Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1365 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing on 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document provides 

notice of public hearing on proposed 

regulations relating to the holdings of 

Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, Windsor v. 

United States, 2013, and a revenue 

ruling that define terms in the Internal 

Revenue Code (Code) describing the 

marital status of taxpayers. 

DATES: The public hearing is being held 

on Wednesday, January 27, 2016, at 

10:00 a.m. The IRS must receive 

outlines of the topics to be discussed at 

the public hearing by Friday, January 

15, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being 

held in the Chief Counsel NYU 

conference room 2615, Internal Revenue 

Service Building, 1111 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. 

Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR 

(REG–148998–13), Room 5205, Internal 

Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben 

Franklin Station, Washington, DC 

20044. Submissions may be handdelivered Monday through Friday to 

CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–148998–13), 

Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20224 or sent 

electronically via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov (IRS–2015–0032). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning the regulations, Mark 

Shurtliff at (202) 317–3400; concerning 

submissions of comments, the hearing 

and/or to be placed on the building 

access list to attend the hearing Regina 

Johnson at (202) 317–6901 (not toll-free 

numbers). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject of the public hearing is the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (REG– 

148998–13) that was published in the 

Federal Register on Friday, October 23, 

2015 (80 FR 64378) relating to the 

holdings of Obergefell v. Hodges, 575 

U.S.lll, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), 

Windsor v. United States, 570 

U.S. lll, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), and 

Revenue Ruling 2013–17 (2013–38 IRB 

201), and that define terms in the 

Internal Revenue Code (Code) 

describing the marital status of 

taxpayers. The rules of 26 CFR 

601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. 

Persons who wish to present oral 

comments at the hearing that submitted 

written comments by January 14, 2016 

must submit an outline of the topics to 

be addressed and the amount of time to 

be devoted to each topic by Friday, 

January 15, 2016. 

A period of 10 minutes is allotted to 

each person for presenting oral 

comments. After the deadline for 

receiving outlines has passed, the IRS 

will prepare an agenda containing the 

schedule of speakers. Copies of the 

agenda will be made available, free of 

charge, at the hearing or in the Freedom 

of Information Reading Room (FOIA RR) 

(Room 1621) which is located at the 

11th and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

entrance, 1111 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC. 

Because of access restrictions, the IRS 

will not admit visitors beyond the 

immediate entrance area more than 30 

minutes before the hearing starts. For 

information about having your name 

placed on the building access list to 

attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

document. 

Martin V. Franks, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2016–00386 Filed 1–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2015–0823; FRL–9940–61] 

TSCA Inventory Equivalency 

Determinations for Certain Class 2 

Substances; TSCA Section 21 Petition; 

Reasons for Agency Response 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency 

response. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of EPA’s response to a 

petition it received under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). The 

TSCA section 21 petition was received 

from the Biobased and Renewable 

Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) on 

October 7, 2015. The petitioner 

requested EPA to promulgate a rule 

pursuant to TSCA section 8 that would 

‘‘establish a process to amend the list of 

natural sources of oil and fat in the 

‘Soap and Detergent Association’ (SDA) 

nomenclature system by considering the 

chemical equivalency of additional 

natural sources.’’ After careful 

consideration, EPA denied the TSCA 

section 21 petition for the reasons 

discussed in this document. 

DATES: EPA’s response to this TSCA 

section 21 petition was signed 

December 31, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For technical information contact: 

Kent Anapolle, Chemistry, Economics, 

and Sustainable Strategies Division 

(7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8578; email address: 

anapolle.kent@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. This action may, however, be 

of interest to those persons who are or 

may manufacture or import biobased 

chemicals similar to fats and oils 

described by the SDA nomenclature 

system. Since other entities may also be 

interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this 

action. 

B. How can I access information about 

this petition? 

The docket for this TSCA section 21 

petition, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2015–0823, is available at 

http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. TSCA Section 21 

A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition? 

Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 

2620), any person can petition EPA to 

initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the 

issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule 

under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an 

order under TSCA section 5(e) or 

6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition 

must set forth the facts that are claimed 

to establish the necessity for the action 

requested. EPA is required to grant or 

deny the petition within 90 days of its 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1366 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

filing. If EPA grants the petition, the 

Agency must promptly commence an 

appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies 

the petition, the Agency must publish 

its reasons for the denial in the Federal 

Register. A petitioner may commence a 

civil action in a U.S. district court to 

compel initiation of the requested 

rulemaking proceeding within 60 days 

of either a denial or the expiration of the 

90-day period. 

