72906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date 

Explanation 

[former SIP 

citation] 

5–85–50 ............................ Definitions .................................................................... 03/13/14 11/23/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

5–85–55 ............................ Actual plantwide applicability limits (PALs) ................. 03/13/14 11/23/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Added. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–29680 Filed 11–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–TRI–2015–0011; FRL–9937–12– 

OEI] 

RIN 2025–AA41 

Addition of 1-Bromopropane; 

Community Right-to-Know Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is adding 1- 

bromopropane 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. 

1-Bromopropane has been classified by 

the National Toxicology Program in 

their 13th Report on Carcinogens as 

‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a human 

carcinogen.’’ The EPA has determined 

that 1-bromopropane meets the EPCRA 

section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because it 

can reasonably be anticipated to cause 

cancer in humans. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 30, 2015, and shall apply for 

the reporting year beginning January 1, 

2016 (reports due July 1, 2017). 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2015–0011. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental 

Analysis Division, Office of Information 

Analysis and Access (2842T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566– 

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

bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for specific 

information on this notice. For general 

information on EPCRA section 313, 

contact the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll 

free at (800) 424–9346 (select menu 

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

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

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

contacts/infocenter/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this notice apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, process, 

or otherwise use 1-bromopropane. 

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, 221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal 

and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds 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.) (corresponds 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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 72907 

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. 

II. Introduction 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this final rule? 

This rule is issued under EPCRA 

section 313(d) and section 328, 42 

U.S.C. 11023 et seq. EPCRA is also 

referred to as Title III of the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

of 1986. 

B. What is the background for this 

action? 

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

11023, requires certain facilities that 

manufacture, process, or otherwise use 

listed toxic chemicals in amounts above 

reporting threshold levels to report their 

environmental releases and other waste 

management quantities of such 

chemicals annually. These facilities 

must also report pollution prevention 

and recycling data for such chemicals, 

pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA, 42 

U.S.C. 13106. Congress established an 

initial list of toxic chemicals that 

comprised 308 individually listed 

chemicals and 20 chemical categories. 

EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes the 

EPA to add or delete chemicals from the 

list and sets criteria for these actions. 

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

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, the 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 the EPA must 

demonstrate that none of the listing 

criteria in Section 313(d)(2)(A)-(C) are 

met. The EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A)– 

(C) criteria are: 

• 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. 

• The chemical is known to cause or 

can reasonably be anticipated to cause 

in humans: 

Æ Cancer or teratogenic effects, or 

Æ serious or irreversible— 

D Reproductive dysfunctions, 

D neurological disorders, 

D heritable genetic mutations, or 

D other chronic health effects. 

• The chemical is known to cause or 

can be reasonably anticipated to cause, 

because of: 

Æ Its toxicity, 

Æ its toxicity and persistence in the 

environment, or 

Æ 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. 

The 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.’’ 

The EPA published in the Federal 

Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 

61432), a statement clarifying its 

interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) 

and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the 

section 313 list of toxic chemicals. 

III. Summary of Proposed Rule 

A. What chemical did the EPA propose 

to add to the EPCRA section 313 list of 

toxic chemicals? 

As discussed in the proposed rule (80 

FR 20189, April 15, 2015), the EPA 

proposed to add 1-bromopropane to the 

EPCRA section 313 list of toxic 

chemicals. 1-Bromopropane had been 

classified as ‘‘reasonably anticipated to 

be a human carcinogen’’ by the National 

Toxicology Program (NTP) in its 13th 

Report on Carcinogens (RoC) document. 

In addition, based on a review of the 

available production and use 

information, the EPA determined that 1- 

bromopropane is expected to be 

manufactured, processed, or otherwise 

used in quantities that would exceed the 

EPCRA section 313 reporting 

thresholds. The 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). As part of the NTP’s 

cancer evaluation work, it periodically 

publishes the RoC document which 

contains cancer classifications from the 

NTP’s most recent chemical evaluations 

as well as the classifications from 

previous versions of the RoC. There is 

an extensive review process for the RoC 

which includes evaluations by scientists 

from the NTP, other Federal health 

research and regulatory agencies 

(including the EPA), and 

nongovernmental institutions. The RoC 

review process also includes external 

peer review and several opportunities 

for public comment. 

B. What was the EPA’s rationale for 

proposing to list 1-bromopropane? 

As the EPA stated in the proposed 

rule (80 FR 20189, April 15, 2015), the 

NTP RoC document undergoes 

significant scientific review and public 

comment and mirrors the review the 

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. The EPA believes 

that the NTP RoC is an excellent and 

reliable source of information on the 

potential for chemicals covered therein 

to cause cancer in humans. Based on the 

EPA’s review of the data contained in 

the 13th NTP RoC (Reference (Ref.) 1) 

for 1-bromopropane, the Agency agreed 

that 1-bromopropane can reasonably be 

anticipated to cause cancer. Therefore, 

the EPA determined that the evidence 

was sufficient for listing 1- 

bromopropane on the EPCRA section 

313 toxic chemical list pursuant to 

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

the available carcinogenicity data for 1- 

bromopropane as presented in the 13th 

RoC (Ref. 2). 

IV. What comments did the EPA receive 

on the proposed rule? 

The EPA received four comments on 

the proposed rule to add 1- 

bromopropane to the EPCRA section 

313 chemical list. Three of the 

comments were supportive of the EPA’s 

proposed addition of 1-bromopropane 

while one commenter objected to the 

addition. The commenters that 

supported the proposed rule included 

two anonymous comments from the 

general public (Refs. 3 and 4) and a 

comment from the Halogenated Solvents 

Industry Alliance, Inc. (HSIA) (Ref. 5). 

Members of the HSIA include The Dow 

Chemical Company, INEOS Chlor 

Americas, Inc., Occidental Chemical, 

and Axiall Corporation. The commenter 

who objected to the addition was the 

Albemarle Corporation (Ref. 6). The 

most significant comments are 

summarized and responded to below. 

The complete set of comments and the 

EPA’s responses can be found in the 

response to comment document in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 7). Note 

that in some of the comments 1- 

bromopropane is referred to as nPB, 

which is the acronym for the alternative 

chemical name n-propyl bromide. 

The HSIA (Ref. 5) stated that the 

proposed rule presented substantial 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

evidence to support the conclusion that 

1-bromopropane is known to cause or 

can reasonably be anticipated to cause 

cancer in humans. The HSIA also noted 

that other published studies indicate 

that 1-bromopropane is neurotoxic, may 

cause reproductive dysfunction, and is 

acutely or chronically toxic. The HSIA 

concluded that clearly, the scientific 

literature supports the addition of 1- 

bromopropane to the list of chemicals 

subject to reporting under EPCRA 

section 313. 

EPA agrees with the commenter’s 

statement that the EPA provided 

substantial evidence to support the 

conclusion that 1-bromopropane is 

known to cause or can reasonably be 

anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 

The EPA also agrees with the 

commenter’s conclusion that the 

scientific literature supports the 

addition of 1-bromopropane to the 

EPCRA section 313 chemical list. The 

EPA acknowledges that there may be 

other toxicological effects that may also 

be a basis for listing. However, the EPA 

believes the available cancer data are 

sufficient for adding 1-bromopropane to 

the EPCRA section 313 chemical list. 

The first anonymous commenter (Ref. 

3) supported the addition of 1- 

bromopropane to the EPCRA section 

313 list and cited additional toxicity 

information, neurotoxicity and 

reproductive toxicity, as being of 

concern. 

EPA agrees that 1-bromopropane 

should be added to the EPCRA section 

313 chemical list. The EPA also 

acknowledges that there may be other 

toxicological effects (such as 

neurotoxicity) that may also be a basis 

for listing. However, the available 

cancer data are sufficient for adding 1- 

bromopropane to the EPCRA section 

313 chemical list. 

The second anonymous commenter 

(Ref. 4) supported the listing of 1- 

bromopropane as long as the benefits 

substantially outweigh the costs. The 

commenter also expressed concern that 

there may be ‘‘significant costs to local 

businesses, i.e., laundry services, that 

have to update or replace their 

equipment as well as significant costs 

and time spent in order to comply with 

the rule.’’ 

EPA’s cost-benefit analysis was 

contained in the economic analysis for 

the proposed rule ‘‘Economic Analysis 

of the Proposed Rule to add 1- 

Bromopropane to the EPCRA Section 

313 List of Toxic Chemicals’’ (Ref. 8), 

which was reference 8 in the proposed 

rule (80 FR 20189, April 15, 2015). The 

economic analysis contains a 

quantitative estimate of the costs and a 

qualitative discussion of the benefits of 

the rule. The EPA considers the benefits 

of reporting under this rule to be 

primarily reflected by the purposes 

served by reporting of information 

under EPCRA section 313. The EPA 

believes the benefits provided by the 

information to be reported under this 

rule outweigh the costs. 

With regard to laundry services (such 

as dry cleaners) these facilities are not 

subject to reporting under EPCRA 

section 313. Even if such facilities were 

subject to reporting, listing a chemical 

under EPCRA section 313 does not 

require covered facilities to update or 

replace any equipment. EPCRA section 

313 only requires the reporting of 

release and waste management 

information, it does not impose any 

restrictions on the use of chemicals. 

The majority of comments provided 

by the Albemarle Corporation (Ref. 6) 

are the same comments they submitted 

in response to the ‘‘Receipt of a 

complete petition’’ to add 1- 

bromopropane to the Hazardous Air 

Pollutant (HAP) List (80 FR 6676, 

February 6, 2015). The only comments 

submitted by the Albemarle Corporation 

specific to the EPA’s proposed rule to 

add 1-bromopropane to the EPCRA 

section 313 chemical list were provided 

in a letter from Charles R. Nestrud of the 

law firm Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian, 

P.A. dated June 10, 2015 (Nestrud 

letter). The EPA is providing responses 

to all of the comments in the Nestrud 

letter. 

The vast majority of the comments 

submitted by the Albemarle Corporation 

on the HAP listing petition dealt with 

issues of emissions, exposure, risk 

values, and risk assessment, which are 

not relevant to the proposed addition of 

1-bromopropane to the EPCRA section 

313 chemical list since the addition is 

based on hazard and not risk. The 

addition of 1-bromopropane to the 

EPCRA section 313 chemical list is 

based on the cancer hazard evaluation 

carried out by the NTP and reviewed by 

the EPA to ensure its consistency with 

the EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment (Ref. 9). Consistent with the 

EPA guidelines (Ref. 9), the NTP 13th 

RoC (Ref. 2) evaluates the scientific 

literature and publicly available, peerreviewed technical reports of human 

and laboratory studies to evaluate 

whether substances are possible human 

carcinogens. The NTP RoC does not 

present a quantitative assessment of the 

risks of cancer associated with a given 

chemical. Rather, it indicates the 

potential hazard associated with 

chemicals but does not establish the 

exposure conditions that would pose 

cancer risks to individuals. In the 13th 

RoC, the NTP classified 1- 

bromopropane as ‘‘reasonably 

anticipated to be a human carcinogen.’’ 

The conclusions of the NTP 13th RoC 

for 1-bromopropane were consistent 

with how the EPA would consider the 

carcinogenicity data available for 1- 

bromopropane. Therefore, for the 

purposes of listing 1-bromopropane on 

the EPCRA section 313 chemical list, 

the EPA concluded that 1- 

bromopropane can reasonably be 

anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 

Since the listing of 1-bromopropane 

under EPCRA section 313 is based on 

the available cancer data, the EPA is not 

responding to the comments from 

Albemarle Corporation on the HAP 

listing petition that dealt with issues of 

emissions, exposure, risk values, and 

risk assessment. 

While not specific to the materials the 

EPA cited to support the addition of 1- 

bromopropane to the EPCRA section 

313 chemical list, there were some 

comments on the cancer data for 1- 

bromopropane in the materials that the 

Albemarle Corporation submitted in 

response to the HAP listing petition 

(Ref. 6). Specifically, these comments 

are contained in sections 2.2 and 2.3 of 

the document ‘‘Comments on the 

Petition to Add n-Propyl Bromide to the 

List of Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Regulated under § 112 of the Clean Air 

Act’’ prepared by the Gradient 

Corporation (Gradient Corp.). Since 

these comments dealt with the toxic 

endpoint (cancer) that is the basis for 

the addition of 1-bromopropane to the 

EPCRA section 313 chemical list, the 

EPA has addressed these comments as 

well. 

In the Nestrud letter, the commenter 

stated that: 

The comments prepared by Albemarle and 

its consultants demonstrate that the technical 

information submitted to support the 

Proposed Rule is out of date, incorrect, and 

insufficient to support the Proposed Rule. 

Furthermore, when all toxicological data is 

considered, and current emission data is 

considered, the weight of the evidence does 

not support adding 1-bromopropane to the 

list of toxic chemicals. 

EPA disagrees that the information 

submitted to support the proposed rule 

to add 1-bromopropane to the EPCRA 

section 313 chemical list is ‘‘out of date, 

incorrect, and insufficient to support the 

Proposed Rule.’’ The EPA provided 

information from the NTP 13th RoC 

which was released on October 2, 2014 

(Ref. 2). The EPA’s evaluation of the 

data used to support the findings for 1- 

bromopropane was conducted shortly 

after the release of the 13th RoC and 

completed on November 3, 2014 (Ref. 

1). The EPA’s economic analysis of the 

potential costs of the proposed rule 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 72909 

including the estimate of the number of 

facilities expected to file reports was 

completed on February 17, 2015 (Ref. 8). 

The EPA notes that the commenter did 

not provide any comments specific to 

the EPA’s evaluation of the NTP 13th 

RoC data and findings for 1- 

bromopropane (Ref. 1), which was 

reference 6 in the proposed rule (80 FR 

20189, April 15, 2015), or specific to the 

NTP 13th RoC materials prepared for 1- 

bromopropane (Refs. 10 and 11), which 

were references 5 and 7 in the proposed 

rule (80 FR 20189, April 15, 2015), or 

on the EPA’s economic analysis for the 

addition of 1-bromopropane (Ref. 8), 

which was reference 8 in the proposed 

rule (80 FR 20189, April 15, 2015). It is, 

therefore, unclear which technical 

information that the EPA submitted to 

support the proposed rule that the 

commenter believes is out of date, 

incorrect, or insufficient to support the 

proposed rule. Comments regarding the 

available cancer data and relevance of 

emissions data are discussed in other 

responses below. 

The Nestrud letter also provided 

comments concerning screening criteria 

that the EPA had used in a previous 

rulemaking: 

In its 1994 rulemaking EPA identified 

certain criteria it had developed to evaluate 

chemicals for additions to the list of toxic 

chemicals. This included a toxicity and 

production volume screen, and a hazard 

evaluation based on the initial screen. 

Addition of Certain Chemicals; Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting; Community 

Right-to-Know; Final Rule (59 FR No. 229; 

Doc. No. 94–29376, November 30, 1994; 

OPPTS–400082B. 

Toxicity Screen. Through the toxicity 

screen a chemical is assigned a ‘‘high 

priority,’’ ‘‘medium priority,’’ or ‘‘low 

priority.’’ The attached comments submitted 

to EPA as part of the nPB Petition 

demonstrate that there is insufficient toxicity 

information to support assigning a ‘‘high 

priority,’’ or ‘‘medium priority’’ to nPB. 

The information that the commenter 

cited regarding the criteria the EPA 

identified for evaluating chemicals for 

addition to the EPCRA section 313 

chemical list are the criteria the EPA 

used for its 1994 chemical expansion 

rulemaking to evaluate large numbers of 

chemicals for potential addition. These 

screening criteria are not the criteria 

used to determine whether or not a 

chemical can be added to the EPCRA 

section 313 chemical list, that criteria is 

established under EPCRA section 

313(d)(2). As the EPA noted in the 1994 

chemical expansion rule: 

A toxicity screen is a limited review of 

readily available toxicity data that is used for 

a preliminary categorization of a chemical 

during the process of selecting candidates for 

possible listing under EPCRA section 313. 

The toxicity screen is used to identify 

chemicals for further consideration and does 

not reflect a final determination for listing a 

chemical under EPCRA section 313. Such a 

determination can only be made after a 

hazard assessment is conducted (See Unit 

11.3. of this preamble). 

(59 FR 61433, November 30, 1994) 

EPA did not screen 1-bromopropane 

for addition, but rather conducted a 

hazard evaluation of the available 

cancer data and based on the 

classification by the NTP in their 13th 

RoC as ‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a 

human carcinogen’’ and our review of 

that data, concluded 1-bromopropane 

should be added to the EPCRA section 

313 chemical list. As noted in the 

proposed rule, the EPA reviewed the 

data used by the NTP to make this 

determination and agreed with the 

NTP’s classification (Ref. 1), which was 

reference 6 in the proposed rule (80 FR 

20189, April 15, 2015). As the EPA 

noted in the 1994 chemical expansion 

rule, cancer is an extreme toxic effect: 

In some cases the effects are extreme, such 

as cancer or death. 

(59 FR 61433, November 30, 1994) 

If the EPA had conducted a toxicity 

screen like that used in the 1994 

chemical expansion rule, the available 

cancer data would have been sufficient 

to classify 1-bromopropane as a high 

priority for listing. In fact, the NTP’s 6th 

RoC was a primary source reviewed for 

chemicals for potential addition (59 FR 

1789, January 12, 1994). As previously 

noted, the commenter did not provide 

any comments specifically on the NTP’s 

classification of 1-bromopropane as 

‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a human 

carcinogen’’ in the 13th RoC, nor did 

they provide any comments on the 

EPA’s evaluation of the NTP cancer data 

and classification (Ref. 1), as provided 

in reference 6 of the proposed rule (80 

FR 20189, April 15, 2015). 

The Nestrud letter also commented on 

the issue of a production volume screen: 

Production Volume Screen. When use of 

the chemical is less than the reporting 

thresholds, the chemical is ‘‘not considered 

further.’’ The attached comments submitted 

to EPA as part of the nPB Petition 

demonstrate that there are no facilities in the 

dry cleaning or spray adhesives industries 

that use more 1-bromopropane than the 

reporting threshold of 10,000 pounds (5 

tons). Although the nPB Petition identified 

one facility in the metal cleaning industry 

that used more 1-bromopropane than the 

reporting threshold of 10,000 pounds (5 

tons), that facility reported its use of nPB 

pursuant to its Title V Air Permit. 

Reference 8 in the proposed rule was 

the economic analysis for the addition 

of 1-bromopropane to the EPCRA 

section 313 chemical list (Ref. 8). As 

indicated in the economic analysis, the 

EPA estimates that 140 reports (126 

Form Rs and 14 Form As) from 23 

different industry sectors will be filed 

for 1-bromopropane. Therefore, the EPA 

has determined that there is sufficient 

production and use of 1-bromopropane 

such that reports will be filed. As 

previously noted, the commenter 

provided no specific comments on the 

EPA’s economic analysis. Certain spray 

adhesives industries may be required to 

report under EPCRA section 313, but 

dry cleaning facilities are not a covered 

industry sector and thus are not 

required to file reports under EPCRA 

section 313. While it has been the EPA’s 

policy to focus on the addition of 

chemicals for which reports are 

expected to be filed, it is not a statutory 

requirement. As the EPA noted in the 

2010 proposed rule for the addition of 

16 NTP carcinogens to the EPCRA 

section 313 chemical list: 

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. 

(75 FR 17336, April 6, 2010) 

The Nestrud letter also commented on 

the issue of conducting a hazard 

evaluation to support the listing of 1- 

bromopropane to the EPCRA section 

313 list: 

Hazard Evaluation. Based on the results of 

the screen, EPA should conduct a Hazard 

Evaluation for 1-bromopropane. The attached 

comments submitted to EPA as part of the 

nPB Petition demonstrate that the weight of 

the evidence is not sufficient to add 1- 

bromopropane to the list of toxic chemicals. 

In particular, the individual lifetime cancer 

risk at maximally impacted census receptors 

near the facilities that use 1-bromopropane is 

less than 1 in 1 million for all the facilities 

identified by EPA in the nPB Petition, with 

the exception of a narrow tube manufacturing 

facility, for which the maximum individual 

lifetime cancer risk is less than 1 in 100,000. 

Other than STC, there are no identified 

populations that would have a lifetime 

cancer risks from exposure to nPB in excess 

of 1 in 1 million. 

Accordingly, there is no information that 

would support adding 1-bromopropane to the 

list of toxic chemicals. 

The commenter states that the EPA 

should conduct a ‘‘Hazard Evaluation’’ 

for 1-bromopropane, but that is exactly 

what the EPA did. The EPA’s hazard 

evaluation included the NTP’s 

classification of 1-bromopropane as 

‘‘reasonably anticipated to be a human 

carcinogen’’ (Refs. 2 and 10) and the 

EPA’s review of the data used by the 

NTP to support that classification (Ref. 

1). As noted in the proposed rule, the 

NTP conducted an extensive review 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72910 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(including public comment and peer 

review) of the cancer data for 1- 

bromopropane in making the 

classification for the NTP 13th RoC. The 

EPA’s review of that information, as 

discussed in reference 6 of the proposed 

rule, concluded that: 

The conclusions of the NTP RoC for 1- 

bromopropane were consistent with how the 

Agency would consider the carcinogenicity 

data available for 1-bromopropane. 

Therefore, it would be appropriate for the 

Agency, for the purposes of listing 1- 

bromopropane on the Toxics Release 

Inventory, to conclude that 1-bromopropane 

can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer 

in humans. 

(80 FR 20189, April 15, 2015) 

EPA believes the cancer data for 1- 

bromopropane sufficiently support 

listing under EPCRA section 

313(d)(2)(B). None of the information 

concerning the cancer data that the 

commenter submitted in their response 

to the petition to add 1-bromopropane 

to the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) list 

changes the EPA’s conclusion with 

regard to the potential for 1- 

bromopropane to cause cancer in 

humans. Responses to the specific 

comments on certain portions of the 

hazard evaluation are addressed in other 

responses. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

conclusions concerning the cancer risks 

from facilities identified in the HAP 

petition, this information is not relevant 

to the addition of 1-bromopropane to 

the EPCRA section 313 chemical list. 

The EPA did not base the proposed 

addition of 1-bromopropane to the 

EPCRA section 313 chemical list on any 

exposure or risk evaluation. 1- 

Bromopropane meets the EPCRA section 

313(d)(2)(B) listing criteria based on the 

cancer data alone and there are no 

statutory requirements to consider 

exposure or risk under EPCRA section 

313(d)(2)(B). While the statutory criteria 

of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) do not 

require consideration of exposure or 

risk, the EPA has a policy concerning 

when it may be appropriate to consider 

potential exposures when adding 

chemicals under EPCRA section 

313(d)(2)(B). As the EPA stated in the 

proposed rule: 

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 1-bromopropane meets the criteria 

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

(80 FR 20189, April 15, 2015) 

The EPA disagrees with the 

conclusion of the commenter that there 

is no information that would support 

adding 1-bromopropane to the EPCRA 

section 313 chemical list. In fact, it is 

the EPA’s position that there are 

extensive cancer data that support this 

addition as discussed and referenced in 

the proposed rule. 

In the comments the Albemarle 

Corporation submitted on the HAP 

listing petition (Ref. 6), the report by 

Gradient Corp. included section ‘‘2.2 

Human Relevance of the Petitioner’s 

Inhalation Unit Risk Factor.’’ In that 

section, issues regarding the cancer data 

for 1-bromopropane were raised. These 

issues include the petitioners’ use of 

alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas and 

carcinomas in B6C3F1 mice for their 

risk assessment. The commenter took 

issue with the petitioners’ suggestion 

that ‘‘there are no reasons to assume that 

the mode, or modes, of action by which 

tumors are induced by nPB are not 

relevant to man.’’ The commenter stated 

that the petitioners’ supporting 

information lacked an analysis of the 

human relevance of the mouse lung 

tumors or any other cancer endpoint 

and cited recommendations in the 

EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment for collecting relevant 

information on the mode of action. The 

commenter stated that alveolar/

bronchiolar adenomas and carcinomas 

have been reviewed and debated for a 

number of chemical compounds and 

were the subject of a 2014 technical 

workshop sponsored by the EPA. The 

commenter also provided summaries of 

relevant information that they claim are 

available for 1-bromopropane to explore 

mode of action questions. The 

commenter concluded that there is 

evidence that the mode of action for the 

endpoint selected to predict risks for 1- 

bromopropane may not be relevant for 

humans. The commenter stated that, 

considering the state-of-the-science 

surrounding this health endpoint, the 

EPA should not rely on the data for 

alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas and 

carcinomas in B6C3F1 mice for 

characterizing cancer risks in humans 

from exposure to 1-bromopropane. 

As the EPA previously noted, the 

proposed addition of 1-bromopropane to 

the EPCRA section 313 chemical list is 

based on hazard alone and not on any 

consideration of exposures or potential 

risks. For the purposes of listing under 

EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B), the EPA is 

not relying on the data for alveolar/

bronchiolar adenomas and carcinomas 

in B6C3F1 mice for characterizing 

cancer risks in humans from exposure to 

1-bromopropane. While the EPA 

convened a technical workshop on the 

state-of-the-science for chemicallyinduced mouse lung tumors, there was 

no consensus on the relevance of this 

tumor to humans (Ref. 12). Rather, one 

of the workshop outcomes included the 

future application of the information 

discussed during the workshop to 

develop a mode of action framework on 

a chemical by chemical basis. As stated 

in the EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessment (Ref. 9): 

The default option is that positive effects 

in animal cancer studies indicate that the 

agent under study can have carcinogenic 

potential in humans. Thus, if no adequate 

human or mode of action data are present, 

positive effects in animal cancer studies are 

a basis for assessing the carcinogenic hazard 

to humans. 

The NTP monograph for 1- 

bromopropane (Ref. 10) discussed the 

issue of mode of action in the section on 

mechanistic considerations: 

5.3 Mechanistic considerations 

The biological events associated with 

chemically induced cancer are not 

completely understood even for chemicals 

that have been extensively studied and are 

known to cause cancer in humans (e.g., 

benzene and arsenic) (Guyton et al. 2009). It 

is important to recognize that chemicals can 

act through multiple toxicity pathways and 

mechanisms to induce cancer or other health 

effects, and the relative importance of the 

various pathways may vary with life stage, 

genetic background, and dose. Thus, it is 

unlikely that for any chemical a single 

mechanism or mode of action will fully 

explain the multiple biological alterations 

and toxicity pathways that can cause normal 

cells to transform and ultimately form a 

tumor. 

Although no studies were identified that 

were specifically designed to investigate 

possible modes of action for 1- 

bromopropane-induced carcinogenesis, the 

available data indicate that metabolic 

activation, genetic damage, and oxidative 

stress from glutathione depletion are 

important factors. As discussed in the 

previous section, these factors were linked to 

several of the primary non-neoplastic toxic 

effects of 1-bromopropane, including 

immunosuppression, neurotoxicity, 

reproductive toxicity, and hepatotoxicity. 

Other factors that have been associated with 

carcinogenesis and may be relevant for 1- 

bromopropane are discussed and include 

immune-response modulation, altered cell 

signaling and gene expression, inflammation, 

and cytotoxicity and compensatory cell 

proliferation. 

(Ref. 10, page 40) 

After considering the mode of action 

issues, the NTP classified 1- 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 72911 

bromopropane as ‘‘reasonably 

anticipated to be a human carcinogen.’’ 

The EPA believes that this classification 

is consistent with how the data would 

be evaluated under the EPA’s 

Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment (Ref. 9). 

In the comments the Albemarle 

Corporation submitted on the HAP 

listing petition, the report by Gradient 

Corp. included section ‘‘2.3 Human 

Relevance of NTP Results.’’ In that 

section, issues regarding the cancer data 

for 1-bromopropane were raised. The 

commenter stated that the petitioners 

cited NTP results for the mouse and rat 

bioassays as evidence of the potential 

carcinogenic activity of 1-bromopropane 

(Ref. 13). The commenter claims that the 

petitioner did not consider potential 

uncertainties that the commenter 

believes are found in the underlying 

mutagenicity, genotoxicity, and 

carcinogenicity data for 1- 

bromopropane. The commenter claimed 

that this was not consistent with the 

EPA’s cancer guidelines, which 

recommend evaluating the weight of 

evidence prior to determining the 

carcinogenic potential of a chemical 

substance. The commenter went on to 

summarize information from studies 

they believe show potential 

uncertainties that are apparent in the 

toxicological information for 1- 

bromopropane. 

Since the publication of the NTP 

bioassay cited by the commenter (Ref. 

13), the NTP published its 13th RoC 

(Ref. 2). In this report, the NTP 

concluded that there is sufficient 

evidence of carcinogenicity for 1- 

bromopropane based on (1) skin tumors 

in male rats, (2) tumors of the large 

intestine in female and male rats, and 

(3) lung tumors in female mice. The 

report also cited malignant 

mesothelioma of the abdominal cavity 

and pancreatic islet tumors in male rats 

and skin tumors (squamous-cell 

papilloma, keratoacanthoma, and basalcell adenoma or carcinoma) in female 

rats as supporting evidence. The NTP’s 

monograph for 1-bromopropane 

addresses all of the data issues that the 

commenter raised (Ref. 10). 

According to the EPA’s Guidelines for 

Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Ref. 9), an 

agent can be classified as ‘‘Likely to Be 

Carcinogenic to Humans’’ if it ‘‘has 

tested positive in animal experiments in 

more than one species, sex, strain, site, 

or exposure route, with or without 

evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.’’ 

Inconsistencies between how the data 

were interpreted by the NTP and how 

that same data might be interpreted 

under the EPA’s Guidelines for 

Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Ref. 9) 

were not identified (see reference 6 in 

the proposed rule). The EPA Guidelines 

for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 

reference the NTP criteria for assessing 

individual studies in the assessment of 

carcinogenicity, stating ‘‘(c)riteria for 

the technical adequacy of animal 

carcinogenicity studies have been 

published and should be used as 

guidance to judge the acceptability of 

individual studies, e.g., NTP, 1984 . . .’’ 

(pages 2–16). 

While the EPA acknowledges that 

uncertainties exist when evaluating any 

agent, the EPA agrees with NTP’s 

assessment of the data and conclusions 

regarding the carcinogenicity of 1- 

bromopropane. Indeed, according to the 

EPA’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment (Ref. 9) ‘‘The default option 

is that positive effects in animal cancer 

studies indicate that the agent under 

study can have carcinogenic potential in 

humans. Thus, if no adequate human or 

mode of action data are present, positive 

effects in animal cancer studies are a 

basis for assessing the carcinogenic 

hazard to humans.’’ The EPA believes 

that the evaluation of the available data 

are consistent with the EPA’s guidelines 

including the EPA’s ‘‘Supplemental 

guidance for assessing susceptibility 

from early-life exposure to carcinogens 

(Final)’’ (Ref. 14). 

The NTP in its monograph of 1- 

bromopropane (Ref. 10), which 

supported the 13th RoC listing (Ref. 2), 

concluded the following: 

Studies in vivo show that 1-bromopropane 

can covalently bind to protein in exposed 

rats and occupationally exposed workers. 

The available data provide some support that 

1-bromopropane is genotoxic as it induced 

mutations in bacterial and mammalian cells 

and DNA damage in human cells. There is 

limited evidence that DNA damage was 

induced in leukocytes from 1-bromopropaneexposed workers. 1-Bromopropane did not 

induce chromosomal damage in exposed 

rodents (micronucleus induction assay) or 

gene-cell mutations (dominant lethal 

mutation assay). Several known or postulated 

metabolites of 1-bromopropane have been 

identified as mutagens and two, glycidol and 

propylene oxide (proposed), were shown to 

cause chromosomal and DNA damage in 

cultured mammalian cells. Both metabolites 

caused chromosomal damage in cells from 

rodents exposed in vivo, and propylene 

oxide induced DNA damage in cells from 

exposed workers. Three other 1- 

bromopropane metabolites (a-bromohydrin, 

3-bromo-1-propanol, and 1-bromo-2- 

propanol) were mutagenic or caused DNA 

damage in bacteria. 

The EPA agrees with the NTP’s 

conclusions regarding the mutagenicity 

of 1-bromopropane and its metabolites. 

With the exception of the summary 

information provided by the commenter 

for one unpublished study, all of the 

studies cited by the commenter in their 

assessment of the mutagenicity data for 

1-bromopropane were cited by the NTP 

in their monograph for 1-bromopropane 

(Ref. 10). Also, the commenter focused 

on the mutagenicity data for 1- 

bromopropane, but the data on the 

mutagenicity of the metabolites of 1- 

bromopropane are an important part of 

the assessment as well. The summarized 

results of the unpublished study 

provided by the commenter do not 

change the conclusion regarding the 

mutagenicity of 1-bromopropane and its 

metabolites. 

V. Summary of Final Rule 

The EPA is finalizing the addition of 

1-bromopropane to the EPCRA section 

313 list of toxic chemicals. The EPA has 

determined that 1-bromopropane meets 

the listing criteria under EPCRA section 

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

carcinogenicity data. 

VI. References 

The EPA has established an official 

public docket for this action under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2015– 

0011. The public docket includes 

information considered by the 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 the 

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 the 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. For 

convenience, the docket also includes 

all of the Federal Register documents 

cited in this action. 

1. USEPA, OEI, 2014. Memorandum from 

Jocelyn Hospital, Toxicologist, 

Analytical Support Branch to Sandra 

Gaona, Acting Chief, Analytical Support 

Branch. November 3, 2014. Subject: 

Review of National Toxicology Program 

(NTP) Cancer Classification Data for 1- 

bromopropane. 

2. NTP, 2014. National Toxicology Program. 

Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth 

Edition. Released October 2, 2014. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, National 

Toxicology Program, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709. (http://

ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/roc13/

index.html). 

3. Anonymous public comment. April 15, 

2015. EPA–HQ–TRI–2015–0011–0048. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

4. Anonymous public comment. April 16, 

2015. EPA–HQ–TRI–2015–0011–0049. 

5. Comment submitted by Faye Graul, 

Executive Director, Halogenated Solvents 

Industry Alliance Incorporated (HSIA). 

Re: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2015– 

0011. June 15, 2015. EPA–HQ–TRI– 

2015–0011–0051. 

6. Comment submitted by Niomi 

Krzystowczyk, Vice President, Health, 

Safety and Environment, Albemarle 

Corporation. Re: Proposed Rule: 

Addition of 1-Bromopropane; 

Community Right-to-Know Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting; Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2015–0011 [FRL– 

9925–29–OEI, 80 FR 20189 (April 15, 

2015). June 10, 2015. EPA–HQ–TRI– 

2015–0011–0050. 

7. USEPA, OEI, 2015. Response to Comments 

Received on the April 15, 2015, Federal 

Register Proposed Rule (80 FR 20189): 

Addition of 1-Bromopropane; 

Community Right-to-Know Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Office 

of Environmental Information, Office of 

Information Analysis and Access. August 

20, 2015. 

8. USEPA, OEI, 2015. Economic Analysis of 

the Proposed Rule to add 1- 

Bromopropane to the EPCRA Section 313 

List of Toxic Chemicals. February 17, 

2015. 

9. USEPA, 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment 

Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, March 2005. 

EPA/630/P–03/001F. 

10. NTP, 2013. Report on Carcinogens 

Monograph on 1-Bromopropane. Office 

of the Report on Carcinogens, Division of 

the National Toxicology Program, 

National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. NIH 

Publication No. 13–5982, September 25, 

2013. 

11. NTP, 2014. National Toxicology Program. 

Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth 

Edition, Profile for 1-Bromopropane. 

Released October 2, 2014. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, National 

Toxicology Program, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27709. 

12. USEPA, 2014. Summary Report of the 

State-of-the-Science Workshop on 

Chemically-induced Mouse Lung 

Tumors: Applications to Human Health 

Assessments. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Washington, 

DC, December 2014. EPA/600/R–14/002. 

13. NTP, 2011. Technical Report on the 

Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies 

of 1-Bromopropane (CAS No. 106–94–5) 

in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice 

(Inhalation Studies). Toxicity Report 

Series No. 564. NIH Publication No. 11– 

5906. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Public Health Service, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. 

14. USEPA, 2005. Supplemental guidance for 

assessing susceptibility from early-life 

exposure to carcinogens (Final). Risk 

Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 

March 2005. EPA/630/R–03/003F. 

VII. What are the statutory and 

Executive Order reviews associated 

with this action? 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

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 and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action 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). OMB has previously 

approved the information collection 

activities contained in the existing 

regulations and has assigned OMB 

control numbers 2025–0009 and 2050– 

0078. 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, 

the 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 

the 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). 

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. 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. The small entities 

subject to the requirements of this 

action are small manufacturing 

facilities. The Agency has determined 

that of the 140 entities estimated to be 

impacted by this action, 136 are small 

businesses; no small governments or 

small organizations are expected to be 

affected by this action. All 136 small 

businesses affected by this action are 

estimated to incur annualized cost 

impacts of less than 1%. 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. Thus, this action 

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 the EPA’s 

economic analysis support document 

(Ref. 8). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action is not subject to the requirements 

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. The EPA’s 

economic analysis indicates that the 

total cost of this action is estimated to 

be $531,002 in the first year of reporting 

(Ref. 8). 

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 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 72913 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. 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. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. The results of this 

evaluation are contained below. 

This action does not address any 

human health or environmental risks 

and does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This action 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, the 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 action 

will have a positive impact on the 

human health and environmental 

impacts of minority populations, lowincome populations, and children. 

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 

Environmental protection, 

Community right-to-know, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Toxic chemicals. 

Dated: November 9, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 

372 as follows: 

PART 372—TOXIC CHEMICAL 

RELEASE REPORTING: COMMUNITY 

RIGHT-TO-KNOW 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 372 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 372.65, paragraph (a) is 

amended by adding in the table the 

entry for ‘‘1-Bromopropane’’ in 

alphabetical order and in paragraph (b) 

by adding in the table the entry for 

‘‘106–94–5’’ in numerical order to read 

as follows: 

§ 372.65 Chemicals and chemical 

categories to which this part applies. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

Chemical name CAS No. Effective date 

*******

1-Bromopropane ...................................................................................................................................................... 106–94–5 1/1/16 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (b) * * * 

CAS No. Chemical name Effective date 

*******

106–94–5 .................................................. 1-Bromopropane .......................................................................................................... 1/1/16 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–29799 Filed 11–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 

177, 178 and 180 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2015–0103 (HM–260)] 

RIN 2137–AF11 

Hazardous Materials: Editorial 

Corrections and Clarifications (RRR) 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule corrects 

editorial errors, makes minor regulatory 

changes and, in response to requests for 

clarification, improves the clarity of 

certain provisions in the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations. The intended 

effect of this rule is to enhance the 

accuracy and reduce misunderstandings 

of the regulations. The amendments 

contained in this rule are nonsubstantive changes and do not impose 

new requirements. 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

December 23, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aaron Wiener, Standards and 

Rulemaking Division, (202) 366–8553, 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Section-by-Section Review 

III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Statutory/Legal Authority for the 

Rulemaking 

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

C. Executive Order 13132 

D. Executive Order 13175 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive 

Order 13272, and DOT Policies and 

Procedures 

F. Executive Order 13563 Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

H. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

J. Environmental Assessment 

K. Privacy Act 

I. Background 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration (PHMSA) 

annually reviews the Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 

parts 171–180) to identify typographical 

errors, outdated addresses or other 

contact information, and similar errors. 

In this final rule, we are correcting 

typographical errors, incorrect 

references to the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) and international 

standards citations, inconsistent use of 

terminology, misstatements of certain 

regulatory requirements, and 

inadvertent omissions of information, 

and making revisions to clarify the 

regulations. Of the corrections and 

clarifications made in this final rule, a 

significant number originate from three 

recent final rules under the following 

dockets: PHMSA–2009–0063 (HM–250) 

[79 FR 40590]; PHMSA–2009–0095 

(HM–224F)] [79 FR 46012]; and 

PHMSA–2013–0260 (HM–215M) [80 FR 

1075]. Because these amendments do 

not impose new requirements, notice 

and public comment are unnecessary. 

II. Section-by-Section Review 

The following is a section-by-section 

summary of the minor editorial 

corrections and clarifications made in 

this final rule. 

Part 171 

Section 171.22 

This section prescribes the 

authorization and conditions for use of 

international standards and regulations. 

The wording at the end of paragraph 

(f)(4) applicable to shipping paper 

retention, states ‘‘§ 172.201(e) of this 

part’’, which incorrectly assigns it to 49 

CFR part 171. As § 172.201(e), is not in 

part 171, in this final rule, the text is 

revised to read ‘‘§ 172.201(e) of this 

subchapter.’’ 

Section 171.23 

Section 171.23 prescribes 

requirements for specific materials and 

packagings transported under various 

international standards. Paragraph 

(a)(4)(ii) contains a grammatical error 

stating the word ‘‘drive’’ instead of 

‘‘device.’’ In this final rule, we are 

correcting this grammatical error. 

Additionally, the text in the middle of 

paragraph (a)(5), applicable to cylinders 

not equipped with pressure relief 

devices, states the cylinders must be 

‘‘tested and marked in accordance with 

part 178 of this subchapter and 

otherwise conforms to the requirements 

of part 173 for the gas involved’’, but 

does not reference that part 173 belongs 

to subchapter C. In this final rule, we 

are revising (a)(5) to make this 

clarification. 

Section 171.24 

Section 171.24 provides additional 

requirements for the use of the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization’s Technical Instructions 

(ICAO TI) for the Safe Transport of 

Dangerous Goods by Air. The text at the 

end of paragraph (c), applicable to 

transportation by highway prior to or 

after transportation by aircraft, states a 

‘‘motor vehicle must be placarded in 

accordance with subpart F of part 172’’, 

but does not reference that part 172 

belongs to Subchapter C. In this final 

rule, we are revising paragraph (c) to 

make this clarification. 

Part 172 

Section 172.101 

This section prescribes the purpose 

and instructions for use of the § 172.102 

Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). We 

are making a number of editorial 

corrections to several entries in the 

HMT. The editorial corrections are as 

follows: 

• In a final rule published under 

Docket Number PHMSA–2012–0080 

(HM–244E) [77 FR 60935], the entry for 

‘‘Aminophenols (o-; m-; p-), UN2512’’ 

was amended to correct a publication 

error in Column (2). In making the 

correction, the text in Columns (3) 

through (10B) was inadvertently 

removed and left blank. This final rule 

corrects that error by reinstating the text 

in Columns (3) through (10B) for 

UN2512 as it read on prior to the HM– 

244E rulemaking October 5, 2012. 

Amendments to Column (1) Symbols 

• For the entry ‘‘Environmentally 

hazardous substances, solid, n.o.s, 

UN3077,’’ the symbol ‘‘G’’ is added to 

Column (1) as it was inadvertently 

removed when the entry was amended 

in a final rule published under Docket 

Number PHMSA 2011–0158 (HM–233C) 

[79 FR 15033]. 

• For the entry ‘‘Self-heating solid, 

organic, n.o.s, UN3088,’’ the symbol 

‘‘G’’ is added to Column (1) as it was 

inadvertently removed when the entry 

was amended in a final rule published 

under Docket Number PHMSA 2011– 

0158 (HM–233C) [79 FR 15033]. 

Amendments to Column (2) Hazardous 

Materials Descriptions and Proper 

Shipping Names 

• For the entry ‘‘N-Aminoethyl 

piperazine, UN2815,’’ the space 

between ‘‘N-Aminoethyl’’ and 

‘‘piperazine’’ is removed to read ‘‘NAminoethylpiperazine’’ as the space 

was inadvertently introduced in the 

HM–215M final rule. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES