Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is amending the test rule entitled Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals promulgated under section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This amendment removes coke-oven light oil (coal) (CAS No. 65996–78–3) from the list of chemicals subject to the test rule. EPA is basing its decision on information it received after publication of the test rule. Also, upon the effective date of the revocation of the TSCA section 4 testing requirements for coke–oven light oil (coal), persons who export or intend to export coke–oven light oil (coal) are no longer subject to the TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements to the extent that they were triggered by the testing requirements being revoked by this action.
This direct final rule is effective on February 6, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment in writing, or a request to present comments orally, by January 8, 2007.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005–0033, by one of the following methods:
This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those persons who manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process coke-oven light oil (coal). Also, persons that export or intend to export coke-oven light oil (coal) may have an interest in this action. Upon the effective date of the revocation of the TSCA section 4 testing requirements for coke-oven light oil (coal), persons who export or intend to export coke-oven light oil (coal) are no longer subject to the TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements to the extent that they were triggered by the testing requirements being revoked by this action. Because other persons may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific persons that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular person, consult the technical person listed under
1.
2.
3.
i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
Pursuant to TSCA section 4, EPA published a test rule on March 16, 2006 (Ref. 1) (HPV test rule) requiring that manufacturers (including importers) and processors of 17 high production volume (HPV) chemicals conduct acute toxicity, repeat dose toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, genetic toxicity (gene mutations and chromosomal aberrations), ecotoxicity (in fish, Daphnia, and algae), and environmental fate (including 5 tests for physical chemical properties and biodegradation) testing. EPA found that each of the 17 chemicals included in the final HPV test rule is produced in substantial quantities (TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i)) and that there is or may be substantial human exposure (TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i)(II)) to each of them. Moreover, EPA determined that there are insufficient data to reasonably determine or predict the effects on health or the environment of the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of the chemicals, or any combination of these activities (TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(ii)). EPA concluded that the testing program described in the HPV test rule is necessary and appropriate for developing such data (TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(iii)). Data developed under the HPV test rule will provide critical, basic information about the environmental fate and potential hazards of the chemicals included in the HPV test rule which, when combined with information about exposure and uses, will allow the Agency and others to evaluate potential health and environmental risks at the screening level and take appropriate risk management or other actions, as necessary.
To support the TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i)(II) substantial human exposure finding for the 17 chemicals in the HPV test rule, EPA relied upon worker exposure data available from the National Occupational Exposure Survey
Shortly after publication of the HPV test rule in the
Since EPA was contacted by ACCCI after the publication of the HPV test rule, new information has come to EPA's attention. EPA asked NIOSH to investigate the underlying data obtained by NIOSH for NOES which led to the conclusion that 2,559 roofers were potentially exposed to coke-oven light oil (coal). NIOSH responded that during the data collection years for NOES, 1981 to 1983, roofers were observed being exposed to coke-oven light oil (coal) due to its presence in a coal-tar pitch product for which a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) had been provided to NIOSH by the product manufacturer. EPA subsequently searched for more recent information on the composition of this product and determined that the product was apparently reformulated in the 1990's and that since its reformulation, it no longer contains coke-oven light oil (coal). The name of this product is Noah's Pitch and it is manufactured by the Jim Walter Company of the Celotex Corp. (Ref. 6).
Although the NOES data were an accurate representation of potential worker exposure to coke-oven light oil (coal) in the 1980's, subsequent review of this matter has led EPA to believe that roofers are no longer exposed to coke-oven light oil (coal) through contact. ACCCI (Ref. 7) and the two coke-oven light oil (coal) processing facilities have provided letters (Refs. 8–10) assuring EPA that they do not manufacture or sell coke-oven light oil (coal) for uses in roofing products (or other uses involving substantial worker exposure). Based upon this new information indicating a lack of potential substantial worker exposure, the Agency is revoking the requirements for coke-oven light oil (coal) from the HPV test rule.
The HPV test rule requiring testing of coke-oven light oil (coal) (Ref. 1) was promulgated under TSCA section 4 (15 U.S.C. 2603), which mandates that EPA require that manufacturers and/or processors of chemicals and mixtures conduct testing if certain findings are made by EPA (see TSCA section 4(a)). One of the findings that EPA made in promulgating the HPV test rule was that there was substantial human (worker) exposure to each of the 17 chemicals in the HPV test rule (see TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i)(II); see also Ref. 1). Information provided to EPA since finalization of the HPV test rule indicates that, at the time EPA finalized the rule, worker exposure to coke-oven light oil (coal) did not constitute “substantial human exposure” under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B), and thus EPA does not have a basis for making the TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i)(II) exposure finding.
EPA is revoking the testing required by the HPV test rule (Ref. 1) for coke-oven light oil (coal) (CAS No. 65996–78–3). The testing is being revoked because new information does not support that, at the time EPA made its TSCA section 4(a) findings with respect to the chemical, a substantial number of workers were or might be exposed to this chemical. Therefore, EPA, in this amendment, is revoking the testing requirements for coke-oven light oil (coal) (CAS No. 65996–78–3) by removing it from the list of chemicals in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j) for which testing is required (Ref. 1).
EPA is publishing this amendment without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non–controversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment as this action revokes testing for which new information has been provided to EPA which indicates that, at the time EPA finalized the HPV test rule, potential worker exposure to coke–oven light oil (coal) did not constitute “substantial human exposure” under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B). Despite the revocation of the testing requirements, much of the data may be made available for coke-oven light oil (coal) because COETF, acting on behalf of ACCCI and the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), has informed EPA that it is prepared to assist EPA in assembling a summary of existing data on coke-oven light oil (coal), after the test rule requirements for coke-oven light oil (coal) are revoked.
This amendment is effective February 6, 2007 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment or a written request for an opportunity to present oral comments by January 8, 2007. If EPA receives timely adverse comment or a request for an opportunity to present oral comments on the amendment in this direct final rule, the Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the
In the economic analysis conducted for the HPV test rule, the Agency
Upon the effective date of the revocation of the TSCA section 4 test rule for coke-oven light oil (coal), persons who export or intend to export coke-oven light oil (coal) are no longer subject to the TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements to the extent that they were triggered by the testing requirements being revoked by this action. For all of the other chemicals listed as subject to the requirements of the HPV test rule (Ref. 1), the TSCA section 12(b) export notification requirements remain in effect.
1. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Final Rule.
2. NIOSH. National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES). Available on line at:
3. NIOSH. NOES. Estimated number of employees potentially exposed to light oil by occupation within 2-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). 1981–1983.
4. EPA. Response to Public Comments. Prepared by Chemical Information and Testing Branch (CITB), OPPT. May 31, 2005.
5. ACCCI. Comments on EPA's Proposed Test Rule for Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals submitted to the TSCA Public Docket Office, EPA. April 25, 2001.
6. EPA. Contact report of phone conversation between Greg Schweer, Chief, CITB, Chemical Control Division (CCD) and Randy Johnson, NIOSH. April 25, 2006.
7. ACCCI. Letter from Bruce A. Steiner to Charles Auer, OPPT, EPA. Coke-Oven Light Oil. June 16, 2006.
8. Marathon Petroleum Company LLC. Letter from Harold Rinehart to Charles Auer, OPPT, EPA. June 1, 2006.
9. Marathon Petroleum. E-mail from Harold E. Rinehart to Charles Auer, EPA. Coke-Oven Light Oil Clarification. August 29, 2006.
10. Citgo Petroleum Corporation. Letter from Glenn C. Rabinak to Charles Auer, EPA. July 10, 2006.
11. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final Section 4 Test Rule for High Production Volume Chemicals. Prepared by Lynne Blake-Hedges, EETD, OPPT. October 28, 2005.
12. EPA. E-mail from Lynne Blake-Hedges to Catherine Roman. Dropping coke-oven light oil (coal) from HPV rule and revised economic analysis conclusions. June 15, 2006.
This direct final rule implements changes to 40 CFR 799.5085 resulting in eliminating a burden and reducing cost. Because this direct final rule does not impose any new requirements, it is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, entitled
This direct final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Because this direct final rule eliminates reporting requirements, the Agency certifies pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104–4).
This direct final rule has no Federalism implications, because it will not have substantial direct effects on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
This direct final rule has no tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, nor on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
Because this action does not involve any technical standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.