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 listof "extremely hazardous substances" published under section 302 of theEmergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). EPA is proposing arule
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. EPAis denying petitions requesting deletion from the EHS listof paraquat and isophorone diisocyanate. The Agency is also denying apetition that requests revision ofthe threshold planning quantities for azinphos-methyl and fenamiphos.
DATES: Comments mustbe submitted on

orbefore 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 ofmaterials 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 ofthe Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of1986 (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 ofSARA established a program designed to require state and local planning and preparedness for spills orreleases ofhazardous substances and to provide the public and local governments with information concerning potential chemical hazards in their communities. This program is codified asthe Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001-11050.

Subtitle A ofEPCRA establishes the framework for local emergency planning. The Statute required that EPA publishthe Agency's list of"extremely hazardous substances" ("EHSs"). This had previously been published in November, 1985, bythe EPA Administrator inAppendix A ofthe "Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program Interim Guidance" (CEPP Guidance), asthe list ofacutely toxic chemicals. The Agency was also directed to establish "threshold planning quantities" ("TPQs") foreach extremely hazardous substance. Under section 302, a facility whichhas present

an EHS in excess ofits threshold planning quantity mustnotify the State emergency response commission and local emergency planning committee as well as participate in local emergency planning activities.

The purpose ofthe extremely hazardous substance list is to focus initial efforts inthe development of State and local contingency plans. Itis not intended to be acomplete list ofall chemicals that could potentially be hazardous to a community. The identification ofa 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 ofa listed chemical. Rather, such identification indicates a need forthe community to undertake a program to investigate and evaluate the potential foraccidental exposure associated with the production, storage orhandling of the chemical at a particular site. EPA also encourages communities to go beyond the EHS list when evaluating the hazards offacilities in their community in that facilities handling chemicals noton the EHS list could be

as hazardous asthose handling EHSs.

To date, 46 chemicals have been delisted from the EHS list in previous rulemakings because they did notmeet the toxicity criteria forthe list and were originally listed under section 302 in

error. 1.Regulatory Background

The list ofextremely hazardous substances and theirthreshold planning quantities is codified inEPA regulations atvolume 40 ofthe Code ofFederal 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 asan 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 1986notice 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 finalrule 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 finalrule and issued a final rule

on April 22, 1987 which responded in its preambleto the public comments. The April 1987 final rule made a number ofrevisions to the interim final rule.Among other things, the April 1987 rule republished the extremely hazardous substance list, with the addition of fournew chemicals, and revised the methodology for determining some threshold planning quantities (52 FR 13381).

Details ofthe methodology used -to determine whether to list asubstance as
an extremely hazardous substance and for deriving thethreshold planning quantities are found in theNovember. 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 1994Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 196 / Wednesday October 12, 1994 / Proposed Rules

2. Summary ofpetitions

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 ofextremely 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 forazinphos-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 ofthe available toxicity data shows they do notmeet 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 ofthe physical and chemical properties ofthe chemical,

even though revision ofthe threshold planning quantity was not requested in the petition.

Phosphorus pentoxide was listed on the basis ofan abstract ofa study of smoke fromburning red phosphorus that gave LC 50 values for guinea pigs of 0.061 mg/liter/1 hour and for mice of -' 0.271 mg/liter/1 hour (Ballantyne (1981)). An LC5ois the air concentration dose at which halfthe 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 LC5ovalue in tests ofthe most sensitive mammalian species ofless than 0.5 mg/l over a period ofexposure ofeight hours orless.

As noted above, the Agency listed phosphorus pentoxide based upon an abstract (Ballantyne (1981)). TheAgency

nowbelieves that this abstract should
not be used.as thebasis for listing. The title ofthe abstract reported the toxicity ofphosphorus pentoxide smoke. However, the study was actually performed using the smoke generated by burning red phosphorus. Inburning red phosphorus, two studies (Tarnov (1980) and Burtonet. al (1982)) have shown that the maor product is phosphorus pentoxide. However, the Ballantyne abstract does notestablish 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 thatthe 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 LC5ovalues 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 LC50 value higher than the criteria for listing. In an unpublished Monsanto report (1987), rats were exposed to aerosolized phosphorous pentoxide for 4 hours, atlevels up to 0.99 mg/liter. (It shouldbe 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 ofthe toxic potential ofphosphorous 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 thatthe abstract used asthe basis for listing is invalid (theAgency 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 theEHS list.

Diethylcarbamazine citrate was listed

on the basis ofa report in aRussian data compilation showing an LC 5oinhalation value of0.309 mg/liter/4 hours inrats. The citation number listed in the United Nations sponsored translation is incorrect, and additional details about the original study areunavailable. Methods used for thisinhalation toxicity study could notbe found to determine ifthey meet international standards, therefore, the toxicity values could notbe verified.

An inhalation study sponsored by SmithKline Beecham indicated that a 1- hour exposure ofrats to Diethylcarbamazine citrate at concentration of1.63 mg per liter or 2.38 mg per liter produced no fatalities. Since the only studies available toEPA show that this chemical doesnot meet the listing criteria for inhalation (LC 5o less than 0.5 mg per liter), the Agency is proposing to remove it from theEHS list.

Fenitrothion was initially listed because it appeared to meet the extremely hazardous substance criteria, based upon a study showing an LC 50 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 ofunknown 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 LC 5 0 of above 2.210 mg/liter. In studying the reportprovided by the petitioner, the Agency agrees that the data by which the listing isbased may have been in

error forthe reasons stated by the petitioner. Since the only other study available to the Agency shows that fenitrothion does not meet the listing criteria, EPA isproposing to remove this substance from theEHS list.

Tellurium metal was listed on the basis ofa study (Lenchenko and Plotko (1969)) whichreported an LD.o (median lethal dose, the dose that killed 50 percent ofthe test animals) oral toxicity of 20mg/kg ofbodyweight. As explained inthe November 17 1986 (51 FR 41574) Federal Register notice, EPA listed a substance as an extremely hazardous substance iforal studies showed an LD 5 0 ofless than or equal to 25 mgperkilogram (kg)ofbody 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 199451818 Federal Register 

### / Vol. 59, No. 196 1 Wednesday October 12, 1994 / Proposed Rules

already listed as an'EHS) andnot on tellurium metal. The petitioneralso provided a study (Pnnsen (1991)) which showed an LD5ofortellurium metal in

excess of5000 mg/kg.Based upon this information, the Agency is proposing to

remove tellurium from the EHS listing while maintaining the listing forsodium tellurate.

The Agency requests comments on whether it should proceed to delist these four chemicals based upon this information orany 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 delistbecause IPDI meetsthe criteria for listing, asdiscussed in the next Unit onPetition 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 highlyreactive. Accordingly, EPA isproposing to change the threshold planning quantity for IPDI based on the methodology for determining threshold planning quantities forliquids instead ofthe 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 ofinitially determining the maximum shortterm 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. Thisis the so-called "level of concern." (See theThreshold Planning Quantities Technical Support Document, April 7 1987.)

There are twoways to determine a "level ofconcern." Ifit 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 ofa substance in air to which ahealthy worker can be exposed for30 minutes and escape without suffering irreversible health effects or impairing symptoms.

Ifthe IDLH value is notavailable, as is the case formost ofthe 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 forIPDI the LCo of0.12 mg/l over a 4 hour exposure period was multiplied by 0.1 to estimate the IDLH value. The level ofconcern is then divided by a factor "V" which represents the
extent to which the material can volatilize and become airborne and dispersed. This isexplained 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 ofthe 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 ofindex 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 ofICI 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 LC5otests below the Agency criteria for listing are tests on either the pure solid form ofthe chemical or the highly concentrated form ofthe 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 ofno 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
CASnumber, EPA is making atechnical amendment to the EHS listing in 40 CFR Part 355 by substituting the term paraquat dichloride for paraquat (published elsewhere in this issue ofthe Federal Register). All indications from the petition arethat the public hasbeen 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 showhigh toxicity. Paraquat dichloride qualifies as an EHS because some form ofit shows high toxicity that exceeds the Agency's criteria. This isthe 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 ofLDso orLCm, tests, halfthe animals die. Ifthese tests show 50 percent mortality ata relatively low dose, they at leastraise 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 listingparaquat was a study (Murray and Gibson, 1972) which showed a formulation containing paraquat dichloride ashaving an oral (guineapig) LDsovalue of22 mg/kg. Although the toxicity ofthe paraquat dichloride formulation iscaused solely by the paraquat ion,based on the LDso of22mg/kg forparaquat ion,ICI estimated an oral LDsovalue of30.4 mg/ kg forparaquat dichloride which does notmeet 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 forthe 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 of0.5 mg/ liter as noted above. EPA is changing the basis forlisting value from oral LDso of 22 mg/kg for paraquat ion to inhalation LC 5oof0.00138 mg/liter for paraquat dichloride.

Petitioner, alternatively requests that the threshold planning quantity for paraquat dichloride should be higher than the current amount of 10pounds. 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 sizegreater 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 finalrule notice at51 FR41575-76 and 41577 as amended by the April 22, 1987 final

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

rule notice at 52 FR 13390. A summary ofthatreasoningfollows.

The paraquat listed, essentially the dichloride salt, is asolid in solution. There is available forparaquat an IDLH level of 1.5 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3).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 thisby applying this calculation to solids only ifthey have a particle size less than 100 microns, ifthey are handled in solution

ormolten form, or ifthey have a high rating'forreactivity. 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 ofconcern for paraquat dichloride on the LDsoor LC5o tests rather than the IDLH.EPA disagrees. The IDLH, while ithas flaws, is the best available measure for determining a level ofconcern 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 asthe dichloride salt in a solution. Since the IDLH value applies
to both the salt and the solution, EPA has decided not to removethe chemical from the EHS list or modifythe TPQ.

The paraquat ion Is reportable as a solution.(or mixture) ofparaquat dichloride and a carrier (forexample, water). For threshold purposes, the facility only needs to consider the weight percent ofparaquat 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 thatboth ofthese 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 forthe chemicals shouldbe basedupon their being liquids using the methodology described forIPDI, above, inunit I. This would raisethe TPQ to 10,000 pounds.

EPA disagrees. TheFarm Chemicals Handbook (1984p.C161) lists fenamiphos as abrown, waxy solid. The Hawley handbook (1981) lists azinphosmethyl as a brown waxy solid aswell. Since these references, used as background to the listing, show these chemicals as solids, the EPA considers the .chemicalsassolids as well. They would be near the melting pointbut

never quite reach it.Molten solids are not treated asliquids underthe TPQ methodology because the solids haveto be raised above standard temperature in order tobecome molten. Since EPA has

no way ofknowing atwhat temperatures facilities have the molten solids (todetermine volatilization), EPA chose to consider solids different from chemicals that are liquid at standard temperatures.

Instead, EPA accounts for solids that become liquids (moltenform) with the two tiered threshold. When handled in molten form, the TPQ forthese chemicals wouldbe 10 pounds because ofthe possibility ofvolatilization. However, even in molten form, significant amounts ofvapor are not likely tobe generated. The Agency examined the fraction ofvolatilization expected for the solids on the list and found that itranges from 0.3 to 0.008 pounds/minute perpound spilled (see Threshold Planning Quantities, Technical SupportDocument, April 7' 1987 page27). Since data were not available forall solids and to be conservative, the Agency chose to incorporate the 0.3 fraction into the reporting requirements. Ifa facility is handling the solidin molten form, the amount molten should be multiplied by 0.3 to obtain the actual amount to be compared to the threshold planning quantity forreporting (see 40 CFR 355.30(e)(iv)).

HULs America Inc. submitted a petition to delist isophorone diisocyanate (IPDI). IPDI had been listed because it metthe criteria for extremely hazardous substance listing, on the basis oftwo aerosol inhalation-toxicity studies inrats. The 4 hour LC 5ois .26 mgper liter, which isless than theLC5o of0.5 mg/liter which qualifies itas 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 notuse high
pressure, and contends that unusual

measures are required to generate test atmospheres containing IPDI fortoxicity testing. Ifthe substance is aerosolized, particle"would be expected to precipitate out ofthe 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 ofTransportation to

remove IPDI from its list ofmaterials 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
tobe found in reality. This, however, is the case formany animal tests used to determine toxicity for regulatory
purposes. In fact, a similar case can be made formost LD5oor LCsotests, since the levels at which animals are dosed

are farhigher than would be delivered in actual conditions. The factis that IPDI is toxic at low levels, based on an LCso, compared to other chemicals regardless ofthe conditions ofthe chemical during thetest. This qualifies the chemical for listing.

Extrapolations from theextreme conditions oftesting may then beused
to determine regulatory levels. For example, to determine a level ofconcern for chemicals on theEHS listin 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 ofthe 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 oftesting are not generally relevant.

EPA, however, as noted above, has taken into account physical/chemical properties ofIPDI 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 ofthese petitions is consistent withthe listing criteria and TPQmethodology. At thistime, 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 ofthe EHS list and the TPQmethodology. 51819

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 51819 199451820 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 196 / Wednesday October 12, 1994 / Proposed Rules

In the consideration ofthese petitions, HULs America brought to the Agency's attention that there may be atleast three competing products with toxicity and physical/chemical properties very similar to IPDI and, therefore shouldbe treated the same. Hulsmaintains none ofthe chemicals should be listed.EPA isrequesting information on other chemicals, currently not listed, for which toxicity meets-the criteria, and which therefore warrant listing. At this time,EPA is notproposing to increase the number ofchemicals on the EHS list;however, inthe future it will propose to listchemicals with toxicity information showing that theywarrant listing.

The reader should note that the Agency is making several technical corrections to the 40 CFRpart 355 elsewhere inthis issue ofthe Federal Register. As mentioned earlier in this preamble, the listing of "paraquat" is being corrected toread "paraquat dichlonde." "Phenylthiourma" in 40 CFR part 355, appendix A should read "phenylthiourea. "The listing of hydrogen chloride in,40 CFRpart 355, appendix Bshould read "hydrogen chloride (gasonly)." "Quabain" in 40 CFR part 355, appendix Bshould read "ouabain."

IV Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order12866

Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51735 (October4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whetherthe regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements oftheExecutive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result ina rule that may: 1) have an annualeffect onthe economy of $100 million or moreor adversely affect inamaterial way the economy, asector of theeconomy, 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 thebudgetary impactof entitlements, grants, user fees, or lean programs or therights andobligations or recipients thereof; or

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out oflegal mandates, the President's priorities, orthe principles set forth in the Executive Order.

It hasbeen determined that thisrule is not a "significant regulatory action" under the terms ofExecutive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
B. RegulatoryFlexibility 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 mustprepare andmake available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect ofthe rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). This analysis is unnecessary however, ifthe agency's administrator certifies that the rule willnot have asignificant economic effect on a substantial number ofsmall entities.

EPA has examined the rule's potential effects on small entities asrequired by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Ithas determined thisrule will have no adverse effect on small entitiesbecause itreduces the number of chemicals which would potentially make businesses subject to the reporting requirements. Therefore, I certify that today's proposed rulewill nothave a significant economic effect on a substantial number ofsmall entities.
C.Paperwork ReductionAct Thisrulerelieves facilities from having toreport the presence ofthese four chemicals to the State Emergency Response Commissions and Local Emergency Planning Committees. If these facilities have no other Extremely Hazardous Substances, they willno longerbe required to participate in the emergency planning process required by the.statute. Therefore, there are-no information collection reqmrements for OMBto review underthe provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ListofSubjects in40 CFR Part355

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. CarolM. Browner, Administrator.

For the reasons set out mthe preamble, part 355 oftitle 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION

1. The authority citation for part 355 continues toread asfollows:

Authority:42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and 11048. Appendix A toPart355-[Amended]

2.Appendix A topart355 is proposed tobe amended by removing "e"from the notes column andchanging 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 BtoPart355-[Amended]

3.Appendix Bto part 355 is proposed tobe amended byremoving "e" from the notes column and changing the threshold planningquantity to 1,000 pounds for Isophorone Diisocyanate, CAS No. 4098-71-9. Appendix B to part 355 isfurther proposed tobe 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