TSCA Inventory Equivalency Determinations for Certain Class 2 Substances; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response, 1365-1368 [2016-00435]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Notice of public hearing on
proposed rulemaking.
ACTION:
This document provides
notice of public hearing on proposed
regulations relating to the holdings of
Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Windsor v.
United States, 2013, and a revenue
ruling that define terms in the Internal
Revenue Code (Code) describing the
marital status of taxpayers.
DATES: The public hearing is being held
on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, at
10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive
outlines of the topics to be discussed at
the public hearing by Friday, January
15, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being
held in the Chief Counsel NYU
conference room 2615, Internal Revenue
Service Building, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR
(REG–148998–13), Room 5205, Internal
Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben
Franklin Station, Washington, DC
20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday to
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–148998–13),
Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20224 or sent
electronically via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov (IRS–2015–0032).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the regulations, Mark
Shurtliff at (202) 317–3400; concerning
submissions of comments, the hearing
and/or to be placed on the building
access list to attend the hearing Regina
Johnson at (202) 317–6901 (not toll-free
numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
subject of the public hearing is the
notice of proposed rulemaking (REG–
148998–13) that was published in the
Federal Register on Friday, October 23,
2015 (80 FR 64378) relating to the
holdings of Obergefell v. Hodges, 575
U.S.lll, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015),
Windsor v. United States, 570
U.S. lll, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), and
Revenue Ruling 2013–17 (2013–38 IRB
201), and that define terms in the
Internal Revenue Code (Code)
describing the marital status of
taxpayers. The rules of 26 CFR
601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing.
Persons who wish to present oral
comments at the hearing that submitted
written comments by January 14, 2016
must submit an outline of the topics to
be addressed and the amount of time to
be devoted to each topic by Friday,
January 15, 2016.
A period of 10 minutes is allotted to
each person for presenting oral
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:16 Jan 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
comments. After the deadline for
receiving outlines has passed, the IRS
will prepare an agenda containing the
schedule of speakers. Copies of the
agenda will be made available, free of
charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom
of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR)
(Room 1621) which is located at the
11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC.
Because of access restrictions, the IRS
will not admit visitors beyond the
immediate entrance area more than 30
minutes before the hearing starts. For
information about having your name
placed on the building access list to
attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
Martin V. Franks,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch,
Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief
Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2016–00386 Filed 1–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2015–0823; FRL–9940–61]
TSCA Inventory Equivalency
Determinations for Certain Class 2
Substances; TSCA Section 21 Petition;
Reasons for Agency Response
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency
response.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
availability of EPA’s response to a
petition it received under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). The
TSCA section 21 petition was received
from the Biobased and Renewable
Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) on
October 7, 2015. The petitioner
requested EPA to promulgate a rule
pursuant to TSCA section 8 that would
‘‘establish a process to amend the list of
natural sources of oil and fat in the
‘Soap and Detergent Association’ (SDA)
nomenclature system by considering the
chemical equivalency of additional
natural sources.’’ After careful
consideration, EPA denied the TSCA
section 21 petition for the reasons
discussed in this document.
DATES: EPA’s response to this TSCA
section 21 petition was signed
December 31, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1365
For technical information contact:
Kent Anapolle, Chemistry, Economics,
and Sustainable Strategies Division
(7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 564–8578; email address:
anapolle.kent@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public
in general. This action may, however, be
of interest to those persons who are or
may manufacture or import biobased
chemicals similar to fats and oils
described by the SDA nomenclature
system. Since other entities may also be
interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this
action.
B. How can I access information about
this petition?
The docket for this TSCA section 21
petition, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPPT–2015–0823, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the
Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket),
Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. TSCA Section 21
A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition?
Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C.
2620), any person can petition EPA to
initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the
issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule
under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an
order under TSCA section 5(e) or
6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition
must set forth the facts that are claimed
to establish the necessity for the action
requested. EPA is required to grant or
deny the petition within 90 days of its
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
1366
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
filing. If EPA grants the petition, the
Agency must promptly commence an
appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies
the petition, the Agency must publish
its reasons for the denial in the Federal
Register. A petitioner may commence a
civil action in a U.S. district court to
compel initiation of the requested
rulemaking proceeding within 60 days
of either a denial or the expiration of the
90-day period.
B. What criteria apply to a decision on
a TSCA section 21 petition?
Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that
the petition ‘‘set forth the facts which it
is claimed establish that it is necessary’’
to issue the rule or order requested, 15
U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section
21 implicitly incorporates the statutory
standards that apply to the requested
actions. In addition, TSCA section 21
establishes standards a court must use
to decide whether to order EPA to
initiate rulemaking in the event of a
lawsuit filed by the petitioner after
denial of a TSCA section 21 petition, 15
U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA
has relied on the standards in TSCA
section 21 and in the provisions under
which actions have been requested to
evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition.
III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21
Petition
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. What action was requested?
On October 7, 2015, EPA received a
petition from the Biobased and
Renewable Products Advocacy Group
(BRAG) requesting the Agency to
address the ‘‘disproportionate regulatory
burden’’ imposed on companies in the
bio-based chemical sector, noting that a
‘‘limitation of source categories in the
SDA system results in inequitable
regulatory treatment for chemical
substances that are functionally the
same and chemically nearly identical.’’
Specifically, the petition asks EPA to
commence a rulemaking process under
TSCA section 8, the objective of which
would be to ‘‘establish a procedure by
which EPA can add new sources of fats
and oils to the SDA-eligible list.’’
The petition states that the SDAeligible list is part of a broader
‘‘nomenclature system developed by
SDA when the TSCA Inventory was
initially compiled.’’ The term ‘‘SDAeligible list’’ refers to a list found in the
1978 Candidate List of Chemical
Substances on the TSCA Inventory, in
‘‘Addendum III: Chemical Substances of
Unknown or Variable Composition,
Complex Reaction Products and
Biological Materials’’ (Ref. 2). In Section
I of that document, EPA described a
chemical substance naming convention,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:16 Jan 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
attributed to the SDA that was available
for ‘‘identifying and reporting certain
multicomponent Class 2 chemical
substances derived from natural fats and
oils and synthetic long-chain alkyl
substitutes.’’ The identification and
reporting in question was the
identification and reporting of chemical
manufacture and processing to EPA,
pursuant to a past reporting obligation
under TSCA section 8(a), to inform
EPA’s original compilation of the TSCA
Inventory under TSCA section 8(b). The
document listed 35 ‘‘natural fats and
oils,’’ as potential alkyl group sources.
It provided that the particular chemical
substances named under the SDA
convention would not be identified ‘‘in
terms of source.’’ However, chemical
substances with alkyl groups derived
from unlisted natural sources were
beyond the scope of the naming
convention. Thus, each time that a
particular chemical substance was
identified, reported, and entered into
EPA’s original compilation of the TSCA
Inventory based on the SDA naming
convention, the definition of that
particular substance inherited a certain
characterization from the SDA naming
convention: Specifically, that the
chemical substance in question was
derived either from one or more of the
35 listed natural fats and oils or from
synthetic long-chain alkyl substitutes.
The procedure that the petition asks
EPA to establish by a TSCA section 8
rule is a procedure for submitting
further requests to EPA. Specifically, it
would be a regulation governing how
the public would submit requests to
amend the SDA-eligible list and how
EPA would respond to such requests.
The procedure would detail how EPA
would review a request to include an
additional source material of a fat or oil
substance, ‘‘following a premanufacture
notice or other appropriate notification
to EPA,’’ in order to determine if it is
‘‘sufficiently similar’’ to sources of fat or
oil substances with the same alkyl range
that are already built into the SDA
naming convention. After review, if EPA
found ‘‘such similarity’’ between the
requested additional source material
and already-listed source materials, the
contemplated rule would direct the
Agency to add the requested source
material to the SDA-eligible list in the
SDA naming convention.
The petition explains that the
outcome sought (in the event EPA
granted a request under the procedure
that petitioners now ask EPA to
establish by section 8 rule) would be to
authorize manufacturers of various
chemical substances derived from the
additional source material to ‘‘rely on
the appropriate SDA alkyl range identity
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for purposes of Inventory listing and
TSCA nomenclature.’’ The petition
elsewhere clarifies what it means by
‘‘rely on,’’ when it notes that without
‘‘access to the alkyl range names,’’ the
manufacturers would need to submit
premanufacture notifications to EPA.
The petition makes clear that the
intended effect of enlarging the
definitions of existing chemical
substance listings in this fashion would
be to limit the circumstances in which
manufacturers would be deemed to be
manufacturing a new chemical
substance, and thus be subject to the
requirements of TSCA section
5(a)(1)(A).
B. What support does the petitioner
offer?
While the petition includes no
specific request to add a particular
natural fat or oil to the ‘‘SDA-eligible’’
list, the bulk of the petition is concerned
with giving, by way of background, the
petitioners’ general reasons to believe
that such requests would have merit if
submitted to EPA. The petition asserts,
in general terms, that chemical
substances derived from other natural
sources ‘‘may be chemically
indistinguishable from,’’ are ‘‘nearly
identical’’ to, or are ‘‘substantially
similar,’’ to chemical substances
synthesized from one of the 35 listed
natural sources. The petition also asserts
that while such substances address
‘‘critical needs for sustainability,’’ there
is a ‘‘key hindrance’’ to their
commercialization. Specifically, the
‘‘key hindrance’’ is that certain of these
chemical substances (or derivatives
thereof) would be subject to EPA’s premanufacture review under section 5 of
TSCA, while assertedly similar
chemical substances derived from one
of the 35 listed natural sources would be
existing chemical substances and
therefore would not need to undergo
such review. The petition claims that
continuing to treat chemical substances
derived from ‘‘these novel sources,’’ as
new chemical substances ‘‘creates a
disincentive for customers to switch
from traditional oils.’’
The specific action requested in the
petition is that EPA ‘‘initiate a
rulemaking under TSCA section 8 that
would establish a process to amend the
list of natural sources of oil and fat [the
SDA-eligible list] . . . by considering
the chemical equivalency of additional
natural sources.’’ The petition supplies
two reasons for the specific action
requested. First, that EPA ‘‘should allow
for new sources to be added,’’ to the list
and second, that issuing such a
regulatory proposal would not require a
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
‘‘significant expenditure of time and
resources.’’
IV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21
Petition
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. What is EPA’s response?
After careful consideration, EPA
denied the petitioner’s request to
initiate a TSCA section 8 rulemaking.
EPA denied the request because the
petition neither justified the petitioners’
claim (that the initiation of a TSCA
section 8 rulemaking proceeding is
necessary) nor explained how
petitioners believe EPA’s actual
rulemaking authorities under section 8
could be used to accomplish the
objectives that petitioners are seeking.
To the extent the petition was actually
seeking an Agency order under TSCA
section 8(b) (e.g., effectuating the
alteration of certain entries on the TSCA
Inventory), EPA notes that a request for
an order under TSCA section 8(b) is not
cognizable in a petition that is
submitted pursuant to TSCA section 21
(15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1)). A copy of the
Agency’s response, which consists of a
letter to the petitioner, is available in
the docket for this TSCA section 21
petition.
B. What is EPA’s reason for this
response?
1. Background on TSCA Section 8
Rules. TSCA section 8 provides express
rulemaking authority in three distinct
subsections: First, TSCA section 8(a) (15
U.S.C. 2607(a)) authorizes EPA to
promulgate rules under which current
or prospective manufacturers (including
importers) and processors of chemical
substances must maintain records and
submit such information as the EPA
Administrator may reasonably require.
TSCA section 8(a) also authorizes EPA
to promulgate rules under which
current or prospective manufacturers
and processors of mixtures must
maintain records and submit
information to the extent the EPA
Administrator determines the
maintenance of records or submission of
reports, or both, is necessary for the
effective enforcement of TSCA. Second,
TSCA section 8(c) (15 U.S.C. 2607(c))
authorizes EPA to promulgate rules that
‘‘determine’’ certain obligations to
‘‘maintain records of significant adverse
reactions to health or the environment.’’
Third, TSCA section 8(d) (15 U.S.C.
2607(d) authorizes rules for the
submission to the Administrator of lists
and copies of certain health and safety
studies. If the Agency denies a petition
submitted under TSCA section 21,
judicial review in the case of a petition
to initiate a proceeding for the issuance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:16 Jan 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
of a rule under TSCA section 8 requires
the petitioner to show by a
‘‘preponderance of the evidence that
. . . there is a reasonable basis to
conclude that the issuance of such a
rule . . . is necessary to protect health
or the environment against an
unreasonable risk of injury’’ (15 U.S.C.
2620(b)(4)(B)).
2. Background on the TSCA
Inventory. EPA’s authority to manage
the TSCA Inventory is pursuant to
TSCA section 8(b) (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)),
which directs the Agency to ‘‘compile,
keep current, and publish a list of each
chemical substance which is
manufactured or processed in the
United States.’’ Although EPA was
directed to promulgate a data collection
rule under TSCA section 8(a), ‘‘not later
than 180 days after January 1, 1977,’’ to
gather data ‘‘[f]or purposes of the
compilation of the list . . . under
subsection (b),’’ rules under TSCA
section 8(a) do not themselves effectuate
changes to the contents of the TSCA
Inventory. The initial compilation
process under TSCA section 8(b) was
completed long ago, with the Agency
noting in 1980 that henceforth
‘‘premanufacture notification
requirements of section 5 will apply to
all chemical substances manufactured
and imported in bulk or as part of a
mixture which has not been reported for
the Inventory.’’ 45 FR 50544 (July 29,
1980). Today, it remains EPA’s practice
to add entries to the TSCA Inventory on
the basis of notices of commencement
that are submitted ‘‘in accordance with
[TSCA] section 5.’’ See 15 U.S.C.
2607(b) and 40 CFR 720.102. From time
to time, EPA has also made corrections
to the TSCA Inventory. EPA has
consistently done so without
rulemaking. See 66 FR 34193, 34197
(June 27, 2001) (making clear that the
action in question was a ‘‘correction to
TSCA Inventory nomenclature,’’ and
‘‘not a rule.’’) and 75 FR 8266, 8272
(February 24, 2010) (again, ‘‘not a rule’’)
3. Necessity of Establishing a Regulatory
Procedure for Requesting and
Effectuating Changes to SDA Naming
Conventions
The petition asserts that a new
regulatory procedure is necessary, to
govern public requests for changes to
the SDA naming convention and EPA
response to those requests. The reason
given for why such a procedure is
necessary is that the SDA naming
convention ‘‘should allow for new
sources to be added.’’ Yet the petition
supplies no evidence of any current
impediment to any party in making
requests along these lines, or to EPA in
considering such requests, which would
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1367
be addressed if EPA were to promulgate
a regulatory procedure governing the
manner and method of making and
responding to such requests. Part of the
difficulty in following the petition’s
reasoning stems from the petition’s
conflation of two distinct issues: (1)
Whether a chemical substance derived
from an unlisted natural fat or oil can
currently be treated as identical to
another substance that is derived
consistent with the SDA naming
convention; and (2) whether alteration
of the SDA naming convention, to
encompass new sources of fats and oils,
is currently ‘‘allowed.’’
The petition correctly recognizes the
current limitations of certain TSCA
Inventory listings (i.e., those listings that
incorporate particular assumptions
about the natural sources of fats or oils
from which the listed substance is
derived, because they were named
according to the SDA naming
convention). Manufacturers of a new
chemical substance that clearly falls
outside the definitional scope of an
existing chemical substance are not
allowed to determine that the new
chemical substance is nonetheless
sufficiently ‘‘similar’’ to the existing
chemical substance, and simply deem
the new chemical substance to be an
existing substance on the basis of that
similarity. Nor would EPA grant such a
request, which would be inconsistent
with TSCA section 3(9): A new
chemical substance is ‘‘any chemical
substance which is not included in the
chemical substance list compiled and
published under [TSCA section 8(b)].’’
But the petition presumes, without
justification, that until a certain
preliminary EPA rulemaking has been
completed, those same manufacturers
lack a meaningful opportunity to
request that EPA enlarge the definitional
scope of one or more existing chemical
substances named according to the SDA
naming convention. The petition’s
failure to explain that a particular
impediment exists (either to
manufacturers in making these sorts of
requests or to EPA in adjudicating them)
is sufficient grounds to deny the request
to commence a rulemaking proceeding
intended to remove the unspecified
impediment.
Thus, the petition does not
demonstrate that the requested rule is
necessary in any respect, much less that
it is necessary to protect health or the
environment against an unreasonable
risk of injury.
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
1368
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Capacity of a Rule Under TSCA 8(a),
8(c), or 8(d) To Alter the Identification
of New and Existing Chemical
Substances Under the SDA Naming
Convention
Even if the petition had established
that a rulemaking proceeding is
necessary, the petition would still be
deficient. While the petition states in
very general terms that it is seeking a
change to the legal status quo (i.e.,
establish some regulatory process ‘‘to
allow’’ certain chemical substances
derived from new sources of natural fats
and oils to be nonetheless deemed
existing chemicals), the petition still
fails to explain how a rule under TSCA
section 8 could be crafted to accomplish
that objective. Rules under 8(c) and 8(d)
only cover reporting and retention of
certain health and safety related
documents; they are inapposite to the
stated objective. Nor does the petition
suggest any plan to make specific use of
EPA’s rulemaking authorities under
sections 8(c) or 8(d). Rules under
section 8(a) are somewhat broader in
potential scope, but once again, the
rulemaking authority at issue here is
inapposite; it is to require current or
prospective manufacturers or processors
of a chemical substance to supply
existing information relating to that
chemical substance. While, historically,
information collected using a TSCA
section 8(a) rule provided the factual
basis for EPA’s assembly of the TSCA
Inventory, TSCA section 8(a) does not
itself govern or authorize EPA’s
management of the TSCA Inventory.
That is instead authorized under TSCA
section 8(b). Yet TSCA section 8(b) does
not contain an express grant of
rulemaking authority, and EPA has
never used rulemaking to establish or
make additions or changes to the
Inventory. For its part, the petition
merely makes a blanket assertion that
‘‘EPA is authorized under TSCA section
8 to commence a rulemaking.’’
Especially since the text of TSCA
section 8(b) does not itself refer to
rulemaking authority, and the
petitioners are seeking a change in legal
requirements to ‘‘allow for new sources
to be added,’’ the absence of any
particular explanation in the petition
describing how petitioners believe EPA
could issue an appropriate rule (under
any subsection of TSCA section 8) is a
critical deficiency of the petition.
Finally, to the extent that petitioners are
actually seeking an order under TSCA
section 8(b), EPA notes that such
petitions are not cognizable under TSCA
section 8, 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:16 Jan 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
V. References
The following is a listing of the
documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket
includes these documents and other
information considered by EPA,
including documents that are referenced
within the documents that are included
in the docket, even if the referenced
document is not physically located in
the docket. For assistance in locating
these other documents, please consult
the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. Biobased and Renewable Products
Advocacy Group. Petition to
Promulgate Rule Pursuant to
Section 8 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2620,
Concerning Equivalency
Determinations for Class 2
Substances. October 5, 2015.
2. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Toxic
Substances Control Act Pl 94–469,
Candidate List of Chemical
Substances, Addendum III:
Chemical Substances of Unknown
or Variable Composition, Complex
Reaction Products and Biological
Materials. Washington, DC, March
1978.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I
Environmental protection, Natural
sources of oil and fat, SDA
nomenclature system, TSCA Inventory.
Dated: December 31, 2015.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016–00435 Filed 1–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[4500030115]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 17
Petitions
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Petition findings and initiation
of status reviews.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90day findings on various petitions to list,
reclassify, or delist fish, wildlife, or
plants under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on
our review, we find that six petitions do
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions may be
warranted, and we are not initiating
status reviews in response to these
petitions. We refer to these as ‘‘notsubstantial’’ petition findings. We also
find that 11 petitions present substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned actions
may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this document, we
announce that we plan to initiate a
review of the status of these species to
determine if the petitioned actions are
warranted. To ensure that these status
reviews are comprehensive, we are
requesting scientific and commercial
data and other information regarding
these species. Based on the status
reviews, we will issue 12-month
findings on the petitions, which will
address whether the petitioned action is
warranted, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: When we conduct status
reviews, we will consider all
information that we have received. To
ensure that we will have adequate time
to consider submitted information
during the status reviews, we request
that we receive information no later
than March 14, 2016. Information
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES) should be received by 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
ADDRESSES: Not-substantial petition
findings: The not-substantial petition
findings announced in this document
are available on https://
www.regulations.gov under the
appropriate docket number (see Table 2
in this section), or on the Service’s Web
site at ecos.fws.gov. Supporting
information in preparing these findings
is available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours by contacting the appropriate
person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Status reviews: You may submit
information on species for which a
status review is being initiated by one
of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter the appropriate docket number
(see Table 1, below). You may submit
information by clicking on ‘‘Comment
Now!’’ If your information will fit in the
provided comment box, please use this
feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as
it is most compatible with our
information review procedures. If you
attach your information as a separate
document, our preferred file format is
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1365-1368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00435]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0823; FRL-9940-61]
TSCA Inventory Equivalency Determinations for Certain Class 2
Substances; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency response.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of EPA's response to
a petition it received under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The TSCA section 21 petition was received from the Biobased and
Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) on October 7, 2015. The
petitioner requested EPA to promulgate a rule pursuant to TSCA section
8 that would ``establish a process to amend the list of natural sources
of oil and fat in the `Soap and Detergent Association' (SDA)
nomenclature system by considering the chemical equivalency of
additional natural sources.'' After careful consideration, EPA denied
the TSCA section 21 petition for the reasons discussed in this
document.
DATES: EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed
December 31, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical information contact: Kent Anapolle, Chemistry,
Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division (7406M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8578; email address: anapolle.kent@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who are or may manufacture or
import biobased chemicals similar to fats and oils described by the SDA
nomenclature system. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.
B. How can I access information about this petition?
The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0823, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. TSCA Section 21
A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition?
Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA
to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA
section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the
facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action
requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days
of its
[[Page 1366]]
filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly commence
an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must
publish its reasons for the denial in the Federal Register. A
petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to
compel initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days
of either a denial or the expiration of the 90-day period.
B. What criteria apply to a decision on a TSCA section 21 petition?
Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition ``set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary'' to issue the
rule or order requested, 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21
implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the
requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a
court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in
the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA
section 21 petition, 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA has
relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under
which actions have been requested to evaluate this TSCA section 21
petition.
III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition
A. What action was requested?
On October 7, 2015, EPA received a petition from the Biobased and
Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) requesting the Agency to
address the ``disproportionate regulatory burden'' imposed on companies
in the bio-based chemical sector, noting that a ``limitation of source
categories in the SDA system results in inequitable regulatory
treatment for chemical substances that are functionally the same and
chemically nearly identical.'' Specifically, the petition asks EPA to
commence a rulemaking process under TSCA section 8, the objective of
which would be to ``establish a procedure by which EPA can add new
sources of fats and oils to the SDA-eligible list.''
The petition states that the SDA-eligible list is part of a broader
``nomenclature system developed by SDA when the TSCA Inventory was
initially compiled.'' The term ``SDA-eligible list'' refers to a list
found in the 1978 Candidate List of Chemical Substances on the TSCA
Inventory, in ``Addendum III: Chemical Substances of Unknown or
Variable Composition, Complex Reaction Products and Biological
Materials'' (Ref. 2). In Section I of that document, EPA described a
chemical substance naming convention, attributed to the SDA that was
available for ``identifying and reporting certain multicomponent Class
2 chemical substances derived from natural fats and oils and synthetic
long-chain alkyl substitutes.'' The identification and reporting in
question was the identification and reporting of chemical manufacture
and processing to EPA, pursuant to a past reporting obligation under
TSCA section 8(a), to inform EPA's original compilation of the TSCA
Inventory under TSCA section 8(b). The document listed 35 ``natural
fats and oils,'' as potential alkyl group sources. It provided that the
particular chemical substances named under the SDA convention would not
be identified ``in terms of source.'' However, chemical substances with
alkyl groups derived from unlisted natural sources were beyond the
scope of the naming convention. Thus, each time that a particular
chemical substance was identified, reported, and entered into EPA's
original compilation of the TSCA Inventory based on the SDA naming
convention, the definition of that particular substance inherited a
certain characterization from the SDA naming convention: Specifically,
that the chemical substance in question was derived either from one or
more of the 35 listed natural fats and oils or from synthetic long-
chain alkyl substitutes.
The procedure that the petition asks EPA to establish by a TSCA
section 8 rule is a procedure for submitting further requests to EPA.
Specifically, it would be a regulation governing how the public would
submit requests to amend the SDA-eligible list and how EPA would
respond to such requests. The procedure would detail how EPA would
review a request to include an additional source material of a fat or
oil substance, ``following a premanufacture notice or other appropriate
notification to EPA,'' in order to determine if it is ``sufficiently
similar'' to sources of fat or oil substances with the same alkyl range
that are already built into the SDA naming convention. After review, if
EPA found ``such similarity'' between the requested additional source
material and already-listed source materials, the contemplated rule
would direct the Agency to add the requested source material to the
SDA-eligible list in the SDA naming convention.
The petition explains that the outcome sought (in the event EPA
granted a request under the procedure that petitioners now ask EPA to
establish by section 8 rule) would be to authorize manufacturers of
various chemical substances derived from the additional source material
to ``rely on the appropriate SDA alkyl range identity for purposes of
Inventory listing and TSCA nomenclature.'' The petition elsewhere
clarifies what it means by ``rely on,'' when it notes that without
``access to the alkyl range names,'' the manufacturers would need to
submit premanufacture notifications to EPA. The petition makes clear
that the intended effect of enlarging the definitions of existing
chemical substance listings in this fashion would be to limit the
circumstances in which manufacturers would be deemed to be
manufacturing a new chemical substance, and thus be subject to the
requirements of TSCA section 5(a)(1)(A).
B. What support does the petitioner offer?
While the petition includes no specific request to add a particular
natural fat or oil to the ``SDA-eligible'' list, the bulk of the
petition is concerned with giving, by way of background, the
petitioners' general reasons to believe that such requests would have
merit if submitted to EPA. The petition asserts, in general terms, that
chemical substances derived from other natural sources ``may be
chemically indistinguishable from,'' are ``nearly identical'' to, or
are ``substantially similar,'' to chemical substances synthesized from
one of the 35 listed natural sources. The petition also asserts that
while such substances address ``critical needs for sustainability,''
there is a ``key hindrance'' to their commercialization. Specifically,
the ``key hindrance'' is that certain of these chemical substances (or
derivatives thereof) would be subject to EPA's pre-manufacture review
under section 5 of TSCA, while assertedly similar chemical substances
derived from one of the 35 listed natural sources would be existing
chemical substances and therefore would not need to undergo such
review. The petition claims that continuing to treat chemical
substances derived from ``these novel sources,'' as new chemical
substances ``creates a disincentive for customers to switch from
traditional oils.''
The specific action requested in the petition is that EPA
``initiate a rulemaking under TSCA section 8 that would establish a
process to amend the list of natural sources of oil and fat [the SDA-
eligible list] . . . by considering the chemical equivalency of
additional natural sources.'' The petition supplies two reasons for the
specific action requested. First, that EPA ``should allow for new
sources to be added,'' to the list and second, that issuing such a
regulatory proposal would not require a
[[Page 1367]]
``significant expenditure of time and resources.''
IV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition
A. What is EPA's response?
After careful consideration, EPA denied the petitioner's request to
initiate a TSCA section 8 rulemaking. EPA denied the request because
the petition neither justified the petitioners' claim (that the
initiation of a TSCA section 8 rulemaking proceeding is necessary) nor
explained how petitioners believe EPA's actual rulemaking authorities
under section 8 could be used to accomplish the objectives that
petitioners are seeking. To the extent the petition was actually
seeking an Agency order under TSCA section 8(b) (e.g., effectuating the
alteration of certain entries on the TSCA Inventory), EPA notes that a
request for an order under TSCA section 8(b) is not cognizable in a
petition that is submitted pursuant to TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C.
2620(b)(1)). A copy of the Agency's response, which consists of a
letter to the petitioner, is available in the docket for this TSCA
section 21 petition.
B. What is EPA's reason for this response?
1. Background on TSCA Section 8 Rules. TSCA section 8 provides
express rulemaking authority in three distinct subsections: First, TSCA
section 8(a) (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)) authorizes EPA to promulgate rules
under which current or prospective manufacturers (including importers)
and processors of chemical substances must maintain records and submit
such information as the EPA Administrator may reasonably require. TSCA
section 8(a) also authorizes EPA to promulgate rules under which
current or prospective manufacturers and processors of mixtures must
maintain records and submit information to the extent the EPA
Administrator determines the maintenance of records or submission of
reports, or both, is necessary for the effective enforcement of TSCA.
Second, TSCA section 8(c) (15 U.S.C. 2607(c)) authorizes EPA to
promulgate rules that ``determine'' certain obligations to ``maintain
records of significant adverse reactions to health or the
environment.'' Third, TSCA section 8(d) (15 U.S.C. 2607(d) authorizes
rules for the submission to the Administrator of lists and copies of
certain health and safety studies. If the Agency denies a petition
submitted under TSCA section 21, judicial review in the case of a
petition to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rule under TSCA
section 8 requires the petitioner to show by a ``preponderance of the
evidence that . . . there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the
issuance of such a rule . . . is necessary to protect health or the
environment against an unreasonable risk of injury'' (15 U.S.C.
2620(b)(4)(B)).
2. Background on the TSCA Inventory. EPA's authority to manage the
TSCA Inventory is pursuant to TSCA section 8(b) (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)),
which directs the Agency to ``compile, keep current, and publish a list
of each chemical substance which is manufactured or processed in the
United States.'' Although EPA was directed to promulgate a data
collection rule under TSCA section 8(a), ``not later than 180 days
after January 1, 1977,'' to gather data ``[f]or purposes of the
compilation of the list . . . under subsection (b),'' rules under TSCA
section 8(a) do not themselves effectuate changes to the contents of
the TSCA Inventory. The initial compilation process under TSCA section
8(b) was completed long ago, with the Agency noting in 1980 that
henceforth ``premanufacture notification requirements of section 5 will
apply to all chemical substances manufactured and imported in bulk or
as part of a mixture which has not been reported for the Inventory.''
45 FR 50544 (July 29, 1980). Today, it remains EPA's practice to add
entries to the TSCA Inventory on the basis of notices of commencement
that are submitted ``in accordance with [TSCA] section 5.'' See 15
U.S.C. 2607(b) and 40 CFR 720.102. From time to time, EPA has also made
corrections to the TSCA Inventory. EPA has consistently done so without
rulemaking. See 66 FR 34193, 34197 (June 27, 2001) (making clear that
the action in question was a ``correction to TSCA Inventory
nomenclature,'' and ``not a rule.'') and 75 FR 8266, 8272 (February 24,
2010) (again, ``not a rule'')
3. Necessity of Establishing a Regulatory Procedure for Requesting and
Effectuating Changes to SDA Naming Conventions
The petition asserts that a new regulatory procedure is necessary,
to govern public requests for changes to the SDA naming convention and
EPA response to those requests. The reason given for why such a
procedure is necessary is that the SDA naming convention ``should allow
for new sources to be added.'' Yet the petition supplies no evidence of
any current impediment to any party in making requests along these
lines, or to EPA in considering such requests, which would be addressed
if EPA were to promulgate a regulatory procedure governing the manner
and method of making and responding to such requests. Part of the
difficulty in following the petition's reasoning stems from the
petition's conflation of two distinct issues: (1) Whether a chemical
substance derived from an unlisted natural fat or oil can currently be
treated as identical to another substance that is derived consistent
with the SDA naming convention; and (2) whether alteration of the SDA
naming convention, to encompass new sources of fats and oils, is
currently ``allowed.''
The petition correctly recognizes the current limitations of
certain TSCA Inventory listings (i.e., those listings that incorporate
particular assumptions about the natural sources of fats or oils from
which the listed substance is derived, because they were named
according to the SDA naming convention). Manufacturers of a new
chemical substance that clearly falls outside the definitional scope of
an existing chemical substance are not allowed to determine that the
new chemical substance is nonetheless sufficiently ``similar'' to the
existing chemical substance, and simply deem the new chemical substance
to be an existing substance on the basis of that similarity. Nor would
EPA grant such a request, which would be inconsistent with TSCA section
3(9): A new chemical substance is ``any chemical substance which is not
included in the chemical substance list compiled and published under
[TSCA section 8(b)].''
But the petition presumes, without justification, that until a
certain preliminary EPA rulemaking has been completed, those same
manufacturers lack a meaningful opportunity to request that EPA enlarge
the definitional scope of one or more existing chemical substances
named according to the SDA naming convention. The petition's failure to
explain that a particular impediment exists (either to manufacturers in
making these sorts of requests or to EPA in adjudicating them) is
sufficient grounds to deny the request to commence a rulemaking
proceeding intended to remove the unspecified impediment.
Thus, the petition does not demonstrate that the requested rule is
necessary in any respect, much less that it is necessary to protect
health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury.
[[Page 1368]]
4. Capacity of a Rule Under TSCA 8(a), 8(c), or 8(d) To Alter the
Identification of New and Existing Chemical Substances Under the SDA
Naming Convention
Even if the petition had established that a rulemaking proceeding
is necessary, the petition would still be deficient. While the petition
states in very general terms that it is seeking a change to the legal
status quo (i.e., establish some regulatory process ``to allow''
certain chemical substances derived from new sources of natural fats
and oils to be nonetheless deemed existing chemicals), the petition
still fails to explain how a rule under TSCA section 8 could be crafted
to accomplish that objective. Rules under 8(c) and 8(d) only cover
reporting and retention of certain health and safety related documents;
they are inapposite to the stated objective. Nor does the petition
suggest any plan to make specific use of EPA's rulemaking authorities
under sections 8(c) or 8(d). Rules under section 8(a) are somewhat
broader in potential scope, but once again, the rulemaking authority at
issue here is inapposite; it is to require current or prospective
manufacturers or processors of a chemical substance to supply existing
information relating to that chemical substance. While, historically,
information collected using a TSCA section 8(a) rule provided the
factual basis for EPA's assembly of the TSCA Inventory, TSCA section
8(a) does not itself govern or authorize EPA's management of the TSCA
Inventory. That is instead authorized under TSCA section 8(b). Yet TSCA
section 8(b) does not contain an express grant of rulemaking authority,
and EPA has never used rulemaking to establish or make additions or
changes to the Inventory. For its part, the petition merely makes a
blanket assertion that ``EPA is authorized under TSCA section 8 to
commence a rulemaking.'' Especially since the text of TSCA section 8(b)
does not itself refer to rulemaking authority, and the petitioners are
seeking a change in legal requirements to ``allow for new sources to be
added,'' the absence of any particular explanation in the petition
describing how petitioners believe EPA could issue an appropriate rule
(under any subsection of TSCA section 8) is a critical deficiency of
the petition. Finally, to the extent that petitioners are actually
seeking an order under TSCA section 8(b), EPA notes that such petitions
are not cognizable under TSCA section 8, 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1).
V. References
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group. Petition to
Promulgate Rule Pursuant to Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act, 15 U.S.C. 2620, Concerning Equivalency Determinations for Class 2
Substances. October 5, 2015.
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Substances
Control Act Pl 94-469, Candidate List of Chemical Substances, Addendum
III: Chemical Substances of Unknown or Variable Composition, Complex
Reaction Products and Biological Materials. Washington, DC, March 1978.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I
Environmental protection, Natural sources of oil and fat, SDA
nomenclature system, TSCA Inventory.
Dated: December 31, 2015.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2016-00435 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
