 2003).
Cancer Studies in Humans
The data available from epidemiological studies are inadequate to
evaluate the relationship between human cancer and exposure
specifically to o-nitrotoluene. One cohort study of workers involved in
the manufacture of magenta dye mentioned exposure of workers to o-
nitrotoluene as part of the manufacturing process. A large excess of
bladder cancer was reported; however, the workers were also exposed to
other chemicals--o-toluidine (2-methylaniline) and 4,4'-methylenebis(2-
methylaniline)--that are suspected of causing bladder cancer (Rubino et
al. 1982). Two other studies of magenta manufacturing workers also
reported an excess of bladder cancer, but did not report whether the
workers were exposed to o-nitrotoluene (Case and Pearson 1954, Vineis
and Magnani 1985).''
EPA has reviewed the NTP assessment for o-nitrotoluene and agrees
that o-nitrotoluene can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in
humans. EPA believes that the evidence is sufficient for listing o-
nitrotoluene on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section
313(d)(2)(B) based on the available carcinogenicity data for this
chemical.
V. Rationale for listing
The NTP RoC document undergoes significant scientific review and
public comment. The NTP review mirrors the
[[Page 15918]]
review EPA has historically done to assess chemicals for listing under
EPCRA section 313 on the basis of carcinogenicity. The conclusions
regarding the potential for chemicals in the NTP RoC to cause cancer in
humans are based on established sound scientific principles. EPA
believes that the NTP RoC is an excellent and reliable source of
information on the potential for chemicals covered in the NTP RoC to
cause cancer in humans (see Unit III). Based on EPA's review of the
data contained in the 12th NTP RoC, EPA has determined that o-
nitrotoluene can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer (Ref. 3).
Therefore, EPA believes that the evidence is sufficient for listing o-
nitrotoluene on the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list pursuant to
EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available carcinogenicity data
presented in the 12th RoC.
EPA considers chemicals that can reasonably be anticipated to cause
cancer to have moderately high to high chronic toxicity. EPA does not
believe that it is appropriate to consider exposure for chemicals that
are moderately high to highly toxic based on a hazard assessment when
determining if a chemical can be added for chronic effects pursuant to
EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) (see 59 FR 61440-61442). Therefore, in
accordance with EPA's standard policy on the use of exposure
assessments (59 FR 61432), EPA does not believe that an exposure
assessment is necessary or appropriate for determining whether o-
nitrotoluene meets the criteria of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B).
VI. References
EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0111. The public docket includes
information considered by EPA in developing this action, including the
documents listed below, which are electronically or physically located
in the docket. In addition, interested parties should consult documents
that are referenced in the documents that EPA has placed in the docket,
regardless of whether these referenced documents are electronically or
physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating documents
that are referenced in documents that EPA has placed in the docket, but
that are not electronically or physically located in the docket, please
consult the person listed in the above FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
1. NTP, 2011. National Toxicology Program. Report on
Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. Released June 10, 2011. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
2. USEPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Risk
Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, March 2005.
3. USEPA, OEI. Memorandum from Martin Gehlhaus, Toxicologist,
Analytical Support Branch to Larry Reisman, Chief, Analytical
Support Branch. June 30, 2011. Subject: Review of National
Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Classification Data for o-
nitrotoluene.
4. NTP, 2011. National Toxicology Program. 12th Report on
Carcinogens--o-Nitrotoluene Substance Profile. Released June 10,
2011. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709.
5. NTP, 2008. Report on Carcinogens Background Document for o-
Nitrotoluene. June 20, 2008. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Services, National Toxicology Program,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
6. USEPA, OEI. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to add
ortho-Nitrotoluene to the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic Chemicals.
February 9, 2012.
VII. What are the Statutory and Executive Order reviews associated with
this action?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection
requirements that require additional approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting
requirements under EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use either the EPA Toxic
Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or the EPA
Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350-2). The Form
R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise
uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain
other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative
threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed
toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting
thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of
the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of
an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1
million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain
conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In
addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a
substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 42 U.S.C.
11042: 40 CFR part 350.
OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under
OMB Control number 2025-0009 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR)
No. 1363) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB
Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b)
and 1320.6(a), an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers
relevant to EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 48 CFR
chapter 15, and displayed on the information collection instruments
(e.g., forms, instructions).
For the 17 Form Rs and 5 Form As expected to be filed, EPA
estimates the industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for
collecting this information to average, in the first year, $76,143
(based on 1,506 total burden hours). In subsequent years, the burden
for collecting this information is estimated to average $36,252 (based
on 717 total burden hours). These estimates include the time needed to
become familiar with the requirement (first year only); review
instructions; search existing data sources; gather and maintain the
data needed; complete and review the collection information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The actual burden on
any facility may be different from this estimate depending on the
complexity of the facility's operations and the profile of the releases
at the facility. Upon promulgation of a final rule, the Agency may
determine that the existing burden estimates in the ICRs need to be
amended in order to account for an increase in burden associated with
the final action. If so, the Agency will submit an information
collection worksheet (ICW) to OMB requesting that the total burden in
each ICR be amended, as appropriate.
The Agency would appreciate any comments or information that could
be used to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including
[[Page 15919]]
whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the
reasonableness of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the propose
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and, (4) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Please
submit your comments within 90 days as specified at the beginning of
this proposal. Copies of the existing ICRs may be obtained from Rick
Westlund, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling (202) 566-1672.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
business that is classified as a ``small business'' by the Small
Business Administration at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the 22
entities estimated to be impacted by this proposed rule, 6 are small
businesses. Of the affected small businesses, all 6 have cost-to-
revenue impacts of less than 1% in both the first and subsequent years
of the rulemaking. No small businesses are projected to have a cost
impact of the first year, of the 1% or greater. In 6 estimated cost
impacts, there is a maximum impact of 0.204%. Facilities eligible to
use Form A (those meeting the appropriate activity threshold which have
500 pounds per year or less of reportable amounts of the chemical) will
have a lower burden. No small governments or small organizations are
expected to be affected by this action. Thus this rule is not expected
to have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. A more detailed analysis of the impacts on small
entities is located in EPA's economic analysis support document (Ref.
6). We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
EPA's economic analysis indicates that the total cost of this rule is
estimated to be $76,143 in the first year of reporting. Thus, this rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments
are not subject to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action relates to toxic
chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects
private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
relates to toxic chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which
primarily affects private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order
13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between
EPA and Indian Tribal Governments, EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. This action relates to toxic chemical reporting under
EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects private sector facilities.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore,
[[Page 15920]]
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This proposed rule adds an additional chemical to the
EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. By adding a chemical to the
list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of
EPCRA, EPA would be providing communities across the United States
(including minority populations and low income populations) with access
to data which they may use to seek lower exposures and consequently
reductions in chemical risks for themselves and their children. This
information can also be used by government agencies and others to
identify potential problems, set priorities, and take appropriate steps
to reduce any potential risks to human health and the environment.
Therefore, the informational benefits of the proposed rule will have a
positive impact on the human health and environmental impacts of
minority populations, low-income populations, and children.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.
Dated: March 5, 2013.
Bob Perciasepe,
Acting Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended as
follows:
PART 372--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
0
2. Section 372.65 is amended by adding in the table of paragraph (a)
``o-Nitrotoluene'' in alphabetical order and adding in the table of
paragraph (b) ``00088-72-2'' in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 372.65 Chemicals and chemical categories to which the part
applies.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CAS No. Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
o-Nitrotoluene...................... 00088-72-2 \1/14\
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS No. Chemical name Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
00088-72-2.......................... o-Nitrotoluene \1/14\
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2013-05812 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P