51816 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 196 / Wednesday October 12. 1994 / Proposed Rules

ENVROMENALPROECIO

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 355

IFRL-5088-8]

RIN 2050-AD50

Extremely Hazardous Substance List

AGENCY:.U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial of

petitions.

SUMMARY: EPA is responding to several

citizens' petitions requesting the Agency

to revise the list of "extremely

hazardous substances" published under

section 302 of the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Act of

1986 (EPCRA). EPA is proposing a rule

to delete from the extremely hazardous

substance list phosphorous pentoxide,

dithlycarbamazine citrate, fenitrothion

and tellurium, and to revise the

threshold planning quantity for

isophorone diisocyanate from 100 to

1,000 pounds. EPA is denying petitions

requesting deletion from the EHS list of

paraquat and isophorone diisocyanate.

The Agency is also denying a petition

that requests revision of the threshold

planning quantities for azinphos-methyl

and fenamiphos.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before December 12, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to: Superfund Docket

Clerk, Attention: Docket Number

300PQ-R2, Room 2615 Mall, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail

Stop 5201, 401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of materials relevant to the

rulemaking are contained in the

Superfund Docket, Room 2615 Mall,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW Washington, DC

20460. The technical background

document relevant to the rulemaking is

available in the docket, As provided in

40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be

charged for copying services.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Ferns, Chemical Emergency

Preparedness and Prevention Office,

OS-120, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW

Washington, DC 20460. The Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Information Hotline can also be

contacted for further information at 1-

800-535-0202, in Washington, DC and

Alaska at 1-703-412-9877

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Statutory Authority

This proposed rule is issued under

sections 302 and 328 of the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986 (EPCRA).

B. Background

On October 17 1986, the President

signed into law the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

of 1986 ("SARA"). Pub. L. 99-499

(196). Title III of SARA established a

program designed to require state and

local planning and preparedness for

spills or releases of hazardous

substances and to provide the public

and local governments with information

concerning potential chemical hazards

in their communities. This program is

codified as the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986

(EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001-11050.

Subtitle A of EPCRA establishes the

framework for local emergency

planning. The Statute required that EPA

publish the Agency's list of "extremely

hazardous substances" ("EHSs"). This

had previously been published in

November, 1985, by the EPA

Administrator in Appendix A of the

"Chemical Emergency Preparedness

Program Interim Guidance" (CEPP

Guidance), as the list of acutely toxic

chemicals. The Agency was also

directed to establish "threshold

planning quantities" ("TPQs") for each

extremely hazardous substance. Under

section 302, a facility which has present

an EHS in excess of its threshold

planning quantity must notify the State

emergency response commission and

local emergency planning committee as

well as participate in local emergency

planning activities.

The purpose of the extremely

hazardous substance list is to focus

initial efforts in the development of

State and local contingency plans. It is

not intended to be a complete list of all

chemicals that could potentially be

hazardous to a community. The

identification of a chemical that meets

the EHS criteria does not in itself

indicate the potential for serious effects

in any release, accidental or routine.

Thus, inclusion on the EHS list is not

meant as a signal to state or local

communities to ban or otherwise restrict

use of a listed chemical. Rather, such

identification indicates a need for the

community to undertake a program to

investigate and evaluate the potential

for accidental exposure associated with

the production, storage or handling of

the chemical at a particular site. EPA

also encourages communities to go

beyond the EHS list when evaluating

the hazards of facilities in their

community in that facilities handling

chemicals not on the EHS list could be

as hazardous as those handling EHSs.

To date, 46 chemicals have been

delisted from the EHS list in previous

rulemakings because they did not meet

the toxicity criteria for the list and were

originally listed under section 302 in

error.

1. Regulatory Background

The list of extremely hazardous

substances and their threshold planning

quantities is codified in EPA regulations

at volume 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, part 355, appendices A and

B (40 CFR, Part 355, Apps. A & B).

EPA's explanation for the

methodologies used to determine

whether to list a substance as an

extremely hazardous substance and for

deriving the threshold planning

quantities is found in preambles to the

Federal Register notices which

promulgated these rules. The relevant

notices were published in the Federal

Register on November 17 1986 (51 FR

41570-41592), and April 22, 1987 (52

FR 13378-13410).

In the November 17 1986 notice EPA,

as required by EPCRA section 302,

promulgated an interim final rule

which, among other things, included a

list of extremely hazardous substances

and established their threshold planning

quantities. While the interim final rule

established enforceable requirements,

the Agency simultaneously solicited

public comments, as explained in a

Federal Register notice issued on the

same day (51 FR 41953-54).

EPA received public comment on the

interim final rule and issued a final rule

on April 22, 1987 which responded in

its preamble to the public comments.

The April 1987 final rule made a

number of revisions to the interim final

rule. Among other things, the April

1987 rule republished the extremely

hazardous substance list, with the

addition of four new chemicals, and

revised the methodology for

determining some threshold planning

quantities (52 FR 13381).

Details of the methodology used -to

determine whether to list a substance as

an extremely hazardous substance and

for deriving the threshold planning

quantities are found in the November.

1986 notice at 51 FR 41573-41579 and

41580 (Attachment 1), in the April 1987

notice at 52.FR 13387-13392,_andin

technical support documents in the

rulemaking records.

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 51816 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 196 / Wednesday October 12, 1994 / Proposed Rules

2. Summary of petitions

In this notice EPA is responding to

seven petitions requesting action on

substances listed as extremely

hazardous substances. EPA received

petitions from the Elemental

Phosphorus Ad Hoc Solid Waste Group

to delist phosphorus pentoxide (CAS

#1314-56-3); from SmithKline Beecham

to delist diethylcarbamazine citrate

(CAS #1642-54-2); from Sumitomo

Chemical America, Inc., to delist

fenitrothion (CAS #122-14-5); from ICI

America's, Inc. to delist or change the

threshold planning quantity for

paraquat (CAS #1910-42-5); from Huls

America, Inc., to delist isophorone

diisocyanate (CAS #4098-71-9); and

from the Selenium Tellurium

Development Association (STDA) to

delist tellurium (CAS #13494-80-9).

EPA also received a petition from Miles,

Inc. requesting that the threshold

planning quantities for azinphos-methyl

(CAS #86-50-0) and fenamiphos (CAS

#22224-92-6) be increased from the

current 100 pounds to 10,000 pounds.

Today's notice proposes a rule to

amend 40 CFR, part 355 (Appendices A

and B), to delist phosphorus pentoxide,

diethylcarbamazine citrate, fenitrothion

and tellurium from the list of extremely

hazardous substances and to revise the

threshold planning quantity for

isophorone diisocyanate from 100

pounds to 1,000 pounds.

EPA is denying the requests to delist

paraquat and isophorone diisocyanate

and the request to change the threshold

planning quantities for azinphos-methyl

and fenamiphos. These decisions

constitute final agency action.

II. Proposed Modifications

EPA is proposing to remove the four

chemicals noted above from the

extremely hazardous substance list

because review of the available toxicity

data shows they do not meet the listing

criteria.EPA believes these four

chemicals were incorrectly listed.

EPA is proposing to revise the

threshold planning quantity for

isophorone diisocyanate from 100 to

1,000 pounds, based upon the Agency's

own review of the physical and

chemical properties of the chemical,

even though revision of the threshold

planning quantity was not requested in

the petition.

Phosphorus pentoxide was listed on

the basis of an abstract of a study of

smoke from burning red phosphorus

that gave LC5 0 values for guinea pigs of

0.061 mg/liter/1 hour and for mice of -'

0.271 mg/liter/1 hour (Ballantyne

(1981)). An LC5o is the air concentration

dose at which half the animals studied

die. As explained in the November 17

1986 (51 FR 41574), Federal Register

notice, EPA listed a substance as an

extremely hazardous.substance if

inhalation studies showed an LC5o value

in tests of the most sensitive

mammalian species of less than 0.5

mg/l over a period of exposure of eight

hours or less.

As noted above, the Agency listed

phosphorus pentoxide based upon an

abstract (Ballantyne (1981)). The Agency

now believes that this abstract should

not be used.as the basis for listing. The

title of the abstract reported the toxicity

of phosphorus pentoxide smoke.

However, the study was actually

performed using the smoke generated by

burning red phosphorus. In burning red

phosphorus, two studies (Tarnov (1980)

and Burton et. al (1982)) have shown

that the maor product is phosphorus

pentoxide. However, the Ballantyne

abstract does not establish that the

toxicity found was attributable to the

phosphorous pentoxide in the smoke, or

other chemicals in lower

concentrations. Since there is no

conclusive evidence to suggest that the

animals in Ballantyne's study were

primarily exposed to phosphorus

pentoxide, the available data from

Ballantyne's findings are insufficient to

prove or disprove that the LC5o values

in guinea pigs and mice satisfy the

criteria for listing phosphorous

pentoxide on the EHS list.

Information submitted by the

Elemental Phosphorus Ad Hoc Solid

Waste Group showed that the direct

tests on phosphorous pentoxide show

an LC5 0 value higher than the criteria for

listing. In an unpublished Monsanto

report (1987), rats were exposed to

aerosolized phosphorous pentoxide for

4 hours, at levels up to 0.99 mg/liter. (It

should be noted that although the

analytical standards used in the analysis

conducted for this study were

phosphorous pentoxide, no information

was obtained regarding the actual

chemical species present in the chamber

atmosphere.)

This is the only available study in the

literature that provides direct evidence

of the toxic potential of phosphorous

pentoxide. The LC5o for phosphorous

pentoxide was found to be greater than

0.99 mg/liter, which does not meet the

criteria for listing for listing substances

as an extremely hazardous substance.

Since the Agency now believes that the

abstract used as the basis for listing is

invalid (the Agency was unable to

obtain the actual report) and the only

direct studies available to the Agency

show that phosphorus pentoxide does

not meet the listing criteria, the Agency

is proposing to remove the chemical

from the EHS list.

Diethylcarbamazine citrate was listed

on the basis of a report in a Russian data

compilation showing an LC5o inhalation

value of 0.309 mg/liter/4 hours in rats.

The citation number listed in the United

Nations sponsored translation is

incorrect, and additional details about

the original study are unavailable.

Methods used for this inhalation

toxicity study could not be found to

determine if they meet international

standards, therefore, the toxicity values

could not be verified.

An inhalation study sponsored by

SmithKline Beecham indicated that a 1-

hour exposure of rats to

Diethylcarbamazine citrate at

concentration of 1.63 mg per liter or

2.38 mg per liter produced no fatalities.

Since the only studies available to EPA

show that this chemical does not meet

the listing criteria for inhalation (LC5o

less than 0.5 mg per liter), the Agency

is proposing to remove it from the EHS

list.

Fenitrothion was initially listed

because it appeared to meet the

extremely hazardous substance criteria,

based upon a study showing an LC5 0 of

0.378 mg/liter/4 hours (NIOSH/RTECS

1985). The delisting petition charged

that this study was deficient in that the

material tested contained a toxic

impurity of unknown potency and that

the study overestimated the toxicity of

fenitrothion itself, because the test

material contained surfactants that

would have made the test animal's skin

and cell membranes more permeable to

the test substance. Examination of q

study submitted by the petitioner

(Kohda et..al (1986)) reports an LC50 of

above 2.210 mg/liter. In studying the

report provided by the petitioner, the

Agency agrees that the data by which

the listing is based may have been in

error for the reasons stated by the

petitioner. Since the only other study

available to the Agency shows that

fenitrothion does not meet the listing

criteria, EPA is proposing to remove this

substance from theEHS list.

Tellurium metal was listed on the

basis of a study (Lenchenko and Plotko

(1969)) which reported an LD.o (median

lethal dose, the dose that killed 50

percent of the test animals) oral toxicity

of 20 mg/kg of body weight. As

explained in the November 17 1986 (51

FR 41574) Federal Register notice, EPA

listed a substance as an extremely

hazardous substance if oral studies

showed an LD50 of less than or equal to

25 mg per kilogram (kg) of body weight.

The petitioner brought to the Agency's

attention that the study was actually on

sodium tellurate (CAS #10102-20-2;

51817

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 51817 1994
51818 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 196 1 Wednesday October 12, 1994 / Proposed Rules

already listed as an'EHS) and not on

tellurium metal. The petitioner also

provided a study (Pnnsen (1991)) which

showed an LD5o for tellurium metal in

excess of 5000 mg/kg. Based upon this

information, the Agency is proposing to

remove tellurium from the EHS listing

while maintaining the listing for sodium

tellurate.

The Agency requests comments on

whether it should proceed to delist

these four chemicals based upon this

information or any additional

information submitted by commenters

relating to whether these chemicals

meet the section 302 listing criteria.

HULs America, Inc. submitted a

petition to delist isophorone

diisocyanate (IPDI). EPA is denying the

petition to delist because IPDI meets the

criteria for listing, as discussed in the

next Unit on Petition Denials. However,

in considering this petition, EPA noted

that the threshold planning quantity had

been determined based on IPDI's being

a reactive solid at standard

temperatures, when in fact it is a liquid

and not highly reactive. Accordingly,

EPA is proposing to change the

threshold planning quantity for IPDI

based on the methodology for

determining threshold planning

quantities for liquids instead of the

methodology for reactive solids.

EPA's methodology for establishing

threshold planning quantities for

liquids, once it is determined that the

substance meets the listing criteria.

consists of initially determining the

maximum short term exposure

concentration in air that would not lead

to serious irreversible health effects in

the general population when exposed to

the substance for relatively short

duration. This is the so-called "level of

concern." (See the Threshold Planning

Quantities Technical Support

Document, April 7 1987.)

There are two ways to determine a

"level of concern." If it is available for

a chemical, EPA may use the

Immediately Dangerous to Life and

Health (IDLH) level established by the

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health (NIOSH). This is the

maximum concentration of a substance

in air to which a healthy worker can be

exposed for 30 minutes and escape

without suffering irreversible health

effects or impairing symptoms.

If the IDLH value is not available, as

is the case for most of the EHSs, the EPA

uses an IDLH equivalent value using

available toxicity data with an

adjustment factor to estimate the IDLH

value. For the initial TPQ for IPDI the

LCo of 0.12 mg/l over a 4 hour exposure

period was multiplied by 0.1 to estimate

the IDLH value.

The level of concern is then divided

by a factor "V" which represents the

extent to which the material can

volatilize and become airborne and

dispersed. This is explained in the

November 17 1986 Federal Register

notice at 51 FR 41577 For liquids this

involves knowing the molecular weight

and vapor pressure. The derivation of

the factor "V" for liquids is explained

in Appendix 1 of the November 17

1986 Federal Register notice for the

interim final rule (51 FR 41580).

The final threshold planning quantity

is then determined from a set of index

values. The index values and their

corresponding threshold planning

quantities are found in the threshold

planning quantity technical support

document. Applying this methodology

to IPDI gives it a threshold planning

quantity of 1000 pounds. The

calculations for this determination are

found in the administrative record for

this petition. EPA is, thus, proposing to

raise the threshold planning quantity for

IPDI from 100 to 1000 pounds.

III. Petition Denials

EPA is denying the petition of ICI

Americas with respect to paraquat. The

petitioner requests the Agency to

remove paraquat from the extremely

hazardous substance list or, in the

alternative, to revise the threshold

planning quantity.

Petitioner notes that the "paraquat"

on the EHS list is actually paraquat

dichloride since, strictly speaking.

paraquat is a divalent cation which can

form many different salts, and paraquat

dichloride is the only commercially

available paraquat salt in the United

States. Further, the Chemical Abstract

Service (CAS) number identified on the

EHS list is the number for paraquat

dichloride. Petitioner bases its request

to delist paraquat (dichloride) on the

fact that the only studies that show LDso

or LC5o tests below the Agency criteria

for listing are tests on either the pure

solid form of the chemical or the highly

concentrated form of the solution.

Petitioner claims that the toxicity for

any commercially available form is

much lower than the EHS listing criteria

and that tests showing high toxicity are

of no practical importance.

EPA agrees with petitioner that

paraquat dichloride is the appropriate

listed chemical. To clear any confusion

that may result from the conflict

between the paraquat listing and the

CAS number, EPA is making a technical

amendment to the EHS listing in 40 CFR

Part 355 by substituting the term

paraquat dichloride for paraquat

(published elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register). All indications from

the petition are that the public has been

complying with the regulations under

the assumption that "paraquat" refers to

the paraquat dichloride product.

EPA disagrees with petitioner that

paraquat dichloride should be removed

from the EHS list because only highly

concentrated forms show high toxicity.

Paraquat dichloride qualifies as an EHS

because some form of it shows high

toxicity that exceeds the Agency's

criteria. This is the case for many

animal tests used to determine toxicity

for regulatory purposes. Animals may be

dosed in concentrated forms or at very

high levels to determine toxicity. The

dose in the studies may be much higher

than any found in actual practice. In the

case of LDso or LCm, tests, half the

animals die. If these tests show 50

percent mortality at a relatively low

dose, they at least raise concerns that

qualify for listing. Smaller numbers of

subjects may be affected at much lower

doses, but that does not eliminate any

concern for the tested chemical.

Paraquat dichloride is listed because it

is grouped with those chemicals that

exceed Agency criteria in some form.

The basis for listing paraquat was a

study (Murray and Gibson, 1972) which

showed a formulation containing

paraquat dichloride as having an oral

(guinea pig) LDso value of 22 mg/kg.

Although the toxicity of the paraquat

dichloride formulation is caused solely

by the paraquat ion, based on the LDso

of 22mg/kg for paraquat ion, ICI

estimated an oral LDso value of 30.4 mg/

kg for paraquat dichloride which does

not meet the EHS criteria. ICI sponsored

two acute inhalation studies in rats (IC.

1989). The studies resulted in an'LC5 o

value of .001 mg/liter for the paraquat

ion, which can be estimated for

paraquat dichloride to be an LC.o of

.00138 mg/liter. This value would meet

the EHS criteria for listing of 0.5 mg/

liter as noted above. EPA is changing

the basis for listing value from oral LDso

of 22 mg/kg for paraquat ion to

inhalation LC5o of 0.00138 mg/liter for

paraquat dichloride.

Petitioner, alternatively requests that

the threshold planning quantity for

paraquat dichloride should be higher

than the current amount of 10 pounds.

The threshold planning quantity for

paraquat is 10 pounds for the chemical

in finely powdered form (particle size

under 100 microns), in molten form, or

in solution. For paraquat in solid form

with particle size greater than 100

microns the threshold planning quantity

is 10,000 pounds. EPA's reasoning for

determining these levels is found in the

November 17 1986 interim final rule

notice at 51 FR 41575-76 and 41577 as

amended by the April 22, 1987 final

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 51818 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 1994 / Proposed Rules

rule notice at 52 FR 13390. A summary

of that reasoningfollows.

The paraquat listed, essentially the

dichloride salt, is a solid in solution.

There is available for paraquat an IDLH

level of 1.5 milligrams per cubic meter

(mg/m 3 ). This converts to an Index

Value of .0015, which results in a

threshold planning quantity of 10

pounds. While the November, 1986

notice for the interim final EHS listing

rule applied this calculation to all

solids, the April 22, 1987 notice (52 FR

13390-91) modified this by applying

this calculation to solids only if they

have a particle size less than 100

microns, if they are handled in solution

or molten form, or if they have a high

rating 'for reactivity. For particle sizes

over 100 microns, the threshold

planning quantity is 10,000 pounds.

Paraquat dichloride, therefore, has two

threshold planning quantities

depending on its particle size and

whether it is used in solution.

The petitioner requests that the

Agency base the level of concern for

paraquat dichloride on the LDso or LC5o

tests rather than the IDLH. EPA

disagrees. The IDLH, while it has flaws,

is the best available measure for

determining a level of concern because

it is based on actual human data. When

an IDLH is available, EPA declines to

use conversion factors, as it does for

those substances for which IDLH values

are not available (see 51 FR 41576),

because these factors are even rougher

measurements..-

NIOSH lists the two chemicals

(paraquat and paraquat dichloride) as

synonyms (NIOSH/RTECS 1983

Synonyms, Volume 1, p. 719); therefore,

the Agency considers the ionic form of

paraquat as the dichloride salt in a

solution. Since the IDLH value applies

to both the salt and the solution, EPA

has decided not to remove the chemical

from the EHS list or modify the TPQ.

The paraquat ion Is reportable as a

solution.(or mixture) of paraquat

dichloride and a carrier (for example,

water). For threshold purposes, the

facility only needs to consider the

weight percent of paraquat dichlonde

that was placed in the solution.

Miles, Inc., has submitted a petition

requesting that the 10,000-pound TPQ

apply to azinphos-methyl and

fenamiphos in the Miles products

Guthion 2L and Nemacur 3. Both of

these chemicals have TPQs of 10

pounds that apply when the chemicals

are in finely powdered form, in molten

form, or in solution, as calculated using

the same methodology applied to

paraquat dichlonde. The 10,000-pound

TPQ applies to the solid form with

particle size greater than 100 microns.

The petitioner submits that both of these

compounds are "waxy, amorphous

solids with low melting points and their

technical grade materials used for

production are generally liquid at

summer temperatures." The petitioner

stated that the TPQ for the chemicals

should be based upon their being

liquids using the methodology

described for IPDI, above, in unit I.

This would raise the TPQ to 10,000

pounds.

EPA disagrees. The Farm Chemicals

Handbook (1984 p. C161) lists

fenamiphos as a brown, waxy solid. The

Hawley handbook (1981) lists azinphosmethyl as a brown waxy solid as well.

Since these references, used as

background to the listing, show these

chemicals as solids, the EPA considers

the .chemicals as solids as well. They

would be near the melting point but

never quite reach it. Molten solids are

not treated as liquids under the TPQ

methodology because the solids have to

be raised above standard temperature in

order to become molten. Since EPA has

no way of knowing at what

temperatures facilities have the molten

solids (to determine volatilization), EPA

chose to consider solids different from

chemicals that are liquid at standard

temperatures.

Instead, EPA accounts for solids that

become liquids (molten form) with the

two tiered threshold. When handled in

molten form, the TPQ for these

chemicals would be 10 pounds because

of the possibility of volatilization.

However, even in molten form,

significant amounts of vapor are not

likely to be generated. The Agency

examined the fraction of volatilization

expected for the solids on the list and

found that it ranges from 0.3 to 0.008

pounds/minute per pound spilled (see

Threshold Planning Quantities,

Technical Support Document, April 7'

1987 page 27). Since data were not

available for all solids and to be

conservative, the Agency chose to

incorporate the 0.3 fraction into the

reporting requirements. If a facility is

handling the solid in molten form, the

amount molten should be multiplied by

0.3 to obtain the actual amount to be

compared to the threshold planning

quantity for reporting (see 40 CFR

355.30(e)(iv)).

HULs America Inc. submitted a

petition to delist isophorone

diisocyanate (IPDI). IPDI had been listed

because it met the criteria for extremely

hazardous substance listing, on the basis

of two aerosol inhalation-toxicity

studies in rats. The 4 hour LC5o is .26

mg per liter, which is less than the LC5o

of 0.5 mg/liter which qualifies it as an

extremely hazardous substance under

Agency criteria (51 FR 41574). The

delisting petition made the following

points. Tins material is manufactured in

a closed system that does not use high

pressure, and contends that unusual

measures are required to generate test

atmospheres containing IPDI for toxicity

testing. If the substance is aerosolized,

particle"would be expected to

precipitate out of the air. The material

is not volatile under normal conditions.

It does not react rapidly with water to

generate heat that might cause

volatilization. The low vapor pressure

led the Department of Transportation to

remove IPDI from its list of materials

that are toxic by inhalation, according to

the petition.

EPA disagrees. Petitioner's argument

is essentially that the test used to

determine acute toxicity subjects the

animals to extreme conditions not likely

to be found in reality. This, however, is

the case for many animal tests used to

determine toxicity for regulatory

purposes. In fact, a similar case can be

made for most LD5o or LCso tests, since

the levels at which animals are dosed

are far higher than would be delivered

in actual conditions. The fact is that

IPDI is toxic at low levels, based on an

LCso, compared to other chemicals

regardless of the conditions of the

chemical during the test. This qualifies

the chemical for listing.

Extrapolations from the extreme

conditions of testing may then be used

to determine regulatory levels. For

example, to determine a level of concern

for chemicals on the EHS list in

calculating threshold planning

quantities, as noted above, EPA applies

a conversion factor to the acute toxicity

tests. Conversion factors may range from

one-tenth to one-hundredth of the levels

found in the acute toxicity tests. This is

explained in the November 17 1986

Interim Final Rule preamble at 51 FR

41576. For listing purposes, however,

conditions of testing are not generally

relevant.

EPA, however, as noted above, has

taken into account physical/chemical

properties of IPDI in proposing to revise

the TPQ.

EPA believes that the data used to list

paraquat, azinphos-methyl, fenamiphos

and isophorone diisocyanate is sound

and that the denial of these petitions is

consistent with the listing criteria and

TPQ methodology. At this time, the

Agency is not planning to modify the

listing criteria nor the TPQ

methodology. The Agency however, will

accept any comments on additional

criteria which can be used to increase

the usefulness of the EHS list and the

TPQ methodology.

51819

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 51819 1994
51820 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 196 / Wednesday October 12, 1994 / Proposed Rules

In the consideration of these petitions,

HULs America brought to the Agency's

attention that there may be at least three

competing products with toxicity and

physical/chemical properties very

similar to IPDI and, therefore should be

treated the same. Huls maintains none

of the chemicals should be listed. EPA

is requesting information on other

chemicals, currently not listed, for

which toxicity meets-the criteria, and

which therefore warrant listing. At this

time, EPA is not proposing to increase

the number of chemicals on the EHS

list; however, in the future it will

propose to list chemicals with toxicity

information showing that they warrant

listing.

The reader should note that the

Agency is making several technical

corrections to the 40 CFR part 355

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register. As mentioned earlier in this

preamble, the listing of "paraquat" is

being corrected to read "paraquat

dichlonde." "Phenylthiourma" in 40

CFR part 355, appendix A should read "phenylthiourea. "The listing of

hydrogen chloride in,40 CFR part 355,

appendix B should read "hydrogen

chloride (gas only)." "Quabain" in 40

CFR part 355, appendix B should read "ouabain."

IV Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency

must determine whether the regulatory

action is "significant" and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines "significant

regulatory action" as one that is likely

to result in a rule that may:

1) have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely affect

in a material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,

the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or lean

programs or the rights and obligations or

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising

out of legal mandates, the President's

priorities, or the principles set forth in the

Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule

is not a "significant regulatory action"

under the terms of Executive Order

12866 and is therefore not subject to

OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an

agency is required to publish a notice of

rulemakmg for any proposed or final

rule, it must prepare and make available

for public comment a regulatory

flexibility analysis that describes the

effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,

small businesses, small organizations,

and small governmental jurisdictions).

This analysis is unnecessary however,

if the agency's administrator certifies

that the rule will not have a significant

economic effect on a substantial number

of small entities.

EPA has examined the rule's potential

effects on small entities as required by

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It has

determined this rule will have no

adverse effect on small entities because

it reduces the number of chemicals

which would potentially make

businesses subject to the reporting

requirements. Therefore, I certify that

today's proposed rule will not have a

significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule relieves facilities from

having to report the presence of these

four chemicals to the State Emergency

Response Commissions and Local

Emergency Planning Committees. If

these facilities have no other Extremely

Hazardous Substances, they will no

longer be required to participate in the

emergency planning process required by

the.statute. Therefore, there are-no

information collection reqmrements for

OMB to review under the provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 355

Environmental Protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Chemical

accident prevention, Chemical

emergency preparedness, Community

emergency response plan, Community

right-to-know Contingency planning,

Disaster assistance, Extremely

hazardous substances, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Natural

resources, Penalties, Reportable

quantity, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Threshold

planning quantity, Water pollution

control, and Water supply

Dated: September 30, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out m the

preamble, part 355 of title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed

to be amended as follows:

PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING

AND NOTIFICATION

1. The authority citation for part 355

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and

11048.

Appendix A to Part 355-[Amended]

2. Appendix A to part 355 is proposed

to be amended by removing "e" from

the notes column and changing the

threshold planning quantity to 1,000

pounds for Isophorone Diisocyanate,

CAS No. 4098-71-9. Appendix A to

part 355 is further proposed to be

amended by removing the following

entries:

CAS No. Chemical name

1642-54-2 ..... Diethylcarbamazine Citrate.

122-14- ....... Fenitrothion.

1314-56-3 ..... Phosphorus Pentoxide.

13494-80-9 ... Tellunum.

Appendix B to Part 355-[Amended]

3. Appendix B to part 355 is proposed

to be amended by removing "e" from

the notes column and changing the

threshold planning quantity to 1,000

pounds for Isophorone Diisocyanate,

CAS No. 4098-71-9. Appendix B to part

355 is further proposed to be amended

by removing the following entries:

CAS No. Chemical name

122-14-5 ....... Fenitrothion.

1314-56-3 ..... Phosphorus Pentoxide.

1642-54-2 ..... Diethylcarbamazine Citrate.

13494-80-9 .. Tellurium.

[FR Doc. 94-25196.Filed 10-11-94; 8:45 aml

BILUNG CODE 6560-60-

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 51820 1994