B. What criteria apply to a decision on 

a TSCA section 21 petition? 

Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that 

the petition ‘‘set forth the facts which it 

is claimed establish that it is necessary’’ 

to issue the rule or order requested, 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 

21 implicitly incorporates the statutory 

standards that apply to the requested 

actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 

establishes standards a court must use 

to decide whether to order EPA to 

initiate rulemaking in the event of a 

lawsuit filed by the petitioner after 

denial of a TSCA section 21 petition, 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA 

has relied on the standards in TSCA 

section 21 and in the provisions under 

which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition. 

III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

A. What action was requested? 

On October 7, 2015, EPA received a 

petition from the Biobased and 

Renewable Products Advocacy Group 

(BRAG) requesting the Agency to 

address the ‘‘disproportionate regulatory 

burden’’ imposed on companies in the 

bio-based chemical sector, noting that a 

‘‘limitation of source categories in the 

SDA system results in inequitable 

regulatory treatment for chemical 

substances that are functionally the 

same and chemically nearly identical.’’ 

Specifically, the petition asks EPA to 

commence a rulemaking process under 

TSCA section 8, the objective of which 

would be to ‘‘establish a procedure by 

which EPA can add new sources of fats 

and oils to the SDA-eligible list.’’ 

The petition states that the SDAeligible list is part of a broader 

‘‘nomenclature system developed by 

SDA when the TSCA Inventory was 

initially compiled.’’ The term ‘‘SDAeligible list’’ refers to a list found in the 

1978 Candidate List of Chemical 

Substances on the TSCA Inventory, in 

‘‘Addendum III: Chemical Substances of 

Unknown or Variable Composition, 

Complex Reaction Products and 

Biological Materials’’ (Ref. 2). In Section 

I of that document, EPA described a 

chemical substance naming convention, 

attributed to the SDA that was available 

for ‘‘identifying and reporting certain 

multicomponent Class 2 chemical 

substances derived from natural fats and 

oils and synthetic long-chain alkyl 

substitutes.’’ The identification and 

reporting in question was the 

identification and reporting of chemical 

manufacture and processing to EPA, 

pursuant to a past reporting obligation 

under TSCA section 8(a), to inform 

EPA’s original compilation of the TSCA 

Inventory under TSCA section 8(b). The 

document listed 35 ‘‘natural fats and 

oils,’’ as potential alkyl group sources. 

It provided that the particular chemical 

substances named under the SDA 

convention would not be identified ‘‘in 

terms of source.’’ However, chemical 

substances with alkyl groups derived 

from unlisted natural sources were 

beyond the scope of the naming 

convention. Thus, each time that a 

particular chemical substance was 

identified, reported, and entered into 

EPA’s original compilation of the TSCA 

Inventory based on the SDA naming 

convention, the definition of that 

particular substance inherited a certain 

characterization from the SDA naming 

convention: Specifically, that the 

chemical substance in question was 

derived either from one or more of the 

35 listed natural fats and oils or from 

synthetic long-chain alkyl substitutes. 

The procedure that the petition asks 

EPA to establish by a TSCA section 8 

rule is a procedure for submitting 

further requests to EPA. Specifically, it 

would be a regulation governing how 

the public would submit requests to 

amend the SDA-eligible list and how 

EPA would respond to such requests. 

The procedure would detail how EPA 

would review a request to include an 

additional source material of a fat or oil 

substance, ‘‘following a premanufacture 

notice or other appropriate notification 

to EPA,’’ in order to determine if it is 

‘‘sufficiently similar’’ to sources of fat or 

oil substances with the same alkyl range 

that are already built into the SDA 

naming convention. After review, if EPA 

found ‘‘such similarity’’ between the 

requested additional source material 

and already-listed source materials, the 

contemplated rule would direct the 

Agency to add the requested source 

material to the SDA-eligible list in the 

SDA naming convention. 

The petition explains that the 

outcome sought (in the event EPA 

granted a request under the procedure 

that petitioners now ask EPA to 

establish by section 8 rule) would be to 

authorize manufacturers of various 

chemical substances derived from the 

additional source material to ‘‘rely on 

the appropriate SDA alkyl range identity 

for purposes of Inventory listing and 

TSCA nomenclature.’’ The petition 

elsewhere clarifies what it means by 

‘‘rely on,’’ when it notes that without 

‘‘access to the alkyl range names,’’ the 

manufacturers would need to submit 

premanufacture notifications to EPA. 

The petition makes clear that the 

intended effect of enlarging the 

definitions of existing chemical 

substance listings in this fashion would 

be to limit the circumstances in which 

manufacturers would be deemed to be 

manufacturing a new chemical 

substance, and thus be subject to the 

requirements of TSCA section 

5(a)(1)(A). 

B. What support does the petitioner 

offer? 

While the petition includes no 

specific request to add a particular 

natural fat or oil to the ‘‘SDA-eligible’’ 

list, the bulk of the petition is concerned 

with giving, by way of background, the 

petitioners’ general reasons to believe 

that such requests would have merit if 

submitted to EPA. The petition asserts, 

in general terms, that chemical 

substances derived from other natural 

sources ‘‘may be chemically 

indistinguishable from,’’ are ‘‘nearly 

identical’’ to, or are ‘‘substantially 

similar,’’ to chemical substances 

synthesized from one of the 35 listed 

natural sources. The petition also asserts 

that while such substances address 

‘‘critical needs for sustainability,’’ there 

is a ‘‘key hindrance’’ to their 

commercialization. Specifically, the 

‘‘key hindrance’’ is that certain of these 

chemical substances (or derivatives 

thereof) would be subject to EPA’s premanufacture review under section 5 of 

TSCA, while assertedly similar 

chemical substances derived from one 

of the 35 listed natural sources would be 

existing chemical substances and 

therefore would not need to undergo 

such review. The petition claims that 

continuing to treat chemical substances 

derived from ‘‘these novel sources,’’ as 

new chemical substances ‘‘creates a 

disincentive for customers to switch 

from traditional oils.’’ 

The specific action requested in the 

petition is that EPA ‘‘initiate a 

rulemaking under TSCA section 8 that 

would establish a process to amend the 

list of natural sources of oil and fat [the 

SDA-eligible list] . . . by considering 

the chemical equivalency of additional 

natural sources.’’ The petition supplies 

two reasons for the specific action 

requested. First, that EPA ‘‘should allow 

for new sources to be added,’’ to the list 

and second, that issuing such a 

regulatory proposal would not require a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1367 

‘‘significant expenditure of time and 

resources.’’ 

IV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

A. What is EPA’s response? 

After careful consideration, EPA 

denied the petitioner’s request to 

initiate a TSCA section 8 rulemaking. 

EPA denied the request because the 

petition neither justified the petitioners’ 

claim (that the initiation of a TSCA 

section 8 rulemaking proceeding is 

necessary) nor explained how 

petitioners believe EPA’s actual 

rulemaking authorities under section 8 

could be used to accomplish the 

objectives that petitioners are seeking. 

To the extent the petition was actually 

seeking an Agency order under TSCA 

section 8(b) (e.g., effectuating the 

alteration of certain entries on the TSCA 

Inventory), EPA notes that a request for 

an order under TSCA section 8(b) is not 

cognizable in a petition that is 

submitted pursuant to TSCA section 21 

(15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1)). A copy of the 

Agency’s response, which consists of a 

letter to the petitioner, is available in 

the docket for this TSCA section 21 

petition. 

B. What is EPA’s reason for this 

response? 

1. Background on TSCA Section 8 

Rules. TSCA section 8 provides express 

rulemaking authority in three distinct 

subsections: First, TSCA section 8(a) (15 

U.S.C. 2607(a)) authorizes EPA to 

promulgate rules under which current 

or prospective manufacturers (including 

importers) and processors of chemical 

substances must maintain records and 

submit such information as the EPA 

Administrator may reasonably require. 

TSCA section 8(a) also authorizes EPA 

to promulgate rules under which 

current or prospective manufacturers 

and processors of mixtures must 

maintain records and submit 

information to the extent the EPA 

Administrator determines the 

maintenance of records or submission of 

reports, or both, is necessary for the 

effective enforcement of TSCA. Second, 

TSCA section 8(c) (15 U.S.C. 2607(c)) 

authorizes EPA to promulgate rules that 

‘‘determine’’ certain obligations to 

‘‘maintain records of significant adverse 

reactions to health or the environment.’’ 

Third, TSCA section 8(d) (15 U.S.C. 

2607(d) authorizes rules for the 

submission to the Administrator of lists 

and copies of certain health and safety 

studies. If the Agency denies a petition 

submitted under TSCA section 21, 

judicial review in the case of a petition 

to initiate a proceeding for the issuance 

of a rule under TSCA section 8 requires 

the petitioner to show by a 

‘‘preponderance of the evidence that 

. . . there is a reasonable basis to 

conclude that the issuance of such a 

rule . . . is necessary to protect health 

or the environment against an 

unreasonable risk of injury’’ (15 U.S.C. 

2620(b)(4)(B)). 

2. Background on the TSCA 

Inventory. EPA’s authority to manage 

the TSCA Inventory is pursuant to 

TSCA section 8(b) (15 U.S.C. 2607(b)), 

which directs the Agency to ‘‘compile, 

keep current, and publish a list of each 

chemical substance which is 

manufactured or processed in the 

United States.’’ Although EPA was 

directed to promulgate a data collection 

rule under TSCA section 8(a), ‘‘not later 

than 180 days after January 1, 1977,’’ to 

gather data ‘‘[f]or purposes of the 

compilation of the list . . . under 

subsection (b),’’ rules under TSCA 

section 8(a) do not themselves effectuate 

changes to the contents of the TSCA 

Inventory. The initial compilation 

process under TSCA section 8(b) was 

completed long ago, with the Agency 

noting in 1980 that henceforth 

‘‘premanufacture notification 

requirements of section 5 will apply to 

all chemical substances manufactured 

and imported in bulk or as part of a 

mixture which has not been reported for 

the Inventory.’’ 45 FR 50544 (July 29, 

1980). Today, it remains EPA’s practice 

to add entries to the TSCA Inventory on 

the basis of notices of commencement 

that are submitted ‘‘in accordance with 

[TSCA] section 5.’’ See 15 U.S.C. 

2607(b) and 40 CFR 720.102. From time 

to time, EPA has also made corrections 

to the TSCA Inventory. EPA has 

consistently done so without 

rulemaking. See 66 FR 34193, 34197 

(June 27, 2001) (making clear that the 

action in question was a ‘‘correction to 

TSCA Inventory nomenclature,’’ and 

‘‘not a rule.’’) and 75 FR 8266, 8272 

(February 24, 2010) (again, ‘‘not a rule’’) 

3. Necessity of Establishing a Regulatory 

Procedure for Requesting and 

Effectuating Changes to SDA Naming 

Conventions 

The petition asserts that a new 

regulatory procedure is necessary, to 

govern public requests for changes to 

the SDA naming convention and EPA 

response to those requests. The reason 

given for why such a procedure is 

necessary is that the SDA naming 

convention ‘‘should allow for new 

sources to be added.’’ Yet the petition 

supplies no evidence of any current 

impediment to any party in making 

requests along these lines, or to EPA in 

considering such requests, which would 

be addressed if EPA were to promulgate 

a regulatory procedure governing the 

manner and method of making and 

responding to such requests. Part of the 

difficulty in following the petition’s 

reasoning stems from the petition’s 

conflation of two distinct issues: (1) 

Whether a chemical substance derived 

from an unlisted natural fat or oil can 

currently be treated as identical to 

another substance that is derived 

consistent with the SDA naming 

convention; and (2) whether alteration 

of the SDA naming convention, to 

encompass new sources of fats and oils, 

is currently ‘‘allowed.’’ 

The petition correctly recognizes the 

current limitations of certain TSCA 

Inventory listings (i.e., those listings that 

incorporate particular assumptions 

about the natural sources of fats or oils 

from which the listed substance is 

derived, because they were named 

according to the SDA naming 

convention). Manufacturers of a new 

chemical substance that clearly falls 

outside the definitional scope of an 

existing chemical substance are not 

allowed to determine that the new 

chemical substance is nonetheless 

sufficiently ‘‘similar’’ to the existing 

chemical substance, and simply deem 

the new chemical substance to be an 

existing substance on the basis of that 

similarity. Nor would EPA grant such a 

request, which would be inconsistent 

with TSCA section 3(9): A new 

chemical substance is ‘‘any chemical 

substance which is not included in the 

chemical substance list compiled and 

published under [TSCA section 8(b)].’’ 

But the petition presumes, without 

justification, that until a certain 

preliminary EPA rulemaking has been 

completed, those same manufacturers 

lack a meaningful opportunity to 

request that EPA enlarge the definitional 

scope of one or more existing chemical 

substances named according to the SDA 

naming convention. The petition’s 

failure to explain that a particular 

impediment exists (either to 

manufacturers in making these sorts of 

requests or to EPA in adjudicating them) 

is sufficient grounds to deny the request 

to commence a rulemaking proceeding 

intended to remove the unspecified 

impediment. 

Thus, the petition does not 

demonstrate that the requested rule is 

necessary in any respect, much less that 

it is necessary to protect health or the 

environment against an unreasonable 

risk of injury. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1368 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

4. Capacity of a Rule Under TSCA 8(a), 

8(c), or 8(d) To Alter the Identification 

of New and Existing Chemical 

Substances Under the SDA Naming 

Convention 

Even if the petition had established 

that a rulemaking proceeding is 

necessary, the petition would still be 

deficient. While the petition states in 

very general terms that it is seeking a 

change to the legal status quo (i.e., 

establish some regulatory process ‘‘to 

allow’’ certain chemical substances 

derived from new sources of natural fats 

and oils to be nonetheless deemed 

existing chemicals), the petition still 

fails to explain how a rule under TSCA 

section 8 could be crafted to accomplish 

that objective. Rules under 8(c) and 8(d) 

only cover reporting and retention of 

certain health and safety related 

documents; they are inapposite to the 

stated objective. Nor does the petition 

suggest any plan to make specific use of 

EPA’s rulemaking authorities under 

sections 8(c) or 8(d). Rules under 

section 8(a) are somewhat broader in 

potential scope, but once again, the 

rulemaking authority at issue here is 

inapposite; it is to require current or 

prospective manufacturers or processors 

of a chemical substance to supply 

existing information relating to that 

chemical substance. While, historically, 

information collected using a TSCA 

section 8(a) rule provided the factual 

basis for EPA’s assembly of the TSCA 

Inventory, TSCA section 8(a) does not 

itself govern or authorize EPA’s 

management of the TSCA Inventory. 

That is instead authorized under TSCA 

section 8(b). Yet TSCA section 8(b) does 

not contain an express grant of 

rulemaking authority, and EPA has 

never used rulemaking to establish or 

make additions or changes to the 

Inventory. For its part, the petition 

merely makes a blanket assertion that 

‘‘EPA is authorized under TSCA section 

8 to commence a rulemaking.’’ 

Especially since the text of TSCA 

section 8(b) does not itself refer to 

rulemaking authority, and the 

petitioners are seeking a change in legal 

requirements to ‘‘allow for new sources 

to be added,’’ the absence of any 

particular explanation in the petition 

describing how petitioners believe EPA 

could issue an appropriate rule (under 

any subsection of TSCA section 8) is a 

critical deficiency of the petition. 

Finally, to the extent that petitioners are 

actually seeking an order under TSCA 

section 8(b), EPA notes that such 

petitions are not cognizable under TSCA 

section 8, 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). 

V. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. Biobased and Renewable Products 

Advocacy Group. Petition to 

Promulgate Rule Pursuant to 

Section 8 of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2620, 

Concerning Equivalency 

Determinations for Class 2 

Substances. October 5, 2015. 

2. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. Toxic 

Substances Control Act Pl 94–469, 

Candidate List of Chemical 

Substances, Addendum III: 

Chemical Substances of Unknown 

or Variable Composition, Complex 

Reaction Products and Biological 

Materials. Washington, DC, March 

1978. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I 

Environmental protection, Natural 

sources of oil and fat, SDA 

nomenclature system, TSCA Inventory. 

Dated: December 31, 2015. 

James Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2016–00435 Filed 1–11–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[4500030115] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 17 

Petitions 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Petition findings and initiation 

of status reviews. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90- 

day findings on various petitions to list, 

reclassify, or delist fish, wildlife, or 

plants under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on 

our review, we find that six petitions do 

not present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted, and we are not initiating 

status reviews in response to these 

petitions. We refer to these as ‘‘notsubstantial’’ petition findings. We also 

find that 11 petitions present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned actions 

may be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this document, we 

announce that we plan to initiate a 

review of the status of these species to 

determine if the petitioned actions are 

warranted. To ensure that these status 

reviews are comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding 

these species. Based on the status 

reviews, we will issue 12-month 

findings on the petitions, which will 

address whether the petitioned action is 

warranted, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: When we conduct status 

reviews, we will consider all 

information that we have received. To 

ensure that we will have adequate time 

to consider submitted information 

during the status reviews, we request 

that we receive information no later 

than March 14, 2016. Information 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES) should be received by 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: Not-substantial petition 

findings: The not-substantial petition 

findings announced in this document 

are available on http://

www.regulations.gov under the 

appropriate docket number (see Table 2 

in this section), or on the Service’s Web 

site at ecos.fws.gov. Supporting 

information in preparing these findings 

is available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours by contacting the appropriate 

person, as specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Status reviews: You may submit 

information on species for which a 

status review is being initiated by one 

of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter the appropriate docket number 

(see Table 1, below). You may submit 

information by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ If your information will fit in the 

provided comment box, please use this 

feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as 

it is most compatible with our 

information review procedures. If you 

attach your information as a separate 

document, our preferred file format is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS