64722 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. We will then respond to public 

comments in a later final rule based on 

this proposal. You may not have another 

opportunity for comment. If you want to 

comment on this action, you must do so 

at this time. 

DATES: Send your written comments by 

December 1, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional 

Authorization Coordinator, (6PD–O), 

Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, at the address shown below. 

You can examine copies of the materials 

submitted by the State of Arkansas 

during normal business hours at the 

following locations: Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

8101 Interstate 30, Little Rock, Arkansas 

72219–8913, (501) 682–0876, and EPA, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733, phone number (214) 

665–8533 ; or Comments may also be 

submitted electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier; please follow the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alima Patterson (214) 665–8533. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

direct final rule published in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: August 22, 2014. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25725 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0684; FRL–9918–27] 

Discarded Polyvinyl Chloride; 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 Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) on July 29, 2014. The petitioner 

requested that EPA initiate rulemaking 

under TSCA to address risks related to 

polyvinyl chloride (PVC), vinyl 

chloride, and phthalates used as 

plasticizers. The petitioner alternatively 

requested that EPA initiate rulemaking 

under TSCA to require additional 

toxicity testing of these chemical 

substances. After careful consideration, 

EPA has denied the TSCA section 21 

petition for the reasons discussed in this 

document. The TSCA section 21 

petition was accompanied by an 

independent petition for EPA to take 

action under the authority of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA). EPA continues to review 

the petitioner’s requests for action under 

RCRA. 

DATES: EPA’s response to this TSCA 

section 21 petition was signed October 

24, 2014.. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Paul 

Lewis, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–6738; email address: 

lewis.paul@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 

produce, or who use PVC, vinyl 

chloride, or phthalates used as 

plasticizers, or substitutes for such 

chemical substances. Since many 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 TSCA section 21 petition? 

The docket for this TSCA section 21 

petition, identified by docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2014–0684, 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 

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 provisions under 

which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition. 

III. TSCA Sections 6 and 4 

Of particular relevance to this TSCA 

section 21 petition are the legal 

standards regarding TSCA section 6 

rules and TSCA section 4 rules. 

A. TSCA Section 6 Rules 

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. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64723 

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. 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). Also relevant to the 

issuance of regulations under TSCA 

section 6, 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 

a risk posed by the chemical substance 

or mixture. If this is the case, the 

regulation under TSCA section 6 can be 

promulgated 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). 

B. TSCA Section 4 Rules 

To promulgate a rule under TSCA 

section 4, EPA must make several 

findings. In all cases, EPA must find 

that data and experience are insufficient 

to reasonably determine or predict the 

effects of a chemical substance or 

mixture on health or the environment 

and that testing of the chemical 

substance is necessary to develop the 

missing data. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1). In 

addition, EPA must find either that: 

1. The chemical substance or mixture 

may present an unreasonable risk of 

injury or 

2. The chemical substance is 

produced in substantial quantities and 

may either result in significant or 

substantial human exposure or result in 

substantial environmental release. 15 

U.S.C. 2603(a)(1). 

In the case of a mixture, EPA must 

also find that ‘‘the effects which the 

mixture’s manufacture, distribution in 

commerce, processing, use, or disposal 

or any combination of such activities 

may have on health or the environment 

may not be reasonably and more 

efficiently determined or predicted by 

testing the chemical substances which 

comprise the mixture.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2603(a)(2). 

IV. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

A. What action was requested? 

On July 29, 2014, the CBD submitted 

to EPA a ‘‘Petition for Rulemaking 

Pursuant to Section 7004(a) of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 6974(A), and Section 21 

of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 

U.S.C. 2620, Concerning the Regulation 

of Discarded Polyvinyl Chloride and 

Associated Chemical Additives’’ (Ref. 

1). (The petitioner stated that it was 

submitting two ‘‘independent and fully 

severable’’ petitions: One under RCRA 

and another under TSCA. At this time, 

EPA is only responding to the TSCA 

section 21 petition. EPA continues to 

review the petitioner’s requests for 

action under RCRA.) 

The TSCA section 21 petition states 

that it is requesting issuance of 

‘‘regulations governing the safe 

treatment, storage and disposal of 

polyvinyl chloride (‘‘PVC’’), vinyl 

chloride and associated dialkyl- and 

alkylarylesters of 1,2- 

benzenedicarboxylic acid, commonly 

known as phthalate plasticizers.’’ In its 

conclusion, the petitioner urges EPA to 

‘‘promptly exercise its authority to 

ensure the safe disposal of discarded 

PVC.’’ 

The petitioner requested that EPA 

initiate rulemaking under TSCA section 

6 ‘‘to reduce the unreasonable risk to 

public health and the environment 

associated with continued dependence’’ 

on PVC, vinyl chloride, and phthalates 

used as plasticizers. The petitioner also 

alternatively requested that EPA take 

action under TSCA section 4 ‘‘requiring 

manufacturers and processors 

responsible for the generation of these 

compounds to undertake additional 

toxicity testing’’ if ‘‘the Agency 

concludes that there are insufficient 

data and experience upon which to 

determine or predict the effects of 

ubiquitous contamination’’ for purposes 

of making a TSCA section 6 

determination. 

EPA interprets the TSCA section 21 

petition as requesting EPA to initiate a 

proceeding for the issuance of a rule 

under TSCA section 6 to address risks 

related to the disposal of PVC. The 

TSCA section 21 petition is unclear 

about whether it is referring to PVC 

resins or PVC-based products, but, due 

to its emphasis on risks created by 

widespread disposal, EPA assumes the 

TSCA section 21 petition is about PVCbased products (i.e., plastics 

manufactured from PVC resin). EPA 

therefore interprets the TSCA section 21 

petition as arguing that TSCA regulation 

of the disposal of PVC-based products is 

necessary in order to address certain 

post-disposal risks (including risks 

relating to chemical substances that the 

petitioner believes could be released by 

PVC-based products after disposal). 

Due to a lack of specificity regarding 

the particular action requested, and 

other grounds described in Unit V., EPA 

denied the TSCA section 21 petition to 

initiate rulemaking under TSCA section 

6 to address risks from the disposal of 

PVC. As a part of its analysis, EPA also 

considered whether a broader 

interpretation of the TSCA section 21 

petition, as furthermore requesting 

regulation of the manufacture, 

processing, distribution, or use of PVC, 

would have altered the Agency’s 

decision. EPA considered whether the 

facts set forth in the TSCA section 21 

petition established that it was 

necessary to initiate TSCA section 6 

rulemaking to ban or otherwise limit 

any specific use of PVC or vinyl 

chloride, phthalates as plasticizers, or 

metal-based heat stabilizers in 

manufacturing PVC as a means of 

reducing the quantities of such chemical 

substances that enter the disposal 

stream in the first place. As described in 

Unit V., EPA concluded that, under 

such a broader interpretation, EPA 

would have denied the TSCA section 21 

petition on similar grounds. The TSCA 

section 21 petition does not clearly state 

a pre-disposal risk management action 

that is sought, let alone demonstrate a 

risk that is unreasonable. 

Finally, EPA notes that it did not 

construe the petitioner’s request for 

rulemaking under TSCA section 4 as a 

strictly contingent request, which EPA 

would only consider if it had previously 

reached particular factual conclusions 

on its own initiative (i.e., ‘‘that there are 

insufficient data and experience upon 

which to determine or predict the 

effects of ubiquitous contamination’’). 

Therefore, no inference of implicit 

agreement with such conclusions 

should be drawn from the fact that EPA 

has reviewed whether the TSCA section 

21 petition itself sets forth facts 

sufficient to justify the initiation of 

rulemaking to require toxicity testing 

under TSCA section 4. 

B. What support does the petitioner 

offer? 

The petitioner states that PVC, vinyl 

chloride, and phthalates used as 

plasticizers pose ‘‘significant threats’’ to 

human health and the environment. 

While the TSCA section 21 petition 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64724 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

includes information on other chemical 

substances related to PVC (e.g., stating 

that vinyl chloride is also a concern), it 

focuses on the use of phthalates as 

plasticizers in PVC. The TSCA section 

21 petition states that phthalates are the 

most abundant manmade chemicals in 

the environment and that ‘‘virtually 

universal’’ exposure to phthalates 

‘‘could be the leading cause’’ of human 

reproductive disorders. The petitioner 

expresses concern that ‘‘these 

compounds’’ bioaccumulate in living 

organisms, interfere with hormone 

regulation, and alter sexual 

development. The petitioner also 

expresses concern that ‘‘human 

contamination probably exceeds 

previously published estimates’’ and 

that harm might be occurring from 

‘‘exposure pathways outside the scope 

of traditional toxicity testing,’’ such as 

‘‘synergistic’’ effects from ‘‘multiple 

phthalates’’ or other pollutants. Finally, 

citing a single study, the petitioner also 

states that ‘‘less harmful alternatives’’ to 

these chemical substances are available. 

V. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 

Petition 

After careful consideration, EPA 

denied the petitioner’s request to 

initiate a TSCA section 6 rulemaking, 

because the TSCA section 21 petition 

does not: 

• Specify what risk management 

action it is requesting, 

• Set forth sufficient facts to establish 

that the disposal of PVC, vinyl chloride, 

or phthalates used as plasticizers 

presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk, or 

• Explain why action under TSCA 

would be preferable to action under 

other statutory authorities. 

EPA also denied the petitioner’s 

request to initiate a TSCA section 4 

rulemaking to require further toxicity 

testing of PVC, vinyl chloride, or 

phthalates used as plasticizers, because 

the TSCA section 21 petition does not 

set forth sufficient facts for EPA to find 

that the toxicity information available to 

the Agency is insufficient to permit a 

reasoned evaluation of the health or 

environmental effects of these PVC 

constituents, or for EPA to conclude that 

toxicity testing is necessary to develop 

any missing data. 

A. Request for a Rule Under TSCA 

Section 6 

With respect to its request that EPA 

initiate a proceeding for the issuance of 

a rule under TSCA section 6 to address 

risks related to the manner of disposal 

of PVC, the TSCA section 21 petition’s 

primary deficiencies are its failure to 

specify the risk management action 

sought and its failure to discuss several 

major issues intrinsic to an 

unreasonable risk determination (i.e., 

risk reduction that would be 

accomplished by such action and the 

reasonably ascertainable economic and 

other social consequences of the action). 

Section 21 of TSCA authorizes any 

person to petition EPA for the ‘‘issuance 

. . . of a rule’’ under TSCA section 6. 

As EPA interprets this provision, asking 

for a rule entails telling EPA, with 

reasonable specificity, what action is 

sought in the TSCA section 21 petition. 

Simply citing to general legal authority 

and stating a desired outcome does not 

define an action, and thus fails this 

threshold requirement under TSCA 

section 21. EPA’s interpretation is 

consistent with the short 90-day 

deadline for responding to such 

rulemaking petitions, as well as with 

TSCA’s grant of de novo judicial review 

to petitioners. In any such proceeding, 

it would be necessary to supply the 

court with a specific description of the 

relief sought to inform any requested 

injunction that EPA ‘‘initiate the action 

requested by the petitioner.’’ See 15 

U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Since the court’s 

de novo review is itself a rehearing of 

the Agency’s prior review of the TSCA 

section 21 petition, it follows that the 

TSCA section 21 petition itself must 

supply the specific description of the 

relief sought. 

Although the TSCA section 21 

petition asserts that ‘‘the inadequate 

management of PVC, vinyl chloride, and 

phthalate plasticizers poses significant 

threats to human and ecosystem 

health,’’ the petitioner’s argument as to 

the existence of unreasonable risk is 

hindered by a nearly complete lack of 

detail as to the TSCA risk management 

that it is seeking. While the petitioner 

stated the overall outcome that it hoped 

could be achieved (reduce risk to 

human health and the environment 

from the disposal of PVC), the petitioner 

did not state, in any reasonable manner, 

what action available under TSCA 

section 6 it sought in order to achieve 

that outcome. 

The TSCA section 21 petition, 

furthermore, failed to set forth sufficient 

facts bearing on the relative risk 

reduction and the reasonably 

ascertainable economic and other social 

consequences of the unspecified risk 

management action. These issues are 

integral to EPA’s assessment of whether 

rulemaking under TSCA section 6 is 

necessary and, even more 

fundamentally, its assessment of 

whether a particular risk is in fact an 

unreasonable risk. This is because the 

finding of unreasonable risk is a 

judgement under which the 

decisionmaker determines that the risk 

of health or environmental injury from 

the chemical substance or mixture 

outweighs the burden to society of 

potential regulations (Ref. 2). Because 

the TSCA section 21 petition omits 

discussion of multiple issues that are 

intrinsic to the finding of unreasonable 

risk, the TSCA section 21 petition fails 

to set forth sufficient facts to establish 

that the disposal of PVC, vinyl chloride, 

or phthalates used as plasticizers 

presents or will present an unreasonable 

risk. 

Finally, while the petitioner 

acknowledges that PVC disposal might 

also be regulated under other EPA 

statutory authorities, such as RCRA, it 

has not explained why it believes it 

would be preferable to address the risks 

of disposal under TSCA, rather than 

through other statutory authorities. The 

petitioner’s views on this question are 

especially difficult to infer given the 

absence of information about the 

particular TSCA risk management 

action sought. This omission is an 

impediment to assessing whether a 

TSCA section 6 rule would be an 

appropriate means of reducing potential 

risks related to the disposal of PVC, and 

(if so) how such action could be 

coordinated, consistent with TSCA 

section 9(b), with other actions that EPA 

has already taken with respect to these 

chemical substances under other 

statutes that EPA administers. 

For example, the petitioner did not 

explain why it believes vinyl chloride 

poses an unreasonable risk that should 

be addressed under TSCA despite the 

impact of multiple rules regulating this 

chemical substance under the Clean Air 

Act (42 U.S.C. 7400 et seq.), including 

one that was recently established in 

2012 (Ref. 3). See 40 CFR part 61, 

subpart F, and 40 CFR part 63, subparts 

DDDDDD and HHHHHHH. 

EPA also notes that, if it had 

construed the TSCA section 21 petition 

more broadly (i.e., as also seeking 

actions to address the manufacturing, 

processing, distribution in commerce, 

and use of PVC), then the TSCA section 

21 petition’s deficiencies would have 

been multiplied still further, since there 

would have been even more uncertainty 

as to the risk management being sought 

and, thus, even more uncertainty as to 

the existence of an unreasonable risk 

that would be necessary to regulate 

under TSCA section 6. 

Though offering some limited 

information (i.e., noting PVC production 

volumes, supplying some basic 

information on the uses of PVC, and 

citing a paper that lists some possible 

candidate substitutes for di (2- 

ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), the TSCA 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 211 / Friday, October 31, 2014 / Proposed Rules 64725 

section 21 petition largely omits the sort 

of information that would be relevant to 

a cost-benefit and regulatory alternatives 

analysis for a proposed rule to require 

the substitution of the chemical 

substances currently used in the 

manufacture of PVC. The TSCA section 

21 petition provides almost no 

information on the usefulness and 

effectiveness of particular substitutes, 

their relative toxicity, cost, degree of 

availability, and potential to reduce risk. 

The TSCA section 21 petition also does 

not include any information on the costs 

and benefits of regulatory alternatives to 

explain why the petitioner believes any 

particular risk management action is the 

least burdensome requirement that 

adequately protects against an 

unreasonable risk. 

For example, the TSCA section 21 

petition lacks a meaningful discussion 

of the feasibility and implications of 

replacing vinyl chloride, any particular 

phthalate currently used as a plasticizer 

in PVC, or any particular heat stabilizer 

currently used in PVC. While the 

petitioner makes a passing reference to 

‘‘the availability of less harmful 

alternatives,’’ the TSCA section 21 

petition does not identify any specific 

chemical substance as a reasonable 

substitute for any other chemical 

substance currently in use in PVC 

products. In support of its general 

suggestion that ‘‘less harmful 

alternatives’’ are available, the TSCA 

section 21 petition cites only a single 

study, which was itself limited to 

reviewing ‘‘candidates’’ for replacing 

one specific phthalate (DEHP). The 

review itself was, furthermore, limited 

to assessing how well the candidate 

chemical substances satisfied 

leachability criteria (Ref. 4). 

EPA published an action plan for 

phthalates in 2009. For purposes of the 

plan, EPA identified eight phthalates as 

appropriate subjects for development of 

an assessment and management 

strategy: butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), 

dibutyl phthalate (DBP), DEHP, 

diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP), diisodecyl 

phthalate (DIDP), diisononyl phthalate 

(DINP), di-n-pentyl phthalate (DnNPP), 

and di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP). See, 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/

existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/

phthalates.html. EPA’s Phthalates 

Action Plan (Ref. 5) already observes 

that there are ‘‘various possible 

alternatives of phthalates in plasticized 

PVC.’’ See, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/

existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/

phthalates_actionplan_revised_2012-03- 

14.pdf. While the study cited by the 

petitioner is consistent with EPA’s prior 

observation, the TSCA section 21 

petition has not set forth facts (e.g., 

bearing on relative risks, benefits, 

utility, and cost) to establish that a 

TSCA section 6 rule requiring the 

replacement of particular PVC 

plasticizers in one or more particular 

applications would be necessary. 

B. Request for Action Under TSCA 

Section 4 

Apparently anticipating that EPA 

might deny its request to issue a TSCA 

section 6 rule on the grounds that there 

are not sufficient toxicity data to justify 

a section 6 rule, the petitioner asked 

EPA to alternatively adopt a rule under 

TSCA section 4 requiring manufacturers 

and processors of PVC, vinyl chloride, 

and phthalate plasticizers ‘‘to undertake 

additional toxicity testing.’’ 

EPA’s denial of the request to issue a 

TSCA section 6 rule is not predicated on 

a determination that there are 

insufficient toxicity data to justify 

action under TSCA section 6. 

Furthermore, the TSCA section 21 

petition’s failure to set forth evidence to 

justify the necessity of rulemaking 

under TSCA section 6 is not in itself 

evidence that the currently available 

toxicity information is inadequate. As 

noted in Unit IV.A., many of the 

information gaps in the submitted TSCA 

section 21 petition are either unrelated, 

or only indirectly related, to the toxicity 

of these chemical substances. And the 

petitioner does not contend that its 

efforts to explain why rulemaking under 

TSCA section 6 is necessary were 

impeded by a lack of information about 

the toxicity of these chemical 

substances. 

EPA is denying the request for 

rulemaking under TSCA section 4 

because the TSCA section 21 petition 

does not set forth sufficient facts for 

EPA to find that the toxicity information 

available to the Agency is insufficient to 

permit a reasoned evaluation of the 

health or environmental effects of these 

chemical substances, or for EPA to 

conclude that toxicity testing is 

necessary to develop any missing data. 

Although the petitioner suggests in 

very general terms that ‘‘[non-] 

traditional toxicity testing’’ might 

produce results showing that these 

chemical substances are riskier than 

currently known, the petitioner does not 

identify any particular deficiency in 

what is currently known about the 

toxicity of these chemical substances, or 

specify what kind of ‘‘non-traditional’’ 

toxicity tests the petitioner believes are 

necessary. Neither does the TSCA 

section 21 petition indicate whether 

(and if so, why) the petitioner believes 

that any deficiencies in the availability 

of information about the toxicity of 

these chemical substances are 

precluding a reasoned evaluation of 

health or environmental effects. Even if 

the TSCA section 21 petition had 

established that the currently available 

toxicity information could be improved 

in particular respects for one or more of 

these chemical substances, it would not 

automatically follow that the currently 

available toxicity information is 

insufficient to permit a reasoned 

evaluation of health or environmental 

effects. 

VI. 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. CBD. Petition for Rulemaking Pursuant 

to Section 7004(a) of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 6974(A), and Section 21 of the Toxic 

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

Concerning the Regulation of Discarded 

Polyvinyl Chloride and Associated Chemical 

Additives. July 29, 2014. 

2. EPA. Lead Fishing Sinkers; Response to 

Citizens’ Petition and Proposed Ban; 

Proposed Rule. Federal Register (59 FR 

11122, March 9, 1994) (FRL–4643–3). 

3. EPA. National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl 

Chloride and Copolymers Production; Final 

Rule. Federal Register (77 FR 22848, April 

17, 2012) (FRL–9636–2). 

4. Kastner et al. Aqueous leaching of di-2- 

ethylhexyl phthalate and ‘green’ plasticizers 

from poly(vinyl chloride). Science of the 

Total Environment. p. 432. 2012. 

5. EPA. Phthalates Action Plan. Revised. 

March 14, 2012. 

List of Subjects in Chapter I 

Environmental protection, Hazardous 

substances, Phthalates, Plasticizers, 

Polyvinyl chloride, Vinyl chloride. 

Dated: October 24, 2014. 

James Jones, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25849 Filed 10–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS