Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48845 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0443; FRL–9395–3] 

Hydrofluorosilicic Acid in Drinking 

Water; 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 received by EPA under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

The TSCA section 21 petition, dated 

May 9, 2013, was submitted by 

American University students, alumni, 

and faculty. The petitioners requested 

EPA to take action to prohibit the use 

of hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) as a 

water fluoridation agent. 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 August 6, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Toni 

Krasnic, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–0984; fax number: 

(202) 564–4775; email address: 

krasnic.toni@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: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general. Operators and customers of 

public water systems may have 

particular interest in this action. This 

action also might be of interest to those 

persons who manufacture (including 

import) or process HFSA or other 

fluoridation agents. 

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–2013–0443, 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), EPA West 

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 that it is necessary to take 

the requested action. EPA must grant or 

deny the petition within 90 days of its 

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. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(3). 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. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4). 

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 provision under 

which the action has been requested to 

evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition. 

Of particular relevance here is the 

legal standard regarding TSCA section 6 

rules. In order to promulgate a rule 

under TSCA section 6, the EPA 

Administrator must find that ‘‘there is a 

reasonable basis to conclude that the 

manufacture, processing, distribution in 

commerce, use, or disposal of a 

chemical substance or mixture . . . 

presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2605(a). This finding 

cannot be made considering risk alone. 

Under TSCA section 6, a finding of 

‘‘unreasonable risk’’ requires the 

consideration of costs and benefits. 

Specifically, in promulgating any rule 

under TSCA section 6(a), the statute (15 

U.S.C. 2605(c)(1)) requires that the EPA 

Administrator consider: 

• The effects of such chemical 

substance or mixture on health and the 

magnitude of the exposure of human 

beings to such chemical substance or 

mixture. 

• The effects of such chemical 

substance or mixture on the 

environment and the magnitude of the 

exposure of the environment to such 

chemical substance or mixture. 

• The benefits of such chemical 

substance or mixture for various uses 

and the availability of substitutes for 

such uses. 

• The reasonably ascertainable 

economic consequences of the rule, after 

consideration of the effect on the 

national economy, small business, 

technological innovation, the 

environment, and public health. 

Furthermore, the control measure 

adopted is to be the ‘‘least burdensome 

requirement’’ that adequately protects 

against the unreasonable risk. 15 U.S.C. 

2605(a). 

In addition, TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B) 

provides the standard for judicial 

review should EPA deny a request for 

rulemaking under TSCA section 6(a): ‘‘If 

the petitioner demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of the court 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,’’ the court shall order the 

EPA Administrator to initiate the 

requested action. 15 U.S.C. 

2620(b)(4)(B). 

Finally, TSCA section 9(b) directs 

EPA to take regulatory action on a 

chemical substance or mixture under 

other statutes administered by the 

Agency if the EPA Administrator 

determines that actions under those 

statutes could eliminate or reduce to a 

sufficient extent the risks posed by the 

chemical substance or mixture. If this is 

the case, the regulation can be 

promulgated under TSCA only if the 

EPA determines that it is in the ‘‘public 

interest’’ to protect against that risk 

under TSCA rather than the alternative 

authority. 15 U.S.C. 2608(b). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48846 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

A. What action was requested? 

In the petition, dated May 9, 2013, 

American University students, alumni, 

and faculty seek to have EPA take action 

under TSCA section 6 to prohibit the 

use of HFSA as a water fluoridation 

agent (Ref. 1). 

B. What support do the petitioners offer? 

The petitioners claim that HFSA leads 

to the contamination of drinking water 

with arsenic, lead, and radionuclides. In 

addition, the petitioners claim that an 

existing alternative source of fluoride 

for water fluoridation, pharmaceutical 

grade sodium fluoride (NaF), would not 

contribute to drinking water levels of 

arsenic, lead, or radionuclides 

comparable to those in HFSA. The 

following is a summary of major claims 

by the petitioners: 

1. Arsenic. Petitioners claim that an 

alternate source of fluoride, 

pharmaceutical grade NaF, delivers at 

least 100-fold lower levels of arsenic 

than does HFSA when water authorities 

choose to adjust their water supply to 

contain about 0.7 milligram per liter 

(mg/L) of fluoride. The petitioners cite 

an analysis that purports to show that 

for typical levels of arsenic in HFSA and 

pharmaceutical grade NaF, use of 

pharmaceutical grade NaF as a 

fluoridation agent produces about 100- 

fold fewer lung and bladder cancer 

cases than HFSA (3.4 versus 320 cases) 

(Ref. 2). That analysis also purports to 

show that use of typical pharmaceutical 

grade NaF, rather than HFSA (delivering 

an average level of arsenic as 

determined by National Sanitation 

Foundation (NSF) tests), results in over 

500-fold fewer lung and bladder cancer 

cases (3.4 versus 1,800 cases). Based on 

this analysis, the petitioners assert that 

the net cost to the citizens of the United 

States of using HFSA is at least $1,011 

million (M) to $6,191M more per year 

than using the pharmaceutical grade 

NaF (Ref. 2; see Tables 1–3, case 1 and 

case 4). 

2. Lead. Petitioners claim that HFSA 

contains lead and that the use of HFSA 

results in leaching of lead from leadcontaining water piping systems into 

water. The petitioners also claim that 

when chloramine is used in conjunction 

with silicofluorides (chemical 

substances composed of silicon and 

fluorine), such as HFSA, enhanced 

leaching of lead into water occurs (Refs. 

3, 4, and 5). Petitioners further claim 

that when pharmaceutical grade NaF is 

used as the fluoridating agent, rather 

than HFSA, leaching of lead is greatly 

reduced or eliminated altogether. The 

petitioners assert children drinking 

water fluoridated with silicofluorides 

are at increased risk of having elevated 

blood lead levels (Refs. 6 and 7). 

3. Radionuclides. Petitioners also 

expressed concerns about radionuclides 

impurities in HFSA and increased risk 

of cancer as a common concern for all 

radionuclides (Refs. 1 and 8). 

IV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

A. What is EPA’s response? 

After careful consideration, EPA 

denied the TSCA section 21 petition 

primarily because EPA concluded that 

petitioners have not set forth sufficient 

facts to establish that HFSA presents or 

will present an unreasonable risk and 

that it is necessary to initiate a TSCA 

section 6(a) rulemaking to protect 

adequately against such risk. A copy of 

the Agency’s response, which consists 

of a letter to the petitioners, is available 

in the docket for this TSCA section 21 

petition. 

B. What is EPA’s reason for this 

response? 

For the purpose of making its 

decision, EPA evaluated the information 

presented or referenced in the petition 

as well as the Agency’s authority and 

requirements under TSCA sections 6, 9, 

and 21. After careful consideration, EPA 

denied the TSCA section 21 petition 

because the evidence presented by the 

petitioners does not adequately support 

a conclusion that HFSA, when used as 

a fluoridation agent, presents or will 

present an unreasonable risk to health 

or the environment and that a TSCA 

section 6 rulemaking is necessary to 

protect adequately against such risk. 

More specifically: 

1. Arsenic. EPA evaluated the costbenefit analysis submitted by the 

petitioners and determined that the 

petitioners miscalculated net benefits 

for pharmaceutical grade NaF compared 

to HFSA. Specifically, it appears that 

the petitioners failed to convert their 

estimates of lifetime cancer risk to 

estimates of annual cancer risk for the 

purpose of calculating annual net 

benefits. This error alone results in a 70- 

fold overestimation of the number of 

annual cancer cases due to arsenic. That 

is, for the analysis in which the 

petitioners evaluate arsenic 

concentrations of 0.078 parts per billion 

(ppb) due to HFSA and 0.00084 ppb due 

to pharmaceutical grade NaF, the 

estimated numbers of cancer cases, 

when corrected, decrease from 320 to 

4.6 per year for HFSA and from 3.4 to 

0.05 per year for pharmaceutical grade 

NaF (Refs. 2 and 9). Similarly, for the 

analysis in which the petitioners 

evaluate an arsenic concentration of 

0.43 ppb due to HFSA and 0.00084 due 

to pharmaceutical grade NaF, the 

estimated numbers of cancer cases, 

when corrected, decrease from 1,800 to 

25 per year for HFSA and from 3.4 to 

0.05 per year for pharmaceutical grade 

NaF (Refs. 2 and 9). After making the 

correction (i.e., annualizing the lifetime 

cancer risk), and retaining all other 

assumptions of the petitioners analysis, 

the analysis actually indicates that the 

cost-benefit ratio is in favor of using 

HFSA over pharmaceutical grade NaF 

(¥$81M/year to ¥$8M/year, 

respectively) rather than pharmaceutical 

grade NaF over HFSA (Ref. 9). As a 

result, the information submitted by 

petitioners does not support the 

petitioners’ claim that there are net 

benefits in switching from HFSA to 

pharmaceutical grade NaF. Given that 

the petition is based upon the premise 

that the benefits of using 

pharmaceutical grade NaF as a 

fluoridation agent significantly exceed 

the costs relative to the use of HFSA as 

a fluoridation agent, EPA concludes that 

petitioners have not set forth sufficient 

facts to establish that HFSA presents or 

will present an unreasonable risk of 

injury to health or the environment with 

respect to arsenic or that it is necessary 

to initiate a TSCA section 6(a) 

rulemaking to protect adequately against 

such risk. 

2. Lead. Petitioners assert that HFSA 

contains lead but provided no data to 

support this assertion. Petitioners also 

assert that the use of HFSA in leadcontaining water piping systems results 

in leaching of lead from lead-containing 

water piping systems into water (Ref. 5), 

and that when chloramine is used in 

conjunction with silicofluorides greatly 

enhanced leaching of lead into water 

occurs (Ref. 3). However, multiple other 

studies concluded that the fluoridation 

of drinking water with HFSA has little 

impact on corrosivity and/or release of 

metals from plumbing materials (Refs. 

10, 11, 12, and 13). For example, the 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) conducted a study of 

the relationship between the additives 

used for fluoridation (i.e., HFSA, 

sodium silicofluoride, and sodium 

fluoride) and blood lead concentrations 

among a nationally representative 

sample of >9,000 U.S. children, aged 1– 

16 years (Ref. 10). The study analysis 

did not offer support for the hypothesis 

that silicofluorides in community water 

systems increase blood lead 

concentrations in children. Based on the 

available evidence, EPA cannot 

conclude that the use of HFSA, with or 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 48847 

without the presence of chloramine, 

results in enhanced leaching of lead. 

Further, and as discussed in this unit, 

as petitioners seeking that EPA initiate 

a TSCA section 6 rulemaking banning 

HFSA pursuant to TSCA section 21, 

petitioners must provide facts that 

establish it is necessary to issue a TSCA 

section 6 rulemaking, including that 

there is a reasonable basis to conclude 

that the manufacture, processing, 

distribution in commerce, use, or 

disposal of a chemical substance or 

mixture (in this case HFSA), or that any 

combination of those activities, presents 

or will present an unreasonable risk of 

injury to health or the environment. 

Here, petitioners have not provided 

information specific to the costs and 

benefits of using pharmaceutical grade 

NaF as compared to HFSA with respect 

to lead. In sum, with respect to concerns 

about lead, petitioners have not 

demonstrated that the use of HFSA 

presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk of injury to health or the 

environment or that it is necessary to 

initiate a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking 

to protect adequately against such risk. 

3. TSCA section 9(b). TSCA section 

9(b) directs EPA to take regulatory 

action on a chemical substance or 

mixture under other statutes 

administered by the Agency if the EPA 

Administrator determines that actions 

under those statutes could eliminate or 

reduce to a sufficient extent the risks 

posed by the chemical substance or 

mixture. If that is the case, the 

regulation can be promulgated under 

TSCA only if EPA determines that it is 

in the ‘‘public interest’’ to protect 

against that risk under TSCA rather than 

the alternative authority. 15 U.S.C. 

2608(b). 

In 1974, Congress passed the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). That law 

requires EPA to determine the level of 

contaminants in drinking water at 

which no adverse health effects are 

likely to occur with an adequate margin 

of safety. These non-enforceable health 

goals, based solely on possible health 

risks, are called maximum contaminant 

level goals (MCLG). The MCLGs for both 

arsenic and lead are zero. EPA has set 

these levels based on the best available 

science, which indicates there is no safe 

level of exposure to arsenic or lead. 

However, for most contaminants, EPA 

sets an enforceable regulation called a 

maximum contaminant level (MCL) 

based on the MCLG. The MCLs are set 

as close to the MCLGs as possible, 

considering cost, benefits, and the 

ability of public water systems to detect 

and remove contaminants using suitable 

treatment technologies. 

In 2001, EPA amended the arsenic 

standard for drinking water, lowering it 

to 0.010 parts per million (ppm) (10 

ppb) to protect consumers served by 

public water systems from the effects of 

long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic 

(Ref. 16). As part of that rulemaking, 

EPA performed an extensive review— 

including review by EPA’s Science 

Advisory Board—of both the costs and 

benefits to determine what the 

appropriate achievable MCL should be. 

The MCL established by EPA was one 

that maximizes health risk reduction 

benefits at a cost that is justified by the 

benefits. 42 U.S.C. 300g–1(b)(6)(A). As a 

result, EPA has already weighed costs, 

benefits, and risk reduction relating to 

arsenic in drinking water as part of its 

rulemaking efforts under SDWA. The 

petition provides no information that 

would cause EPA to question the 

conclusions reached in that rulemaking. 

That rulemaking, as with other drinking 

water standards under SDWA, is 

reviewed every 6 years to determine 

whether revisions are appropriate. 42 

U.S.C. 300(g)–1(b)(9). EPA believes, 

therefore, that the SDWA standardsetting process provides the most 

appropriate regulatory authority to 

eliminate or reduce to a sufficient extent 

the health risks from arsenic in drinking 

water systems. 

While arsenic levels in HFSA are 

higher than in pharmaceutical grade 

NaF, the arsenic levels in drinking water 

due to HFSA use presented in the costbenefit analysis submitted by petitioners 

(at 0.078 ppb and 0.00084 ppb 

respectively (Ref. 2)), are lower than the 

arsenic MCL of 10 ppb. In addition, 

these levels are also lower than the NSF 

International/American National 

Standards Institute Standard 60–2012 

Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals— 

Health Effects (NSF/ANSI 60–2012) for 

drinking water treatment chemicals (i.e., 

single product allowable concentration 

(SPAC)) of 1 ppb (Refs. 14 and 15). 

When the Agency established the 

arsenic MCL in 2001, the Agency noted 

that the lung and bladder cancer risks at 

the 10 ppb level were within the 

Agency’s target risk range of 10¥4 to 

10¥6 (Ref. 16). Therefore, the excess 

cancer risk attributable to HFSA at the 

0.078 ppb arsenic concentration (128 

times lower than the arsenic 10 ppb 

MCL) would be consistent with the 

Agency’s acceptable excess lifetime 

cancer risk range of 10¥4 to 10¥6. 

NSF compiled data from initial and 

annual monitoring tests for fluoridation 

products that NSF certified to NSF/ 

ANSI 60 between 2007 and 2011 (216 

samples) and between 2000 and 2006 

(245 samples). Arsenic was detected in 

50% of the 216 samples analyzed 

between 2007 and 2011. The mean 

arsenic concentration was 0.15 ppb 

(non-detects were estimated at 1⁄2 the 

detection limit) and the maximum was 

0.6 ppb. Arsenic was detected in 43% 

of the 245 samples analyzed between 

2000 and 2006. The mean arsenic 

concentration was 0.12 ppb (non-detects 

were estimated at 1⁄2 the detection limit) 

and the maximum was 0.6 ppb. In both 

sets of data, the mean and the maximum 

values were less than the NSF/ANSI 60 

SPAC of 1 ppb (Ref. 15). Fluoridation 

additive dosing was at the highest 

optimal level (i.e., 1.2 mg/L of fluoride). 

At the newly proposed optimal fluoride 

dosing of 0.7 mg/L (Ref. 17), the 

concentration of arsenic would be 

approximately 40% lower. 

To address lead in drinking water, 

EPA promulgated the Lead and Copper 

Rule under SDWA in 1991 (Ref. 11) and 

revised the regulation in 2000 and 2007 

(see 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142) . The 

rule is undergoing a longer-term 

revision at this time. Because lead 

contamination of drinking water often 

results from corrosion of the plumbing 

materials in the distribution system, 

EPA established a treatment technique, 

rather than an MCL, for lead. A 

treatment technique is an enforceable 

procedure or level of technological 

performance that water systems must 

follow to ensure control of a 

contaminant. The regulation requires 

systems to collect tap samples from sites 

served by the system that are more 

likely to have plumbing materials 

containing lead. If more than 10% of tap 

water samples exceed the lead action 

level of 15 ppb, then water systems are 

required to take additional actions to 

control the corrosivity of the water 

including: 

• Taking further steps to optimize 

their corrosion control treatment (for 

water systems serving 50,000 people 

that have not fully optimized their 

corrosion control). 

• Educating the public about lead in 

drinking water and actions consumers 

can take to reduce their exposure to 

lead. 

• Replacing the portions of lead 

service lines (lines that connect 

distribution mains to customers) under 

the water system’s control. 

In sum, EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule 

under SDWA already directly addresses 

lead leaching in drinking water 

distribution systems and the rule is 

subjected to periodic review and 

revision to incorporate the latest 

scientific studies. Like the arsenic rule 

under SDWA, EPA’s requirements 

under SDWA related to lead in drinking 

water distribution systems already 

address and balance risks, costs, and 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48848 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

benefits, and, as with arsenic, the 

petition provides no information that 

would cause EPA to question the 

current approach. EPA believes, 

therefore, that the SDWA provides the 

most appropriate authority (and in fact 

has been used) to eliminate or reduce to 

a sufficient extent the health risks 

identified by petitioners as being 

associated with HFSA when used as a 

fluoridation agent. 

4. Radionuclides. Although the 

petitioners mention ‘‘concern’’ about 

radionuclides, the petitioners present 

limited information to support a claim 

that HFSA presents or will present and 

unreasonable risk with respect to 

radionuclides. NSF compiled data from 

initial and annual monitoring tests for 

fluoridation products that NSF certified 

to NSF/ANSI 60 between 2007 and 2011 

(216 samples) and between 2000 and 

2006 (245 samples). Alpha emitters 

(type of radioactive decay in which an 

atomic nucleus emits an alpha particle) 

were detected in less than 1% of the 216 

samples analyzed between 2007 and 

2011. The mean (non-detects were 

estimated at 1⁄2 the detection limit) and 

maximum values were less than the 

MCL of 15 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L) 

and were less than the NSF/ANSI 60 

SPAC of 1.5 pCi/L (Ref. 15). Beta photon 

emitters (another type of radioactive 

decay in which an atomic nucleus emits 

a beta particle) also were detected in 

less than 1% of the 216 samples 

analyzed between 2007 and 2011. The 

mean (non-detects were estimated at 1⁄2

the detection limit) and maximum 

values were less than the MCL of 4 

millirems per year (mrem/y) and were 

less than the NSF/ANSI 60 SPAC of 0.4 

mrem/y (Ref. 15). Radionuclides (alpha 

or beta) were not detected in any (0%) 

of the 245 samples analyzed between 

2000 and 2006 (Ref. 11). The 

concentrations reported represent 

contaminant levels expected when the 

fluoridation products are dosed into 

water at the allowable maximum use 

levels for NSF/ANSI 60–2012 (see Refs. 

14 and 15). NSF notes that lower 

product use levels would produce 

proportionately lower contaminant 

concentrations. 

Thus, the petition has failed to 

present facts that establish that HFSA 

presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk of injury to health or the 

environment with respect to 

radionuclides, or that it is necessary to 

issue a TSCA section 6 rulemaking to 

protect health and the environment 

from such risk. 

For the reasons set forth in this 

document, EPA denied the TSCA 

section 21 petition. 

V. References 

As indicated under ADDRESSES, a 

docket has been established for this 

document under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0443. The 

following is a listing of the documents 

that are specifically referenced in this 

action. 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. American University students, alumni, and 

faculty. Letter from J. William Hirzy to EPA 

Acting Administrator Robert Perciasepe, 

‘‘Re: Citizen Petition Under Toxic 

Substances Control Act Regarding the 

Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFSA) in 

Drinking Water.’’ May 9, 2013. 

2. Hirzy, J.W.; Carton, R.J.; Bonanni, C.D.; 

Montanero, C.M.; and Nagle, M.F. 

Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and 

pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as 

fluoridating agents—a cost-benefit analysis. 

Environmental Science & Policy. Vol. 29, 

pp. 81–86. 2013. 

3. Maas, R.P.; Patch, S.C.; Christian, A–M.; 

and Coplan, M.J. Effects of fluoridation and 

disinfection agent combinations on lead 

leaching from leaded-brass part. 

Neurotoxicology. Vol. 28, pp. 1023–1031. 

2007. 

4. Coplan, M.J.; Patch, S.C., Masters, R.D; and 

Bachman, M.S. Confirmation of and 

explanations for elevated blood lead and 

other disorders in children exposed to 

water disinfection and fluoridation 

chemicals. Neurotoxicology. Vol. 28, pp. 

1032–1042. 2007. 

5. Edwards, M.; Triantafyllidou, S.; and Best, 

D. Elevated blood lead in young children 

due to contaminated drinking water: 

Washington, DC 2001–2004. 

Environmental Science & Technology. Vol. 

43, pp. 1618–1623. 2007. 

6. Masters, R.D. and Coplan, M.J. Water 

treatment with silicofluorides and lead 

toxicity. International Journal of 

Environmental Studies. Vol. 56, pp. 435– 

449. 1999. 

7. Masters, R.D.; Coplan, M.J.; Hone, B.T.; 

and Dykes, J.E. Association of 

silicofluoride treated water with elevated 

blood lead. Neurotoxicology. Vol. 21, pp. 

1091–1099. 2000. 

8. Stein, M.; Starinsky, A.; and Kolodny, Y. 

Behaviour of uranium during phosphate 

ore calcination. Journal of Chemical 

Technology and Biotechnology. Vol. 32, 

pp. 834–847. 1982. 

9. EPA. EPA Correction of the ‘‘Comparison 

of hydrofluorosilicic acid and 

pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as 

fluoridating agents—a cost-benefit 

analysis’’ by Hirzy et al. 2013. 

10. Macek, M.D.; Matte, T.D.; Sinks, T.; and 

Malvitz, D.M. Blood lead concentrations in 

children and method of water fluoridation 

in the United States, 1988–1994. 

Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol. 

114, pp. 130–134. 2006. 

11. EPA. Drinking Water Regulations, 

Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final 

Rule. Federal Register (56 FR 26460, June 

7, 1991). 

12. American Water Works Association 

(AWWA). Water Fluoridation Principles 

and Practices. AWWA Manual M4. Fifth 

Ed. Denver: AWWA. 2004. 

13. Urbansky, E.T. and Schock, M. R. Can 

fluoridation affect lead (II) in potable 

water? Hexafluorosilicate and fluoride 

equilibria in aqueous solution. 

International Journal Environmental 

Studies. Vol. 57, pp. 597–637. 

14. NSF International. June 7, 2013. 

Available at http://www.nsf.org/business/ 

standards_and_publications. 

15. NSF International. NSF Fact Sheet on 

Fluoridation Products. June 7, 2013. 

Available at http://www.nsf.org/business/ 

water_distribution/pdf/ 

NSF_Fact_Sheet_flouride.pdf. 

16. EPA. National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation; Arsenic and Clarifications to 

Compliance and New Source Contaminants 

Monitoring; Final Rule. Federal Register 

(66 FR 6976, January 22, 2001). 

17. Health and Human Services Department 

(HHS). Proposed HHS Recommendation for 

Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water 

for Prevention of Dental Caries; Notice. 

Federal Register (76 FR 2383, January 13, 

2011). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I 

Environmental protection, 

Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA), 

Drinking water, Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA). 

Dated: August 6, 2013. 

James Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19486 Filed 8–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

45 CFR Part 1614 

Private Attorney Involvement 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. 

ACTION: Revised notice of rulemaking 

workshop and request for comments 

and expressions of interest in 

participating in the rulemaking 

workshop. 

SUMMARY: The Legal Services 

Corporation (LSC) is conducting two 

Rulemaking Workshops (Workshops), as 

noticed at 78 FR 27339 (May 10, 2013), 

and is requesting public comments on 

revising LSC’s Private Attorney 

Involvement (PAI) rule to respond to 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1