        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 81
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0173; FRL- 9978-90—Region 4]
        Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; AL;  Redesignation of the Etowah County Unclassifiable Area

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          On March 22, 2018, the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Etowah County, Alabama fine particulate matter (PM2.5) unclassifiable area (hereinafter referred to as the “Etowah County Area” or “Area”) to attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA now has sufficient data to determine that the Etowah County Area is in attainment of the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the State's request and redesignate the Area to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon valid, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the PM2.5 monitor in the Area is in compliance with the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2018.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0173 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9644 or via electronic mail at sanchez.madolyn@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air quality management through the establishment and implementation of the NAAQS. After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required to designate areas, pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. On September 21, 2006, EPA revised the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 at a level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), based on a 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to particulate matter.
        The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On October 8, 2009, EPA designated areas across the country as nonattainment, unclassifiable, or unclassifiable/attainment 1
           for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from these monitors for calendar years 2006-2008. See 74 FR 58688. The monitor in the Etowah County Area had incomplete data for the 2006-2008 timeframe. Therefore, EPA designated Etowah County as unclassifiable for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Id.

            1 For the initial PM area designations in 2009 (for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a designation category of “unclassifiable/attainment” for areas that had monitors showing attainment of the standard and were not contributing to nearby violations and for areas that did not have monitors but for which EPA had reason to believe were likely attaining the standard and not contributing to nearby violations. EPA used the category “unclassifiable” for areas in which EPA could not determine, based upon available information, whether or not the NAAQS was being met and/or EPA had not determined the area to be contributing to nearby violations. EPA reserves the “attainment” category for when EPA redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.

        As discussed in section III, below, the monitor in the Etowah County Area now has sufficient data to determine that the Etowah County Area is in attainment of the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, on March 22, 2018, Alabama submitted a request for EPA to redesignate Area to attainment for these NAAQS.2

            2 Although Alabama requested redesignation of the Area to “attainment,” EPA is proposing to redesignate the area to “unclassifiable/attainment” because, as noted above, EPA reserves the “attainment” category for when EPA redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.

        II. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment?
        Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state that the designation of an area should be revised “on the basis of air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.” The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the Administrator must approve or deny the request.
        When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the considerations provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).3
           In keeping with section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to unclassifiable/attainment must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. The relevant monitoring data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. The designated monitors generally should have remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period upon which the redesignation request is based.4

            3 While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and therefore are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment.

            4 See Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, EPA Air Quality Management Division, entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” (September 4, 1992).

        III. What is EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate the Area?

        In order to redesignate the Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour concentration values (i.e., design value) over the most recent 3-year period must be less than or equal to 35 µg/m3 at all monitoring sites in the Area over the full 3-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.18 and Appendix N of Part 50. EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring data from the monitoring station in the Etowah County Area for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 3-year period from 2014-2016. These data have been quality-assured, certified, and recorded in AQS by Alabama, and the monitoring location has not changed during the monitoring period. As summarized in Table 1, the design value for the monitor in the Area for the 2014-2016 period is well below the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

          Table 1—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Design Value for the Monitor in the Etowah County Area for 2014-2016

            Local site name
            Monitoring site
            2014-2016 design value (μg/m3)

            Etowah County, AL
            01-055-0010
            17

        Because the 3-year design value, based on valid, quality-assured data, demonstrates that the Area meets the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standards, EPA is proposing to redesignate the Etowah County Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for this NAAQS.
        IV. Proposed Action

        EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's March 22, 2018, redesignation request and to redesignate the Etowah County Area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, of Etowah County from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/attainment does not create any new requirements. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to redesignate an area to unclassifiable/attainment and does not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because redesignations are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

        • 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
        • Will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        This action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian County, the action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          40 CFR Part 81
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

          Dated: May 18, 2018.
          Onis “Trey” Glenn, III,
          Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2018-11835 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AG28
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Availability of Draft Economic Analysis for Proposed Critical Habitat Determination for the Zayante Band-winged Grasshopper

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the availability of a draft economic analysis for the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Zayante band-winged grasshopper (Trimerotropis infantilis). We are opening a 15-day comment period to allow all interested parties to submit written comments on the draft economic analysis. Comments submitted during this comment period will be incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final rule.

          DATES:

          The comment period is opened and we will accept comments until December 21, 2000. Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on the closing date. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:
          Copies of the draft economic analysis are available on the Internet at “www.r1.fws.gov” or by writing to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003. All written comments should be sent to the Field Supervisor at the above address. You may also send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to “fw1grasshopper@r1.fws.gov.” Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please include “Attn: RIN 1018-AG27” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number 805-644-1766. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above Service address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-3958).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The Zayante band-winged grasshopper (Trimerotropis infantilis) was first described from near Mount Hermon in the Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Cruz County, California, in 1984 (Rentz and Weissman 1984). The grasshopper is in the Order Orthoptera and Family Acrididae.
        The body and forewings of the Zayante band-winged grasshopper are pale gray to light brown with dark cross-bands on the forewings. The basal area of the hindwings is pale yellow with a faint thin band. The hind tibiae (lower legs) are blue, and the eyes have bands around them. Males range in length from 13.7 to 17.2 millimeters (0.54 to 0.68 inches); females are larger, ranging in length from 19.7 to 21.6 millimeters (0.78 to 0.85 inches) (Otte 1984; Rentz and Weissman 1984).
        The Zayante band-winged grasshopper occurs in association with the Zayante series soils in the vicinity of Ben Lomond, Felton, Mount Hermon, Zayante, and Scotts Valley in Santa Cruz County, California. These soils harbor a complex mosaic of vegetation dominated by maritime coast range ponderosa pine forest and northern maritime chaparral (Griffin 1964; Holland 1986). The distributions of these two vegetative communities overlap to form a complex and intergrading mosaic of communities variously referred to as ponderosa sand parkland, ponderosa pine sand hills, and silver-leafed manzanita mixed chaparral. These communities are collectively referred to as “Zayante sand hills” and harbor a diversity of rare and endemic plant and animal species, including the Zayante band-winged grasshopper (Thomas 1961; Griffin 1964; Morgan 1983). A unique habitat within the Zayante sand hills is sand parkland, characterized by sparsely vegetated, sandstone dominated ridges and saddles that support scattered ponderosa pines and a wide array of annual and perennial herbs and grasses.
        Within the Zayante sandhills, the Zayante band-winged grasshopper occurs primarily in early successional sand parkland with widely scattered tree and shrub cover, extensive areas of bare or sparsely vegetated ground, loose sand, and relatively flat relief. In addition, Zayante band-winged grasshoppers have been observed in areas with a well-developed ground cover and in areas with sparse chaparral mixed with patches of grasses and forbs (Hovore 1996; Arnold 1999a,b).

        The primary threat to the Zayante band-winged grasshopper is loss of habitat. Over 40 percent of Zayante sand hills, and 60 percent of the sand parkland within that habitat, is estimated to have been lost or altered due to human activities, including sand mining, urban development, recreational activities and agriculture (R. Morgan, private consultant, pers. comm. 1992; Marangio and Morgan 1987; Lee 1994). Approximately 200 to 240 hectares (ha) (500 to 600 acres(ac)) of sand parkland existed historically (Marangio and Morgan 1987). By 1986, only 100 ha (250 ac) of sand parkland remained intact (Marangio and Morgan 1987). By 1992, sand parkland was reportedly reduced to only 40 ha (100 ac) (R. Morgan, pers. comm. 1992). A more recent assessment revised that estimate up to 78 ha (193 ac), largely because of identification and inclusion of additional lower quality sand parkland (Lee 1994).

        The disruption of natural landscape-level processes may also be resulting in shifts in vegetative communities and loss of habitat for the Zayante band-winged grasshopper. For example, lack of fire is resulting in the encroachment of mixed evergreen forest into ponderosa pine forest (Marangio 1985). Lack of sunlight as a result of shading by Ponderosa pines appears to be restricting use of areas by the Zayante band-winged grasshopper and resulting in low population numbers (C. Sculley, USFWS, pers. observation 1999). Historically, fires would have burned in these areas resulting in the loss of Ponderosa pines and the creation of areas with increased exposure to sunlight. Non-native species of vegetation, including Portuguese broom (Cystisus striatus) and sea fig (Carpobrotus chilensis) are out-competing native vegetation and encroaching on sites occupied by the Zayante band-winged grasshopper (Rigney 1999). Pesticides and over-collection are also recognized as potential threat to the Zayante band-winged grasshopper.

        Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the species was federally listed as endangered on January 24, 1997 (62 FR 3616). On July 7, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 41919) a determination proposing critical habitat for the Zayante band-winged grasshopper. Approximately 4,230 hectares (10,560 acres) fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. Proposed critical habitat is located in Santa Cruz County, as described in the proposed determination.

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that the Secretary shall designate or revise critical habitat based upon the best scientific and commercial data available and after taking into consideration the economic impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. Based upon the previously published proposal to designate critical habitat for the Zayante band-winged grasshopper and comments received during the previous comment period, we have prepared a draft economic analysis of the proposed critical habitat designation. The draft economic analysis is available at the above Internet and mailing address. We will accept written comments during this reopened comment period. The current comment period on this proposal closes on December 21, 2000. Written comments may be submitted to the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office in the ADDRESSES section.
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Colleen Sculley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003 (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: November 29, 2000.
          Dennis D. Peters,
          Acting Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office.

      [FR Doc. 00-31007 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 372
        [EPA-HQ-TRI-2009-0844; FRL-9119-2]
        RIN 2025-AA27
        Hydrogen Sulfide; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Intent to consider lifting administrative stay; opportunity for public comment.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is announcing that it is considering whether to lift the Administrative Stay of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313 toxic chemical release reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide (Chemical Abstracts Service Number (CAS No.) 7783-06-4). Hydrogen sulfide was added to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals in a final rule published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1993. However, on August 22, 1994, EPA issued an Administrative Stay of the reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide in order to evaluate issues brought to the Agency's attention after promulgation of the final rule concerning the human health effect basis for the listing and the Agency's use of exposure analysis in EPCRA section 313 listing decisions. Although the final rule listing hydrogen sulfide under section 313 of EPCRA remained in force, the stay deferred the reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide while EPA completed this further evaluation. EPA has now completed its further evaluation, including a consideration of additional information that has become available since the stay was put in place regarding the human health and environmental effects of hydrogen sulfide. Based on this further evaluation, EPA believes that the Administrative Stay should be lifted. By this current action, EPA is not revisiting the original listing decision, which was accomplished by final rule on December 1, 1993. Rather, EPA is merely presenting its rationale for why the Administrative Stay of the reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide should be lifted. After consideration of comments received, the Agency will issue another Federal Register document responding to comments and taking appropriate action.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2009-0844, by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov.

          • Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460
          • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2009-0844. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public 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, avoid any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental Analysis Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access (2842T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0743; fax number: 202-566-0677; e-mail: bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for specific information on this document. For general information on EPCRA section 313, contact the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in Virginia and Alaska or toll free, TDD (800) 553-7672, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
        You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or otherwise use hydrogen sulfide. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

            Category
            Examples of potentially affected entities

            Industry
            Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to SIC codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512220, 512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*.*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.

            Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 212111, 212112, 212113 (correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (correspond to SIC 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (correspond to SIC 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (correspond to SIC 4953, Refuse Systems).

            Federal Government
            Federal facilities.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Some of the entities listed in the table have exemptions and/or limitations regarding coverage, and other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in part 372 subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        B. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
        Do not submit CBI information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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.
        II. Introduction
        Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023, requires certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above reporting threshold levels to report their environmental releases and other waste management quantities of such chemicals annually. These facilities must also report pollution prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13106. EPCRA section 313 established an initial list of toxic chemicals composed of more than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical categories.
        EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from the list and sets forth criteria for these actions. Specifically, EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that EPA may add a chemical to the list if “there is sufficient evidence to establish any one” of the listing criteria. Therefore, to add a chemical, EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but need not determine whether any other criterion is met. Conversely, EPCRA section 313(d)(3) states that to remove a chemical from the list, EPA must determine that “there is not sufficient evidence to establish any” of the Section 313(d)(2) criteria. Therefore, to remove a chemical, EPA must demonstrate that none of the criteria are met. The EPCRA section 313(d)(2) criteria are:

          (A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases.
          (B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans—
          (i) Cancer or teratogenic effects, or
          (ii) Serious or irreversible—
          (I) Reproductive dysfunctions,
          (II) Neurological disorders,
          (III) Heritable genetic mutations, or
          (IV) Other chronic health effects.
          (C) The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably anticipated to cause, because of
          (i) Its toxicity,
          (ii) Its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or

          (iii) Its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under this section.

        EPA often refers to the section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the “acute human health effects criterion;” the section 313(d)(2)(B) criterion as the “chronic human health effects criterion;” and the section 313(d)(2)(C) criterion as the “environmental effects criterion.”

        Under EPCRA section 313(e)(1), any person may petition EPA to add chemicals to or delete chemicals from the list. EPA issued a statement of petition policy and guidance in the Federal Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR 3479) to provide guidance regarding the recommended content and format for submitting petitions under EPCRA section 313(e). EPA also issued guidance in the Federal Register of May 23, 1991 (56 FR 23703) regarding the recommended content of petitions to delete individual members of the section 313 metal compound categories. In addition, EPA published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432) a statement clarifying its interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the section 313 list of toxic chemicals.
        III. Background Information
        A. What is the History of the Listing of Hydrogen Sulfide Under EPCRA Section 313?
        In response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Governor of New York, hydrogen sulfide, along with 20 other chemicals and two chemical categories, was added to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals as part of a 1993 final rule (December 1, 1993, 58 FR 63500). Hydrogen sulfide was listed under the criteria of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) (chronic human health effects) based on chronic neurotoxic effects in humans and under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) (environmental effects) based on acute aquatic toxicity. However, on August 22, 1994 (59 FR 43048), EPA issued an Administrative Stay of the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide. Although the final rule listing hydrogen sulfide under section 313 of EPCRA remained in force, the stay deferred the reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide.
        B. What Was the Basis for the Administrative Stay?
        After the final rule was issued adding hydrogen sulfide to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals, some members of the regulated community expressed a concern that the “chronic human health effects” basis for listing hydrogen sulfide under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) changed between the proposed rule (September 8, 1992, 57 FR 41020) and the final rule (December 1, 1993, 58 FR 63500), and that commenters on the proposed rule therefore did not have an opportunity to comment on that individual basis for the listing. Specifically, although the Agency cited the same acute aquatic toxicity as an “environmental effects” basis for the listing under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) in both the proposed and final rules, the Agency also cited chronic respiratory effects as a “chronic human health effects” basis under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) in the proposed rule, but chronic neurotoxic effects as a “chronic human health effects” basis under that same provision in the final rule. In addition, after issuance of the final rule, some members of the regulated community expressed concern that EPA's decision not to include an exposure analysis in deciding to list hydrogen sulfide on the basis of chronic human health effects was inconsistent with past Agency practice.
        Although EPA did not agree that it had been inconsistent in its use of exposure analyses, and notwithstanding the fact that the listing decision was dictated by the acute aquatic toxicity finding alone under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C), the Agency issued an Administrative Stay of the reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide in order to review the concerns raised after issuance of the final rule by some members of the regulated community.
        C. What Is the Purpose of This Document?

        The purpose of this document is to provide the public with the opportunity to comment on EPA's review of the currently available data on the human health and environmental effects of hydrogen sulfide—specifically, chronic respiratory effects, chronic neurotoxic effects, and acute, chronic and early-life stage aquatic toxicity—and EPA's belief that the Administrative Stay should be lifted based on that data. EPA's analysis of the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide is based on the Agency's latest Toxicological Review of Hydrogen Sulfide (Ref. 1), as well as a reassessment of the environmental effects of hydrogen sulfide (Ref. 2). These assessments are discussed in detail in Unit IV. of this document. In addition, this document addresses the concerns raised regarding use of exposure analyses. After consideration of comments received, the Agency will issue another Federal Register document responding to comments and taking appropriate action.
        IV. What Is EPA's Technical Review of Hydrogen Sulfide?
        A. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the Human Health Toxicity of Hydrogen Sulfide?
        The following assessment of the human health toxicity of hydrogen sulfide is based on the information contained in EPA's most recent (June 2003) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Hydrogen Sulfide (Ref. 1).
        Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, acutely toxic gas at high concentrations. Hydrogen sulfide gas is absorbed rapidly through the lungs and can be absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. Oral exposure is not likely to occur. In animals and humans, it distributes to the blood, brain, lungs, heart, liver, spleen, and kidneys. Oxidation is the primary metabolic pathway for hydrogen sulfide, with thiosulfate and sulfate as metabolites. Metabolism in laboratory animals and in humans appears to be similar. Hydrogen sulfide metabolites are excreted in the urine.

        A considerable body of case studies exists on the human health impacts resulting from acute exposure to high levels of hydrogen sulfide. Levels in the range of 500 to 1,000 parts per million (ppm) (695 to 1,390 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)) are life-threatening and can cause immediate unconsciousness followed by serious and debilitating neurologic and respiratory sequelae and death (Ref. 1). While complete recovery from a high exposure episode has been reported, more often long term or even irreversible harmful neurological effects remain. Several groups of investigators (Tvedt, et al. (Refs. 3 and 4); Wasch, et al. (Ref. 5)) have reported long-term persistent adverse neurological effects from hydrogen sulfide-induced unconsciousness in humans during occupational, accidental, and chronic exposures, including neuropsychological and neurobehavorial decrements and brain damage. These irreversible effects are believed to be caused by an essentially hypoxic (low oxygen) condition existing in persons who become unconscious from a high exposure to hydrogen sulfide. Because a loss of oxygen (anoxia) utilization in tissues, particularly the brain, occurs in such poisonings, it is possible to attribute persistent neuronal damage to this effect. Permanent (chronic) damage is commonly observed clinically when brain tissues have been deprived of oxygen due to inadequate delivery of the gas or to interrupted utilization of oxygen by cells, as is the case with hydrogen sulfide poisoning.
        The observed nonirritant effects produced in mammals from exposure to hydrogen sulfide gas may primarily be attributed to the cellular anoxia produced by inhibition of cytochrome oxidase (Ref. 1). Inhibition of cytochrome oxidase reduces the oxygen dependent metabolism of the cell, reduces cell energy sources (e.g., adenosine triphosphate (ATP)), increases products of anaerobic metabolism such as lactic acid, and produces cell death. Hence, cells with a high oxygen demand such as those in brain and cardiac tissue are thought to be more sensitive to disruption of oxidative metabolism and may be considered selected targets for the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide.

        1. Chronic Toxicity. EPA has reviewed the available toxicological studies on hydrogen sulfide in its most recent IRIS Toxicological Review of Hydrogen Sulfide (Ref. 1) and concluded that hydrogen sulfide can cause chronic human health toxicity. As reported in IRIS, the upper respiratory tract (neuronal and basal cells of the olfactory nasal epithelium) and neurologic tissues are both targets for hydrogen sulfide toxicity. The weight-of-evidence from the animal studies indicates that nasal tract lesions and neurological effects of hydrogen sulfide are dose-dependent, and both effects are clearly of relevance to humans. The levels of hydrogen sulfide associated with these effects appear to be similar for either endpoint (e.g., the no-effect level of nasal tract lesions reported by Brenneman, et al. (Ref. 6) at 10 ppm (14 mg/m3) and the likely indicator of neurotoxic effects reported by Hannah and Roth (Ref. 7) at 20 ppm (28 mg/m3)), which is some indication that consideration for one effect will also address the other (Ref. 1).

        a. Upper Respiratory Tract Toxicity. Several subchronic exposure studies in rats and mice indicate that low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide cause nasal lesions of the olfactory mucosa (Brenneman, et al. (Ref. 6); Dorman, et al. (Ref. 8); Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (Ref. 9); Lopez, et al. (Ref. 10); Dorman, et al. (Ref. 11)). The nasal lesions are consistent with the neurotoxic and irritant properties of this gas. Based on the demonstrable histopathology, information available on exposure-dose-response, and the commonality of the underlying mechanism (cytochrome oxidase inhibition and irritation) between animals and humans, there is compelling indication that such effects are reasonably anticipated to occur in humans chronically exposed to hydrogen sulfide (Hirsch and Zavala (Ref. 12)).
        Brenneman, et al. (Ref. 6) reported significant concentration-related increases in the incidence and severity of lesions to the nasal olfactory epithelium in rats exposed to 0, 10, 30, or 80 ppm of hydrogen sulfide for 10 weeks. The effects consisted of olfactory neuron loss and basal cell hyperplasia in rats exposed to 30 or 80 ppm, 6 hours/day, 7 days/week for 10 weeks; no adverse effects were observed at 10 ppm. The severity of the olfactory neuron loss was concentration-related; however, an inverse relationship between severity and concentration was observed for the basal cell hyperplasia suggesting that as the concentration increased, the ability of the olfactory epithelium to regenerate decreased. In contrast, earlier studies conducted by the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT) (Refs. 13 and 14) where rats and mice were exposed to 0, 10.1, 30.5, or 80 ppm of hydrogen sulfide, 6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 13 weeks, did not find significant alterations in the nasal turbinates of Fischer-344 (F-344) or Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to 80 ppm or less of hydrogen sulfide. Inflammation of the squamous portion of the nasal mucosa was observed in mice exposed to 80 ppm hydrogen sulfide, 6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 13 weeks (CIIT (Ref. 9)); the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for this effect is 30.5 ppm. However, a re-examination of the histological specimens from this study revealed a statistically significant increase in the incidence of olfactory neuron loss in Sprague-Dawley rats, F-344 rats, and B6C3F1 mice exposed to 30 or 80 ppm; no lesions were observed at 10 ppm (Dorman, et al. (Ref. 11)). In addition, increases in the incidence of bronchiolar epithelial hyperplasia and hypertrophy were observed in female Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to 30 or 80 ppm and male Sprague-Dawley and F-344 rats exposed to 80 ppm.

        b. Neurotoxicity. The neurotoxic effects of low level hydrogen sulfide exposure have been primarily assessed from neurodevelopmental toxicity studies. Male Sprague-Dawley rats and male B6C3F1 mice exposed to 80 ppm of hydrogen sulfide (6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 13 weeks) had a statistically significant decrease in absolute (but not relative) brain weight (CIIT (Ref. 13) and Dorman, et al. (Ref. 11)) at 80 ppm but not 30 ppm. In an earlier study, Skrajny, et al. (Ref. 15) examined the effect of hydrogen sulfide exposure on serotonin and norepinephrine levels in the developing cerebellum and frontal cortex of Sprague-Dawley rats. Timed-pregnant rats were exposed to 0, 20 or 75 ppm for 7 hours/day from gestational day 5 until post natal day (PND) 21. There were statistically significant increases in serotonin levels in the frontal cortex on PND 21 in pups exposed to 20 ppm hydrogen sulfide and increases in serotonin levels in the cerebellum and frontal cortex on postpartum days 14 and 21 in pups exposed to 75 ppm hydrogen sulfide. Norepinephrine levels were increased at 75 ppm in the cerebellum on PNDs 7, 14, and 21, and in the frontal cortex on PND 21. At 20 ppm frontal cortex norepinephrine levels were decreased compared to controls on days 14 and 21.

        In a similarly designed study using the same exposure protocol as the CIIT (Refs. 9, 13, and 14) and Dorman, et al. (Ref. 11) studies, Hannah and Roth (Ref. 7) evaluated the perinatal effect of hydrogen sulfide on developing cerebellar Purkinje cells. Sprague-Dawley dams were exposed to 0, 20 or 50 ppm hydrogen sulfide for 7 hr/day from gestational day 5 until PND 21. Exposure to both 20 and 50 ppm interrupted normal dendritic growth of Purkinje cells in the brain of offspring. In later studies using this same experimental protocol, Hannah, et al. (Refs. 16 and 17) also found decreases in several brain amino acid levels in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to 75 ppm of hydrogen sulfide.

        The significance of the morphological changes and alteration of brain neurotransmitters in these studies and the Skrajny, et al. (Ref. 15) study to humans is unclear. Since Purkinje cell alterations and changes in neurotransmitter levels may constitute a hydrogen sulfide-induced change in the growth or organization of structural (or neurochemical) elements, they are to be regarded as indicators of a neurotoxic effect in accordance with guidance in EPA's neurotoxicity risk assessment guidelines (Ref. 18). The question as to what functional impairment these alterations might lead to in humans remains unclear. Predicting particular functional impairments from decreased brain weight and specific structural alterations such as reported by the CIIT (Refs. 9, 13, and 14) and Dorman, et al. (Ref. 11) studies and Hannah and Roth (Ref. 7) is difficult due to the selective nature of the observed alterations and the dynamic self-organizing response of the developing brain to injury. Although behavioral testing has not indicated that alterations of brain neurotransmittters have a functional impact (Dorman, et al. (Ref. 8)), further examination of the biochemical and functional aspects of the developing brain in hydrogen sulfide-exposed animals is warranted and neurotoxic effects cannot be discounted.

        Available information indicates that the dose-response character of indicators of neurotoxicity (such as the alterations to cerebellar Purkinje cells reported by Hannah and Roth (Ref. 7) and nasal olfactory (neuronal cell) lesions reported by Brenneman, et al. (Ref. 6)) may be similar to one another, such that consideration of one may be inclusive of the other. However, more extensive and definitive information on the neurologic endpoints could reveal that these should be the most relevant endpoints, more so than nasal tract lesions. The IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Sulfide (Ref. 1) indicates that such information may provide sufficient reason to reassess hydrogen sulfide.
        2. Summary. As stated in the IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Sulfide (Ref. 1) and as discussed above, both nasal tract lesions (upper respiratory effects) and neurologic effects are chronic effects of concern. These effects occur in a clear dose concentration manner with the lowest levels of hydrogen sulfide exposure associated with these effects ranging from 20 to 30 ppm (28 mg/m3 to 41.7 mg/m3).
        B. What Is EPA's Evaluation of the Environmental Toxicity of Hydrogen Sulfide?
        A number of ecotoxicity studies have been conducted on hydrogen sulfide, mainly on freshwater invertebrates and fish. Acute, chronic, and early-life stage toxicity values for hydrogen sulfide include numerous values that are well below 1 milligram per liter (mg/L), indicating that hydrogen sulfide is toxic at very low concentrations. EPA's ecological assessment (Ref. 2) includes an extensive listing of the aquatic toxicity values for hydrogen sulfide. Some examples of the values from Table 2-1 of EPA's ecological assessment (Ref. 2) are provided below.
        Hydrogen sulfide acute toxicity values (96-hour LC50 (i.e., the concentration that is lethal to 50% of test organisms)) for freshwater fish ranged from 0.0149 mg/L (fathead minnow) to 0.0448 mg/L (bluegill). Chronic toxicity values for freshwater fish ranged from a 6-week lowest-observed-effect-concentration (LOEC) (growth rate) of 0.0005 mg/L in a tropical fish (Mystus nemurus) to a 430-day LOEC (final weight) of 0.009 mg/L for goldfish. Additionally, in early-life stage toxicity testing with eggs, fry, and juveniles of various freshwater fish species, endpoint values ranged from a 96-hour LC50 of <0.002 mg/L (yellow perch sac fry) to a 96-hour LC50 value of 0.0536 mg/L (fathead minnow). The hydrogen sulfide 96-hour LC50 values for freshwater invertebrates ranged from 0.021 mg/L (amphipod) to 1.07 mg/L (isopod), and 48- to 96-hour LC50 values for estuarine/marine invertebrates ranged from 0.063 mg/L (saltwater shrimp) to 0.332 mg/L (adult amphipod). The hydrogen sulfide EC50 (i.e., the concentration that is effective in producing a sublethal response in 50% of test organisms) values for estuarine/marine invertebrates included 0.01 mg/L (saltwater mussel) and 0.019 mg/L (sea urchin). Hydrogen sulfide chronic values for freshwater invertebrates ranged from a 65-day LOEC (reproduction) of 0.0031 mg/L to a 10-day LC50 value of 0.042 mg/L, both for the amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. For early-life stage toxicity testing, a 96-hour LC50 value of 0.034 mg/L was available for juvenile crayfish (freshwater species), and for estuarine/marine invertebrates, 48-hour LC50 values of 0.0087 mg/L and 0.0185 mg/L were available for white shrimp larvae and juveniles, respectively.
        V. EPA's Use of Exposure Analyses

        The Agency's position on the use of exposure analyses in listing decisions under EPCRA section 313 was presented in a proposed rule in the Federal Register of January 12, 1994 (59 FR 1788). The proposed rule provided the public with the opportunity to comment on the Agency's interpretation of the statutory listing criteria as it relates to the use of exposure considerations. After considering the comments received, EPA published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432) a statement clarifying its interpretation of the statutory requirements regarding how exposure will be considered in listing decisions. Subsequent to the final rule, EPA's interpretation of the statutory listing criteria as it relates to the consideration of exposure was upheld in National Oilseed Processors Ass'n. v. Browner, 924 F. Supp. 1193 (D.D.C. 1996), aff'd in part & remanded in part, Troy Corp. v. Browner, 120 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

        EPA has determined that hydrogen sulfide can reasonably be anticipated to cause serious or irreversible chronic human health effects at relatively low doses and thus is considered to have moderately high to high chronic toxicity. EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to consider exposure for chemicals that are moderately high to highly toxic based on a hazard assessment when determining if a chemical can be listed for chronic effects pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) (see 59 FR 61432, 61433, 61440-61442). Hydrogen sulfide has also been determined to cause ecotoxicity at relatively low concentrations, and thus is considered to have high ecotoxicity. EPA believes that chemicals that induce death or serious adverse effects in aquatic organisms at relatively low concentrations (i.e., they have high ecotoxicity) have the potential to cause significant changes in the population of fish and other aquatic organisms, and can therefore reasonably be anticipated to cause a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness to warrant reporting. EPA does not believe that it is required to consider exposure for chemicals that have high ecotoxicity based on a hazard assessment when determining if a chemical can be listed for effects pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) (see 59 FR 61432, 61433, 61440-61442).
        VI. What Is EPA's Rationale That the Administrative Stay Should Be Lifted?

        EPA's technical evaluation of hydrogen sulfide shows that it can reasonably be anticipated to cause chronic health effects in humans. The chronic health effects have been observed in laboratory animals at concentrations as low as 28 mg/m3 (20 ppm) and 41.7 mg/m3 (30 ppm). In addition, EPA's technical evaluation of hydrogen sulfide also shows that it can reasonably be anticipated to cause, because of its toxicity, significant adverse effects in aquatic organisms. Examples of hydrogen sulfide's ecological toxicity include acute toxicity (96-hour LC50) values for freshwater fish that ranged from 0.0149 mg/L (fathead minnow) to 0.0448 mg/L (bluegill), indicating high aquatic toxicity. Examples of hydrogen sulfide's chronic ecological toxicity include freshwater fish values that ranged from a 6-week LOEC (growth rate) of 0.0005 mg/L in a tropical fish (Mystus nemurus) to a 430-day LOEC (final weight) of 0.009 mg/L for goldfish, also indicating high aquatic toxicity.

        Based on the above findings, EPA believes that there is no basis for continuing the Administrative Stay of the reporting requirements for hydrogen sulfide, and that the Administrative Stay should therefore be lifted. As an aside, EPA notes also that it believes that the above findings clearly demonstrate the correctness of the Agency's final decision in December 1993 to list hydrogen sulfide on the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemicals list based on the listing criteria in EPCRA sections 313(d)(2)(B) and (C).
        Finally, in accordance with EPA's stated policy on the use of exposure assessments (59 FR 61432), EPA does not believe that an exposure assessment is appropriate for determining whether hydrogen sulfide meets the criteria of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) or (C), and therefore the Administrative Stay should not be continued for lack of an exposure analysis.
        VII. What Are the References Cited in This Document?

        EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2009-0844. The public docket includes information considered by EPA in developing this action, including the documents listed below, which are electronically or physically located in the docket. In addition, interested parties should consult documents that are referenced in the documents that EPA has placed in the docket, regardless of whether these referenced documents are electronically or physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating documents that are referenced in documents that EPA has placed in the docket, but that are not electronically or physically located in the docket, please consult the person listed in the above FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

          1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Toxicological Review of Hydrogen sulfide, (CAS No. 7783-06-4), In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System.” Washington, DC: Integrated Risk Information System. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June, 2003. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/toxreviews/0061-tr.pdf Integrated Risk Information Summary for Hydrogen Sulfide available at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0061.htm.

          2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Review of Hydrogen Sulfide: Chemistry, Environmental Fate and Ecological Toxicity, CAS Registry Number 7783-06-4; Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Access and Analysis, Environmental Analysis Division, Analytical Support Branch; June 22, 2009.
          3. Tvedt, B., Edland, A., Skyberg, K. et al., “Delayed neuropsychiatric sequelae after acute hydrogen sulfide poisoning: affection of motor function, memory, vision and hearing.” Acta. Neurol. Scand. v. 84, (1991), pp. 348-351.
          4. Tvedt, B., Skyberg, K., Aaserud, O., et al., “Brain damage caused by hydrogen sulfide: a follow-up study of six patients.” Am. J. Ind. Med. v. 20, (1991), pp. 91-101.
          5. Wasch, H.H., Estrin, W.J., Yip, P. et al., “Prolongation of the P-300 latency associated with hydrogen sulfide exposure.” Arch. Neurol. v. 46, (1989), pp. 902-904.

          6. Brenneman, K.A., James, R.A., Gross, E.A., Dorman, D.C., “Olfactory neuron loss in adult male CD rats following subchronic inhalation exposure to hydrogen sulfide.” Toxicol. Pathol. v. 28(2), (2000), pp. 326-333.

          7. Hannah, R.S., Roth, S.H., “Chronic exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide produces abnormal growth in developing Purkinje cells.” Neurosci. Lett. v. 122, (1991), pp. 225-228.
          8. Dorman, D.C., Brenneman, K.A., Struve, M.F., et al., (2000) “Fertility and developmental neurotoxicity effects of inhaled hydrogen sulfide in Sprague-Dawley rats.” Neurotoxicol Teratol. v. 22, (2000), pp. 71-84.
          9. Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, “90-Day vapor inhalation toxicity study of hydrogen sulfide in B6C3F1 mice.” (1983), EPA/OTS 0883-0255.
          10. Lopez, A., Prior, M., Yong, S., et al., “Nasal lesions in rats exposed to hydrogen sulfide for four hours.” Am. J. Vet. Res. v. 49(7), (1988), pp. 1107-1111.
          11. Dorman, D.C., Struve, M.F., Gross, E.A., et al., “Respiratory tract toxicity of inhaled hydrogen sulfide in Fischer-344 rats, Sprague-Dawley rats, and B6C3F1 mice following subchronic (90-day) exposure.” Toxicol Appl Pharmacol v. 198, (2004), pp. 29-39.

          12. Hirsch, A.R., Zavala, G., “Long-term effect on the olfactory system of exposure to hydrogen sulphide.” Occup. Environ. Med. v. 56, (1999), pp. 284-287.
          13. Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, “90-Day vapor inhalation toxicity study of hydrogen sulfide in Fischer-344 rats.” (1983), EPA/OTS 0883-0255.
          14. Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, “90-Day vapor inhalation toxicity study of hydrogen sulfide in Sprague-Dawley rats.” (1983), EPA/OTS 0883-0255.

          15. Skrajny, B., Hannah, R.S., Roth, S.H., “Low concentrations of hydrogen sulphide alter monoamine levels in the developing rat central nervous system.” Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. v. 70(11), (1992), pp. 1515-1518.

          16. Hannah, R.S., Hayden, L.J., Roth, S.H., “Hydrogen sulfide exposure alters the amino acid content in developing rat CNS.” Neurosci. Lett. v. 99, (1989), pp. 323-327.

          17. Hannah, R.S., Bennington, R., Roth, S.H., “A relationship between hydrogen sulfide exposure and taurine levels in maternal rats.” Proc West Pharmacol Soc v. 33, (1990), pp. 177-179.

          18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidelines for neurotoxicity risk assessment.” Federal Register, May 14, 1998, 63(93):26926-26954. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12479

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
          Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.

          Dated: February 19, 2010.
          Lisa P. Jackson,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2010-4084 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 042406G]
        Notice of Public Hearings for Measures to End Bottomfish Overfishing in the Hawaii Archipelago

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Notice of public hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces three public hearings on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, Measures to End Bottomfish Overfishing in the Hawaii Archipelago (DSEIS). The DSEIS was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations, and NOAA Administrative Order Series 216-6 Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

          DATES:

          The public hearings will be held May 18, 22, and 25, 2005, respectively. For specific dates, times and locations of the public hearings, and the agenda see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          ADDRESSES:

          The DSEIS is accessible electronically through the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office Web site at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/pir or at the Western Pacific Fishery

          Management Council (Council) website at http://www/wpcouncil.org. State of Hawaii public libraries were provided with copies of the DSEIS to be made available for inspection. Copies of the DSEIS may also be obtained from Keith Schultz, NEPA Specialist; 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814, 808-944-2276. Please specify when requesting if you would prefer a hard copy of the document, otherwise a CD may be provided. State of Hawaii public libraries were also provided with copies of the DSEIS.

          Comments or questions submitted on the DSEIS must be received by May 30, 2006. Written comments should be submitted by mail to: William L. Robinson, Pacific Islands Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96814. Comments may be submitted by facsimile (fax) to 808-973-2941. Electronic comments may be submitted by e-mail to include in the comment subject line the following document identifier: Bottomfish Overfishing DSEIS, or through the internet at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.. A copy of your comments should be submitted to Rodney F. Weiher, PhD., NEPA Coordinator, by mail to the NOAA Strategic Planning Office (PPI/SP), SSMC3, Room 15603, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; by fax to 301-713-0585; or by e-mail to nepa.comments@noaa.gov.

          The public comment period began on April 14, 2006, with the publication of the Notice of Availability of the DSEIS in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency and will continue until May 30, 2006. Written and oral comments will be given equal weight, and NMFS will consider all comments received by May 30, 2006, in preparing the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For general information on the NEPA process or to request a copy of the DSEIS, contact: Keith Schultz, NEPA Specialist, as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background Information

        On May 27, 2005, the Regional Administrator for the NMFS Pacific Islands Region notified the Council that overfishing of the bottomfish species complex is occurring within the Hawaiian Archipelago. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Council is preparing an amendment to the Bottomfish FMP to end overfishing in the bottomfish complex in the Hawaiian Archipelago. Bottomfish in the Hawaiian Archipelago are a collection, or complex, of deep-slope snappers, groupers, and jacks. The primary species addressed in the DSEIS are the “Deep 7” bottomfish species. The Deep 7 bottomfish species are: onaga (Etelis corsucans), ehu (Eetelis carbunculus), gindai (Pristipomoides zonatus), kalekale (Pristipomoides sieboldii), hapuupuu (Epinephelus quernus), opakapaka (Pristipomoides filamentosus), and lehi (Aphareus rutilans). The DSEIS examines Hawaii's bottomfish fisheries, describes the alternatives being considered to end the overfishing, and identifies the impacts associated with each alternative.
        Proposed Federal Action
        The proposed Federal action in the DSEIS is the approval of an amendment to end overfishing of Hawaii's archipelagic bottomfish multi-species stock complex by the Secretary of Commerce and the implementation and enforcement of the amendment's regulatory measures by NMFS. The proposed Federal action in the DSEIS would be the implementation of a seasonal closure between May 1 and August 31 prohibiting the targeting, possession, landing, or selling of any of Hawaii's Deep 7 bottomfish species. However, if the State of Hawaii does not commit to promulgate seasonal closure regulations, the proposed Federal action would be the implementation of a closure of Middle and Penguin Banks to the targeting, possession, landing, or selling of any of Hawaii's Deep 7 bottomfish species from Middle and Penguin Banks.
        Guideline Hearing Agenda
        All attendees wishing to comment during the public hearing must register during the registration period for the hearing.
        Availability of the DSEIS
        The following format will be used as a guideline for conducting the hearing.
        1. Open the Hearing
        2. Introductions and Hearing Procedures
        3. Presentation of the Proposed Action and the Alternatives
        4. Opportunity for Public to Ask Questions to Clarify Points Made in the Presentation
        5. Public Comment
        6. Close the Hearing
        Dates, Times and Locations of Public Hearings
        (1) Maui, HI—Thursday, May 18, 2006, from 7-9 p.m., at the Maui Beach Hotel, 170 Maahumanu Ave., Maui, island of Maui Beach Hotel, 170 Kaahumanu Avenue, Kahului, HI 96732;
        (2) Kauai, HI—Monday, May 22, 2006, from 7-9 p.m., at the Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle School, 4431 Nuhou St, Lihue, HI 96766; and
        (3) Honolulu, HI—Thursday, May 25, 2006, from 7-9 p.m. at the Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, Oahu.
        Special Accommodations
        These hearings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Keith Schultz, 808-944-2276, at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date.

            Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: April 25, 2006.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E6-6502 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 021212307-3037-02; I.D. 120303A]
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Apportionment of reserve; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to apportion amounts of the reserve to certain target species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI).  This action is necessary to account for previous harvest of the total allowable catch (TAC).  It is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the fishery management plan for the BSAI.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received at the following address no later than 4:30 p.m., Alaska local time, January 2, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must be mailed to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802-1668, Attn:   Lori Durall.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907 586 7557.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Courier or hand delivery of comments may be made to NMFS in the Federal Building, Room 453, Juneau, AK 99801.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
        The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the initial TACs specified in the final 2003 harvest specifications (68 FR 9907, March 3, 2003)  for Greenland turbot in the Bering Sea subarea and arrowtooth flounder, yellowfin sole and Alaska plaice in the BSAI need to be supplemented from the non-specified reserve in order to continue operations and account for prior harvest.
        Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(b)(3), NMFS proposes to apportion from the reserve to the TACs for the following species:   Bering Sea subarea - 100 metric tons (mt) to Greenland turbot; BSAI - 3,000 mt to Arrowtooth flounder, 3,500 mt to yellowfin sole, Alaska plaice - 750 mt. These proposed apportionments are consistent with § 679.20(b)(1)(ii) and do not result in overfishing of a target species because the revised TAC's are equal to or less than specifications of acceptable biological catch (68 FR 9907, March 3, 2003).
        Classification

        This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery.  The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 679.20 (b)(3)(iii)(A) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.  This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent the agency from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the apportionment of the reserves to the affected, ongoing fisheries, thus preventing full utilization of the TAC and reducing the public's ability to use and enjoy the fishery resource.  NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of November 13, 2003.
        The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).  This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment. Under § 679.20(b)(3)(iii), interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this action to the above address until January 2, 2004.
        This action is required by 50 CFR 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.

          Dated:  December 12, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-31340 Filed 12-18-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123; DA 19-521]
        IP CTS Order Hamilton Petition for Reconsideration

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for reconsideration.

          SUMMARY:
          The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau seeks comment on a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition).

          DATES:
          Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before July 3, 2019. Replies to oppositions must be filed on or before July 15, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

           Michael Scott, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at: (202) 418-1264; email: Michael.Scott@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 19-521, released June 5, 2019. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1040816929886/Hamilton_Petition_for_Reconsideration_of_2019_IPCTS_URD_Order.pdf. The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

          Subject: IP CTS Improvements and Program Management, Report and Order, FCC 19-11, published at 84 FR 8457, March 8, 2019, in CG Docket Nos. 13-24 and 03-123. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

          Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
        Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by David O'Connor, on behalf of Hamilton Relay, Inc.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Eliot Greenwald,
          Deputy Chief, Disability Rights Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 2019-12800 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6712-01-P