37176 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2B TO APPENDIX A OF SUBPART A—DATA ELEMENTS FOR REPORTING EMISSIONS FROM POINT, NONPOINT, 

ONROAD MOBILE AND NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES, WHERE REQUIRED BY 40 CFR 51.30—Continued 

Data elements Point Nonpoint Onroad Nonroad 

(18) Percent Control Approach Penetration (where applicable) ..................................... .................... Y .................... ....................

■ 12. Amend § 51.122 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (f). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 51.122 Emissions reporting 

requirements for SIP revisions relating to 

budgets for NOX emissions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Each revision must provide for 

periodic reporting by the state of NOX

emissions data to demonstrate whether 

the state’s emissions are consistent with 

the projections contained in its 

approved SIP submission. The data 

availability requirements in § 51.116 

must be followed for all data submitted 

to meet the requirements of paragraph 

(c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(f) Reporting schedules. Data 

collection is to begin during the ozone 

season 1 year prior to the state’s NOX

SIP Call compliance date. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14628 Filed 6–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0362; FRL–9815–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Diego Air 

Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the San Diego Air Pollution 

Control District (SDAPCD) portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This revision concerns 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from architectural coatings. 

We are proposing to approve a local rule 

to regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by July 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0362, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rule: San Diego APCD Rule 67.0 

Architectural Coatings. In the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving this local 

rule in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe this 

SIP revision is not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: May 6, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2013–14514 Filed 6–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–0110; FRL–9819–1] 

RIN 2025–AA34 

Addition of Nonylphenol Category; 

Community Right-to-Know Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to add a 

nonylphenol category 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. 

EPA is proposing to add this chemical 

category to the EPCRA section 313 list 

pursuant to its authority to add 

chemicals and chemical categories 

because EPA believes this category 

meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37177 

toxicity criterion. Based on a review of 

the available production and use 

information, the members of the 

nonylphenol category are 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 August 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

TRI–2012–0110, 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– 

0110. 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 (select menu 

option 3) or (703) 412–9810 in Virginia 

and Alaska or toll free, TDD (800) 553– 

7672, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ 

contacts/infocenter/. 

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 nonylphenol. 

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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37178 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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. 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 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 nonylphenol? 

Nonylphenol is an organic chemical 

whose main use is in the manufacture 

of nonylphenol ethoxylates, which are 

nonionic surfactants used in a wide 

variety of industrial applications and 

consumer products (Reference (Ref.) 1). 

Nonylphenol is persistent in the aquatic 

environment, moderately 

bioaccumulative, and extremely toxic to 

aquatic organisms (Ref. 1). Nonylphenol 

has also been detected in human breast 

milk, blood, and urine (Ref. 1). 

B. What is the chemical structure and 

identification of nonylphenol? 

The chemical structure of 

nonylphenol consists of a phenol ring 

(benzene with a hydroxyl (OH) group) 

with a nonyl group (a nine carbon alkyl 

chain) attached to the phenol ring. The 

nonyl group can either be a branched or 

linear chain located at various positions 

on the phenol ring (primarily the ortho 

(2) and para (4) positions). Nonylphenol 

is not a single chemical structure. 

Rather it is a complex mixture of highly 

branched nonylphenols, mostly monosubstituted in the para position (i.e., the 

4 position), with small amounts of 

ortho- and di-substituted nonylphenols. 

In addition, nonylphenol can include 

small amounts of branched 8 carbon and 

10 carbon alkyl groups (Ref. 2). 

As noted in EPA’s Action Plan for 

nonylphenol (Ref. 1), Chemical Abstract 

Service Registry Numbers (CASRNs) 

that are routinely used for nonylphenols 

may not accurately reflect the identity of 

those substances. Manufacturers may 

incorrectly use a linear identity when 

actually referring to branched 

nonylphenol. CASRN 84852–15–3 

corresponds to the most widely 

produced nonylphenol, branched 4- 

nonylphenol. Much of the literature 

refers to the linear (or normal) 

nonylphenol (CASRN 25154–52–3) and 

there are also references to a specific 

linear para isomer 4-n-nonylphenol 

(CASRN 104–40–5), which is covered 

within the broader CASRN 25154–52–3. 

Many, but not all, references may be 

inaccurate about the identity of the 

substances listed as nonylphenol due to 

inaccurate identities in the source 

material. A supplier of nonylphenol 

may use CASRN 104–40–5, signifying 

the linear 4-n-nonylphenol, while 

actually supplying branched 4- 

nonylphenol (CASRN 84852–15–3). The 

name 4-nonylphenol is listed as a 

synonym under CASRN 104–40–5, 

which may lead to such confusion. 

C. How is EPA proposing to list 

nonylphenol on the TRI? 

Because there is no one CASRN that 

adequately captures what is referred to 

as nonylphenol and because of the 

apparent confusion that has resulted 

from the use of multiple CASRNs, EPA 

is proposing to add nonylphenol as a 

category defined by a structure. EPA is 

proposing to define the nonylphenol 

category using the structure and text 

presented below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37179 

This category definition covers the 

chemicals that are included in CASRNs 

84852–15–3 as well as those 4 position 

isomers covered by CASRN 25154–52– 

3. Any nonylphenol that meets the 

above category definition would be 

reportable regardless of its assigned 

CASRN. 

IV. What Is EPA’s evaluation of the 

environmental toxicity of nonylphenol? 

Nonylphenol is toxic to aquatic 

organisms and has been found in 

ambient waters. Because of 

nonylphenol’s toxicity, chemical 

properties, and widespread use as a 

chemical intermediate, concerns have 

been raised over the potential risks to 

aquatic organisms from exposure to 

nonylphenol. All of the hazard 

information presented here has been 

adapted from EPA’s 2005 Water Quality 

Criteria document for nonylphenol, 

which was previously peer reviewed 

(Ref. 3). 

A. Acute Toxicity to Aquatic Animals 

1. Freshwater Species. The acute 

toxicity values of nonylphenol to 

freshwater organisms are shown in 

Table 1. Acute toxicities have been 

determined for more than 18 species 

representing over 15 genera. Toxicity 

values ranged from 21 micrograms per 

liter (mg/L) for a detritivorous amphipod 

(Hyalella aztecta) to 774 mg/L for an 

algal grazing snail (Physella virgata) 

(Ref. 4). No relationships were found 

between nonylphenol toxicity and water 

hardness or pH. 

An amphipod (Hyalella azteca) was 

the most sensitive species tested with 

LC50 values (i.e., the concentration that 

is lethal to 50% of test organisms) 

ranging from 21 to 150 mg/L (Refs. 4 and 

5). Reported EC50 values (i.e., the 

concentration that is effective in 

producing a sublethal response in 50% 

of test organisms) for the water flea 

(Daphnia magna) ranged from 104 to 

190 mg/L in renewal and static tests 

respectively (Refs. 4 and 6). The overall 

mean acute value for Daphnia magna 

was 141 mg/L. 

Species least sensitive to nonylphenol 

were also invertebrates. An annelid 

worm (Lumbriculus variegatus) had an 

LC50 of 342 mg/L, while the acute 

endpoint for a dragonfly nymph 

(Ophiogomphus sp.) was an LC50 of 596 

mg/L (Ref. 4). The least sensitive species 

tested was a snail (Physella virgata) with 

an LC50 of 774 mg/L. Eleven species of 

fish were tested and found to be in the 

mid-range of sensitivity to nonylphenol 

with acute values ranging from 110 to 

360 mg/L. 

TABLE 1—ACUTE TOXICITY OF NONYLPHENOL TO FRESHWATER ORGANISMS

Species Common name Method a pH 

LC50 or 

EC50

(μg/L) 

Reference 

Hyalella azteca (juvenile, 2 mm total length) ................ Amphipod .......................... F, M ......... 7.80 21 Ref. 4. 

Daphnia magna (< 24 hr old) ........................................ Water Flea ......................... R, M ......... 7.87 104 Ref. 4. 

Etheostoma rubrum (0.062g, 20.2 mm) ........................ Fountain Darter ................. S, U ......... 8.0–8.1 110 Ref. 7. 

Bufo boreas (0.012g, 9.6 mm) ...................................... Boreal Toad ....................... S, U ......... 7.9–8.0 120 Ref. 7. 

Pimephales promelas (25–35 days old) ....................... Fathead Minnow ................ F, M ......... 7.23 128 Ref. 8. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss (0.27 ± 0.07g) ........................... Rainbow Trout ................... S, U ......... 7.9 140 Ref. 9. 

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi (0.34 ± 0.08g) .............. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout .. S, U ......... 7.9 140 Ref. 9. 

Pimephales promelas (32 days old) .............................. Fathead Minnow ................ F, M ......... 7.29 140 Refs. 10 and 11. 

Hyalella azteca (juvenile, 2–3mm total length) ............. Amphipod .......................... F, M ......... 7.9–8.7 150 Ref. 5. 

Oncorhynchus clarki stomais (0.31 ± 0.17g) ................ Greenback Cutthroat Trout S, U ......... 7.5–7.6 150 Ref. 9. 

Chironomus tentans (2nd instar) ................................... Midge ................................. F, M ......... 8.0–8.4 160 Ref. 12. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss (0.48 ± 0.08g) ........................... Rainbow Trout ................... S, U ......... 7.5–7.9 160 Ref. 9. 

Oncorhynchus apache (0.38 ± 0.18g) ........................... Apache Trout ..................... S, U ......... 7.3–7.7 160 Ref. 9. 

Xyrauchen texanus (0.31 ± 0.04g) ................................ Razorback Sucker ............. S, U ......... 7.8–8.1 160 Ref. 9. 

Pimephales promelas (0.34 ± 0.24g) ............................ Fathead Minnow ................ S, U ......... 7.5–7.6 170 Ref. 9. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss (0.50 ± 0.21g) ........................... Rainbow Trout ................... S, U ......... 6.5–7.9 180 Ref. 9. 

Oncorhynchus apache (0.85 ± 0.49g) ........................... Apache Trout ..................... S, U ......... 7.8–7.9 180 Ref. 9. 

Daphnia magna (< 24 hr old) ........................................ Water Flea ......................... S, M ......... 8.25 190 Ref. 6. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss (0.67 ± 0.35g) ........................... Rainbow Trout ................... S, U ......... 7.8–7.9 190 Ref. 9. 

Xyrauchen texanus (0.32 ± 0.07g) ................................ Razorback Sucker ............. S, U ......... 7.9–8.0 190 Ref. 9. 

Etheostoma lepidum (0.133g, 22.6 mm) ....................... Greenthroat Darter ............ S, U ......... 8.0–8.2 190 Ref. 7. 

Lepomis macrochirus (juvenile) .................................... Bluegill ............................... F, M ......... 7.61 209 Ref. 4. 

Pimephales promelas (0.32 ± 0.16g) ............................ Fathead Minnow ................ S, U ......... 7.7–8.1 210 Ref. 9. 

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi (0.57 ± 0.23g) .............. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout .. S, U ......... 7.6–7.7 220 Ref. 9. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss (45 days old) ............................. Rainbow Trout ................... F, M ......... 6.72 221 Ref. 4. 

Poeciliopsis occidentalis (0.22g, 27.2 mm) ................... Gila Topminnow ................ S, U ......... 8.0 230 Ref. 7. 

Ptychocheilus lucius (0.32 ± 0.05g) .............................. Colorado Squawfish .......... S, U ......... 8.1–8.2 240 Ref. 9. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss (1.25 ± 0.57g) ........................... Rainbow Trout ................... S, U ......... 7.5–7.7 260 Ref. 9. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP20JN13.011</GPH>
37180 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—ACUTE TOXICITY OF NONYLPHENOL TO FRESHWATER ORGANISMS—Continued 

Species Common name Method a pH 

LC50 or 

EC50

(μg/L) 

Reference 

Oncorhynchus mykiss (1.09 ± 0.38g) ........................... Rainbow Trout ................... S, U ......... 7.7–7.9 270 Ref. 9. 

Gila elegans (0.29 ± 0.08g) ........................................... Bonytail Chub .................... S, U ......... 7.7–7.9 270 Ref. 9. 

Ptychocheilus lucius (0.34 ± 0.05g) .............................. Colorado Squawfish .......... S, U ......... 7.8–8.0 270 Ref. 9. 

Pimephales promelas (0.39 ± 0.14g) ............................ Fathead Minnow ................ S, U ......... 7.8–8.2 290 Ref. 9. 

Pimephales promelas (0.45 ± 0.35g) ............................ Fathead Minnow ................ S, U ......... 7.6–7.8 310 Ref. 9. 

Gila elegans (0.52 ± 0.09g) ........................................... Bonytail Chub .................... S, U ......... 7.4–7.6 310 Ref. 9. 

Pimephales promelas (0.40 ± 0.21g) ............................ Fathead Minnow ................ S, U ......... 7.5–7.9 330 Ref. 9. 

Lumbriculus variegatus (adult) ...................................... Annelid ............................... F, M ......... 6.75 342 Ref. 4. 

Pimephales promelas (0.56 ± 0.19g) ............................ Fathead Minnow ................ S, U ......... 7.8–8.1 360 Ref. 9. 

Ophiogomphus sp. (nymph) .......................................... Dragonfly ........................... F, M ......... 8.06 596 Ref. 4. 

Physella virgata (adult) .................................................. Snail ................................... F, M ......... 7.89 774 Ref. 4. 

aS = Static; R = Renewal; F = Flow-through; M = Measured; U = Unmeasured. 

2. Saltwater Species. The acute 

toxicity values of nonylphenol to 

saltwater organisms are shown in Table 

2. Acute toxicities have been 

determined for 11 species within 11 

genera. Acute toxicity values ranged 

from 17 mg/L for the winter flounder 

(Pleuronectes americanus) (Ref. 13), to 

310 mg/L for the sheepshead minnow 

(Cyprinodon variegatus) (Ref. 14). 

A number of benthic invertebrates 

have been investigated including a 

deposit-feeding clam (Mulinia lateralis) 

with an LC50 of 38 mg/L (Ref. 13), a 

copepod (Acartia tonsa) with an LC50 of 

190 mg/L (Ref. 15), the American lobster 

(Homarus americanus) with an LC50 of 

71 mg/L (Ref. 13), the mud crab 

(Dyspanopeus sayii) with an LC50

greater than 195 mg/L (Ref. 13), and two 

amphipods (Leptocheirus plumulosus) 

with an LC50 of 62 mg/L (Ref. 13) and 

(Eohaustorius estuarius) with an LC50 of 

138 mg/L (Ref. 16). 

TABLE 2—ACUTE TOXICITY OF NONYLPHENOL TO SALTWATER AQUATIC ORGANISMS

Species Common name Method a pH 

LC50 or 

EC50

(μg/L) 

Reference 

Pleuronectes americanus (48 hrs old) .......................... Winter Flounder ................. S, M ......... 7.8–8.2 17 Ref. 13. 

Mulinia lateralis (embryo/larvae) ................................... Coot Clam ......................... S, U ......... 7.8–8.2 38 Ref. 13. 

Mysidopsis bahia b (< 24 hrs old) .................................. Mysid Shrimp ..................... F, M ......... 7.3–8.2 43 Ref. 17. 

Palaemonetes vulgaris (48 hrs old) .............................. Grass shrimp ..................... F, M ......... 7.8–8.2 59 Ref. 13. 

Americamysis bahia (< 24 hrs old) ............................... Mysid Shrimp ..................... F, M ......... 7.8–8.2 61 Ref. 13. 

Leptocheirus plumosus (adult) ...................................... Amphipod .......................... F, M ......... 7.8–8.2 62 Ref. 13. 

Menidia beryllina (juvenile) ............................................ Inland Silversides .............. F, M ......... 7.8–8.2 70 Ref. 13. 

Homarus americanus (1st stage larvae) ....................... American Lobster .............. R, U ......... 7.8–8.2 71 Ref. 13. 

Eohaustorius estuarius (adult) ...................................... Amphipod .......................... S, U ......... missing 138 Ref. 16. 

Cyprinodon variegatus (juvenile) ................................... Sheepshead Minnow ......... F, M ......... 7.8–8.2 142 Ref. 13. 

Acartia tonsa (10–12 days old) ..................................... Copepod ............................ S, U ......... missing 190 Ref. 15. 

Dyspanopeus sayii (4th and 5th stage larvae) ............. Mud Crab ........................... F, M ......... 7.8–8.2 > 195 Ref. 13. 

Cyprinodon variegatus (juvenile) ................................... Sheepshead Minnow ......... F, M ......... 7.4–8.1 310 Ref. 14. 

aS = Static; R = Renewal; F = Flow-through; M = Measured; U = Unmeasured. 

b Note that there has been a taxonomic name change, Mysidopsis bahia is now Americamysis bahia, the original names from the studies are 

used in this document to avoid any confusion. 

B. Chronic Toxicity to Aquatic Animals 

1. Freshwater Species. The chronic 

toxicity of nonylphenol to freshwater 

animals has been studied in two fish 

and three invertebrate species (Table 3). 

Of the invertebrates, a number of 

species of the cladoceran (water fleas) 

genus Daphnia have been extensively 

tested for chronic effects. Water flea 

(Ceriodaphnia dubia) neonates 

exhibited reproductive impairment 

when exposed to nonylphenol for 7 

days at 202 mg/L and survival was 

impaired at concentrations of 377 mg/L 

(Ref. 18). Four to 24-hour old water fleas 

(Daphnia magna) showed a reduction in 

the number of young per brood over 9 

days of exposure to concentrations as 

low as 48 mg/L. Based on this study, a 

chronic Lowest-Observed-EffectConcentration (LOEC) was calculated to 

be 23 mg/L for effects on brood 

production (Ref. 19). Water fleas 

(Daphnia magna) exposed to 71 and 130 

mg/L nonylphenol for 21 days exhibited 

declines in both growth and adult 

survival rates (Ref. 6). In a separate 21- 

day life cycle study of water fleas 

(Daphnia magna); growth, reproduction, 

and survival were all reduced at 

concentrations of 158 mg/L and above 

(Ref. 4). 

Less than 24-hour-old midge 

(Chironomus tentans) larvae exposed to 

concentrations of nonylphenol from 12 

to 200 mg/L and showed significant 

declines in larval survival over the first 

20 days of exposure. The chronic 

toxicity value for survival was 

calculated as 62 mg/L (Ref. 20). 

A 91-day life stage test was conducted 

with the embryos and fry of rainbow 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) at 

concentrations from 6 to 114 mg/L. 

Nearly all larvae were abnormal at the 

two highest exposure concentrations 

(≥ 53 mg/L) (Ref. 4). Survival was 

reduced at ≥ 23 mg/L and growth 

measured as both change in weight and 

length was even more sensitive with 

measured decreases at concentrations as 

low as 10 mg/L. The chronic toxicity 

effect value for growth (both weight and 

length) was calculated as 8 mg/L (Ref. 4). 

Embryos and larvae of the fathead 

minnow (Pimephales promelas) were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37181 

exposed in a 33-day early-life-stage test 

at nonylphenol concentrations ranging 

from 3 to 23 mg/L (Ref. 21). Hatching 

was delayed at the two highest 

concentrations (14 and 23 mg/L). 

Fathead minnow survival was reduced 

at concentrations of 14 mg/L and greater. 

The survival chronic toxicity effect 

value for fathead minnows was 

calculated to be 14 mg/L (Ref. 21). 

2. Saltwater Species. Two chronic 

toxicity tests have been conducted with 

mysid shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) (Ref. 

22). The first experiment was a 28-day 

exposure measuring survival, growth, 

and reproduction. Shrimp survival was 

reduced by 18% on exposure to 9 mg/L. 

Growth in length was the most sensitive 

endpoint with a 7% reduction in length 

for animals exposed to 7 mg/L and NoObserved-Effect-Concentration (NOEC) 

and LOEC for growth responses of 4 and 

7 mg/L (Table 3). 

The second experiment, a 28-day lifecycle test, examined the effect of 

nonylphenol on brood release and 

growth (Ref. 23). Growth of female 

mysids (Americamysis bahia) was 

reduced at concentrations at and above 

28 mg/L. Brood production was the most 

sensitive endpoint in this study. The 

average number of young per femalereproductive day was reduced at 

concentrations ≥ 15 mg/L. The NOECs 

and LOECs for reproductive responses 

were 9 and 15 mg/L. 

TABLE 3—CHRONIC TOXICITY OF NONYLPHENOL TO AQUATIC ORGANISMS

[Freshwater and Saltwater] 

Species Common name Method a b pH 

Chronic 

value 

range 

(μg/L) 

Endpoint Reference 

Mysidopsis bahia c ............ Mysid Shrimp ................... LC, SW .... 7.4–8.3 5 (NOEC x LOEC)1/2

Growth.

Ref. 22. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... Rainbow Trout .................. ESL, FW .. 6.97 8 (NOEC x LOEC)1/2

Growth.

Ref. 4. 

Mysidopsis bahia c ............ Mysid Shrimp ................... LC, SW .... 7.4–8.3 9 Survival ............................ Ref. 22. 

Mysidopsis bahia c ............ Mysid Shrimp ................... LC, SW .... 7.4–8.3 9 Reproduction .................... Ref. 22. 

Americamysis bahia ......... Mysid Shrimp ................... LC, SW .... Missing 12 (NOEC x LOEC)1/2 Total 

Number of Young.

Ref. 23. 

Pimephales promelas ....... Fathead Minnow .............. ELS, FW .. 7.1–8.2 14 Delayed Hatching; Survival.Ref. 21. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... Rainbow Trout .................. ESL, FW .. 6.97 23 Survival ............................ Ref. 4. 

Daphnia magna ................ Water Flea ....................... LC, FW .... 8.04 23 (NOEC x LOEC)1/2 Total 

Number of Young.

Ref. 19. 

Americamysis bahia ......... Mysid Shrimp ................... LC, SW .... Missing 28 Growth .............................. Ref. 23. 

Daphnia magna ................ Water Flea ....................... LC, FW .... 8.25 39 Number of Live Young ..... Ref. 6. 

Oncorhynchus mykiss ...... Rainbow Trout .................. ESL, FW .. 6.97 53 Abnormal Development ... Ref. 4. 

Chironomus tentans ......... Midge ............................... LC, FW .... 7.73 62 (NOEC x LOEC)1/2 20 d 

Survival.

Ref. 20. 

Daphnia magna ................ Water Flea ....................... LC, FW .... 8.25 71 Growth .............................. Ref. 6. 

Daphnia magna ................ Water Flea ....................... LC, FW .... 8.25 130 Adult Survival ................... Ref. 6. 

Daphnia magna ................ Water Flea ....................... LC, FW .... 8.46 158 (NOEC x LOEC)1/2

Growth and Reproduction; Survival.

Ref. 4. 

Ceriodaphnia dubia .......... Water Flea ....................... LC, FW .... 8.3–8.6 202 Reproductive Impairment Ref. 18. 

Ceriodaphnia dubia .......... Water Flea ....................... LC, FW .... 8.3–8.6 377 Survival ............................ Ref. 18. 

a LC = life-cycle or partial life-cycle; ELS = early life-stage. 

bFW = Freshwater, SW = Saltwater. 

c Note that there has been a taxonomic name change, Mysidopsis bahia is now Americamysis bahia, the original names from the studies are 

used in this document to avoid any confusion. 

C. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants 

1. Freshwater. Ecological toxicity data 

for freshwater plants was available only 

for single-celled planktonic green alga 

(Selenastrum capricornutum) (Ref. 24). 

Algae exposed to nonylphenol for 4 

days had an EC50 for effect on 

population growth rate of 410 mg/L. The 

effect did not persist when the algae 

were transferred to fresh, 

uncontaminated, growth medium. 

2. Saltwater. Ecological toxicity data 

for saltwater plants are available only 

for a single species of marine planktonic 

algae, a diatom (Skeletonema costatum) 

(Ref. 25). The EC50 for nonylphenol 

effect on vegetative growth was 27 

mg/L. 

D. Bioaccumulation 

1. Freshwater Species. Data on 

bioaccumulation of nonylphenol in 

freshwater organisms was limited to two 

species of fish, fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas) and bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus). Juvenile fathead 

minnows exposed to 5 and 23 mg/L 

nonylphenol for 27 days showed nonlipid-normalized bioconcentration 

factors (BCF) of 271 and 344 

respectively (Ref. 26). Values which had 

been normalized to organism lipid 

content were approximately five times 

lower. A short-term (4-day) bioassay 

indicated that tissue concentrations 

reached steady-state within two days in 

both the fathead minnow and bluegill 

(Ref. 27). Overall, lipid-normalized 

BCF’s for fathead minnows in 4- and 27- 

day tests ranged from 128 to 209 and for 

bluegills from 39 to 57 (Ref. 8). A 42-day 

exposure experiment using fathead 

minnows and exposure concentrations 

of 0.4 to 3.4 mg/L resulted in BCFs 

ranging from 203 to 268 (Ref. 28). 

2. Saltwater Species. Bioconcentration 

factors are available for three species of 

marine animals; the blue mussel 

(Mytilus edulis), the three-spined 

stickleback fish (Gasterosteus 

aculeatus), and a benthic shrimp 

(Crangon crangon) (Ref. 29). Individuals 

of all three species were exposed to 

carbon-14 (14C)-labeled nonylphenol for 

16 days and followed over a subsequent 

elimination period of 32 days. BCFs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37182 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ranged from a measured value in 

benthic shrimp of 79 to an estimated 

value of 2,168 for the blue mussel. 

E. Reproductive, Developmental, and 

Estrogenic Effects 

Numerous investigations have 

demonstrated the estrogenic activity of 

nonylphenol (see Refs. 30, 31, and 32 

for reviews). The majority of studies 

have been conducted with aquatic 

species and effects have been 

demonstrated both in vitro and in vivo. 

While most of these studies have been 

conducted on fish, a number of species 

of invertebrates have also been 

examined. 

1. Aquatic Invertebrates. Among 

invertebrates, estrogenic effects have 

been demonstrated in a marine 

amphipod (Corophium volutator) at 10 

mg/L (Ref. 33) and larvae of a freshwater 

insect (Chironomus riparis) at 2,000 mg/ 

L (Ref. 34). However, no estrogenic 

effects were found in a marine copepod 

(Tisbe battagliai) at exposure 

concentrations up to 55 mg/L (Ref. 35). 

2. In Vivo Responses in Fish. The 

protein vitellogenin, which is produced 

in the liver, is a primary constituent in 

the yolk of the ova of oviparous 

vertebrate species (i.e., species 

producing eggs which hatch outside the 

body). Very little vitellogenin is 

produced in males and increased 

vitellogenin production in males is an 

indication of estrogenic effects. While 

nonylphenol has been shown to 

produce estrogenic effects, estimates 

from studies on male rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) suggest that it is 

2,000 to 3,000 times less potent than 

natural estrogen (17 beta-estradiol) (Ref. 

36). 

Exposure to nonylphenol has been 

shown to increase vitellogenin 

production in male rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) at 

concentrations from 10 to 100 mg/L over 

periods of 4 hours to 3 days (Refs. 37, 

38 and 39). Jobling and colleagues (Ref. 

40) also found increased vitellogenin 

production in male rainbow trout after 

21 days of exposure to nonylphenol 

concentrations of 20 and 54 mg/L. 

Similarly, Tremblay and van der Kraak 

(Ref. 41) found increased plasma 

vitellogenin after 3 weeks of exposure to 

50 mg/L nonylphenol in rainbow trout. 

Female rainbow trout are similarly 

sensitive with vitellogenin induction 

occurring with exposures ranging from 

8 to 86 mg/L (Ref. 42). The study on 

female rainbow trout also noted that 

nonylphenol exposure caused changes 

in several pituitary and hormone plasma 

levels. Exposure to nonylphenol 

concentrations as low as 4 mg/L led to 

vitellogenin induction in male green 

swordfish (Xiphophorous helleri). In 

contrast, additional studies did not 

show vitellogenin induction in rainbow 

trout exposed for 9 days at 109 mg/L 

(Ref. 43) or the Atlantic salmon (Salmo 

trutta) exposed for 30 days to 20 mg/L 

(Ref. 44). 

Vitellogenin messenger ribonucleic 

acid (mRNA) is a direct precursor to 

protein formation and increased 

production in rainbow trout at 

concentrations of 10 to 14 mg/L when 

exposed for 4 and 72 hours respectively 

(Ref. 3). Increased levels of plasma 

vitellogenin and several pituitary and 

plasma hormone levels were observed 

in female rainbow trout exposed to 8 

and 86 mg/L nonylphenol. The route of 

exposure influenced vitellogenin 

induction in the fathead minnow with 

an order of magnitude greater induction 

when exposed via water as opposed to 

diet (Ref. 45). 

Fish fecundity (i.e., the rate of 

production of young) is also affected in 

various ways by nonylphenol exposure 

(Ref. 28). Concentrations as low as 0.5 

to 3.4 mg/L, although not acutely toxic, 

decreased the fecundity of fathead 

minnows at various times over the 

reproductive season. At concentrations 

of approximately 0.1 mg/L, fecundity 

was increased in fathead minnows. 

These results suggest a possible 

hormetic response of fish fecundity to 

nonylphenol. 

A number of studies have been 

performed with the fish Japanese 

medaka (Oryzias latipes). Following 

hatch, a cohort of Japanese medaka was 

exposed for 28 days and monitored for 

the following 55 days for survival, 

growth, egg viability, egg production, 

and gonosomatic index (GSI) (Ref. 46). 

No effects were noted at the lowest 

exposure concentration of 1.93 mg/L. 

However, in a 3-month exposure study 

with the same species, effects were 

noted at 50 mg/L and included intersex 

(development of ovo-testis) and the sex 

ratio shifted in favor of females (Ref. 

47). Another study of Japanese medaka 

found that, in fish exposed from 

fertilized egg to 60 days post-hatch, the 

LOEC for vitellogenin induction was 

found to be 12 mg/L (Ref. 48). 

A two-generation (F0 and F1) flowthrough study exposed Japanese medaka 

from eggs to 60 days post-hatch of the 

second (F1) generation at concentrations 

ranging from 4 to 183 mg/L (Ref. 49). For 

the F0 generation, egg hatchability was 

reduced by 48% at 187 mg/L. Survival 

was reduced at 60 days post-hatch for 

exposures at or above 18 mg/L. However, 

no differences in growth rates were 

observed in the F0 generation at any 

exposure concentration 60 days posthatch. Induction of ovo-testis was 

observed at 18 mg/L with 20% of the fish 

exhibiting external male characteristics 

having ovo-testis. At 51 mg/L, all fish 

exhibited external female characteristics 

with 40% containing ovo-testis. 

Spermatogenesis was observed in ovotestis containing fish exposed to 18 but 

not 51 mg/L. Fecundity was not affected 

by nonylphenol exposure. GSI of female 

fish was increased by exposure to 

concentrations greater than 8 mg/L. 

Effects of exposure on the F1

generation were also reported with no 

embryological abnormalities or hatching 

failures observed at any of the treatment 

concentrations. Growth was also not 

affected at 60 days post-hatch in the F1

generation. However, the sex ratio as 

determined by secondary sexual 

characteristics changed in favor of 

females (1:2) at concentrations greater 

than 18 mg/L. Induction of ovo-testis 

occurred at lower concentrations in the 

F1 as opposed to the F0 generation (8 

versus 18 mg/L). All fish in the F1

generation with ovo-testis displayed 

external male characteristics and the 

degree of oocyte development was not 

as complete as with the F0 18 mg/L 

treatment. The overall results suggest a 

NOEC and LOEC of approximately 8 

and 18 mg/L respectively. 

A multi-generational study has also 

been conducted for the rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Ref. 50). 

Exposure to concentrations of 1 and 10 

mg/L of adult males and females was 

intermittent over 4 months. Vitellogenin 

induction was increased in adult male 

fish exposed to both 1 and 10 mg/L. Male 

progeny of fish exposed to 10 mg/L 

showed elevated plasma estradiol 

concentrations. Female progeny showed 

elevated levels of plasma testosterone 

and vitellogenin concentrations. 

V. Rationale for Listing 

EPA’s technical evaluation of 

nonylphenol shows that it can 

reasonably be anticipated to cause, 

because of its toxicity, significant 

adverse effects in aquatic organisms. 

Toxicity values for nonylphenol are 

available for numerous species of 

aquatic organisms. The observed effects 

from nonylphenol exposure occur at 

very low concentrations demonstrating 

that nonylphenol is highly toxic to 

aquatic organisms. Data summarized in 

this document include acute toxicity 

values for freshwater organisms ranging 

from 21 mg/L for a detritivorous 

amphipod to 774 mg/L for an algal 

grazing snail. Acute toxicity values for 

freshwater fish ranged from 110 mg/L for 

the fountain darter to 128 to 360 mg/L 

for the fathead minnow. Acute toxicity 

values for saltwater organisms ranged 

from 17 mg/L for the winter flounder to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37183 

310 mg/L for the sheepshead minnow. 

Chronic toxicity values are also 

available for several aquatic species 

ranging from 5 mg/L for growth effects in 

mysid shrimp to 377 mg/L for survival 

effects in water fleas. Chronic toxicity 

values for rainbow trout ranged from 8 

mg/L for effects on growth to 53 mg/L for 

abnormal development. Reproductive, 

developmental, and estrogenic effects 

on aquatic organisms have also been 

reported for nonylphenol with some 

effects observed at concentrations of 4 

mg/L or less. Therefore, EPA believes 

that the evidence is sufficient for listing 

the nonylphenol category on the EPCRA 

section 313 toxic chemical list pursuant 

to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on 

the available ecological toxicity data. 

EPA does not believe that it is 

appropriate to consider exposure for 

chemicals that are highly toxic based on 

a hazard assessment when determining 

if a chemical can be added for 

environmental effects pursuant to 

EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) (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 the 

nonylphenol category meets the criteria 

of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C). 

VI. References 

EPA has established an official public 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–0110. 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. USEPA. 2010. Nonylphenol (NP) and 

Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs) Action 

Plan (RIN 2070–ZA09). United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. August 18, 2010. 

2. Lorenc, J. F., Lambeth, G. and Scheffer, W. 

2003. Alkylphenols. Kirk-Othmer 

Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2:225. 

3. USEPA. 2005. Aquatic Life Ambient Water 

Quality Criteria—Nonylphenol Final. 

United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC. Office of 

Water. EPA–822–R–05–005. December 

2005. 

4. Brooke, L.T. 1993a. Acute and chronic 

toxicity of nonylphenol to ten species of 

aquatic organisms. Report to the U.S. 

EPA for Work Assignment No. 02 of 

Contract No. 68–C1–0034. Lake Superior 

Research Institute, University of 

Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI. 

March 24. 30 pp. Amended 18 October 

2005. 34 pp. 

5. England, D.E. and J.B. Bussard. 1995. 

Toxicity of nonylphenol to the 

amphipod Hyalella azteca (Saussure). 

Report No. 41569. ABC Laboratories, 

Inc., Columbia, MO. 178 pp. 

6. Comber, M.H.I., T.D. Williams and K.M. 

Stewart. 1993. The effects of 

nonylphenol on Daphnia magna. Wat. 

Res. 27: 273–276. 

7. Dwyer, F.J., D.K. Hardesty, C.E. Henke, 

C.G. Ingersoll, D.W. Whites, D.R. Mount 

and C.M. Bridges. 1999. Assessing 

contaminant sensitivity of endangered 

and threatened species: Toxicant classes. 

EPA/600/R–99/098. National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, VA. 

15pp. 

8. Brooke, L.T. 1993b. Nonylphenol Toxicity. 

Accumulation and lethality for two 

freshwater fishes (fathead minnow and 

bluegill) to nonylphenol. Report to the 

U.S. EPA for the Work Assignment No. 

1–12 of Contract No. 68–C1–0034. Lake 

Superior Research Institute, University 

of Wisconsin-Superior, WI. September 

30. 50 pp. 

9. Dwyer, F.J., L.C. Sappington, D.R. Buckler 

and S.B. Jones. 1995. Use of surrogate 

species in assessing contaminant risk to 

endangered and threatened fishes. EPA/ 

600/R–96/029. National Technical 

Information Service, Springfield, VA. 71 

pp. 

10. Holcombe, G.W., G.L. Phipps, M.L. Knuth 

and T. Felhaber. 1984. The acute toxicity 

of selected substituted phenols, 

benzenes, and benzoic acid esters to 

fathead minnows (Pimephales 

promelas). Environ. Pollut. (Series A) 35: 

367–381. 

11. University of Wisconsin-Superior. 1985. 

Acute toxicities of organic chemicals to 

fathead minnows (Pimephales 

promelas). Volume II. D.L. Geiger, C.E. 

Northcott, D.J. Call, and L.T. Brooke 

(Eds.). Center for Lake Superior 

Environmental Studies, University of 

Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI. 326 

pp. 

12. England, D.E. and J.B. Bussard. 1993. 

Toxicity of nonylphenol to the midge 

Chironomus tentans. Report No. 40597. 

ABC Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, MO. 

92 pp. 

13. Lussier, S.M., D. Champlin, J. LiVolsi, S. 

Poucher and R.J. Pruell. 2000. Acute 

toxicity of para-nonylphenol to saltwater 

animals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 19: 

617–621. 

14. Ward, T.J. and R.L. Boeri. 1990a. Acute 

flow through toxicity of nonylphenol to 

the sheepshead minnow, Cyprinodon 

variegatus. EnviroSystems Study 

Number 8972–CMA, Hampton, NH. 34 

pp. 

15. Kusk, K.O. and L. Wollenberger. 1999. 

Fully defined saltwater medium for 

cultivation of and toxicity testing with 

the marine copepod Acartia tonsa. 

Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 1564–1567. 

16. Hecht, S. and B.L. Boese. 2002. 

Sensitivity of an infaunal amphipod, 

Eohaustorius estuaries, to acute 

waterborne exposures of 4-nonylphenol: 

Evidence of a toxic hangover. Environ. 

Toxicol. Chem. 21: 816–819. 

17. Ward, T.J. and R.L. Boeri. 1990b. Acute 

flow through toxicity of nonylphenol to 

the mysid, Mysidopsis bahia. 

EnviroSystems Study Number 8974– 

CMA, Hampton, NH. 35 pp. 

18. England, D.E. 1995. Chronic toxicity of 

nonylphenol to Ceriodaphnia dubia. 

Report No. 41756. ABC Laboratories, Inc. 

Columbia, MO. 409 pp. 

19. Fliedner, A. 1993. Daphnia magna 

Reproduction test (OECD) No. 202). 

Fraunhofer-Institute fur Umweltchemie 

und Okotoxikologie, Posfach 1260, W– 

5948 Schmallenberg—Grafschaft, 

Germany. Report No. UBA–002/4–22 

February. 

20. Kahl, M.D., E.A. Makynen, P.A. Kosian 

and G.T. Ankley. 1997. Toxicity of 4- 

nonylphenol in a life-cycle test with the 

midge Chironomus tentans. Ecotoxicol. 

Environ. Saf. 38: 155–160. 

21. Ward, T.J. and R.L. Boeri. 1991a. Early 

life stage toxicity of nonylphenol to the 

fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. 

EnviroSystems Study Number 8979– 

CMA, Hampton, NH. 59 pp. 

22. Ward, T.J. and R.L. Boeri. 1991b. Chronic 

toxicity of nonylphenol to the mysid, 

Mysidopsis bahia. EnviroSystems Study 

Number 8977–CMA, Hampton, NH. 61 

pp. 

23. Kuhn, A., W.R. Munns, Jr., D. Champlin, 

R. McKinney, M. Tagliabue, J. Serbst and 

T. Gleason. 2001. Evaluation of the 

efficacy of extrapolation population 

modeling to predict the dynamics of 

Americamysis bahia populations in the 

laboratory. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 

213–221. 

24. Ward, T.J. and R.L. Boeri. 1990c. Acute 

static toxicity of nonylphenol to the 

freshwater alga Selenastrum 

capricornutum. EnviroSystems Study 

Number 8969–CMA, Hampton, NH. 41 

pp. 

25. Ward, T.J. and R.L. Boeri. 1990d. Acute 

static toxicity of nonylphenol to the 

marine alga Skeletonema costatum. 

EnviroSystems Study Number 8970– 

CMA, Hampton, NH. 42 pp. 

26. Ward, T.J. and R.L. Boeri. 1991c. 

Bioconcentration test with nonlylphenol 

and the Fathead Minnow, Pimephales 

promelas. EnviroSystems Study Number 

8975–CMA, Hampton, NH. 72 pp. 

27. Brooke, L.T. 1994. Nonylphenol Analysis. 

Accumulation and lethality for two 

freshwater fishes (fathead minnow and 

bluegill) to nonylphenol. Report to the 

U.S. EPA for the Work Assignment No. 

2–15 of Contract No. 68–C1–0034. Lake 

Superior Research Institute, University 

of Wisconsin-Superior, WI. May 31. 49 

pp. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37184 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

28. Giesy, J.P., S.L. Pierens, E.M. Snyder, S. 

Miles-Richardson, V.J. Kramer, S.A. 

Snyder, K.M. Nichols, and D.A. 

Villeneuve. 2000. Effects of 4- 

nonylphenol on fecundity of biomarkers 

of estrogenicity in fathead minnows 

(Pimephales promelas). Environ. 

Toxicol. Chem. 19: 1368–1377. 

29. Ekelund, R., A. Bergman, A. Granmo, and 

M. Berggren. 1990. Bioaccumulation of 

4-nonylphenol in marine animals—A reevaluation. Environ. Poll. 64: 107–120. 

30. Servos, M.R. 1999. Review of the aquatic 

toxicity, estrogenic responses, and 

bioaccumulation of alkylphenols and 

alkylphenol polyethoxylates. Wat. Qual. 

Res. J. Can. 34: 123–177. 

31. Sonnenschein, C. and A.M. Soto. 1998. 

An updated review of environmental 

estrogen and androgen mimics and 

antagonists. J. Steroid Biochem. Molec. 

Biol. 65: 143–150. 

32. Sumpter, J.P. 1998. Xenoendocrine 

disrupters—environmental impacts. 

Toxicol. Lett. 102–103: 337–342. 

33. Brown, R.J., M. Conradi, and M.H. 

Depledge. 1999. Long-term exposure to 

4-nonylphenol affects sexual 

differentiation and growth of the 

amphipod Corophium volutator (Pallus, 

1766). Sci. Total Environ. 233: 77–88. 

34. Hahn, T., K. Schenk, and R. Schulz. 2002. 

Environmental chemicals with known 

endocrine potential affect yolk protein 

content in the aquatic insect Chironomus 

riparius. Environ. Pollut. 120: 525–528. 

35. Bechmann, R.K. 1999. Effect of the 

endocrine disruptor nonylphenol on the 

marine copepod Tisbe battagliai. Sci. 

Total Environ. 233: 33–46. 

36. Islinger, M., S. Pawlowski, H. Hollert, A. 

Volkl, and T. Braumbeck. 1999. 

Measurement of vitellogenin-mRNA 

expression in primary cultures of 

rainbow trout hepatocytes in a nonradioactive dot blot/RNAse protectionassay. Sci. Total Environ. 233:109–122. 

37. Ren, L., D. Lattier, and J.J. Lech. 1996a. 

Estrogenic activity in rainbow trout 

determined with a new cDNA probe for 

vitellogenesis, pSG5Vg1.1. Bull. Environ. 

Contam. Toxicol. 56: 287–294. 

38. Ren, L., S.K. Lewis, and J.J. Lech. 1996b. 

Effects of estrogen and nonylphenol on 

the post-transcriptional regulation of 

vitellogenin gene expression. ChemicoBiol. Interact. 100: 67–76. 

39. Lech, J.J., S.K. Lewis, and L. Ren. 1996. 

In vivo estrogenic activity of 

nonylphenol in rainbow trout. Fund. 

Appl. Toxicol. 30: 229–232. 

40. Jobling, S., D. Sheahan, J.A. Osborne, P. 

Matthiessen, and J.P. Sumpter. 1996. 

Inhibition of testicular growth in 

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

exposed to estrogenic alkylphenolic 

chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15: 

194–202. 

41. Tremblay, L. and G. van der Kraak. 1998. 

Use of a series of homologous in vitro 

and in vivo assays to evaluate the 

endocrine modulating actions of betasitosterol in rainbow trout. Aquat. 

Toxicol. 43: 149–162. 

42. Harris, C.A., E.M. Santos, a. Janbakhsh, 

T.G. Pottinger, C.R. Tyler, and J.P. 

Sumpter. 2001. Nonylphenol affects 

gonadotropin levels in the pituitary 

gland and plasma of female rainbow 

trout. Environ. Sci. Technol. 35: 2909– 

2916. 

43. Pedersen, S.N. L.B. Christiansen, K.L. 

Pedersen, B. Korsgaard, and P. 

Bjerregaard. 1999. In vivo estrogenic 

activity of branched and linear 

alkylphenols in rainbow trout 

(Oncorhychus mykiss). Sci. Tot. Environ. 

233: 89–96. 

44. Moore, A., A.P. Scott, N. Lower, I. 

Katsiadaki, and L. Greenwood. 2003. The 

effects of 4-nonylphenol and atrazine on 

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) smolts. 

Aquaculture 222: 253–263. 

45. Pickford, K.A., R.E. Thomas-Jones, B. 

Wheals, C.R. Tyler, and J.P. Sumpter. 

2003. Route of exposure affects the 

oestrogenic response of fish to 4-tertnonylphenol. Aquat. Toxicol. 65: 267– 

279. 

46. Nimrod, A.C. and W.H. Benson. 1998. 

Reproduction and development of 

Japanese medaka following an early life 

stage exposure to xenoestrogens. Aquat. 

Toxicol. 44: 141–156. 

47. Gray, M.A. and C.D. Metcalfe. 1997. 

Induction of testis-ova in Japanese 

medaka (Oryzias latipes) exposed to pnonylphenol. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 

16: 1082–1086. 

48. Seki, M., H. Yokota, M. Maeda, H. 

Tadokoro, and K. Kobayashi. 2003. 

Effects of 4-nonylphenol and 4-tertoctylphenol on sex differentiation and 

vitellogenin induction in medaka 

(Oryzias latipes). Environ. Toxicol. 

Chem. 22: 1507–1516. 

49. Yokota, H., M. Seki, M. Maeda, Y. 

Oshima, H. Tadokoro, T. Honjo, and K. 

Kobayashi. 2001. Life-cycle toxicity of 4- 

nonylphenol to medaka (Oryzias latipes). 

Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20: 2552–2560. 

50. Schwaiger, J., U. Mallow, H. Ferling, S. 

Knoerr, T. Braunbeck, W. Kalbfus, and 

R.D. Negele. 2000. How estrogenic is 

nonylphenol? A transgenerational study 

using rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) as a test organism. Aquat. 

Toxicol. 59: 177–189. 

51. USEPA, OEI. Economic Analysis of the 

Proposed Rule to add Nonylphenol to 

the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic 

Chemicals. June 11, 2013. 

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 9350–1), 

or the EPA Toxic Chemicals Release 

Inventory Form A (EPA Form 9350–2). 

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 57 Form Rs and 13 Form As 

expected to be filed, EPA estimates the 

industry reporting and recordkeeping 

burden for collecting this information to 

average, in the first year, $246,429 

(based on 4,874 total burden hours) (Ref. 

51). In subsequent years, the burden for 

collecting this information is estimated 

to average $117,350 (based on 2,321 

total burden hours). These estimates 

include the time needed to become 

familiar with the requirement (first-year 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 37185 

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. 

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 70 entities estimated to be impacted 

by this proposed rule, 34 are small 

businesses. Of the affected small 

businesses, all 34 are projected to have 

cost-to-revenue impacts of less than 1% 

in both the first and subsequent years of 

the rulemaking. 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. 51). 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 $246,722 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 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or 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, 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

37186 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 119 / Thursday, June 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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: June 14, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

part 372 be amended as follows: 

PART 372—TOXIC CHEMICAL 

RELEASE REPORTING: COMMUNITY 

RIGHT–TO–KNOW 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 372 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048. 

■ 2. The table in § 372.65 paragraph (c) 

is amended by adding an entry in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘Nonylphenol’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 372.65 Chemicals and chemical 

categories to which the part applies. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–14754 Filed 6–19–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Chapters II, III, IV, V, and VI 

RIN 0648–XC637 

Plan for Periodic Review of 

Regulations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) requires that the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) periodically 

review existing regulations that have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

such as small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. This plan describes how 

NMFS will perform this review and 

describes the regulations that are being 

proposed for review during the current 

review-cycle. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by NMFS by July 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2012–0160, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012- 

0160, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Wendy Morrison, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of 

Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

(mark outside of envelope ‘‘Comments 

on 610 review’’). 

• Fax: 301–713–1193; Attn: Wendy 

Morrison. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP20JN13.012</GPH>