28340 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

pertaining to Maryland RACT for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 2, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11639 Filed 5–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 799 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033; FRL–9350–1] 

RIN 2070–AD16 

Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing 

Requirements for One High Production 

Volume Chemical Substance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing the 

revocation of certain testing 

requirements promulgated under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

for benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4- 

(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)- 

2,5-cyclohexadien-1- 

ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS 

No. 1324–76–1), also known as C.I. 

Pigment Blue 61. EPA is basing its 

decision to take this action on 

information received since publication 

of the final rule that established testing 

requirements for this chemical 

substance. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2005–0033. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or 

email. The regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the comment that is placed in 

the docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available in the electronic 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov, 

or, if only available in hard copy, at the 

OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is 

located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28341 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Catherine 

Roman, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8157; email address: 

roman.catherine@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 and may be of particular 

interest to those persons who 

manufacture (defined by statute to 

include import), process, or export the 

chemical substance identified in this 

document. Because other persons may 

also be interested, the Agency has not 

attempted to describe all the specific 

persons that may be affected by this 

action. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the 

technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. 

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through regulations.gov or email. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM that you 

mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing to amend the TSCA 

section 4(a) chemical testing 

requirements for one high production 

volume (HPV) chemical included in 40 

CFR 799.5085. Specifically, this 

amendment revokes some of the testing 

requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. 

EPA is basing its decision to take this 

action on information (discussed in Unit 

III.) received since publication of the 

final rule (Ref. 1) that established testing 

requirements for this chemical 

substance. 

In the Federal Register of March 16, 

2012 (77 FR 15609) (FRL–9335–6), EPA 

issued a revocation of some or all of the 

testing requirements for 10 chemical 

substances by direct final rule. EPA 

received an adverse comment 

concerning the chemical substance C.I. 

Pigment Blue 61. Consequently, in 

accordance with the procedures 

described in the March 16, 2012 Federal 

Register document, EPA is withdrawing 

the revocation of certain testing 

requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 in 

a separate document published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

and is now issuing this proposed rule. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

Section 4(a) of TSCA authorizes EPA 

to require testing if certain findings are 

made. The TSCA section 4(a) findings 

include: 

1. The chemical substance was 

produced in substantial quantities. 

2. There are insufficient data upon 

which the effects of manufacture, 

distribution, processing, use, or disposal 

of a chemical substance on health or the 

environment can reasonably be 

determined or predicted. 

3. Testing of the chemical substance 

with respect to such effects is necessary 

to develop such data. (See TSCA section 

4(a)(1)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii); see also 

Ref. 1). 

EPA is amending the testing 

requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 

because some of the findings that EPA 

made for this chemical substance are no 

longer supported. 

III. Amendment to Chemical Testing 

Requirements 

On July 17, 2006, the Color Pigments 

Manufacturers Association (CPMA) 

submitted a test plan for C.I. Pigment 

Blue 61. CPMA also submitted robust 

summaries of existing data which 

CPMA asked EPA to accept as satisfying 

some of the Agency’s data needs for C.I. 

Pigment Blue 61. Some of the existing 

data described in the summaries 

addressed C.I. Pigment Blue 56, a close 

analog of C.I. Pigment Blue 61, which 

CPMA requested EPA to accept as 

satisfying the Agency’s data needs for 

C.I. Pigment Blue 61, providing a 

structure-activity relationship (SAR) 

argument in the test plan to justify that 

request (Refs. 2 and 3). CPMA also 

asked EPA to accept results for water 

solubility and octanol/water partition 

coefficient that were obtained by using 

an alternative method, due to the 

extremely low predicted solubility of 

C.I. Pigment Blue 61, instead of the 

methods specified by the test rule (Ref. 

2). Finally, CPMA asked EPA to accept 

that determining a melting point for C.I. 

Pigment Blue 61 was not relevant 

because the pigment thermally 

decomposes before it melts (Ref. 2). 

EPA reviewed the submitted 

information on physical/chemical 

properties and decided that melting 

point, boiling point, and vapor pressure 

determinations were not relevant 

because C.I. Pigment Blue 61 

decomposes before it melts and the 

decomposition temperature had been 

reported (Ref. 4). EPA accepted the 

submitted data on water solubility as 

satisfying the Agency’s data needs for 

that endpoint, but did not accept the 

calculated value submitted to satisfy the 

testing requirement for octanol/water 

partition coefficient (Ref. 4). EPA 

believes the calculated value would, 

most likely, underestimate the measured 

value (Ref. 4) required to be determined 

by the test rule. 

EPA reviewed CPMA’s SAR argument 

concerning C.I. Pigment Blue 61 and C.I. 

Pigment Blue 56 and agreed that C.I. 

Pigment Blue 56 is an acceptable 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
28342 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

surrogate for C.I. Pigment Blue 61, 

thereby allowing adequate data on C.I. 

Pigment Blue 56 to satisfy data needs for 

C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (Ref. 5). As a result, 

a biodegradation study of C.I. Pigment 

Blue 56, found adequate by an EPA 

review, satisfies the need for 

biodegradation data on C.I. Pigment 

Blue 61 (Ref. 5). Likewise, a fish acute 

toxicity study and a chromosomal 

damage test of C.I. Pigment Blue 56, 

which EPA reviewed and found 

adequate, will satisfy the data need for 

those endpoints (Ref. 6) for C.I. Pigment 

Blue 61. EPA’s review of the existing 

data on C.I. Pigment Blue 61 found the 

study on mammalian acute toxicity and 

the bacterial mutation assay to be 

adequate to satisfy the data needs for 

those endpoints (Ref. 6). The existing 

study on repeated-dose toxicity, 

however, did not satisfy the test 

requirement for that endpoint (Ref. 6). 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to revoke 

the testing requirements for melting 

point, boiling point, vapor pressure, 

water solubility, biodegradation, fish 

acute toxicity, mammalian acute 

toxicity, bacterial reverse mutation, and 

chromosomal damage for C.I. Pigment 

Blue 61 by removing those requirements 

from those listed for that chemical 

substance in Table 2 in 40 CFR 

799.5085(j). In order to clarify that test 

requirements for acute toxicity to 

Daphnia (an aquatic invertebrate) and 

toxicity to algae had not been satisfied 

by existing studies, and that the fish 

acute toxicity test requirement had been 

satisfied, the test symbol C2 replaces C1 

for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 in Table 2 in 

40 CFR 799.5085(j). The testing 

requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 

that are not proposed to be revoked 

include tests for octanol/water partition 

coefficient, acute toxicity to Daphnia, 

toxicity to algae, and combined 28-day 

repeated-dose toxicity with a 

reproduction/developmental toxicity 

screen. Studies responding to those test 

requirements were submitted to the 

Agency. The full studies and robust 

summaries (Ref. 7) are in the docket for 

this proposed rule, docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033. 

IV. Public Comment 

EPA received one adverse comment 

concerning the March 16, 2012 direct 

final rule that revoked some of the 

testing requirements for C.I. Pigment 

Blue 61 and nine other chemical 

substances. The comment concerned the 

statement in the preamble of the direct 

final rule that certain full studies for C.I. 

Pigment Blue 61 had been claimed as 

CBI and were therefore not available to 

the public, although robust summaries 

were available in the docket. The 

commenter objected to EPA’s placing 

the robust summaries in the docket 

rather than applying the disclosure 

requirements of TSCA section 14(b) to 

the full health and safety studies. The 

submitter of these studies has 

subsequently withdrawn the CBI claim 

on these studies. The full studies and 

the adverse comment are included in 

the docket for this proposed rule, docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033. 

V. Economic Analysis 

In the economic impact analysis for 

the final rule (Ref. 1) establishing testing 

requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 

and 16 other chemical substances, the 

Agency estimated the total testing cost 

to industry to be $4.03 million for all 17 

chemical substances included in that 

final rule, with an average of 

approximately $237,000 per chemical 

substance (Ref. 8). This total included 

an additional 25% in administrative 

costs. An amendment to the final rule 

revoking testing requirements for cokeoven light oil (coal) reduced the total 

cost to industry to an estimated $3.7 

million for the remaining 16 chemical 

substances, with an average compliance 

cost of approximately $232,000 per 

chemical substance. This proposed rule, 

combined with the direct final rule 

revoking all or some of the test rule 

requirements for 9 other chemical 

substances (see Ref. 1), would have the 

effect of further reducing the total 

testing cost by an estimated $1.5 million 

(approximately 41%) (Ref. 9). In 

addition, the 25% administrative costs 

would be eliminated for these tests. The 

reduced total cost for the remaining 12 

chemical substances is estimated to be 

$2.2 million (i.e., $3.7 million—$1.5 

million), with an average compliance 

cost per chemical substance of 

approximately $184,000 (Ref. 9). 

VI. Export Notification 

Persons who export or intend to 

export C.I. Pigment Blue 61 are and will 

remain subject to TSCA section 12(b) 

export notification requirements (See 40 

CFR part 707, subpart D). 

VII. References 

The following documents are 

specifically referenced in the preamble 

for this proposed rule. In addition to 

these documents, other materials may 

be available in the docket established 

for this proposed rule under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033, 

which you can access through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Those interested 

in the information considered by EPA in 

developing this proposed rule should 

also consult documents that are 

referenced in the documents that EPA 

has placed in the docket, regardless of 

whether the other documents are 

physically located in the docket. 

1. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production 

Volume Chemicals; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (71 FR 13708, March 16, 2006) 

(FRL–7335–2). Document ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0001. 

2. CPMA. Letter to EPA from J. Lawrence 

Robinson concerning existing data and 

test plan. July 17, 2006. Document ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033– 

0185. 

3. CPMA. Letter to EPA from J. Lawrence 

Robinson concerning existing data and 

test plan. May 9, 2007. Document ID 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033–0246. 

4. EPA. Memorandum from Diana Darling, 

Industrial Chemistry Branch (ICB), 

Economics, Exposure, and Technology 

Division (EETD), OPPT to Greg Schweer, 

Chemical Information and Testing 

Branch (CITB), Chemical Control 

Division (CCD), OPPT. Testing 

requirements and existing data for 

physical/chemical properties of the HPV 

test rule chemical, C.I. Pigment Blue 61 

(CAS No. 1324–76–1). May 17, 2007. 

Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2005–0033–0280. 

5. EPA. Memorandum from Bob Boethling, 

Exposure Assessment Branch (EAB), 

OPPT to Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, 

OPPT. Review of SAR argument and a 

biodegradation test concerning an HPV 

test rule chemical, C.I. Pigment Blue 61 

(CAS No. 1324–76–1). May 15, 2007. 

Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2005–0033–0279. 

6. EPA. Email and attached review from 

David Brooks, Risk Assessment Division 

(RAD), OPPT to Greg Schweer and 

Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. 

Review of C.I. Pigment Blue (CAS No. 

1324–76–1). August 22, 2007. Document 

ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033– 

0286. 

7. CPMA. Robust summaries submitted for 

C.I. Pigment Blue 61 on octanol/water 

partition coefficient, acute toxicity to 

Daphnia, toxicity to algae, and combined 

28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a 

reproduction/developmental toxicity 

screen. Submitted on November 14, 

2008. Document ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2005–0033–0318. 

8. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final 

Section 4 Test Rule for High Production 

Volume Chemicals. Prepared by 

Economic Policy and Analysis Branch 

(EPAB), EETD, OPPT. October 28, 2005. 

Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2005–0033–0131. 

9. EPA. Email from Stephanie Suazo to 

Catherine Roman RE: ‘‘Revised 

Economic Analysis for Revocation of 

Testing Requirements’’ with attached 

economic analysis. December 14, 2009. 

(Document ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT– 

2005–0033–0350). 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This proposed rule only eliminates 

existing requirements; it does not 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 93 / Monday, May 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 28343 

otherwise impose any new or revised 

requirements. As such, this action is not 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) as a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, entitled 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does it 

impose or change any information 

collection burden that requires 

additional review by OMB under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Because this proposed rule eliminates 

existing requirements without imposing 

any new or revised requirements, the 

Agency certifies pursuant to section 

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

For the same reasons, it is not subject 

to the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538), and 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments or impose a 

significant intergovernmental mandate, 

as described in UMRA sections 203 and 

204. This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), or federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132, entitled ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

Since this action is not economically 

significant under Executive Order 

12866, it is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), and Executive Order 

13211, entitled ‘‘Actions concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 

This action does not involve technical 

standards; thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. 

This proposed rule does not involve 

special consideration of environmental 

justice related issues as specified in 

Executive Order 12898, entitled 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 8, 2012. 

James J. Jones, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 799—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 799 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625. 

2. In § 799.5085, revise the entry 

‘‘CAS No. 1324–76–1’’ in Table 2 of 

paragraph (j) to read as follows: 

§ 799.5085 Chemical testing requirements 

for certain high production volume 

chemicals. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

TABLE 2—CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS

CAS No. Chemical name Class 

Required tests/ 

(See Table 3 of 

this section) 

*******

1324–76–1 .......................................... Benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5- 

cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]-.

2 A4, C2, F1. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–11491 Filed 5–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 544 

[Docket No.: NHTSA–2012–0020] 

RIN 2127–AL22 

Insurer Reporting Requirements; List 

of Insurers Required To File Reports 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend appendices to NHTSA 

regulations on Insurer Reporting 

Requirements. The appendices list those 

passenger motor vehicle insurers that 

are required to file reports on their 

motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An 

insurer included in any of these 

appendices would be required to file 

three copies of its report for the 2009 

calendar year before October 25, 2012. 

If the passenger motor vehicle insurers 

remain listed, they must submit reports 

by each subsequent October 25. We are 

proposing to add and remove several 

insurers from relevant appendices. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

not later than July 13, 2012. Insurers 

listed in the appendices are required to 

submit reports on or before October 25, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA– 

2012–0020 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS