Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 15913 

conditional approval will automatically 

become a disapproval on that date and 

EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. 

EPA is not required to propose the 

finding of disapproval. If the 

conditional approval is converted to a 

disapproval, the final disapproval 

triggers the Federal Implementation 

Plan requirement under section 110(c). 

However, if the State meets its 

commitment within the applicable 

timeframe, the conditionally approved 

submission will remain a part of the SIP 

until EPA takes final action approving 

or disapproving the new submittal. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve several 

SIP revisions submitted to EPA by the 

State of North Carolina, through NC 

DENR, to address the NOX RACT 

requirements for the North Carolina 

portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

approve in part, and conditionally 

approve in part several SIP revisions to 

address the VOC RACT requirements 

and related CTG requirements. 

Specifically, North Carolina submitted 

SIP revisions on October 14, 2004, April 

6, 2007, June 15, 2007, January 31, 2008, 

November 19, 2008, September 18, 

2009, February 3, 2010, April 6, 2010, 

and November 9, 2010, to address NOX

RACT, VOC RACT and CTG 

requirements. Together, these SIP 

revisions establish the RACT 

requirements for the major sources 

located in the North Carolina portion of 

the bi-state Charlotte Area. In a separate 

rulemaking, EPA has already taken 

action on RACT and CTG requirements 

for the South Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. 

EPA has evaluated the proposed 

revisions to North Carolina’s SIP, and 

has made the preliminary determination 

that they are consistent with statutory 

and regulatory requirements and EPA 

guidance except for the applicability for 

some CTG VOC sources. Consistent with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA is 

relying upon a commitment by North 

Carolina to include appropriate 

applicability thresholds for VOC RACT 

for the all sources addressed by CTG in 

the Area as a basis for conditionally 

approving North Carolina’s SIP 

revisions as they relate to VOC RACT. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposal action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the 

determination does not have substantial 

direct effects on an Indian Tribe. There 

are no Indian Tribes located within the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte nonattainment area. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: March 5, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05838 Filed 3–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–0111; FRL–9785–9] 

RIN 2025–AA35 

Addition of ortho-Nitrotoluene; 

Community Right-to-Know Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to add 

ortho-nitrotoluene (o-nitrotoluene) to 

the list of toxic chemicals subject to 

reporting under section 313 of the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and 

section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention 

Act (PPA) of 1990. o-Nitrotoluene has 

been classified by the National 

Toxicology Program in their 12th Report 

on Carcinogens as ‘‘reasonably 

anticipated to be a human carcinogen.’’ 

EPA believes that o-nitrotoluene meets 

the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria 

because it can reasonably be anticipated 

to cause cancer in humans. Based on a 

review of the available production and 

use information, o-nitrotoluene is 

expected to be manufactured, processed, 

or otherwise used in quantities that 

would exceed the EPCRA section 313 

reporting thresholds. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

TRI–2012–0111, by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: oei.docket@epa.gov 

• Mail: Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2012– 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15914 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

0111. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, avoid any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental 

Analysis Division, Office of Information 

Analysis and Access (2842T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566– 

0743; fax number: 202–566–0677; email: 

bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for specific 

information on this notice. For general 

information on EPCRA section 313, 

contact the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll 

free at (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– 

9810 in Virginia and Alaska or toll free, 

TDD (800) 553–7672, http:// 

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this notice apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, process, 

or otherwise use o-nitrotoluene. 

Potentially affected categories and 

entities may include, but are not limited 

to: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry .................................................................. Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to SIC codes 

20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 

331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 

212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220, 

512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*. 

*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes. 

Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC 

codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (correspond to SIC 10, Metal 

Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 

221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (correspond to SIC 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 

5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds 

to SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 

562920 (Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (correspond to SIC 4953, Refuse Systems). 

Federal Government .............................................. Federal facilities 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Some of the 

entities listed in the table have 

exemptions and/or limitations regarding 

coverage, and other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be affected. 

To determine whether your facility 

would be affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in part 372 subpart 

B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. How should I submit CBI to the 

agency? 

Do not submit CBI information to EPA 

through www.regulations.gov or email. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

II. Introduction 

Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 

11023, requires certain facilities that 

manufacture, process, or otherwise use 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 15915 

listed toxic chemicals in amounts above 

reporting threshold levels to report their 

environmental releases and other waste 

management quantities of such 

chemicals annually. These facilities 

must also report pollution prevention 

and recycling data for such chemicals, 

pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA, 42 

U.S.C. 13106. Congress established an 

initial list of toxic chemicals that 

comprised more than 300 chemicals and 

20 chemical categories. 

EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA 

to add or delete chemicals from the list 

and sets criteria for these actions. 

EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that EPA 

may add a chemical to the list if any of 

the listing criteria in Section 313(d)(2) 

are met. Therefore, to add a chemical, 

EPA must demonstrate that at least one 

criterion is met, but need not determine 

whether any other criterion is met. 

Conversely, to remove a chemical from 

the list, EPCRA section 313(d)(3) 

dictates that EPA must demonstrate that 

none of the listing criteria in Section 

313(d)(2) are met. The EPCRA section 

313(d)(2) criteria are: 

(A) The chemical is known to cause 

or can reasonably be anticipated to 

cause significant adverse acute human 

health effects at concentration levels 

that are reasonably likely to exist 

beyond facility site boundaries as a 

result of continuous, or frequently 

recurring, releases. 

(B) The chemical is known to cause or 

can reasonably be anticipated to cause 

in humans– 

(i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or 

(ii) serious or irreversible— 

(I) reproductive dysfunctions, 

(II) neurological disorders, 

(III) heritable genetic mutations, or 

(IV) other chronic health effects. 

(C) The chemical is known to cause or 

can be reasonably anticipated to cause, 

because of 

(i) its toxicity, 

(ii) its toxicity and persistence in the 

environment, or 

(iii) its toxicity and tendency to 

bioaccumulate in the environment, a 

significant adverse effect on the 

environment of sufficient seriousness, 

in the judgment of the Administrator, to 

warrant reporting under this section. 

EPA often refers to the section 

313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the ‘‘acute 

human health effects criterion;’’ the 

section 313(d)(2)(B) criterion as the 

‘‘chronic human health effects 

criterion;’’ and the section 313(d)(2)(C) 

criterion as the ‘‘environmental effects 

criterion.’’ 

EPA has published in the Federal 

Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 

61432) a statement clarifying its 

interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) 

and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the 

section 313 list of toxic chemicals. 

III. Background Information 

A. What is the NTP and the report on 

Carcinogens? 

The National Toxicology Program 

(NTP) is an interagency program within 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (DHHS) headquartered at the 

National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH). The mission 

of the NTP is to evaluate chemicals of 

public health concern by developing 

and applying tools of modern toxicology 

and molecular biology. The NTP 

program maintains an objective, 

science-based approach in dealing with 

critical issues in toxicology and is 

committed to using the best science 

available to prioritize, design, conduct, 

and interpret its studies. The mission of 

the NTP includes the evaluation of 

chemicals for their potential to cause 

cancer in humans. 

As part of their cancer evaluation 

work, the NTP periodically publishes a 

Report on Carcinogens (RoC) document. 

The RoC was mandated by the U.S. 

Congress, as part of the Public Health 

Service Act (Section 301(b)(4), as 

amended). The NTP describes the RoC 

as an informational scientific and public 

health document that identifies and 

discusses agents, substances, mixtures, 

or exposure circumstances that may 

pose a hazard to human health by virtue 

of their carcinogenicity. The NTP RoC 

serves as a meaningful and useful 

compilation of data on (1) the 

carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer), 

genotoxicity (ability to damage genes), 

and biologic mechanisms (modes of 

action in the body) of the RoC-listed 

substances in humans and/or in 

animals, (2) the potential for human 

exposure to these substances, and (3) 

the regulations and guidelines 

promulgated by Federal agencies to 

limit exposures to RoC-listed 

substances. The NTP RoC is published 

periodically, with the most recently 

published 12th RoC having been 

released on June 10, 2011. The 12th RoC 

contains the NTP cancer classifications 

from the most recent chemical 

evaluations as well as the classifications 

from previous versions of the RoC. 

B. What are the NTP cancer 

classifications and criteria? 

The NTP RoC classifies chemicals as 

either ‘‘known to be a human 

carcinogen’’ or ‘‘reasonably anticipated 

to be a human carcinogen.’’ The criteria 

that the NTP uses to list an agent, 

substance, mixture, or exposure 

circumstance under each classification 

in the RoC (Ref. 1) are as follows: 

‘‘Known To Be Human Carcinogen: 

There is sufficient evidence of 

carcinogenicity from studies in 

humans*, which indicates a causal 

relationship between exposure to the 

agent, substance, or mixture, and human 

cancer. 

Reasonably Anticipated To Be Human 

Carcinogen: 

There is limited evidence of 

carcinogenicity from studies in 

humans*, which indicates that causal 

interpretation is credible, but that 

alternative explanations, such as 

chance, bias, or confounding factors, 

could not adequately be excluded, 

or 

there is sufficient evidence of 

carcinogenicity from studies in 

experimental animals, which indicates 

there is an increased incidence of 

malignant and/or a combination of 

malignant and benign tumors (1) in 

multiple species or at multiple tissue 

sites, or (2) by multiple routes of 

exposure, or (3) to an unusual degree 

with regard to incidence, site, or type of 

tumor, or age at onset, 

or 

there is less than sufficient evidence 

of carcinogenicity in humans or 

laboratory animals; however, the agent, 

substance, or mixture belongs to a welldefined, structurally related class of 

substances whose members are listed in 

a previous Report on Carcinogens as 

either known to be a human carcinogen 

or reasonably anticipated to be a human 

carcinogen, or there is convincing 

relevant information that the agent acts 

through mechanisms indicating it 

would likely cause cancer in humans. 

Conclusions regarding carcinogenicity 

in humans or experimental animals are 

based on scientific judgment, with 

consideration given to all relevant 

information. Relevant information 

includes, but is not limited to, dose 

response, route of exposure, chemical 

structure, metabolism, 

pharmacokinetics, sensitive subpopulations, genetic effects, or other 

data relating to mechanism of action or 

factors that may be unique to a given 

substance. For example, there may be 

substances for which there is evidence 

of carcinogenicity in laboratory animals, 

but there are compelling data indicating 

that the agent acts through mechanisms 

which do not operate in humans and 

would therefore not reasonably be 

anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 

*This evidence can include 

traditional cancer epidemiology studies, 

data from clinical studies, and/or data 

derived from the study of tissues or cells 

from humans exposed to the substance 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15916 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

in question, which can be useful for 

evaluating whether a relevant cancer 

mechanism is operating in humans.’’ 

The NTP classifications for the 

potential for a chemical to cause cancer 

are very similar to the EPCRA section 

313(d)(2)(B) statutory criteria for listing 

a chemical on the list of toxic chemicals 

subject to reporting under EPCRA 

section 313: ‘‘(B) The chemical is known 

to cause or can reasonably be 

anticipated to cause in humans—(i) 

cancer * * *’’ The specific data used by 

the NTP to classify a chemical as 

‘‘Known To Be Human Carcinogen’’ or 

‘‘Reasonably Anticipated To Be Human 

Carcinogen’’ are consistent with data 

used by EPA to evaluate chemicals for 

their potential to cause cancer and 

classify chemicals as either 

‘‘Carcinogenic to Humans’’ or ‘‘Likely to 

Be Carcinogenic to Humans’’ (Ref. 2). 

C. What is the review process for the 

RoC? 

Specific details of the nomination and 

review process for the development of 

the 12th RoC are described in the NTP 

Report on Carcinogens Review Process 

section of the 12th RoC (Ref. 1). In 

general, the RoC review process 

includes evaluations by scientists from 

the NTP, other Federal health research 

and regulatory agencies (including 

EPA), and nongovernmental 

institutions. The RoC review process 

includes external peer review and 

several opportunities for public 

comment. For the 12th RoC, during the 

entire nomination, selection, and review 

process there were four opportunities 

for public comment. For each candidate 

substance, an expert panel was 

convened to peer review the NTP 

background document prepared for each 

candidate substance. The NTP also 

asked the expert panels to (1) apply the 

RoC listing criteria to the relevant 

scientific evidence and make a 

recommendation regarding the listing 

status for the candidate substance and 

(2) to provide the scientific justification 

for that recommendation. For the 12th 

RoC, the next step was a review by the 

Interagency Scientific Review Group 

(which included an EPA representative) 

followed by a review by the NIEHS/NTP 

Scientific Review Group. After these 

reviews, the NTP prepared a draft 

substance profile for each candidate 

substance which was peer reviewed by 

the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors 

which then prepared and submitted a 

peer review report to the NTP. The NTP 

then drafted the 12th RoC and 

submitted it to the NTP Director for 

review. The Director distributed the 

draft 12th RoC to the NTP Executive 

Committee for consultation, review, and 

comment. After approval of the draft 

12th RoC by the NTP Director, the final 

draft of the 12th RoC was prepared and 

was submitted to the Secretary, DHHS, 

for review and approval. Once 

approved, the Secretary submitted the 

12th RoC to the U.S. Congress as a final 

document. The 12th RoC was released 

to the public on June 10, 2011. 

IV. EPA’s review of the 12th RoC 

A. How did EPA select the NTP RoC 

chemical being proposed for addition? 

The most recent version of the NTP 

RoC that EPA previously reviewed for 

possible additions to the EPCRA section 

313 list was the 11th RoC (April 6, 2010, 

75 FR 17333). Each new version of the 

RoC adds newly classified chemicals to 

the existing list. EPA’s present review of 

the 12th RoC identified four newly 

listed chemicals that are not on or 

covered by the EPCRA section list 

(aristolochic acids, captafol, onitrotoluene, and riddelliine). Of the 

four chemicals, only o-nitrotoluene is 

commercially produced and thus would 

be an appropriate candidate for listing 

under EPCRA section 313 since no 

reports would be expected for the other 

chemicals. 

Section 313(d)(2) of EPCRA provides 

EPA the discretion to add chemicals to 

the TRI list when there is sufficient 

evidence to establish any of the listing 

criteria. EPA can add a chemical that 

meets one criterion regardless of its 

production volume or whether any 

reports would be filed. But as in past 

chemical reviews (e.g., January 12, 1994, 

59 FR 1788), EPA adopted a production 

volume screen for the development of 

this proposed rule to make sure that 

reports would be expected to be 

submitted for the chemicals proposed to 

be listed. If a chemical that did not meet 

the production volume screen was 

listed, there would be an economic 

burden for firms that would have to 

determine that they did not exceed the 

reporting threshold. Yet, as no reports 

would be filed, there would be no 

information to the public on such a 

chemical. EPA feels it is appropriate at 

this time to focus on chemicals for 

which reports are likely to be filed. 

EPA reviewed the NTP 12th RoC 

chemical profile and supporting 

materials for o-nitrotoluene (Ref. 3). 

Given the extensive scientific reviews 

conducted by the NTP for their RoC 

documents, EPA’s review focused on 

ensuring that there were no 

inconsistencies with how the Agency 

would consider the available data. 

EPA’s review of the o-nitrotoluene 

chemical profile and supporting 

material found no inconsistencies 

between how the data were interpreted 

by the NTP and how that same data 

would be interpreted under EPA’s 

Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment (Ref. 2). Therefore, EPA 

agrees with the hazard conclusions of 

the NTP 12th RoC for o-nitrotoluene. 

B. What technical data supports the 

NTP RoC classification and EPA’s 

proposed addition of o-nitrotoluene to 

the EPCRA section 313 list? 

This section presents the data that 

supported the NTP 12th RoC 

classification of o-nitrotoluene and why 

EPA believes the data support the 

addition of this chemical to the EPCRA 

section 313 list. The NTP chemical 

profile, the NTP chemical background 

document, and the references cited 

within the portion of the NTP 12th RoC 

chemical profile quoted here, are all 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. While they are contained in 

the docket and are part of the 

rulemaking record, the references 

within the quotation cited from the NTP 

12th RoC profile document are not 

included in the list of references in Unit 

VI. of this Federal Register notice. The 

full citations for the references 

contained in the quotation can be found 

in the NTP 12th RoC profile document 

(Ref. 4). 

1. o-Nitrotoluene (CAS No. 88–72–2) 

(Refs. NTP Profile/Background 

document (Refs. 4 and 5)). The NTP has 

classified o-nitrotoluene as ‘‘reasonably 

anticipated to be a human carcinogen.’’ 

The classification is based on sufficient 

evidence of carcinogenicity in 

experimental animals and supporting 

data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. 

The NTP substance profile for onitrotoluene (Ref. 4) included the 

following summary information of the 

evidence of carcinogenicity: 

‘‘Carcinogenicity 

o-Nitrotoluene is reasonably 

anticipated to be a human carcinogen 

based on sufficient evidence of 

carcinogenicity from studies in 

experimental animals and supporting 

data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. 

Cancer Studies in Experimental 

Animals 

Oral exposure to o-nitrotoluene 

caused tumors at several different tissue 

sites in rats and mice and early onset of 

cancer in male rats. Malignant 

mesothelioma and mesothelial-cell 

hyperplasia of the tunica vaginalis of 

the epididymis were observed in male 

rats administered o-nitrotoluene in their 

feed for 13 weeks (NTP 1992). Bile-duct 

cancer (cholangiocarcinoma) was 

observed after 26 weeks, both in rats 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 15917 

exposed to o-nitrotoluene for 26 weeks 

and in rats exposed for 13 weeks and 

then observed for 13 more weeks 

without exposure (NTP 1996). oNitrotoluene caused cancer at several 

tissue sites in two-year chronic 

exposure studies of rats and mice of 

both sexes and in a study in which male 

rats were exposed to o-nitrotoluene for 

13 weeks and evaluated at two years 

(NTP 2002). In rats, o-nitrotoluene 

caused (1) subcutaneous skin tumors 

and mammary-gland tumors 

(fibroadenoma) in both sexes, (2) 

malignant mesothelioma and benign or 

malignant tumors of the liver 

(hepatocellular adenoma or carcinoma 

or cholangiocarcinoma) and lung 

(alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or 

carcinoma) in males, and (3) benign 

liver tumors (hepatocellular adenoma) 

in females. In mice, it caused malignant 

blood-vessel tumors (hemangiosarcoma) 

in both sexes, malignant tumors of the 

large intestine (cecal carcinoma) in 

males, and benign or malignant liver 

tumors (hepatocellular adenoma or 

carcinoma) in females (NTP 2002). 

Studies on Mechanisms of 

Carcinogenesis 

Following oral administration to rats 

and mice, o-nitrotoluene is absorbed 

into the blood and rapidly cleared; the 

serum half-life is 1.5 hours in rats (NTP 

2002). In the rat liver, o-nitrotoluene is 

metabolized to o-nitrobenzyl alcohol 

and can follow several metabolic 

pathways: (1) glucuronidation to onitrobenzyl glucuronide, (2) sulfation 

and subsequent reaction with 

glutathione and acetylcysteine to onitrobenzyl sulfate, S-(onitrobenzyl)glutathione, and S-(onitrobenzyl)-N-acetylcysteine, or (3) 

metabolism to o-aminobenzyl alcohol 

followed by oxidation to oaminobenzoic acid. The metabolites are 

eliminated primarily in the urine. The 

major metabolites are o-nitrobenzyl 

glucuronide and o-nitrobenzoic acid 

major metabolites in rats and mice and 

o-aminobenzyl alcohol and S-(onitrobenzyl)-N-acetylcysteine in rats. 

Female rats excrete less than half as 

much of the dose in the form of oaminobenzyl alcohol, o-nitrobenzyl 

alcohol, or S-(o-nitrobenzyl)-Nacetylcysteine as male rats (NTP 2002). 

The glucuronidated form can also be 

excreted in the bile; when the 

glucuronidated form in the bile is 

excreted into the small intestine, 

intestinal bacteria can deconjugate it 

and reduce the nitro group to an amino 

group, forming aminobenzyl alcohol. 

Aminobenzyl alcohol can be reabsorbed 

from the intestine and further 

metabolized by the liver to reactive 

compounds (carbonium and nitrenium 

ions) that can covalently bind to DNA 

or to proteins (Chism and Rickert 1985, 

NTP 2002, 2008). Thus, microbial 

metabolism in the intestine is an 

important step in the carcinogenicity of 

o-nitrotoluene. However, neither oaminobenzyl alcohol nor its metabolites 

have been detected in mouse urine after 

exposure to o-nitrotoluene (NTP 2002); 

therefore, other unidentified 

biochemical pathways leading to tumor 

formation most likely are involved. 

o-Nitrotoluene did not cause 

mutations in bacteria. In studies of its 

ability to cause genetic damage in 

cultured mammalian cells, the results 

were mixed. o-Nitrotoluene caused (1) 

sister chromatid exchange in Chinese 

hamster ovary (CHO) cells, (2) 

chromosomal aberrations in Chinese 

hamster lung (CHL) cells and human 

peripheral lymphocytes but not in CHO 

cells, (3) micronucleus formation in 

CHL cells but not in CHO–K1 cells, and 

(4) DNA damage in L5178Y mouse 

lymphoma cells (NTP 2008). It did not 

induce DNA repair in rat or human 

hepatocytes (NTP 2008). In rats and 

mice exposed in vivo, o-nitrotoluene 

caused a slight increase in micronucleus 

formation in peripheral normochromatic 

erythrocytes in male mice at a high dose 

level; this finding was not considered 

conclusive. o-Nitrotoluene did not 

induce micronucleus formation in 

peripheral normochromatic erythrocytes 

in female mice or in polychromatic 

erythrocytes in the bone marrow of male 

rats or mice (NTP 2002). Following in 

vivo exposure of rats to o-nitrotoluene, 

DNA repair was increased in liver cells 

isolated from males, but not from 

females or germ-free males. These 

results, together with o-nitrotoluene’s 

inability to induce DNA repair in 

hepatocytes in vitro, suggest that 

activation of o-nitrotoluene to become 

genotoxic is sex-specific and depends 

on both mammalian metabolism and 

metabolism by intestinal bacteria 

(Doolittle et al. 1983). However, onitrotoluene also caused tumors in other 

tissues in rats and mice of both sexes, 

suggesting that other activation 

mechanisms exist. 

In rats exposed to o-nitrotoluene in 

vivo, DNA adducts were detected in the 

liver of males but not females (NTP 

2008). Formation of DNA adducts was 

consistent with the reaction of 

intermediate compounds derived from 

o-aminobenzyl alcohol with guanine or 

adenine bases (Jones et al. 2003). The 

pattern of mutations in oncogenes from 

o-nitrotoluene-induced tumors was also 

consistent with guanine adduct 

formation: the majority of p53 mutations 

in hemangiosarcomas were G:C to A:T 

transitions, and almost all the K-ras 

mutations in cecal carcinomas were G:C 

to T:A transversions (Hong et al. 2003, 

Sills et al. 2004). Mutations in the p53, 

b-catenin, and K-ras genes also were 

found in hemangiosarcomas from mice 

exposed to o-nitrotoluene, but not in 

spontaneously occurring 

hemangiosarcomas from unexposed 

mice (Hong et al. 2003). 

In factory workers exposed to onitrotoluene, o-nitrotoluene– 

hemoglobin adducts were detected in 

the blood (Jones et al. 2005a), and onitrobenzoic acid and o-nitrobenzyl 

alcohol were detected in the urine 

(Jones et al. 2005b), providing evidence 

that human exposure to o-nitrotoluene 

results in production of a reactive 

metabolite(s). In addition, adducts 

between hemoglobin and 2- 

methylaniline (a metabolite of onitrotoluene) were identified in both 

exposed workers and exposed rats, and 

the level of 2-methylaniline– 

hemoglobin adducts in the blood of rats 

was proportional to the level of 2- 

methylaniline–DNA adducts in the 

livers of rats (Jones and Sabbioni 2003, 

Jones et al. 2003). 

Cancer Studies in Humans 

The data available from 

epidemiological studies are inadequate 

to evaluate the relationship between 

human cancer and exposure specifically 

to o-nitrotoluene. One cohort study of 

workers involved in the manufacture of 

magenta dye mentioned exposure of 

workers to o-nitrotoluene as part of the 

manufacturing process. A large excess of 

bladder cancer was reported; however, 

the workers were also exposed to other 

chemicals—o-toluidine (2- 

methylaniline) and 4,4′-methylenebis(2- 

methylaniline)—that are suspected of 

causing bladder cancer (Rubino et al. 

1982). Two other studies of magenta 

manufacturing workers also reported an 

excess of bladder cancer, but did not 

report whether the workers were 

exposed to o-nitrotoluene (Case and 

Pearson 1954, Vineis and Magnani 

1985).’’ 

EPA has reviewed the NTP 

assessment for o-nitrotoluene and agrees 

that o-nitrotoluene can reasonably be 

anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 

EPA believes that the evidence is 

sufficient for listing o-nitrotoluene on 

EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA 

section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the 

available carcinogenicity data for this 

chemical. 

V. Rationale for listing 

The NTP RoC document undergoes 

significant scientific review and public 

comment. The NTP review mirrors the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15918 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

review EPA has historically done to 

assess chemicals for listing under 

EPCRA section 313 on the basis of 

carcinogenicity. The conclusions 

regarding the potential for chemicals in 

the NTP RoC to cause cancer in humans 

are based on established sound 

scientific principles. EPA believes that 

the NTP RoC is an excellent and reliable 

source of information on the potential 

for chemicals covered in the NTP RoC 

to cause cancer in humans (see Unit III). 

Based on EPA’s review of the data 

contained in the 12th NTP RoC, EPA 

has determined that o-nitrotoluene can 

reasonably be anticipated to cause 

cancer (Ref. 3). Therefore, EPA believes 

that the evidence is sufficient for listing 

o-nitrotoluene on the EPCRA section 

313 toxic chemical list pursuant to 

EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on 

the available carcinogenicity data 

presented in the 12th RoC. 

EPA considers chemicals that can 

reasonably be anticipated to cause 

cancer to have moderately high to high 

chronic toxicity. EPA does not believe 

that it is appropriate to consider 

exposure for chemicals that are 

moderately high to highly toxic based 

on a hazard assessment when 

determining if a chemical can be added 

for chronic effects pursuant to EPCRA 

section 313(d)(2)(B) (see 59 FR 61440– 

61442). Therefore, in accordance with 

EPA’s standard policy on the use of 

exposure assessments (59 FR 61432), 

EPA does not believe that an exposure 

assessment is necessary or appropriate 

for determining whether o-nitrotoluene 

meets the criteria of EPCRA section 

313(d)(2)(B). 

VI. References 

EPA has established an official public 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2012–0111. The 

public docket includes information 

considered by EPA in developing this 

action, including the documents listed 

below, which are electronically or 

physically located in the docket. In 

addition, interested parties should 

consult documents that are referenced 

in the documents that EPA has placed 

in the docket, regardless of whether 

these referenced documents are 

electronically or physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

documents that are referenced in 

documents that EPA has placed in the 

docket, but that are not electronically or 

physically located in the docket, please 

consult the person listed in the above 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

1. NTP, 2011. National Toxicology 

Program. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth 

Edition. Released June 10, 2011. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Public Health Service, National Toxicology 

Program, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 

2. USEPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC, March 2005. 

3. USEPA, OEI. Memorandum from Martin 

Gehlhaus, Toxicologist, Analytical Support 

Branch to Larry Reisman, Chief, Analytical 

Support Branch. June 30, 2011. Subject: 

Review of National Toxicology Program 

(NTP) Cancer Classification Data for onitrotoluene. 

4. NTP, 2011. National Toxicology 

Program. 12th Report on Carcinogens—oNitrotoluene Substance Profile. Released 

June 10, 2011. U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Service, 

National Toxicology Program, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709. 

5. NTP, 2008. Report on Carcinogens 

Background Document for o-Nitrotoluene. 

June 20, 2008. U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Public Health Services, 

National Toxicology Program, Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27709. 

6. USEPA, OEI. Economic Analysis of the 

Proposed Rule to add ortho-Nitrotoluene to 

the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic 

Chemicals. February 9, 2012. 

VII. What are the Statutory and 

Executive Order reviews associated 

with this action? 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new information collection 

requirements that require additional 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. 

seq. Currently, the facilities subject to 

the reporting requirements under 

EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use 

either the EPA Toxic Chemicals Release 

Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350– 

1), or the EPA Toxic Chemicals Release 

Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350– 

2). The Form R must be completed if a 

facility manufactures, processes, or 

otherwise uses any listed chemical 

above threshold quantities and meets 

certain other criteria. For the Form A, 

EPA established an alternative threshold 

for facilities with low annual reportable 

amounts of a listed toxic chemical. A 

facility that meets the appropriate 

reporting thresholds, but estimates that 

the total annual reportable amount of 

the chemical does not exceed 500 

pounds per year, can take advantage of 

an alternative manufacture, process, or 

otherwise use threshold of 1 million 

pounds per year of the chemical, 

provided that certain conditions are 

met, and submit the Form A instead of 

the Form R. In addition, respondents 

may designate the specific chemical 

identity of a substance as a trade secret 

pursuant to EPCRA section 322 42 

U.S.C. 11042: 40 CFR part 350. 

OMB has approved the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements related to 

Forms A and R, supplier notification, 

and petitions under OMB Control 

number 2025–0009 (EPA Information 

Collection Request (ICR) No. 1363) and 

those related to trade secret designations 

under OMB Control 2050–0078 (EPA 

ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 CFR 

1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), an Agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The OMB control numbers relevant to 

EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 CFR 

part 9, 48 CFR chapter 15, and 

displayed on the information collection 

instruments (e.g., forms, instructions). 

For the 17 Form Rs and 5 Form As 

expected to be filed, EPA estimates the 

industry reporting and recordkeeping 

burden for collecting this information to 

average, in the first year, $76,143 (based 

on 1,506 total burden hours). In 

subsequent years, the burden for 

collecting this information is estimated 

to average $36,252 (based on 717 total 

burden hours). These estimates include 

the time needed to become familiar with 

the requirement (first year only); review 

instructions; search existing data 

sources; gather and maintain the data 

needed; complete and review the 

collection information; and transmit or 

otherwise disclose the information. The 

actual burden on any facility may be 

different from this estimate depending 

on the complexity of the facility’s 

operations and the profile of the releases 

at the facility. Upon promulgation of a 

final rule, the Agency may determine 

that the existing burden estimates in the 

ICRs need to be amended in order to 

account for an increase in burden 

associated with the final action. If so, 

the Agency will submit an information 

collection worksheet (ICW) to OMB 

requesting that the total burden in each 

ICR be amended, as appropriate. 

