Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 1994 / Notices

27. FAP 4H5692. Monsanto Co., Suite

1100, 700 14th St., NW., Washington,

DC 20005, proposes to amend 40 CFR

186.3500 by establishing a feed additive

regulation to permit the combined

residues of the herbicide glyphosate, N-

(phosphonomethyl)(glycine), and its

metabolite aminomethylphosphonic

acid (AMPA) in alfalfa meal at 400 ppm.

(PM-25)

28. FAP 4H5693. Merck & Co., Inc.,

P.O. Box 450, Three Bridges, NJ 08887-

0450, proposes to amend 40 CFR

186.300 by establishing a feed additive

regulation to permit combined residues

of abamectin and its delta 8,9 isomer in

or on apples, wet pomace at 0.110 ppm.

(PM-13)

Withdrawn Petition

29. FAP 9H5575. Notice appeared in

the Federal Register of March 23, 1989

(54 FR 12010), that Mobay Corp., (now

Miles, Inc.), P.O. Box 4913, Kansas City,

MO 64120-0013, proposed to amend 40

CFR parts 185 and 186 by establishing

a regulation to permit the residues of the

fungicide terbuconazole (a-[2-(4-

chlorophenyl)ethyl[-a-(1,1-

dimethylethyl)-lH-1,2,4-triazole-1-

ethanol) in or on barley milled fractions

(except flour) at 1.0 ppm, wheat milled

fractions (except flour) at 1.0 ppm, grape

pomace (dry) at 12.0 ppm, and raisin

waste at 6.0 ppm. Miles, Inc., has

requested that the petition be

withdrawn without prejudice to future

filing. (PM 21)

List of Subjects

Environmental protection,.

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Food and

feed additives, Pesticides and pests.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136a.

Dated: June 27, 1994.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

IFR Doc. 94-16861 Filed 7-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-60-F

[OPPTS-41041; FRL-4870-4]

Thirty-Fourth Report of the TSCA

Interagency Testing Committee to the

Administrator; Receipt of Report and

Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The TSCA Interagency

Testing Committee (ITC), established

under section 4(e) of the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA),

transmitted its Thirty-Fourth Report to

the Administrator of EPA on May 17,

1994. As noted in this Report, which is

included with this notice, the ITC

revised the Priority Testing List by: (1)

changing a recommendation for one

chemical, white phosphorus, to a

designation, (2) recommending two

chemicals, ethyl tert-butyl ether and

tert-amyl methyl ether, and (3) removing

eight chemicals from the List. The eight

chemicals being removed from the List

are: methyl methacrylate, diethyl

phthalate, N-phenyl-1-naphthylamine,

acetophenone, phenol, NNdimethylaniline, ethyl acetate, and 2,6-

dimethylphenol. The Report states the

reasons for the removal of these

chemicals from the List. EPA invites

interested persons to submit written

comments on the Report.

In addition; EPA is soliciting

interested parties for participation in or

monitoring of a TSCA section 4 testing

consent agreement development process

for white phosphorus that was

designated for amphibian, reptile, wild

mammal, and aquatic plant acute

toxicity testing; and terrestrial plant

uptake and translocation testing. EPA is

also inviting manufacturers and/or

processors of white phosphorus who

wish to participate in testing

negotiations for white phosphorus to

develop and submit testing agreement

proposals to EPA.

EPA has already solicited interested

parties in developing testing agreements

for ethyl tert-butyl ether and tert-amyl

methyl ether (59 FR 18399, April 18,

1994).

DATES: Written comments on the 34th

ITC Report should be submitted by

August 12, 1994. Written testing

proposals must be received by

September 12, 1994. Written notice of

interest in being designated an

"interested party" to the development

or monitoring of a consent agreement for

white phosphorus must be received by

September 12, 1994. Those submitting

written testing proposals will be

considered "interested parties" and do

not have to submit separate written

notice. EPA will contact all "interested

parties" and advise them of meeting

dates.

ADDRESSES: Send six copies of written

submissions to: TSCA Public Docket

Office (7407), Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. B-607 NEM,

401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Submissions should bear the document

control number (OPPTS-41041; FRL4870--4)

The public record supporting this

action, including comments, is available

for public inspection in Rm. B-607

NEM at the address noted above from 12

noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Rim. E-543B,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554-1404,

TDD (202) 554-0551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has

received the TSCA Interagency Testing

Committee's Thirty-Fourth Report to the

Administrator.

I. Background

TSCA (Pub. L. 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003

et seq; 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) authorizes

the Administrator of EPA to promulgate

regulations under section 4(a) requiring

testing of chemicals and chemical

groups in order to develop data relevant

to determining the risks that such

chemicals'and chemical groups may

present to health or the environment.

Section 4(e) of TSCA established the

Interagency Testing Committee to

recommend chemicals and chemical

groups to the Administrator of EPA for

priority testing consideration. Section.

4(e) directs the ITC to revise the TSCA

section 4(e) Priority Testing List at least

every 6 months. The most recent

revisions to this List are included in the

ITC's Thirty-Fourth Report. The Report

was received by the Administrator on

May 17, 1994, and is included in this

Notice. The Report changes a

recommendation for one chemical,

recommends two chemicals, and

removes eight chemicals from the TSCA

section 4(e) Priority Testing List.

I. Written and Oral Comments

EPA invites interested persons to

submit detailed comments on the ITC's

Report. All submissions should bear the

identifying docket number (OPPTS41041).

EPA invites interested persons to

submit detailed comments on the ITC's

new recommendations. The Agency is

interested in receiving information

concerning additional or ongoing health

and safety studies on the subject

chemicals as well as information

relating to the human and

environmental exposure to these

chemicals.

A notice will be published at a later

date in the Federal Register adding the

substances recommended in the ITC's

ThirtyFourth Report to the TSCA

section 8(d) Health and Safety Data

Reporting Rule (40 CFR part 716), which

requires the reporting of unpublished

35720

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35720 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 1994 / Notices

health and safety studies on the listed

chemicals.

IIL Status of List

The ITC's Thirty-Fourth Report notes

the change of a recommendation for one

chemical to a designation, the

recommendation of two chemicals, and

the removal of eight chemicals from the

Priority Testing List. The current TSCA

section 4(e) Priority Testing List

contains 12 chemicals and 12 chemical

groups, with 2 chemical groups and 3

chemicals designated for testing.

IV. Testing Consent Agreements

1. Solicitation of interested parties.

EPA's procedures for requiring the

testing of chemical substances, under

section 4 of TSCA include the adoption

of enforceable consent agreements and

the promulgation of test rules. These

processes are found at 40 CFR 790.20.

EPA has on numerous occasions been

approached by chemical companies

interested in negotiating consent

agreements for testing ITC chemicals or

chemical groups. As a result of these

requests, EPA is now inviting persons

interested in participating in or

monitoring negotiations on the chemical

designated in the Thirty-Fourth ITC

Report to notify EPA in writing. Those

who respond to this solicitation by the

deadline established in this notice will

have the status of "interested parties"

and will be afforded opportunities to

participate in the negotiation process.

These "interested parties" will not incur

any obligations by being designated

"interested parties."

2. Solicitation of testing proposals for

consent agreement negotiations. EPA is

also now soliciting testing proposals for

a consent agreement to perform

amphibian, reptile, wild mammal, and

aquatic plant acute toxicity testing; and

terrestrial plant uptake and

translocation testing on white

phosphorus. Following publication of

this notice, manufacturers and/or

processors have 60 days to develop and

submit testing proposals that they wish

EPA to consider as candidates for

consent agreement negotiations for

white phosphorus. Testing guidelines

for the designated tests include: (1)

Lemna Acute Toxicity Test at 40 CFR

797.1160, (2) Plant Uptake and

Translocation Test at 40 CFR 797.2850,

(3) Amphibian Acute Toxicity Test, (4)

Reptilian Acute Toxicity Test, (5) Wild

Mammal Acute Toxicity Test. These

guidelines are available to the public

through the TSCA Public Docket Office

and the Environmental Assistance

Division listed above. These guidelines

should be reviewed before submitting

any testing proposals in response to this

notice.

For additional technical information

on these testing guidelines contact Dr.

Barnett Rattner, Department of The

Interior, (301) 497-5671.

All testing proposals submitted

should describe the testing to be

performed and explain any deviations

from the test protocols.

EPA will review the submissions and

select the most promising submissions

as candidates for negotiation.

Submissions that fully address the ITC's

concerns will have a higher chance of

success than those that do not fully

address all data needs.

3. Negotiation of testing program and

development of a testing consent

agreement. EPA will follow the

negotiation procedures under 40 CFR

790.22, and to the extent feasible, the

timetable outlined in 40 CFR part 790,

appendix A to subpart B.

For additional information about

process or negotiations contact Frank

Kover, Chief, Chemical Testing and

Information Branch, (202) 260-8130.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603.

Dated: June 30, 1994.

Charles M. Auer,

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office

of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

Thirty-Fourth Report of the TSCA

Interagency Testing Committee to the

Administrator, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency

SUMMARY: This is the 34th Report of the

TSCA Interagency Testing Committee

(ITC) to the Administrator of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). The ITC is revising its Priority

Testing List by changing a

recommendation for one chemical,

white phosphorus, to a designation for

action by the Administrator within 12

months, recommending two chemicals,

ethyl tert-butyl ether and tert-amylta

methyl ether and by removing eight

chemicals. White phosphorus is being

designated to meet the data needs of the

Department of Interior (DOI);

discussions- are ongoing with the

Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR), the

Department of Defense (DOD), and EPA

to coordinate their data needs with

those of DOI. Ethyl tert-butyl ether and

tert-amyl methyl ether are being

recommended for health effects testing

because EPA needs these data for

ongoing assessments. Methyl

methacrylate and diethyl phthalate are

being removed from the List because

dermal absorption rate data are available

that are likely to satisfy the data needs

of the Occupational Health and Safety

Administration (OSHA). N-Phenyl-1-

naphthylamine is being removed from

the List because studies reviewed by the

ITC did not increase concerns for cancer

and the ITC's priorities do not include

designating the chemical at this time.

Acetophenone, phenol, N,Ndimethylaniline, ethyl acetate and 2,6-

dimethylphenol are being removed from

the List because EPA proposed the

testing designated by the ITC in its 27th

Report in a test rule that was published

on November 22, 1993 (58 FR 61654).

I. Background

The TSCA Interagency Testing

Committee (ITC) was established by

section 4(e) of the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA): ...to make recommendations to the

Administrator respecting the chemical

substances and mixtures to which the

Administrator should give priority

consideration for the promulgation of a rule

for testing under section 4(a).... At least every

six months..., the Committee shall make such

revisions in the List as it determines to be

necessary and to transmit them to the

Administrator together with the Committee's reasons for the revisions...

(Public Law 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003 et seq.,

15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).

Since its creation in 1976, the ITC has

submitted 33 semi-annual Reports to the

EPA Administrator transmitting the

Priority Testing List and its revisions.

These Reports have been published in

the Federal Register (FR) and are

available from the ITC. The ITC meets

monthly and produces its revisions with

the help of staff and technical contractsupport provided by EPA. ITC

membership and support personnel are

listed at the end of this Report.

Following receipt of the ITC's Report

and the addition of chemicals to the

Priority Testing List, the EPA's Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics adds

these chemicals to TSCA section 8(a)

and 8(d) rules that -require

manufacturers, processors, and/or

distributors of these chemicals to submit

production and exposure data (8a), and

health and safety studies (8d), within 2

months of the rules' effective date. The

submissions are indexed and

maintained by EPA. The ITC reviews

the 8(a) and 8(d) information and other

available data on chemicals and

chemical groups (e.g., TSCA section 8(e) "substantial risk" studies, "For Your

Information" (FYI) submissions to EPA

and published papers) to determine if

revisions to the Priority Testing List are

necessary. Revisions can include

changing a recommendation to a

designation for action by the

Administrator within 12 months,

modifying the recommended testing, or

35721

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35721 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 1994 / Notices

removing the chemical or chemical

group from the List.

II. Revisions to the TSCA Section 4(e)

Priority Testing List

The ITC's revisions to its TSCA

Section 4(e) Priority Testing List are

summarized in the following Table 1.

TABLE 1. CHEMICALS DESIGNATED, RECOMMENDED AND REMOVED FROM THE TSCA SECTION 4(E) PRIORITY TESTING

LIST

CAS No. Chemical/Group Action Date

7723-14-0 ............. White phosphorus .................................................. Designate Previously Recommended Chemical for Amphib- 5/94

ian, Reptile, Wild Mammal, and Aquatic Plant Acute Toxicity Testing; and Terrestrial Plant Uptake and

Translocation Testing.

637-92-3 ............... Ethyl tert-butyl ether ............................................... Recommend for health effects testing ................................... 5/94

994--05-8 ............... Tert-amyl methyl ether ............................................ Recommend tor health effects testing ................................... 5/94

80-62-6 ................. Methyl methacrylate ............................................... Remove Previously Recommended Chemical ...................... 5/94

84-66-2 ................. Diethyl phthalate ...................... : ............................. Remove Previously Recommended Chemical ...................... 5/94

90-30-2 ................. N-Phenyl-l-naphthylamine ..................................... Remove Previously Recommended Chemical ...................... 5/94

98-86-2 ............... Acetophenone ........................................................ Remove Previously Designated Chemical ............ .......... 5/94

108-95-2 ............... Phenol ................................................................... Remove Previously Designated Chemical ............................. 5/94

121-69-7 ............... N,N-Dimethylaniline .......................... Remove Previously Designated Chemical ............................. 5/94

141-78-6 ............... Ethyl acetate .......................................................... Remove Previously Designated Chemical ............................. 5/94

576-26-1 ............... 2,6-Dimethylphenol .............................................. Remove Previously Designated Chemical ............................. 5/94

III. Rationale for the revisions

A. ITC's Activities During this Reporting

Period

During the 6 months covered'by this

Report, November 1993 through April

1994, the ITC reviewed the TSCA

section 8(a) and section 8(d)

submissions and other available data for

white-phosphorus and N-phenyl-1-

naphthylamine and dermal absorption

data for diethyl phthalate and methyl

methacrylate, and made decisions with

respect to their dispositions on the

Priority Testing List.

B. Specific Rationales

1. Designated chemical - White

phosphorus-a. Background. Thousands

of ducks in wetlands at an artillery

impact area have been poisoned by

white phosphorus. The Department of

Interior (DOI) is concerned about the

persistence of white phosphorus in

wetland sediments, the adverse effects

of white phosphorus on wildlife, and

the indirect effects of white phosphorus

on endangered species that feed on

carcasses of white phosphorus-poisoned

wildlife.

In November 1991,'based on DOI's

data needs, the ITC recommended

testing to determine the persistence of

white phosphorus in surface waters and

sediments and the toxicity to migratory

birds and other wildlife (see the ITC's

29th Report in 56 FR 67424, December

30, 1991). Since that recommendation,

the DOI has considered these and other

data needs. Discussions at ITC meetings,

are ongoing with the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry

(ATSDR), the Department of Defense

(DOD), and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) to coordinate

their data needs with those of DO].

Several Federal Government

organizations have past and ongoing

activities that could result in the

identification of additional data needs

for white phosphorus and more ITC

testing designations. Some of these

activities are described below.

ATSDR is drafting a toxicological

profile on white phosphorus. DOD is

supporting studies on white phosphorus

because it is detected in wetlands on

DOD munitions testing sites. In 1990,

EPA published a Drinking Water Health

Advisory for white phosphorus (Ref.

20). In 1992 and 1993, EPA obtained

1991 and 1992 data under the Toxics

Release Inventory (TRI), indicating that

during each of these years about 300,000

pounds of white phosphorus were

released to land (Ref. 17). These releases

are an order of magnitude lower than

reported for previous years (56 FR

67424) and reflect, in part, more accurate record keeping by white

phosphorus manufacturers. In 1993,

EPA and DOD conducted 4 seminars on

"technologies for remediating sites

contaminated with explosive and

radioactive wastes" (Ref. 21). In 1993,

EPA also prepared a handbook entitled "Approaches for the Remediation of

Federal Sites Contaminated with

Explosive and Radioactive Wastes" (Ref.

22). White phosphorus was extensively

discussed in the seminars and the

handbook. EPA is making a

determination of whether there are

health effects data needed for white

phosphorus under Title III of the Clean

Air Act. ITC will coordinate ATSDR,

DOD and EPA data needs with those of

DOI and determine if additional testing

needs to be designated in a future ITC

report.

The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)

has two Registry numbers for white

phosphorus: 7723-14-0, as a general

number for white, yellow, black and red

phosphorus, and 12185-10-3

specifically for white phosphorus. The

ITC used CAS No. 7723-14-0 in the

29th Report, because it is the most

commonly used for white phosphorus.

It is used to record production volume

and environmental release data as well

as most published and unpublished

studies. In response to the ITC's 29th

Report testing recommendations, EPA

promulgated TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d)

rules for CAS No. 7723-14-0 on March

12, 1993, and for CAS No. 12185-10-3

on December 27, 1993. The

manufacturers, processors and

distributors of white phosphorus

submitted section .8(a) reports and

section 8(d) studies only for 7723-14-0.

35722

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35722 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 1994 / Notices

Therefore, the ITC is only designating the Army's firing of white phosphorus

white phosphorus as CAS No. 7723-14- munitions in wetland areas.

0 and requesting that EPA remove CAS White phosphorus has been detected

No. 12185-10-3 from the TSCA section in water samples (0.013-0.069 Jig/L)

8(d) rule. from Eagle River Flats (Ref. 10). White

b. Designated testing. To meet the phosphorus particles have been visually

data needs of DOI, the ITC is identified and chemically-confirmed at

designating white phosphorus for concentrations of 10 ppm in sediments

amphibian, reptile, wild mammal and (Refs. 11 and 23). White phosphorus has

aquatic plant acute toxicity testing, and been isolated from th6 gizzards of dead

terrestrial plant uptake and mallard ducks, Anas platyrhynchos

translocation testing. (Ref. 11). Exposure of at least a dozen

c. Rationale for designation. DOI avian species has been documented

reviewed the submitted section 8(a) and through chemical detection of white

8(d) data as well as TSCA section 8(e), phosphorus in gizzard, liver, muscle, fat

FYI, and published papers for white or skin (Refs. 11; 13, and 23).

phosphorus. It continues to be White phosphorus contamination at

concerned about the persistence of artillery impact areas is currently being

white phosphorus in wetland investigated by Simmers et al. (Ref. 14).

sediments, adverse effects on wildlife Sampling results from 21 of the 23 DOD

that feed on whie phosphorus- installations indicate that white

contaminated sediments, and the phosphorus was detected (detection

potential adverse effects on endangered limit of I jig/kg) at seven of the

species that feed on carcasses of wildlife installations (Ref. 3).

that die from white phosphorus (2) Chemical fate information.

poisoning. Although DOI is working Degradation rates of white phosphorus

with DOD to conduct and coordinate solutions have been characterized in an

testing and field investigations of white aqueous in vitro test system (Ref. 4), and

phosphorus, DOI has data needs that are appear to be dependent on dissolved

not included in this coordinated, oxygen, pH and temperature. Under

government-funded program. These aerobic conditions, solutions of white

additional data are needed by DOI to phosphorus are rapidly oxidized (or

assess the ecological risks posed by possibly hydrolyzed or volatilized; Ref.

white phosphorus. 15) andits concentration decreases

d. Supporting information. DOI monotonically with time (282 to 1762

nominated white phosphorus to the ITC pjg/L yielded a half-life of 3 hours for the

in 1991 because persistence and initial 24 hour period). However,

ecotoxicity data were needed to assess degradation rates are reduced at

the ecological risks posed by white temperatures below 22 0C and in closed

phosphorus. The results of studies (non-aerated) test systems. Under such

submitted under TSCA section 8(d) and conditions, white phosphorus half-life

section 8(e), other relevant data, and increases from hours to weeks. When

ongoing activities are presented below sediments were tested in a modified

along with the specific rationales for the aqueous in vitro test system,

designated tests. degradation rates of white phosphorus (1) Exposure information- were slower in sediment than in water

production/use/disposal/exposure/ (Ref. 5).

release. In 1990, approximately 700 White phosphorus in sediments at the

million pounds of white phosphorus estuarine wetlands of Eagle River Flats,

were produced (Ref. 2). Based on 1991 Alaska is often found, as particulates,

and 1992 TRI data, about 300,000 ranging in diameter from 0.15 to 3.5 mm

pounds are released annually from (corresponding to the size range of food

production facilities (Ref. 17). The items and gizzard material selected by

amounts of white phosphorus released many species of waterfowl), and at

during munitions testing, pesticides sediment depths of up to 30 cm (Ref.

manufacturing and other uses is 10). White phosphorus particles appear

unknown to the ITC. to be quite persistent in the saturated

Every year since 1980, up to 3,000 saline sediments of Eagle River Flats,

waterfowl (dabbling ducks), 50 swans, but volatilize as sediments dry below 20

and an undetermined number of percent moisture (Ref. 23). Factors that

shorebirds appear to have died from affect persistence of white phosphorus

white phosphorus poisoning at an in sediments include sediment porosity,

artillery impact area in the estuarine moisture content and temperature, all of

wetlands of Eagle River Flats, Cook which interact to determine the rate of

Inlet, Alaska. This wildlife mortality sublimation. Oxygen may slow

continues despite the fact that on sublimation by the formatiorn of

September 10, 1991, the Assistant oxidation products around the particles

Secretary of the Army (Installations, that impose a diffusion barrier to white

Logistics, and Environment) suspended'- phosphorus vapor. Using data on the

dissolution rate of white phosphorus

particles in water (Ref. 15), Walsh (Ref.

23) estimated the dissolution of a 1 mm

diameter white phosphorus sphere to be

8 years. The extent of particulate white

phosphorus contamination in the

United States remains largely unknown.

The rate of oxidation of white

phosphorus particles in aerated-soil is

highly variable depending on

environmental conditions (Refs. 1, 12

and 24). Using a model to estimate the

fate of white phosphorus particles in

soil, Spanggord et al. estimated that

particles buried in soil could persist for

several years, and if an "oxidized coat"

were formed, particles could persist for

thousands of years (Ref. 15).

These data demonstrate the

persistence of white phosphorus in

sediments. Therefore, the ITC is not

designating further chemical fate testing

of white phosphorus at this time.

(3) Health effects information. The

ITC's 29th Report summarized available

health effects data for white

phosphorus. These data indicate that

white phosphorus is highly toxic to

humans and laboratory animals (56 FR

67424; December 30, 1991). As noted in

the summary of this 34th Report,

discussions are ongoing with ATSDR,

DOD and EPA to coordinate their data

needs with those of DOI. The ITC is not

designating further health effects testing

at this time because those discussions

have not been completed.

(4) Ecological effects informationAcute and subchronic effects (shortterm). The ITC's 29th Report

summarized laboratory and field studies

for white phosphorus. These studies

indicated that white phosphorus is

highly toxic to aquatic organisms (56 FR

67424, December 30, 1991).

Thirty-day bioassays are currently

being conducted by the U.S. Army

Environmental Hygiene Agency to

measure the toxicity of white

phosphorus contaminated sediments

from Eagle River Flats to the crustacean,

Hyallela azteca and the midge larve,

Chironomus riparius (Ref. 10).

The medianlethal dose for adult male

and juvenile mallard ducks gavaged

with white phosphorus dissolved in

corn oil vehicle was 6.5 mg/kg (Ref. 10).

Signs of toxicity include slow rhythmic

lateral head shaking, and lethargy,

followed by convulsions. Birds often

succumb within 1 to 2 hours, but in

other instances may linger for up to 55

hours prior to death. Concentrations of

white phosphorus in dosed mallards

exceed 0.25 ttg/g in fat, skin and liver

(Refs. 10 and 11).

The acute median lethal dose of white

phosphorus in female mallards is being

estimated by Sparling (Ref. 16). The

35723

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35723 1994
Federal Register I VoL 59,, No. 1.33 f Wednesday, July 13,1 994 / Notices

females appear to be slightly more

tolerant than male and Ovenile bird

(LD5O>1O mgkg): (Ref S). An

estimation, of the lowest observable

effect level OELI wil be determined

by Sparting (Re.d. 16) using white

phosphorus pellets without vehicle,

because a corn oil vehicle may affect

absorption and toxicity.

Increasing evidence suggests. the

potential fo, widespread white

phosphorus pollution in wetlands.

While white phosphorus toxicity data

have been or arebeing developed for

aquatic and avian species that inhabit

wetlands. Ther are no white

phosphorus toxicity data for

amphibians, reptiles, and, wild

mammals that frequaent temperate zone

wetland habitats. In addition, some

mammals, including furbearerm (e.g.,

mink), frequent wetlands and are known

to be far more sensitive, to certain

environmental pollutants (e.g., PCBs.

than. laboratory rodents. For these

reasons, DOI needs amphibian, reptile,

and wild mammal acute toxicity test

data for its white phosphorus. risk

assessment.

Based or limited available data and

DOI's data needs, the ITC is designating

white phosphorus.foramphibian,

reptile, and wild mammal. acute toxicity

testing. Chronic.(longterm) effects The lrrCs

29th Report described laboratory studies

that demonstrated the chronic toxfcity

of white phosphorus to aquatic

organisms (56 FR 674Z4, December 30,

1991).

Based on these data and ongoing DOt

studies, the. ITC is not designating

further chronic aquatic toxicity testing

at this time- ' Metabolism anda phcrmacokinetIcs.

Data for laboratory mammals were

summarized in the ITCs 29th Report (56

FR 67424', December30, 1991)Y Recent

studies suggest that acute white

phosphorus toxicity ii warm-blooded,

animals may be due to, the

nonenzymatic metabolism of white

phosphorus to phosphine (Ref. 8).

A recent publication described the

uptake and t oss of whits phosphorus. in

Ameri=n kestrels or sparrow hawks

(Falco sparverius) Ref.. 91. This; study;

indicated that although uptake, of white

phosphorus was rapid, bioaccumulation

is limited in American kestrels because,

of chemical or enzymatic degradation.

Uptake, and depurato studies of

white phosphorus administered to

mallardsbelow the LD5U will be studied

by Spaing (Ref. 16) . Pharmacokinetics,

will be studied by Sparling (Raf. i) at

various fntervefra 10-day period in

breast musde. gizzard, abdominal fat,

skin, liver,, pancreas and blood.. Sperling

(Ref 161 wilT also. study

histopathological and biochemical

biomarkers of exposure.

Based on these data and ongoing DOI

studies, the ITC is' not designating.

frrther metabolismr and

pharmacokinetic testing at this time.

Reproductive effects. In rats, 75 pttg/kgf

day of white phosphorus reduced

pregnancy rates (Ref. 61, increased death.

rates of females in Late gestation (Ref. 71j

increased parturition-related difficulties

(Ref. 181, and increased the number of

dead pups at birth (Ref. 191. The birth

defects caused by white phosphorus,,

and the presence of white phosphorus

in herring gull eggs collected in Eagle

River Flats (Ref. a), suggest the need for

reproductive effects, studies in hirds

DOI is planning preliminary studies, to.

investigate. fertility rates of male and

female mallards repeatedly gavaged

(chronic exposure) with low doses of

white phosphorus (Ref 16).

Based, on the studies conducted by

Monsanto and planned DO1 studies, the

ITC is not designating; further

reproductive effects testing at this time.

Other ecological, effects. Predation of

ducks poisoned by white phosphorus

was" systematically monitored at Eagle

River Flats in the spring and fall of 1991

(Ref. 131. Twenty-four instances. of

predation of sick or dead dabbling

ducks by bald eagles (Ffaliaet u

leucocephalus),, hering gulls (Larus

argentatus) and common ravens (Cbrvus'

carax were observed. Other predators,

including northern harrier (Circus

cyaneus) and coyotes (C ais ladranl

have been observed to hunt over the

Flats., Many decaying baUd eagle

carcasses have been found at or near

Eagle River' Flats% and the single carcass

tested was positive for white,

phosphorus in fatty tissues (Refs. 10 and

13)'. Based, on these observations, and.

the risk assessment of Roebuck et al.

(Ref. 13), there is considerable potential

for secondary pofsoning ofpredators,

including endangered species.

DOI will investigate secondary

poisoning of'predators (raptors and

other scavengers. using captive

American kestrels fMd northern

bobwhite quail chicks (Colinus

virginianus) that had been gavaged with,

I mg/kg pelletized white, phosphorus for

a 10-day period (Ref. 18). Mortality,

biochemical and histopathological

biomarkers of toxicity,, and white

phosphorus burdens in kestrels will be

studied (Ref. 181.

Based on data published by Racine

(Ref. 10) and Roebuck (Ref. 13) an&

planned DOI, studies, the FC fs not

designating other ecological effects

testing at this time

BNoconcentration and food chain

transport. The 29th ITC Report noted

that bioconcentratfon o- white

phosphorus was studied in three-species

of fish, six species of invertebrates and

in two species of seaweed (56 FR 674Z4;,

December 30. 1911. Fish and

invertebrates have been collected at

Eagle River Flats by Racine for

determination of white phosphorus

uptake (Ref. 10).

A recent study suggested that large

predators such as bald eagles. that have

the ability to ingest whole gizzards of.

prey birds, could bioaccumulate white

phosphorus because the amount

ingested could' exceed the degradation

capacity (Ref. 9).

Few data are available on

bioconcentration and food chain

transport of white phosphorus by

plants. This data need concerns DOI

because white phosphorus has been

detected in or on the roots of salt marsh

plants at Eagle River Flats (Ref. 10.1; and

because many herbivorous wildlife

species could be exposed to, and be

adversely affected by, white phosphorus

as a result of uptake and

bioconcenfration by plants.

Based on DOI's data needs, the ITCis

designating white phosphorus for

aquatic plant toxicity and terrestrial

plant uptake and translocationr testing.

2. Recommended chemicals - Ethyl'

tert-butyl'ether and tert-amyl methyl

ether- a. Background. The ITC

designated methyl tert-butyl ether

(MTBE)' for health effects testing in its

20th Report because of concerns for

widespread human exposure to low

level fugitive emissions of MTBE at

gasoline pumps. and the need for

chronic health effects data (5Z F.

19020; May 20,. 1987). In, response to the

ITC's designation, EPA and MTBK

manufacturers negotiated aTSCA

section 4 enforceable consent agreement

to develop pharmacbkinetics,.

genotoxicity, subchronictoxicity,

reproductive effects, developmental

toxicityneurotoxicity, and, oncogenicity

data (53 FR 10391, March. 3.1, 198S1.

EPA is evaluating the. data from the

completed MTBE testing program.

EPA needs health effects data for two

other fuel oxygenates, ethyl tert-butyL

ether (ETBEI. and tert-amyl methyl ether

(TAME) and is soliciting interest in.

developingtesting agreements foxr these.

chemicals C(59 FR 18399, April 18,

1994)

b. Recommended testfng, Ethyl tertbutyl ether and tert-amryl methyl ethes

are being, recommended for health '

effects testingbecause EPA needs these

data for ongoing, assessments.

c. Rationale for recommendation. The

use of ETBE and TAME'to augment or

I PV 5 I

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35724 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 133 / Wednesday, July 13, 1994 / Notices 35725

substitute for MTBE as fuel oxygenates

and the health effects data needs of

ETBE and TAME are of concern to EPA

and the ITC. Therefore, the ITC is

recommending testing to obtain TSCA

section 8(d) health and safety data on ETBE and TAME to support EPA's

ongoing assessments of the potential

hazards/risks posed by these two

chemical substances. The ITC will share

the data with EPA and other interested

U.S. Government organizations

represented on the ITC and will review

these data to determine whether ETBE

and TAME should be designated for

testing or removed from the Priority

Testing List. The ITC is also requesting

data on acute toxicity of gasoline

mixtures containing ETBE and/or

TAME. The ITC's process of

recommending ETBE and TAME and

then making decisions following data

review is consistent with the process

used for MTBE. MTBE was

recommended in ITC's 19th Report (51

FR 41417, November 14, 1986) and

designated in ITC's 20th Report,

following ITC's review of voluntarily

submitted and TSCA section 8(d) data.

d. Supporting information. EPA's

recent Federal Register notice provides

supporting information (59 FR 18399,

April 18, 1994).

The requirements of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q, along with

reports of adverse human health effects

associated with the use of MTBE in winterblend gasoline, have contributed to the need

for health effects testing of ETBE and TAME.

MTBE, ETBE, and TAME are fuel

oxygenates which may be used to. satisfy the

following requirements under the CAA.

Under section 211(m) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.

7545, States which have certain attainment areas for carbon monoxide (CO) must require

that any gasoline sold or dispensed to

ultimate customers in a specified portion of

the nonattainment area be blended, during

wintertime, to contain not less than 2.7

percent oxygen by weight (or applicable

percentage to meet the national primary air

quality standard for CO by the established

attainment date). Under section 211(k),

reformulated gasoline must be used in

nonattainment areas in nine major

metropolitan areas that are designated as ozone nonattainment areas as well as various

nonattainment "opt-in" areas by 1995 and

the oxygen content of this gasoline must be

equal to or exceed 2 percent by weight. See

Final Rule, Regulation of Fuels and Fuel

Additives: Standards for Reformulated and

Conventional Gasoline, February 16, 1994 (59

FR 7716). In addition, a proposed regulation

[by EPA's Office of Air and Radiation] would

require that at least 30 percent of the oxygen

content of reformulated gasoline come from

renewable oxygenates, which would include

ETBE. See OAR/EPA Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, regulation of Fuels and

Additives: Renewable Oxygenate

Requirement for Reformulated Gasoline,

December 27, 1993 (58 FR 68343).

Recently, there have been reports from the

State of Alaska and several areas in the lower

48 states of adverse human health effects

[(e.g., headache, nausea, general malaise)]

associated with the use of MTBE in winterblend gasoline. (See Assessment of Potential

Health Risks of Gasoline. Oxygenated with

MTBE, Office of Research and Development,

U.S. EPA, November 1993.)

EPA believes that additional health effects

test data on fuel oxygenates are needed to

allow government agencies and industry to

compare the health risks associated with the use of these substances to augment or substitute for MTBE as a fuel oxygenate....

(1) Exposure informationproduction/use/disposal/exposure/

release. Estimates published in 1991

indicate that by 1995, annual

production vblumes of ETBE and TAME

are expected to exceed 26 million

pounds (Refs. 29 and 30) and 6 billion

pounds (Ref. 35), respectively. Estimates

published in 1994 indicate that by 1995,

about 335,000 barrels per day (32 billion

pounds per year) of oxygenates will be

needed to meet oxygenated'and

reformulated-fuel mandates (Ref. 28).

Consumer, occupational or

environmental exposures to ETBE or

TAME could be substantial based on

their use as fuel oxygenates.

(2) Physical and chemical

information. ETBE has a molecular

weight of 102.18, a melting point of -97

*C (Ref. 26), a boiling point of 72 to 73

*C (Ref. 26), a log octanol/water

partition coefficient of 1.58 (Ref. 31), a

water solubility of 12,000 mg/L at 20 0C

(Ref. 32), a vapor pressure of 130 mm Hg

at 25 °C (Ref. 32), and a Henry's Law

constant of 1.45 x 10- 3 atm-m3

/mole at

25 *C (Ref. 34).

TAME has a molecular weight of

102.18, a boiling point of 85 to 86 °C

(Ref. 25), a log octanol/water partition

coefficient of 1.58 (Ref. 31), a water

solubility of 11,500 mg/L at 20 °C (Ref.

32), a vapor pressure of 75 mm Hg at 25

°C (Ref. 32), and a Henry's Law Constant

of 9.15 x 1,0-' atm-m3/mole at 25 °C (Ref,

10).

(3) Chemical fate information. The

estimated atmospheric half-life of ETBE

is 1.9 /days based on a hydroxyl radical

concentration of 5 x 105 OH/cm 3 and a

rate constant of 8.5 x 10-12 atm-m3

/

molecule-sec developed by Japar et al.

(Ref. 29). The estimated atmospheric

half-life of TAME is 2.3 days based on

a hydroxyl radical concentration of 5 x

105 OH/cm 3 and a rate constant of 7.91

X 10-12 atm-m3

/molecule-sec estimated

by Atkinson (Ref. 27).

The ITC is not recommending

chemical fate testing, because it is not

a high priority data need at this time.

(4) Health effects information. The

ITC is recommending health effects

testing to meet EPA's data needs.

(5) Ecological effects information. The

ITC is not recommending ecological

effects testing, because it is not a high

priority data need at this time.

3. Removal of chemicals from the

Priority Testing List- a.Methyl

methacrylate and diethyl phthalate. In

its 32nd Report, the ITC designated

methyl methacrylate (CAS No. 80-62-6)

and diethyl phthalate (CAS No. 84-66-

2) for dermal absorption testing to meet

the data needs of the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) (58 FR 38490, July 16, 1993).

These chemicals were added to the

Priority Testing List as members of a 34-

chemical group that had inadequate

dermal absorption rate data. OSHA

nominated these chemicals to the ITC to

obtain data for OSHA to determine

whether skin notations should be

assigned to these chemicals.

The ITC obtained dermal absorption

rate data for methyl methacrylate (Ref.

37) and diethyl phthalate (Ref. 36) that

are likely to meet OSHA's data needs.

As a result, the ITC is removing methyl

methacrylate and diethyl phthalate from

the Priority Testing List and making the

data publicly available by including the

references in the EPA docket for this

34th Report and transmitting the data to

OSHA and other interested U.S.

Government organizations. As a result

of finding that these data are likely to

meet OSHA's data needs, the ITC

requested EPA to remove these

chemicals from its TSCA section 8(a)

and/or section 8(d) rules before the May

10, 1994 reporting deadline. EPA

removed methyl methacrylate and

diethyl phthalate from these TSCA

section 8 rules on May 2, 1994 (59 FR

22519, May 2, 1994).

b. N-Phenyl-1-naphthylamine. In its

27th Report, the ITC recommended Nphenyl-1-naphthylamine (CAS No. 90-

30-2) for carcinogenicity testing to meet

the data needs of OSHA and for

chemical fate and ecological effects

testing, because of ITC concerns for

environmental persistence and aquatic

toxicity (56 FR 9534, March 6, 1991).

OSHA was concerned about potential

occupational exposures to N-phenyl-1-

naphthylamine in hydraulic fluids and

other mixtures, and the potential

carcinogenicity of this N-substituted

aromatic amine. As noted in ITC's 27th

Report, OSHA's exposure concerns were

based on 1981-1983 National

Occupational Exposure Survey

estimates that 96,478 workers were

potentially exposed to N-phenyl-1-

naphthylamine almost exclusively

through trade name products. After

Vol. 59, No.' 133 / Wednesday, July Federal Register / 13, 1994 / Notices 35725

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35725 1994
Federal Regiser I VoL 59, No, t33 / Wednesday, July 13, 199-4 / Notices

reviewing the TSCA section 8a)

production and exposure data. ITC

Members met with the U.S.

manufacturer of N-phenyl-1-

naphthylamine. At the meeting and

during subsequent discussions, the ITC

Members were provided with estimates

that 800 to 900 workers were exposed to

technical grade Nphenyl4-

naphthylamine during manufacturing

and processing and specifications

showing that concentrations of NAphenyl-1-naphthylamine fit formulated

lubricants were generally less than four

percent Ref. 39).

ITC Members also reviewed the TSCA

section 8(d) health and safety studies

and other toxicity data on f-phenyl-lnaphthylamine that were obtained' after

the 27th Report was published. Most of

these studies were conducted on'

formulated products that did not specify

the amount of technical grade N-phenyl1-naphthyramine in the product. The

aquatic toxicity studies indicated that

formulated products containing IVphenyt-l-naphthylamine were several

orders of magnitude less toxic than pure

N-phenyf-T-naphthybunine, which, as

reported in ITC's 27th Report. was

highly toxic to aquatic organisms and

teratogenic to frogs (56 FR 9534, March6, 1991). Thebiodegpadatfon studies on

formulated products containing Nphenyl-1-naphthylamine cohfinmed its

potential environmental persistence.

The health effects studies on formulated

products containing N-pheny-l-

'naphthylamine did not suggest concerns

for carcinogenicity. The results from.

testing a structurally-related chemical,

N-phenyl-2naphthylamin (CAS No.

135-88-61 by the National Toxicology

Program (NTPJ showed it to be

noncarcinogenic in rats and mice (Ref.

40). Based on the available health effects

data and structure-activity

considerations. there is no reason to

believe that N-pheny-I-naphthylamine

would have a greater carcinegenic

potential than N- phenyr-?.-

naphthylamine.

. The ITC is removing N-phenyl-lnaphthylamine from the Priority Tesing

List because the available data did not

increase concem for carcinogenicity,

and the changing priosities of the LTC. do

not warrant designating the chemical for

testing at this time. This decision is

consistent with the April 1993 decision

by the German Advisory Committee on

Existing Chemicals of Environmental

Relevance (BUA) to not conduct priorty,

carcinogenicity inrvestigptions of Nphenyl-1-naphthylamine (Ref. 3al.

The ITC has completed its review of

TSCA section a(dj information f rNphenyl-A-naphthylamine and requests.

that EPA remove it from the TSCA

section 8(d) rule. . Acetophenane, pheno, N',Ndimethylaniline, ethyl acetate and 2.6-

dimethylphenal In its 27th Report, the

ITC designated acetophenone, phenol.,

N,N-dimethylaniline, ethyl acetate and

2,6-dimethylphenot to meet EPA's data

needs (56 FR 9534, March &, g91.. The

ITC is removing these chemicals from

the Priority Testing List because EPA

proposed a test rule on November 2Z,

1993 to implement the testing (58 FR

61654, November 2Z, 1993.

References

(1) Bohn, H.I., Johnson, G.V. and Cliff, J.H.

"Detoxification of white phosphorus in soil"

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

18:117 -173 (1970).

(2) CMR (Chemical Marketing Reporter)

Chemical' Profiler Phosphorus. February 18,

1991.

{3) Daniels, J. D. Letter from James ID.

Daniels, Profect Engineer, U.S Army

Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving

Ground, MD t Barnett A. Rattner; Deputy

Chief, Branch of Environmentat

Contaminants Reseam, Patiment WildlifeResearch Center, National Biohgica Survey,

Department of the Interior. Preliminary

report of results from the. survey of range

impact areas of 23 installations. Dated

February 28, 1994.

(4) Lal, M.G. "Characterization of'white

phosphorus in water. ILDegradation of white

phosphorus in aqueous system. "- Nval

Surface Weapons enter. SifverSpring, MD.

NSWCTR 79- (1,979)L

(51 Lai, M G. "Characterization of white

phosphorus in. water. i. Behavior of white

phosphorus in the, water-sediment interface."

Naval Surface Weapons Center, Sirver

Spring, MD. NSWCTR 81-&7 (1981)'.

(6) Monsanto Company. "Letter from,

MonsantaCompany to.th U.S EPA

submitting information on elemental

phosphorus with attachments." TSCA 8,e

submission £a-80000065, microfiche

number OTS-051825, Washington, DC:

OPPT, U.S. EPA (1989).

(71 Monsanto Company. "A one-generation

reproduction study in rats with elemental

phosphorus conducted by gavage in rats-

(pathology report) with cover letter dbted:

020591:' TSCA 8e submission. 97-

910000168, microfiche number 0 ES0518525-3, Washington, DC: OPPT, U.S. EPA

(1991),

(8 Nam, S.i, Roebuck, B.D., Walsh, M.E,

and Racine, C. "Biotransfer and

accumulation of white phoslonis."

Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the S9ciety of

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistrf . Abstract 256 (1992.

(9) Nam,,S.I._ Roebuck, B.D and Walsh,

M.E. "Uptakeand loss of white phosphorus

in American kestrels." Envixonmental

Toxicology and Chemistry. 13"637-441

(1994J.

(101 Racine, CIT. "Eagle River Flats

Progress Report." Department of the Army,

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Corps of Engineers. Hanover,

New Hampshia 18 pM, No'mber 12 1993.

(ill' Racine, CH., Wbash, M.E. Roebuck,

B.D., Collins, CM., Calkins, D., Reitsma, L,

Buchil, R., andCGodfarb, G. "While

phosphorus poisuing of waterfowL in an

Alaskan salt marsh." journal of WildlifeDiseases. 28:669-673 (1992 .

(12) Rodrigues, A.. Bohn, H.L and

Johnson, G.V. "White phosphorus as a

phosphatic fertilizer." Soil Science

Proceedings. 36:364-366 (1972'.

(13' Roebuck, B.D1, Walsh, M.E., Racina,

C.H., Reitsma, L, Steele, B., and Nam, &

"Predation of ducks poisoned by white

phosphorus: Exposure and risk to predas."

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. rn

Press.

(14) Simmers, I.W., Price, R.A.. and Bird,

S.T. "Assessment of white phosphorus

contamination of artillery impact areas."

Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Society of

Environmentak Ticoklgy aid Chemistry.

Abstract P509 (1993).

(ls), Spanggprd, R.., Rwick, P.ChoanT.-

W., Wilson. R-Podoll .. T.MilI,T. Parna%

T., Platz, R. and RobertsD.L.

"Environmental fate of white phosphorustfelt

and red phosphorus/butyl rubber military

screening smokes.- Final report.- SR

International, Menlo Park, CA. A A176922

(1985).

(16) Sparling, D.W. "Occurrence of white

phosphorus, in food chains within Eagle

River Flats and its toxicity to waterfowL"

U.S. Departmentof the Interior, National

Biotogical Survey, Patuxent Wildlife

Research Cnter; Laurel, MD. Study Plan and

Modification 30030.23 (1994)

(17) TRI (Toxics. Release Inventory).

Database retrieval 3/21/194. U..

Environmental Protection Agency (19941.

(18) U.S. EPA. "U.S. EPA Status Report:

elemental phosphorus with cover letter d&ted

112989." TSCA FYf subn ission FYr-OTS0785-0423, microfiche mnnber 0OTS0000423-1, Washington, DC.OPPT, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, (1989}.

(19) U.S. EPA. -U.S. EPA Status-Report:

elemental phosphorus with cover letter dated

112989."-TSCA 8e submission a&EH-89-

0820, microfiche aumberGTS-05T8525-I,

Washington, DM OPPF, U.S. Environmental

Protection. Agency (989gb).

(20) U.S. EPA. "White Phosphorus Health

Advisory." U-S. Environmental Protection

Agency's Office of Drinking Water. NTIS PB

91-161025(1.9901.

(21 U.S. EPA. "Seminar on technotagies

for remediating sites contaminated with

explosive and radioactive wastes." U.S.

Environmental Protection Agencyrs Office of

Research and Development and Department

of Defense. EPA/625/K-931001 (1993). (22: U.S. EPA. "Handbook: approaches for

the remedlation of Federal facility sitescontaminated with explosive orradioactive

wastes." U.S Environmrental Protectior

Agency's Office of Research and

Development EPA/625/R-93AY13 ( 19"3) .

(23) Wa]sh', M.E: "White-phosphorus; An

environmentaf contaminant.- Master of'

Science Thesis. Thayer Schoot of

Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover,

New Hampshire. 11 pp. (190)

(24) Warnock, R.E "Escape ofelementa

phosphorus from soil appled as whike

phosphorus or the phosphorus-sulfur

35726

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35726 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 133. 1 Wednesday, July 13. 1994 / Notices

eutectic solution."Journal'of Enviromnental

Quality 1:311-3-14 (1972).

(25) Aldrich. Cataleg of Fine Chemicals

1990-1991 Milwaukee, WL Aldrich Chem

CO. p. 98 (1990).

(26) Aldrich. Catalog of Fine Chemicals

1990-1991 Milwaukee, WI: Aldrich- Chem

CO. p, 239 (1990o.

(271 Atkinson, R. "Kinetics and

Mechanisms of the Gas-Phas' Reactio-s of

the Hydroxyl.Radical with Organic

Compounds." Journal ofPhysical Chemical

Reference Data. D.R. Lide, Jr., Ed. American.

Chemical Society. p. 142 (1989.

(28) Chemical Engineering. "The drive for

cleaner-buning fueL. ChemicalEngineering.

p. 61, January 1994.

(29) Chemicalweek, "ETBE gains presence

in reformulated fueL" Chemicalweek p. 9,

July 31,1991.

(30) Chemicalweek. "Clean air drives the

MTBE race." Chemicalweek. p., 22, Mly 31,

1991.

(31) CLOCI. CLOG-P CGEMS-Qaphfc

Exposur Modeling System. W"OGP, ULS.EPA

(1986),

(32) Evans, T.W. Edlund, ICR. "Tertiary

Alkyl Ethers Preparation and Properties

Industrial and Engineering Che'nisty.

28:1186 (1933).

(33) Japar, S.M., Wallington, T.J., Rudy,

S.J., Chang, T.Y. "Ozene-Forming Potential of

a Series of Oxygenated Organic Compounds,.

Environmental Science Technao. 25"415- 420 (19911_

(34) Lyman, W.J., Reehl, W.F., and

Rosanblatt, D.H. Handbook of Chemical

Property Estimation Methods. Environmental

Behavior of Organic Compounds.

Washington, DC American. Chem ical

Society. pp. 4-0, 5-4.5-10, 7-4, 7-5, 15-15

to 15-32 (19901.

(35) NFR. "Over half-million B/Dof

oxygenate may be needed to, supply demand

due to CAA." New Fuels Report. p, 12,

February 25.1991.

(36) Scott, KC, Dugard. P.H., Ramsey, J.I).

and Rhodes, C "in vitro absorption of some

o-phthatate diesters through human and rat

skin.." Envhoementatffeafth Perspectives.

74:223-227(1987Y.

(37) Zeneca. "Methyl methacrylate: in

vitro absorption through human epiderms."

Zeneca Central Toxicology Laboratory Report

No. CTL/P/4025 proided by the

Methacrylate Producers Association,

Washington, D.C. (1993).

(38) BUA. "N-phenyl-t-naphthylamine,

BUA-Stoffbericht 113, Stand: April 1993 (In

German)." BUA, Stuttgart (1993).

(39) Carlton, B.D. September 7, 1993 letter

from Dr. Betsy D. Carlto, Rhene-Poulenc to

Dr. John D. Walker, TSCA Interagency

Testing Committee. Rhone-Poulenc, Research

Triangle Park, N.C. (1993)..

(40) NTP (National Toxicology Program.

"Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of Npheny]-2-napthylamine (CAS No.. 135-8-6.

in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (feed

studies)." NTP TR 333. Research Triangle,

Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, National Institutes of

Health (January 1988).

IV. The TSCA Section 4(e) Priority

Testing List, as Revised (May 19941

THE TSCA SECTION, 4(e) Pdority Testing List (May 1994)

Re- Date ChemicaVGroup Action,

23. November 988 .......... Btsyradehyde ............... Recommended

23 Novembeg 1,988 ........ - Tekchloroethytethyreiediphosphate .............................. Recommer4ed witlhento-dsignate

Tnstl , .dchloro-2qy phosphateTd4-clro-2-propyl phosphate.

'Tris2.chlawo-l -propyl) phosphate

lTrisp*Varoethyll-phosphate.

26 May 1990 t tsocyanates . ..Ree ended, witt Intent-to-designate

27 November $990 Aldehydes ..................... Recommended with Intent-to-designate

27 Novemibet 1,990. Suimse................................... Recommended

27 Novmber $990 . Substtally produced chemical in need of subchrore fox- Recommended

ltesting. 28 May 1991 Acetse.......... . . .............. Designated

28 May 1991 Thl....-l ........... ......................................................... Designated

28 May 1991 ...... mDinilrobenzene Recommended

28 May 1991 .................... C; anoacrylates ...................................................................... Recommended

29 November 1991 ............ _ Alkyl-, bromo-, chloro-, hydroxymethyt diaryl ethers ............. Recommended

30 May 1992 ........................ Siloxanes ................................................................ .... ........ Reco er

30 May t992 ...... .- Chrroallyl phosphates ............................................................... Recomnmended

31 January 1993 .................. OSHA chemicals wit dermt toxicity data ........................... Designated

31 January 1993 Propylene glycol ethers and esters (revised) ......................... Recommended

31 January 1993 ....... Methyl ethylene glycol ethers and esters (revised) Recommended

32 May 1993 ........... OSHA chemicals with insufficfent dermal absorption data Designated

34 May 1994 ......................... 'White phosphorus ......... .... Designated

34 May 1994 ......... Ethyo telutyI ether Recommended

34 May 1994 ......................... Tert-amyl methyl ether .......................... Recommended

The following table list the members

of the TSCA Interagency Testing

Committee.

Statutory Otganizations and Their

Representatives

Council ow Ehvoraentoa Qnlity

Elisabeth Blaug, Member

Department of Commerce

Edward White,. Member

Willie E: May, Alternate

Ea ivrmemvbt Pkafctuior Ageany

David l Wi im, Member

Lois Diaker Alem

National Cancer Institute

Thomas P. Cameron, Member

Richard' Adanson. Alternate

OccupationalSi7fety and Health

Administration

christine Whittaker, Member, Chair

Nati'al bsti&tofEnvironmental fealth, Liaison Organizations and Their

Sciences Representatives

Emo Zeigp. Member Ageney far Toxic 5khstrnces and Disease

Regstry

NotionalInsttutebfr Occupational Sety William Cibulas, Member

and Health

Robert W. Mason, Member

Henryka Nagy. Alternate

National S 'enee Foundatitn

inda Ouguay, Member

ConsumerProduct Safety Comission

Val Schaeffer, Member

Lakshmi C. Misfr Alternat

Department of Agriculture

Dobnald herr Member

Clifford Rice, Alternate

357237

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35727 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 133 /Wednesday, July '13, 1994 / Notices

Department of Defense

David A. Macys, Member

James N. McDougal, Alternate

Department of the Interior

Barnett A. Rattner, Member

Food and Drug Administration

Edwin J. Matthews, Member

Raju Kamnula, Alternate .

National Library of Medicine

Vera Hudson, Member

National Toxicology Program

Victor A. Fung, Member

Counsel

Mary Ellen Levine, Office of General

Counsel, EPA

Technical Support Contractor

Syracuse Research Corporation

Committee Staff

John D. Walker, Executive Director

Norma S.L. Williams, Executive

Assistant, TSCA Interagency Testing

Committee U.S. EPA/OPPT (MC/7401) 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-

1825, Fax (202) 260-1764

[FR Doc. 94-16983 Filed 7-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-60-

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collection

Requirement Submitted to Office of

Management and Budget for Review

July 11, 1994.

The Federal Communications

Commission has submitted the

following information collection

requirement to OMB for review and

clearance under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).

Copies of this submission may be

purchased from the Commission's copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW., Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-

3800. For further information on this

submission contact Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, (202)

632-0276. Persons wishing to comment

on this information collection should

contact Timothy Fain, Office of

Management and Budget, Room 10236

NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, (202)

395-3561.

Note: The Commission requested

expedited review of this item by July 11,

1994, under the provisions of 5 CFR 1320.18.

OMB Number: None.

Title: Voluntary Customer Survey for

Private Land Mobile Radio Users.

Action: New collection.

Respondents: Individuals or

households, state or local governments,

federal agencies or employers, nonprofit institutions, and businesses or

other for-profit (including small

businesses).

Frequency of Response: One time

survey.

Estimated Annual Burden: 30

responses; 2 hours average burden per

response; 60 hours total annual burden.

Needs and Uses: The FCC will

conduct a voluntary customer survey to

improve customer service to Private

Land Mobile Radio applicants and

licensees. The FCC will conduct focus

groups as well as administering written

questionnaires. Focus groups will

provide the Commission with

preliminary data which will be used to

develop questions for the written

questionnaire. Licensees, frequency

coordinators, law firms, vendors, and

license groups from the Metropolitan

area will be invited to participate in the

focus groups. Three two-hour focus

groups will be conducted whereby

participants will be asked nine openended questions. Participants will

respond verbally. Participants will not

be given these questions in advance.

Out-of-pocket expenses that result ,from

focus group participation will not be

reimbursed. During the focus groups,

data will be gathered on (1) problems,

(2) suggestions to improve services, (3)

services customers would like, and (4)

services customers do not want. This

data will be used to develop customer

service standards.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Language for Customer Segment

Hello, my name is and

I am calling from the FCC.

The Federal Communications

Commission is conducting a survey of

their customers to determine the kind

and quality of services they want and

their level of satisfaction with existing

services. You've been identified as

having recently been through the FCC's

licensure application process. Is this

correct? (If yes, continue, if no, indicate

we are only looking for people who

have been through the licensure process

and thank them for their time.)

As a customer of the Private Radio

Bureau within the FCC, we would like

to share your comments and ideas at a

focus group. We are inviting various

types of customers, like yourself, that

'have recently gone through the

licensure process at FCC. We've hired

the consulting firm of Booz, Allen &

Hamilton to conduct these focus groups.

We hope that you will come and

comment on the experiences you have

had while obtaining a license from the

FCC and to describe the kind of quality

of services you need from the Private

Radio Bureau. We will use the results of

the focus groups to set customer service

standards and to develop a customer

service plan.

We will be holding the focus groups

at the Booz, Allen & Hamilton offices in

Bethesda, MD on the following dates

_ . During the focus groups, you

will be asked a series of questions

relating to the licensure application process at the FCC, your particular

experiences with the FCC and what

types of improvements you would

recommend. We expect the focus groups

to last approximately two hours. Will

you be able to attend? Which date is

best for you? We will send you a

confirmation letter that includes

directions to the Booz, Allen &

Hamilton offices. Thank you for your

time. We look forward to hearing your

suggestions.

June _ , 1994.

Dear

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the

FCC Customer Service Focus Group to be

held on July __, 1994. As we mentioned

during our phone call, FCC is conducting a survey of their customers to determine the

kind and quality of services they need and

their level of satisfaction with existing

services. We have hired the consulting firm

of Booz, Allen & Hamilton to conduct the

focus groups. The focus group will begin at ._ at the Booz, Allen & Hamilton offices

located at 4330 East-West Highway,

Bethesda, Maryland. We have enclosed

directions for your convenience.

Please go to the North tower of East-West

Towers and report to the receptionist located on the loth floor. We look forward to hearing

your suggestions.

Sincerely,

Focus Groups Questions for Five PRB

Customer Groups

(Licensees, Frequency Coordinators,

Law Firms, Vendors, and Licensee

Representatives)

Introduction

Why FCC is surveying customers:

-National Performance Review

-Executive Order #12862

-Align services with customer needs

What this surveying entails:

-Talking with customers directly to

assess their customer service needs

-Obtaining customer evaluation of

current FCC services provided

-Developing customer service

standards to ensure appropriate level

of service to customers

Question 1: What services have you

required from the FCC?

Question 2: During what points of the

license application process did you.

interact directly with the FCC?

35728

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 35728 1994