The Agency would appreciate any 

comments or information that could be 

used to: (1) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Agency, including 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 15919 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) evaluate the 

reasonableness of the Agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the propose collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and, (4) minimize the burden 

of the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including through 

the use of appropriate automated 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. Please submit your 

comments within 90 days as specified at 

the beginning of this proposal. Copies of 

the existing ICRs may be obtained from 

Rick Westlund, Collection Strategies 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by 

calling (202) 566–1672. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A business that 

is classified as a ‘‘small business’’ by the 

Small Business Administration at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s rule on small entities, 

I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. Of 

the 22 entities estimated to be impacted 

by this proposed rule, 6 are small 

businesses. Of the affected small 

businesses, all 6 have cost-to-revenue 

impacts of less than 1% in both the first 

and subsequent years of the rulemaking. 

No small businesses are projected to 

have a cost impact of the first year, of 

the 1% or greater. In 6 estimated cost 

impacts, there is a maximum impact of 

0.204%. Facilities eligible to use Form 

A (those meeting the appropriate 

activity threshold which have 500 

pounds per year or less of reportable 

amounts of the chemical) will have a 

lower burden. No small governments or 

small organizations are expected to be 

affected by this action. Thus this rule is 

not expected to have a significant 

adverse economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. A 

more detailed analysis of the impacts on 

small entities is located in EPA’s 

economic analysis support document 

(Ref. 6). We continue to be interested in 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

EPA’s economic analysis indicates that 

the total cost of this rule is estimated to 

be $76,143 in the first year of reporting. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Small governments are not subject to the 

EPCRA section 313 reporting 

requirements. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

relates to toxic chemical reporting under 

EPCRA section 313, which primarily 

affects private sector facilities. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). This action relates to toxic 

chemical reporting under EPCRA 

section 313, which primarily affects 

private sector facilities. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13175, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and Indian Tribal Governments, 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to EO 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because 

it is not economically significant as 

defined in EO 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

action relates to toxic chemical 

reporting under EPCRA section 313, 

which primarily affects private sector 

facilities. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15920 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This proposed rule 

adds an additional chemical to the 

EPCRA section 313 reporting 

requirements. By adding a chemical to 

the list of toxic chemicals subject to 

reporting under section 313 of EPCRA, 

EPA would be providing communities 

across the United States (including 

minority populations and low income 

populations) with access to data which 

they may use to seek lower exposures 

and consequently reductions in 

chemical risks for themselves and their 

children. This information can also be 

used by government agencies and others 

to identify potential problems, set 

priorities, and take appropriate steps to 

reduce any potential risks to human 

health and the environment. Therefore, 

the informational benefits of the 

proposed rule will have a positive 

impact on the human health and 

environmental impacts of minority 

populations, low-income populations, 

and children. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 

Environmental protection, 

Community right-to-know, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Toxic chemicals. 

Dated: March 5, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting Administrator. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

part 372 be amended as follows: 

PART 372—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 372 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 372.65 is amended by 

adding in the table of paragraph (a) ‘‘oNitrotoluene’’ in alphabetical order and 

adding in the table of paragraph (b) 

‘‘00088–72–2’’ in numerical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 372.65 Chemicals and chemical 

categories to which the part applies. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

Chemical name CAS No. Effective date 

*******

o-Nitrotoluene ................................................................................................................................................... 00088–72–2 1⁄14

* * * * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CAS No. Chemical name Effective date 

*******

00088–72–2 ..................................................................................................................................................... o-Nitrotoluene 1⁄14

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–05812 Filed 3–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2013–0030] 

RIN 2127–AL24 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Tire Selection and Rims 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 110 to make it 

clear that special trailer (ST) tires are 

permitted to be installed on new trailers 

with a gross vehicle weight rating 

(GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. 

It also proposes to exclude these trailers 

from a vehicle testing requirement that 

a tire must be retained on its rim when 

subjected to a sudden loss of tire 

pressure when brought to a controlled 

stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). After 

careful review, the agency believes that 

these two revisions are appropriate and 

would not result in any degradation of 

motor vehicle safety. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

May 13, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

electronically to the docket identified in 

the heading of this document by visiting 

the following Web site: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Alternatively, you can file comments 

using the following methods: 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS