[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 922-932]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28693]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 751

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080; FRL 10018-91]
RIN 2070-AK61

Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD); Regulation of Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a rule
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address its
obligations under TSCA for hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) (CASRN 87-68-3),
which EPA has determined meets the requirements for expedited action
under TSCA. This final rule prohibits all manufacturing (including
import), processing, and distribution in commerce of HCBD and HCBD-
containing products or articles, recognizing that there is
unintentional production of HCBD as a byproduct during the production
of chlorinated solvents, and that results in distribution in commerce
of a very limited subset of that byproduct for burning as a waste fuel.
These requirements will impact the amount of HCBD that will be
manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used or disposed,
thus reducing the exposures to humans and the environment from those
activities prohibited under this final rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 5, 2021. For purposes of
judicial review and 40 CFR 23.5, this rule shall be promulgated at 1
p.m. eastern standard time on January 21, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080, 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.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency, the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Victoria Ellenbogen, Existing
Chemicals Risk Management Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, (7404T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
(including import), process, distribute in commerce, or use
hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) and HCBD-containing products or articles.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing (NAICS
Code 324191);
     Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS Code
325180);
     All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS Code
325199);
     Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing (NAICS Code
325211);

     All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing (NAICS Code 325998);
     All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing (NAICS Code
326199);
     All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS Code
326299);
     Cement Manufacturing (NAICS Code 327310);
     Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal (NAICS Code
562211);
     Hazardous Waste Collection (562112);
     Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators (NAICS Code
562213);
     Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
(NAICS Code 424690);
     Crude Petroleum Extraction (NAICS Code 211120);
     Facilities Support Services (NAICS Code 561210);
     All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation
Manufacturing (NAICS Code 325998).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the technical information
contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(h) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., directs EPA to issue
a final rule under TSCA section 6(a) on certain persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemical substances. HCBD (CASRN 87-
68-3), which is produced only as a byproduct in the production of
chlorinated solvents, is one such chemical substance. More
specifically, EPA must take action on those chemical substances
identified in the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical
Assessments (Ref. 1) that, among other factors, EPA has a reasonable
basis to conclude are toxic and that with respect to persistence and
bioaccumulation score high for one and either high or moderate for the
other, pursuant to the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document.
(Ref. 2) TSCA section 6(h) directs EPA to take expedited action on the
substance to reduce exposure to the substance, including to exposure to
the substance as an impurity or byproduct, to the extent practicable.
This final rule is final agency action for purposes of judicial review
under TSCA section 19(a).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA published a proposed rule on July 29, 2019 to address the five
PBT chemicals EPA identified pursuant to TSCA section 6(h) (84 FR
36728; FRL-9995-76). After publication of the proposed rule, EPA
determined to address each of the five PBT chemicals in separate final
actions. This final rule prohibits the manufacturing (including
import), processing, and distribution in commerce of HCBD and HCBD-
containing products or articles after March 8, 2021, except for the
unintentional production of HCBD as a byproduct during the production
of chlorinated solvents and the processing and distribution of the
byproduct for burning as a waste fuel. In addition, after March 8,
2021, manufacturers, processors and distributors of HCBD or HCBD-
containing products or articles must maintain, for three years from the
date the record is generated, ordinary business records related to
compliance with the prohibitions and restrictions. This provision is
not intended to require subject companies to retain records in addition
to those specified herein, except as needed pursuant to normal business
operations.

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    EPA is issuing this final rule to fulfill EPA's obligations under
TSCA section 6(h) to take timely regulatory action on PBT chemicals,
including HCBD, ``to address the risks of injury to health or the
environment that the Administrator determines are presented by the
chemical substance and to reduce exposure to the substance to the
extent practicable.'' Consistent with that requirement, the Agency is
finalizing this rule to reduce exposures to HCBD that could occur from
prohibited activities to the extent practicable.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of these restrictions and
prohibitions and the associated reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. The ``Economic Analysis for Regulation of
Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) Under TSCA Section 6(h)'' (Economic
Analysis) (Ref. 3), is available in the docket and is briefly
summarized here.
     Benefits. EPA was not able to quantify the benefits of
reducing the potential for human and environmental exposures to HCBD.
As discussed in more detail in Unit II., EPA did not perform a risk
evaluation for HCBD, nor did EPA develop quantitative risk estimates.
Therefore, the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3) qualitatively discusses the
benefits of reducing the potential for exposure under the final rule
for HCBD.
     Costs. Total quantified annualized social costs for this
final rule are approximately $77,900 (at both 3% and 7% discount
rates). Potential unquantified costs and are those associated with
testing, reformulation, importation of articles, foregone profits, and
indirect costs. The limited data available for those costs prevents EPA
from constructing a quantitative assessment.
     Small entity impacts. This final rule will impact
approximately one small entity; which is not expected to incur impacts
of 1% or greater of their revenue.
     Environmental Justice. This final rule will increase the
level of protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
population or children.
     Effects on State, local, and Tribal governments. This
final rule will not have any significant or unique effects on small
governments, or federalism or tribal implications.

F. Children's Environmental Health

    Executive Order 13045 applies if the regulatory action is
economically significant and concerns an environmental health risk or
safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. While the
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, the Agency's Policy on
Evaluating Health Risks to Children (https://www.epa.gov/children/epas-policy-evaluating-risk-children) is to consider the risks to infants
and children consistently and explicitly during its decision making
process. This final rule will reduce the exposure that could occur from
activities now prohibited under this final rule to HCBD for the general
population and for potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations
such as children. More information can be found in the Exposure and Use
Assessment (Ref. 5).

II. Background

A. History of This Rulemaking

    TSCA section 6(h) requires EPA to take expedited regulatory action
under TSCA section 6(a) for certain PBT chemicals identified in the
2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments (Ref. 1). As
required by the statute, EPA issued a proposed rule to address five PBT
chemicals identified pursuant to TSCA section 6(h) (84 FR 36728, July
29, 2019). The statute required that this be followed by promulgation
of a final rule no later than 18 months after the proposal. Although
EPA proposed regulatory actions on each chemical substance in one
proposal, in response to public comments (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-

0080-0544), (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0553), (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0556),
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0562) requesting these five actions be
separated, EPA is finalizing five separate actions to individually
address each of the PBT chemicals. EPA intends for the five separate
final rules to publish in the same issue of the Federal Register. More
discussion on these comments is in the Response to Comments document
which is available in the docket (Ref. 4). The details of the proposal
for HCBD are described in more detail in Unit II.D.
    Under TSCA section 6(h)(1)(A), the chemical substances subject to
expedited action are those that:
     EPA has a reasonable basis to conclude are toxic and that
with respect to persistence and bioaccumulation score high for one and
either high or moderate for the other, pursuant to the 2012 TSCA Work
Plan Chemicals: Methods Document or a successor scoring system;
     Are not a metal or a metal compound; and
     Are chemical substances for which EPA has not completed a
TSCA Work Plan Problem Formulation, initiated a review under TSCA
section 5, or entered into a consent agreement under TSCA section 4,
prior to June 22, 2016, the date that TSCA was amended by the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 114-182,
130 Stat. 448).
    In addition, in order for a chemical substance to be subject to
expedited action, TSCA section 6(h)(1)(B) states that EPA must find
that exposure to the chemical substance under the conditions of use is
likely to the general population or to a potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulation identified by the Administrator (such as
infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly), or to the
environment on the basis of an exposure and use assessment conducted by
the Administrator. TSCA sections 6(h)(2) further provides that the
Administrator shall not be required to conduct risk evaluations on
chemical substances that are subject to TSCA section 6(h)(1).
    Based on the criteria set forth in TSCA section 6(h), EPA proposed
to determine that five chemical substances meet the TSCA section
6(h)(1)(A) criteria for expedited action, and HCBD is one of these five
chemical substances. In addition, in accordance with the statutory
requirements to demonstrate that exposure to the chemical substance is
likely under the conditions of use, EPA conducted an Exposure and Use
Assessment for HCBD. As described in the proposed rule, EPA conducted a
literature review with respect to HCBD to identify, screen, extract,
and evaluate the reasonably available information on use and exposures.
This information is in the document entitled ``Exposure and Use
Assessment of Five Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals''
(Ref. 5). Based on this review, which was subject to peer review and
public comment, EPA proposed to find that exposure to HCBD is likely,
based on information detailed in the Exposure and Use Assessment.

B. Other Provisions of TSCA Section 6

    1. EPA's approach for implementing TSCA section 6(h)(4).
    TSCA section 6(h)(4) requires EPA to issue a final TSCA section
6(a) rule to ``address the risks of injury to health or the environment
that the Administrator determines are presented by the chemical
substance and reduce exposure to the substance to the extent
practicable.'' EPA reads this text to require action on the chemical,
not specific conditions of use.
    The approach EPA takes is consistent with the language of TSCA
section 6(h)(4) and its distinct differences from other provisions of
TSCA section 6 for chemicals that are the subject of required risk
evaluations. First, the term ``condition of use'' is only used in TSCA
section 6(h) in the context of the TSCA section 6(h)(1)(B) finding
relating to likely exposures under ``conditions of use'' to ``the
general population or to a potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulation . . . or the environment.'' In contrast to the risk
evaluation process under TSCA section 6(b), this TSCA section
6(h)(1)(B) threshold criterion is triggered only through an Exposure
and Use Assessment regarding the likelihood of exposure and does not
require identification of every condition of use. As a result, EPA
collected all the information it could on the use of each chemical
substance, without regard to whether any chemical activity would be
characterized as ``known, intended or reasonably foreseen to be
manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed
of,'' and from that information created use profiles and then an
Exposure and Use Assessment (Ref. 4) to make the TSCA section
6(h)(1)(B) finding for at least one or more ``condition of use''
activities where some exposure is likely. EPA did not attempt to
precisely classify all activities for each chemical substance as a
``condition of use'' and thus did not attempt to make a TSCA section
6(h)(1)(B) finding for all chemical activities summarized in the
Exposure and Use Assessment (Ref. 4). Second, TSCA section 6 generally
requires a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b) for chemicals based
on the identified conditions of use. However, pursuant to TSCA section
6(h)(2), for chemical substances that meet the criteria of TSCA section
6(h)(1), a risk evaluation is neither required nor contemplated to be
conducted for EPA to meet its obligations under TSCA section 6(h)(4).
Rather, as noted in Unit II.B.3., if a previously prepared TSCA risk
assessment exists, EPA would have authority to use that risk assessment
to ``address risks'' under TSCA section 6(h)(4), but even that risk
assessment would not necessarily be focused on whether an activity is
``known, intended or reasonably foreseen,'' as those terms were not
used in TSCA prior to the 2016 amendments and a preexisting assessment
of risks would have had no reason to use such terminology or make such
judgments. It is for this reason EPA believes that the TSCA section
6(h)(4) ``address risk'' standard refers to the risks the Administrator
determines ``are presented by the chemical substance'' and makes no
reference to ``conditions of use.'' Congress did not contemplate or
require a risk evaluation identifying the conditions of use as defined
under TSCA section 3(4). The kind of analysis required to identify and
evaluate the conditions of use for a chemical substance is only
contemplated in the context of a TSCA section 6(b) risk evaluation, not
in the context of an expedited rulemaking to address PBT chemicals.
Similarly, the TSCA amendments require EPA to ``reduce exposure to the
substance to the extent practicable,'' without reference to whether the
exposure is found ``likely'' pursuant to TSCA section 6(h)(1)(B).
    Taking all of this into account, EPA reads its TSCA section 6(h)(4)
obligation to apply to the chemical substance generally, thus requiring
EPA to address risks and reduce exposures to the chemical substance
without focusing on whether the measure taken is specific to an
activity that might be characterized as a ``condition of use'' as that
term is defined in TSCA section 3(4) and interpreted by EPA in the Risk
Evaluation Rule, 82 FR 33726 (July 20, 2017). This approach ensures
that any activity involving a TSCA section 6(h) PBT chemical, past,
present or future, is addressed by the regulatory approach taken. Thus,
under this final rule, manufacturing, processing, and distribution in
commerce activities that are not specifically excluded are prohibited.
The specified excluded activities are those which EPA determined were
not appropriate to

regulate under the TSCA section 6(h)(4) standard. Consistently, based
on the Exposure and Use Assessment, activities associated with HCBD
that are no longer occurring are addressed by this rule and thus the
prohibitions adopted in this rule reduce the exposures that will result
with resumption of past activities or the initiation of similar or
other activities in the future. Therefore, EPA has determined that
prohibiting these activities will reduce exposures to the extent
practicable. The approach taken for this final rule is limited to
implementation of TSCA section 6(h) and is not relevant to any other
action under TSCA section 6 or other TSCA statutory actions.
    2. EPA's interpretation of ``practicable.''
    The term ``practicable'' is not defined in TSCA. EPA interprets
this requirement as generally directing the Agency to consider such
factors as achievability, feasibility, workability, and reasonableness.
In addition, EPA's approach to determining whether particular
prohibitions or restrictions are practicable is informed in part by
certain other provisions in TSCA section 6, such as TSCA section
6(c)(2)(A), which requires the Administrator to consider health
effects, exposure, and environmental effects of the chemical substance;
benefits of the chemical substance; and the reasonably ascertainable
economic consequences of the rule. In addition, pursuant to TSCA
section 6(c)(2)(B), in selecting the appropriate TSCA section 6(a)
regulatory approach, the Administrator is directed to ``factor in, to
the extent practicable'' those same considerations.
    EPA received comments on the proposed rule regarding this
interpretation of ``practicable.'' EPA has reviewed these comments and
believes the interpretation described previously within this Unit is
consistent with the intent of TSCA and has not changed that
interpretation. EPA's interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term
receives deference. More discussion on these comments is in the
Response to Comments document for this rulemaking (Ref. 4).
    3. EPA did not conduct a risk evaluation or assessment.
    As EPA explained in the proposed rule, EPA does not interpret the
``address risk'' language to require EPA to determine, through a risk
assessment or risk evaluation, whether risks are presented. EPA
believes this reading gives the Administrator the flexibility Congress
intended for issuance of expedited rules for PBTs and is consistent
with TSCA section 6(h)(2), which makes clear a risk evaluation is not
required to support this rulemaking.
    EPA received comments on the proposed rule regarding its
interpretation of TSCA section 6(h)(4) and regarding EPA's lack of risk
assessment or risk evaluation of HCBD. A number of commenters asserted
that while EPA was not compelled to conduct a risk evaluation, EPA
should have conducted a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b)
regardless. The rationales provided by the commenters for such a risk
assessment or risk evaluation included that one was needed for EPA to
fully quantify the benefits to support this rulemaking, and that
without a risk evaluation, EPA would not be able to determine the
benefits, risks, and cost effectiveness of the rule in a meaningful
way. As described by the commenters, EPA would therefore not be able to
meet the TSCA section 6(c)(2) requirement for a statement of these
considerations. Regarding the contradiction between the mandate in TSCA
section 6(h) to expeditiously issue a rulemaking and the time needed to
conduct a risk evaluation, some commenters stated that EPA would have
had enough time to conduct a risk evaluation and issue a proposed rule
by the statutory deadline.
    EPA disagrees with the commenters' interpretation of EPA's
obligations with respect to chemicals subject to TSCA section 6(h)(4).
TSCA section 6(h)(4) provides that EPA shall: (1) ``Address the risks
of injury to health or the environment that the Administrator
determines are presented by the chemical substance'' and (2) ``reduce
exposure to the substance to the extent practicable.'' With respect to
the first requirement, that standard is distinct from the
``unreasonable risk'' standard for all other chemicals for which a
section 6(a) rule might be issued. EPA does not believe the TSCA
section 6(h) contemplates a new evaluation of any kind, given
evaluations to determine risks are now addressed through the TSCA
section 6(b) risk evaluation process and TSCA section 6(h)(2)
explicitly provides that no risk evaluation is required. Moreover, it
would have been impossible to prepare a meaningful evaluation under
TSCA and subsequently develop a proposed rule in the time contemplated
for issuance of a proposed rule under TSCA section 6(h)(1). Although
EPA does not believe the statute contemplates a new evaluation of any
kind for these reasons, EPA reviewed the hazard and exposure
information on the five PBT chemicals EPA had compiled. However, while
this information appropriately addresses the criteria of TSCA section
6(h)(1)(A) and (B), it did not provide a basis for EPA to develop
sufficient and scientifically robust and representative risk estimates
to evaluate whether or not any of the chemicals present an identifiable
risk of injury to health or the environment.
    Rather than suggesting a new assessment is required, EPA reads the
``address risk'' language in TSCA section 6(h)(4) to contemplate
reliance on an existing EPA assessment under TSCA, similar to a risk
assessment that may be permissibly used under TSCA section 26(l)(4) to
regulate the chemical under TSCA section 6(a). This interpretation
gives meaning to the ``address risk'' phrase, without compelling an
evaluation contrary to TSCA section 6(h)(2) and would allow use of an
existing determination, or development of a new determination based on
such an existing risk assessment, in the timeframe contemplated for
issuance of a proposed rule under TSCA section 6(h). However, there
were no existing EPA assessments of risk for any of the PBT chemicals.
Thus, because EPA had no existing EPA risk assessments or
determinations of risk, the regulatory measures addressed in this final
rule focus on reducing exposures ``to the extent practicable.''
    In sum, because neither the statute nor the legislative history
suggests that a new evaluation is compelled to identify and thereby
provide a basis for the Agency to ``address risks'' and one could not
be done prior to preparation and timely issuance of a proposed rule,
and no existing TSCA risk assessment exists for any of the chemicals,
EPA has made no risk determination finding for any of the PBT
chemicals. Instead, EPA implements the requirement of TSCA section
6(h)(4) by reducing exposures of each PBT chemical ``to the extent
practicable.''
    For similar reasons, EPA does not believe that TSCA section 6(c)(2)
requires a quantification of benefits, much less a specific kind of
quantification. Under TSCA section 6(c)(2)(A)(iv), EPA must consider
and publish a statement, based on reasonably available information, on
the reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule, but
that provision does not require quantification, particularly if
quantification is not possible. EPA has reasonably complied with this
requirement by including a quantification of direct costs and a
qualitative discussion of benefits in each of the preambles to the
final rules. EPA was unable to quantify the indirect costs associated
with the rule. Further discussion on these issues raised in the

comments is in the Response to Comment document. (Ref. 4)

C. HCBD Overview, Health Effects, and Exposure

    HCBD is a halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbon that is produced as a
byproduct during the manufacture of chlorinated hydrocarbons,
particularly perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and carbon
tetrachloride (Ref. 6). As described in the proposed rule, the majority
of HCBD that is unintentionally produced as a byproduct is destroyed
via incineration by the manufacturer, which EPA views as being
consistent with the approach taken at the international level under
Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention. The remainder of the HCBD
byproduct is sent off-site for incineration or for burning as a waste
fuel by cement manufacturers in cement kilns (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0738-
0012), an identified source category under Annex C of the Stockholm
Convention. EPA views this burning of such waste as consistent with the
approach taken at the international level under Article 6 of the
Stockholm Convention. EPA has not identified any current intentional
use of HCBD. The destruction and removal efficiency from incineration
of the HCBD byproduct is expected to be significant but not complete,
resulting in potential for air releases from incinerator flue gas and
land releases from disposal of ash and slag. Minor water releases from
equipment cleaning are possible (Ref. 5). According to EPA Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) data, over 9 million lbs of HCBD byproduct were
generated by chemical manufacturers in reporting year 2017, with almost
8.9 million lbs treated for destruction on-site via incineration. TRI
reports show other waste management activities of HCBD byproduct
including 58,000 lbs being treated for destruction off-site, 33,000 lbs
burned for energy recovery off-site, and 2,400 lbs released to air
(Ref. 7). Exposure information for HCBD is further detailed in EPA's
Exposure and Use Assessment (Ref. 5) and discussed in the Response to
Comments (Ref. 4).
    As described in EPA's Environmental and Human Health Hazards of
Five Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals, HCBD is
considered a possible human carcinogen (Ref. 8). Inhalation and oral
animal data for HCBD indicate renal, reproductive, and developmental
effects in rats (Ref. 8). Health effects included renal adenomas and
carcinomas, reduced body weight in adults, and reduced fetal body
weight. Women who are occupationally exposed may transfer HCBD to
infants via breastmilk (Ref. 5).
    HCBD is toxic to aquatic life following acute and chronic exposures
at very low concentrations (Ref. 8). Data show acute toxicity in
aquatic invertebrates, fish and algae, and chronic toxicity in fish. A
single toxicity test was identified for terrestrial organisms, showing
reduced chick survival in quail. The Hazard Summary provides more
information on these hazardous endpoints (Ref. 8). The studies
presented in the document entitled ``Environmental and Human Health
Hazards of Five Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals (Hazard
Summary) (Ref. 8) demonstrate these hazardous endpoints. EPA did not
perform a systematic review or a weight of the scientific evidence
assessment for the hazard characterization of these chemicals. As a
result, this hazard characterization is not definitive or
comprehensive. Other hazard information on these chemicals may exist in
addition to the studies summarized in the Hazard Summary that could
alter the hazard characterization.
    In the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments
(Ref. 1), HCBD scored high (3) for hazard (possible human carcinogen);
moderate (2) for exposure (based on TRI data); and high (3) for
persistence and bioaccumulation (based on high environmental
persistence and high bioaccumulation potential). The overall screening
score for HCBD was high (8) (Ref. 1).
    In consideration of the production, use, and destruction of HCBD,
the environmental and human health hazards of HCBD, and the public
comments on the proposed rule that are further discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA determines that HCBD meets the TSCA section 6(h)(1)(A)
criteria. EPA determines in accordance with TSCA section 6(h)(1)(B)
that, based on the Exposure and Use Assessment and the reasonably
available information, exposure to HCBD under the conditions of use is
likely to the general population, to a potentially exposed or
susceptible subpopulation, or to the environment. EPA's determination
is based on the opportunities for exposure throughout the lifecycle of
HCBD, including the potential for exposures, and EPA did not receive
any significant comments or information to call the exposure finding
into question.

D. EPA's Proposed Rule Under TSCA Section 6(h) for HCBD

    EPA did not propose to regulate HCBD under TSCA section 6(h)
because of the limited releases and given that the potential for
exposure from uses of this chemical is already addressed by actions
taken under other statutes and EPA determined further measures would
not be practicable. As discussed in the proposed rule, HCBD is
regulated under various statutes implemented by the Federal Government,
such as the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). According to TRI data, most of the HCBD manufactured in the
United States is subsequently destroyed via incineration.
    EPA, however, proposed an alternative regulatory action of
prohibiting the manufacture of HCBD, which is further discussed in the
proposed rule.

E. Public Comments and Other Public Input

    The proposed rule provided a 60-day public comment period, with a
30-day extension provided. (Ref. 4). The comment period closed on
October 28, 2019. EPA received a total of 48 comments, with three
commenters sending multiple submissions with attached files, for a
total of 58 submissions on the proposal for all the PBT chemicals. This
includes the previous request for a comment period extension (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2019-0080-0526). Two commenters submitted confidential business
information (CBI) or copyrighted documents with information regarding
economic analysis and market trends. Copies of all the non-CBI
documents, or redacted versions without CBI, are available in the
docket for this action.
    In this preamble, EPA has responded to the major comments relevant
to the HCBD final rule. Of the comment submissions, 10 directly
addressed EPA's proposal regarding HCBD. Additional discussion related
to this final action can be found in the Response to Comments document
(Ref. 4).

F. Activities Not Directly Regulated by This Final Rule

    EPA is not regulating all activities or exposures to HCBD in this
rule, even though the Exposure and Use Assessment (Ref. 5) identified
potential for exposures under conditions of use. One such activity is
disposal. EPA generally presumes compliance with federal and state laws
and regulations, including, for example, RCRA and its implementing
regulations and state laws, as well as the CAA, the Clean Water Act,
and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). As described in the proposed
rule, regulations promulgated under the authority of the RCRA govern
the disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. HCBD is listed as a

hazardous constituent under Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 and
Appendix IX of part 264, providing EPA with authority to regulate
wastes containing this chemical, and to address releases from RCRA-
permitted treatment, storage and disposal facilities. HCBD is listed as
a hazardous waste under RCRA in 40 CFR 261.33, Hazard Waste Code U128.
In addition, HCBD is a constituent that may also cause a waste to be
defined as a characteristic hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.24. As a
hazardous waste, HCBD is subject to regulation under 40 CFR parts 262
through 265, 268, and parts 270 and 271. HCBD is also a hazardous
constituent under 40 CFR part 258, Appendix II (Criteria for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills, or MSWLF), which is part of the groundwater
assessment program for corrective action at MSWLFs. Industrial waste
(non-hazardous) landfills and construction/demolition waste landfills
are primarily regulated under state regulatory programs, and in
addition they must meet the criteria set forth in federal regulations
which may include requirements for siting, groundwater monitoring and
corrective action depending upon what types of wastes are accepted.
Disposal by underground injection is regulated under both RCRA and
SDWA.
    In addition, the CAA requires EPA to regulate hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) such as HCBD. CAA section 112 requires that the Agency
establish National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for the control of hazardous air pollutants from both new and
existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the
maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable,
taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emissions
reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements. This level of control is commonly referred to as
maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The CAA also establishes
a minimum control level for MACT standards known as the MACT ``floor.''
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is
defined under the CAA section 112(d)(3) (Ref. 9). The chemical
manufacturers that produce HCBD are in NAICS group 325 and therefore
fall under the NESHAP regulations for miscellaneous organic chemical
manufacturing found at 40 CFR part 63 subpart FFFF. These regulations
require facilities to treat chemicals in their waste streams at high
efficiencies. For example, emissions from process vents must be reduced
by greater than or equal to 99% by weight depending on the chemical in
the waste stream. According to TRI data, chemical manufacturers that
submit reports for HCBD are treating the byproduct via incineration at
greater than 99.99% treatment efficiency with some reporting an
efficiency greater than 99.9999%. Under the CAA, facilities in certain
industries are required to implement a Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR)
program to reduce fugitive air emissions. Included in those industries
are synthetic organic chemical manufacturers that produce the HCBD
byproduct. The LDAR program requires these facilities to monitor
components such as pumps, valves, connectors and compressors for leaks.
When leaks are detected, the facility is required to repair or replace
the leaking component.
    In view of these comprehensive, stringent programs for addressing
disposal and air releases, EPA determined that it is not practicable to
impose additional requirements under TSCA on the disposal and air
releases of the HCBD byproduct.
    In addition, EPA proposed not to use its TSCA section 6(a)
authorities to directly regulate occupational exposures. As explained
in the proposed rule, as a matter of policy, EPA assumes compliance
with federal and state requirements, such as worker protection
standards, unless case-specific facts indicate otherwise. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has not
established a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for HCBD. However, under
section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29
U.S.C. 654(a)(1), each employer has a legal obligation to furnish to
each of its employees employment and a place of employment that are
free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause
death or serious physical harm. The OSHA Hazard Communication Standard
at 29 CFR 1910.1200 requires chemical manufacturers and importers to
classify the hazards of chemicals they produce or import, and all
employers to provide information to employees about hazardous chemicals
to which they may be exposed under normal conditions of use or in
foreseeable emergencies. The OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1910.134(a)(1)
requires the use of feasible engineering controls to prevent
atmospheric contamination by harmful substances and requires the use of
respirators where effective engineering controls are not feasible. The
OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1910.134(c) details the required respiratory
protection program. The OSHA standard at 29 CFR 1910.132(a) requires
the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) by workers when
necessary due to a chemical hazard; 29 CFR 1910.133 requires the use of
eye and face protection when employees are exposed to hazards including
liquid chemicals; and 29 CFR 1910.138 requires the use of PPE to
protect employees' hands including from skin absorption of harmful
substances. The provisions of 29 CFR 1910.132(d) and (f) address hazard
assessment, PPE selection, and training with respect to PPE required
under 29 CFR 1910.133, 1910.135, 1910.136, 1910.138, and 1910.140. EPA
assumes that employers will require, and workers will use, appropriate
PPE consistent with OSHA standards, taking into account employer-based
assessments, in a manner sufficient to prevent occupational exposures
that are capable of causing injury.
    EPA assumes compliance with other federal requirements, including
OSHA standards and regulations. EPA does not read TSCA section 6(h)(4)
to direct EPA to adopt potentially redundant or conflicting
requirements. Not only would it be difficult to support broadly
applicable and safe additional measures for each specific activity
without a risk evaluation and in the limited time for issuance of this
regulation under TSCA section 6(h), but imposing such measures without
sufficient analysis could inadvertently result in conflicting or
confusing requirements and make it difficult for employers to
understand their obligations. Furthermore, EPA cannot conclude that
broadly imposing specific measures is practicable for all of the varied
workplaces. Rather, where EPA has identified worker exposures and
available substitutes, EPA is finalizing measures to reduce those
exposures. As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA assumes that the
worker protection methods used by employers, including in response to
existing OSHA standards, in addition to the regulatory measures taken
for each chemical, meaningfully reduce the potential for occupational
exposures. Although some commenters agreed with this approach, others
thought that EPA should establish worker protection requirements for
those uses that would be allowed to continue under the final rule.
Information provided to EPA before and during the public comment period
on the proposed rule indicates that employers are using engineering and
process controls and providing appropriate personal protective
equipment (PPE) to their employees consistent with these requirements,
and EPA received no information on HCBD to suggest this is not the
case. Further,

EPA has not conducted a risk evaluation on HCBD or any of the other PBT
chemicals. Without a risk evaluation and given the time allotted for
this rulemaking, EPA cannot identify additional engineering or process
controls or PPE requirements that would be appropriate to each
chemical-specific circumstance. For these reasons, EPA has determined
that it is not practicable to regulate worker exposures in this rule
through additional engineering or process controls or PPE requirements.
    Finally, EPA received comments regarding the use of PBT chemicals
in research and development and laboratory use. Laboratory use is
addressed under newly established 40 CFR 751.401(b) as the
manufacturing, processing, distribution-in-commerce and use of any
chemical substance, or products and articles that contain the chemical
substance, for research and development, as defined in new 40 CFR
751.403. Research and Development is defined in new 40 CFR 751.403 to
mean laboratory and research use only for purposes of scientific
experimentation or analysis, or chemical research on, or analysis of,
the chemical substance, including methods for disposal, but not for
research or analysis for the development of a new product, or
refinement of an existing product that contains the chemical substance.
This will allow, for example, for samples of environmental media
containing PBTs, such as contaminated soil and water, to be collected,
packaged and shipped to a laboratory for analysis. Laboratories also
must obtain reference standards containing PBTs to calibrate their
equipment, otherwise they may not be able to accurately quantify these
chemical substances in samples being analyzed. However, research to
develop new products that use PBTs subject to 40 CFR part 751, subpart
E, or the refinement of existing uses of those chemicals, is not
included in this definition, and those activities remain potentially
subject to the chemical specific provisions in 40 CFR part 751 subpart
E. EPA believes it is not practicable to limit research and development
activity as defined, given the critical importance of this activity to
the detection, quantification and control of these chemical substances.
    More information on the comments received and EPA's responses can
be found in the Response to Comments document (Ref. 4).

III. Provisions of This Final Rule

A. Scope and Applicability

    EPA carefully considered all public comments related to the
proposal. This final rule differs from EPA's proposal by finalizing a
prohibition on the manufacturing (including import), processing, and
distribution in commerce of HCBD, and HCBD-containing products and
articles, except for the unintentional production of HCBD as a
byproduct during the production of chlorinated solvents, and the
limited processing and distribution of HCBD for burning as a waste
fuel. The effective date is 30 days after publication of the final
rule.
    1. Regulating HCBD.
    EPA received comments disagreeing with EPA's proposal not to
regulate HCBD. One commenter stated that EPA must act under TSCA
section 6(h) to include a total phase-out of the chemical (EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2019-0080-0575). Another commenter stated that by not prohibiting uses
of HCBD, EPA's approach allowed ongoing exposures, including to
potentially exposed and susceptible subpopulations, and potential
expansion of uses (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0567). Three commenters noted
that HCBD was listed in the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutant (POPs) which prohibits the intentional manufacture of HCBD
and stated that the manufacture of HCBD should be eliminated (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2019-0080-0570) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0567) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-
0080-0531). EPA received one comment supporting EPA's proposal and
finding that no new risk management measures are required to reduce
exposure of HCBD to the extent practicable (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-
0557).
    In response to comments, EPA is finalizing a prohibition on the
manufacturing, processing, and distribution of HCBD and HCBD-containing
products or articles, recognizing that there is unintentional
production of HCBD as a byproduct during the production of chlorinated
solvents, that results in processing and distribution in commerce of a
very limited subset of that byproduct for burning as a waste fuel.
However, as explained below, EPA disagrees with commenters that a total
ban of HCBD production as a byproduct is practicable. The potential for
exposure from incineration and distribution for incineration of the
byproduct is substantially addressed by actions taken under other
statutes. As discussed in EPA's proposed rule and in Unit II.F., HCBD
is regulated under various statutes implemented by the Federal
Government, such as CAA and RCRA. According to TRI data, most of the
byproduct HCBD manufactured in the United States is subsequently
destroyed via incineration due in large part to the high waste
treatment efficiencies achieved by the chemical manufacturers. Chemical
manufacturers that submit TRI reports for HCBD byproduct are treating
the chemical via incineration at greater than 99.99% treatment
efficiency with some reporting an efficiency greater than 99.9999%.
    Given the known uses and efficiency of the destruction of HCBD
created as a byproduct, EPA is issuing a final rule to prohibit all
manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of HCBD and
products and articles containing HCBD, while recognizing the
continuation of the production of HCBD as a byproduct during the
production of chlorinated solvents, and the resulting processing and
distribution of HCBD for burning as a waste fuel. This final rule
allows the current, highly regulated, unintentional production as a
byproduct and incineration and distribution for incineration of such
byproduct to continue and ensures that other uses do not commence.
    2. HCBD uses.
    Multiple commenters submitted comments to EPA discussing HCBD uses.
Commenters pointed out that EPA's website had previously identified
uses of HCBD as a solvent in rubber manufacturing and in hydraulic,
heat transfer, or transformer fluid (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0575) (EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0546). Commenters further noted that EPA's
Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution,
Use, and Disposal for HCBD document identified numerous uses for HCBD
beyond its production as a byproduct (Ref. 4) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-
0575) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0546). According to one commenter, EPA had
not addressed these activities in its proposed rule, much less
established that it would be impracticable to ban these uses to reduce
exposure. This commenter stated that EPA should ban these past uses
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0546). Another commenter felt that EPA's
proposed rule neglected to discuss or mention legacy uses and legacy
disposals of PBT chemicals, and other commenters stated that HCBD has
been listed in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention in order to avoid
new possible future uses of HCBD (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0541) (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2019-0080-0531) (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0575).
    In addition, multiple commenters expressed concerns about EPA's
conclusion that ``a prohibition on the manufacture of HCBD would
effectively prohibit the manufacture of the three

solvents'' (trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, and
perchloroethylene) and therefore that a ban was impracticable. The
commenters made recommendations for alternative regulatory approaches.
One commenter stated that EPA had failed to consider banning HCBD,
except as a byproduct to the manufacture of other chemicals, to reduce
exposure to the extent practicable (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0546). The
commenter further stated that EPA could have considered banning all
manufacture except as a byproduct of manufacture of perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride, to ensure that HCBD is not
manufactured for a purpose other than its incidental production as a
byproduct (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0546).
    EPA appreciates the comments provided regarding HCBD. EPA's
Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution,
Use, and Disposal for HCBD document was a preliminary summary of
available information on uses, past and present, of HCBD (Ref. 4). EPA
requested comment on the document but did not receive confirmation of
ongoing uses other than those discussed in the proposed rule. EPA has
not identified any uses of HCBD. The only activity involving HCBD is
burning as a waste fuel as a result of unintentional HCBD production as
a byproduct.
    However, recognizing commenters' concern about prohibiting HCBD
uses that are not currently ongoing to avoid, for example, the return
of past uses, EPA is finalizing a change from the proposal and is
prohibiting all manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce
of HCBD and products and articles containing HCBD, but allowing the
continuation of the unintentional production of HCBD as a byproduct
during the production of chlorinated solvents and the resulting
processing and distribution of HCBD for burning as a waste fuel. This
approach ensures that the types of allowable activities involving HCBD
are severely limited by precluding the manufacture, processing, or
distribution of HCBD for a purpose other than its incidental and
unintentional production as a byproduct and allows burning of that
byproduct as a waste fuel. Any other activity involving HCBD is
prohibited by the final rule, and thus the final requirements are
consistent with restrictions on the intentional production and use of
HCBD under Annex A of the Stockholm Convention. Moreover, the highly
regulated burning of the byproduct as a waste fuel is also consistent
with Article 6 of the same Convention. Thus, the final rule
requirements reduce the exposures to humans and the environment that
could occur with any activity involving HCBD not directly related to
its manufacture as a byproduct or burning as a waste fuel.
    3. Chlorinated Solvents Resulting in HCBD as a Byproduct.
    EPA received comments regarding the chlorinated solvents that
unintentionally produce HCBD as a byproduct. One commenter recommended
that EPA consider whether viable alternative synthetic routes exist
that do not result in such production (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0541). One
commenter stated that EPA should solicit information, regarding whether
HCBD-free production methods for chlorinated solvents exist from
industry before concluding that a ban on HCBD would entail a ban on
chlorinated solvents (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0551). Another commenter
stated that EPA must act under section 6(h) to include a total phase-
out of the chemical and any processes that lead to creation of HCBD as
a byproduct (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0575). Others requested EPA require
best available techniques and environmental practices to control
emissions and releases from sources of HCBD, and suggested EPA develop
a plan to eliminate HCBD to the extent practicable through alternative
chlorinated solvent manufacturing (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080-0567).
    EPA appreciates the comments regarding alternatives and actions to
be taken on chlorinated hydrocarbons, particularly perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride, that unintentionally
create HCBD as a byproduct. EPA is not aware of alternative methods for
the production of chlorinated solvents that do not unintentionally
produce HCBD as a byproduct and did not receive additional information
in the comments on the proposal. As discussed in the proposed rule,
prohibiting all manufacture of HCBD would effectively preclude the
manufacture of trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and
perchloroethylene and EPA does not believe precluding manufacture of
these solvents to reduce the exposure to the HCBD byproduct is
practicable at this time. EPA is not addressing these three solvents
during this TSCA section 6(h) rule making, which applies solely to PBT
chemicals. Additionally, the solvents are the subject of the risk
evaluation process pursuant to TSCA section 6(b). Where unreasonable
risks are identified as part of those risk evaluations, EPA is required
to take action under TSCA section 6(a) to address unreasonable risk. In
addition, these chlorinated solvents are widely used in dry cleaning,
metal degreasing, and other industries. To broadly assess the economic
impact of a prohibition of the manufacture of these three chemicals,
EPA estimated the potential market value loss by multiplying the
national production volume of each of these chemicals by an average
price per pound. This resulted in an estimated impact $213 million to
$541 million (average $368 million) worth of production (see the
Economic Analysis for the proposed rule for details on this estimation)
(Ref. 10). Therefore, EPA's final rule allows the continuation of the
unintentional production of HCBD as a byproduct during the production
of chlorinated solvents and processing and distribution of the HCBD
byproduct for burning as a waste fuel, and prohibits all other
manufacturing, processing, and distribution in commerce of HCBD and
products and articles containing HCBD.
    4. Recordkeeping.
    In addition, EPA is requiring that all persons who manufacture,
process, or distribute in commerce HCBD and HCBD-containing products or
articles maintain ordinary business records related to compliance with
the prohibitions and restrictions, such as invoices and bills-of-
lading. EPA revised this language slightly from the proposal to improve
clarity. These records will have to be maintained for a period of three
years from the date the record is generated, beginning on March 8,
2021.

B. TSCA Section 6(c)(2) Considerations

    1. Health effects, exposure, and environmental effects.
    HCBD is toxic to aquatic invertebrates, fish, and birds. Data
indicate the potential for renal, liver, and developmental effects in
mammals. HCBD has been identified as a possible human carcinogen. The
studies presented in the Hazard Summary (Ref. 8) demonstrate these
hazardous endpoints. These hazard statements are not based on a
systematic review of the available literature and information may exist
that could refine the hazard characterization. Additional information
about HCBD health effects, use, and exposure is in Unit II.C. and
further detailed in the Hazard Summary (Ref. 8). Information on use and
exposures is also in Unit II.C. and is further detailed in EPA's
Exposure and Use Assessment (Ref. 5, Ref. 8).
    2. The benefits of the chemical substance or mixture for various
uses.
    HCBD is unintentionally manufactured as a waste byproduct by
chemical manufacturers. The majority of

what is manufactured is destroyed via incineration by the manufacturer.
A small percentage of the HCBD is sent off-site for burning as a waste
fuel by cement manufacturers.
    3. The reasonably ascertainable economic consequences of the rule.
    a. Overview of cost methodology.
    EPA has evaluated the potential costs of the final action for HCBD.
Costs of the final rule were estimated based on the assumption that
under regulatory limitations on HCBD, processors that use HCBD in their
products would switch to available alternative chemicals to manufacture
the product, or to products that do not contain HCBD. Costs for rule
familiarization and recordkeeping were estimated based on burdens
estimated for other similar rulemakings. Costs were annualized over a
25-year period. Other potential costs include, but are not limited to,
those associated with testing, reformulation, imported articles, and
some portion of potential revenue loss. However, these costs are
discussed only qualitatively, due to lack of data availability to
estimate quantified costs. More details of this analysis are presented
in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3).
    b. Estimated costs of this final rule.
    Total quantified annualized industry costs for the final rule is
$354. Total annualized Agency costs associated with implementation of
the final rule were based on EPA's best judgment and experience with
other similar rules. For the final regulatory action, EPA estimates it
will require 0.5 FTE at $77,576 per year (Ref. 3).
    Total quantified annualized social costs for the final rule are
estimated to be $77,930 (at both 3% and 7% discount rates annualized
over 25 years). As described earlier in Unit III.B.3, potential costs
such as testing, reformulation, and imported articles, could not be
quantified due to lack of data availability to estimate quantified
costs. These costs are discussed qualitatively in the Economic Analysis
(Ref. 3).
    c. Benefits.
    As discussed in Unit II., although EPA reviewed hazard and exposure
information for the PBT chemicals, this information did not provide a
basis for EPA to develop scientifically robust and representative risk
estimates to evaluate whether or not any of the chemicals present a
risk of injury to health or the environment. Benefits were not
quantified due to the lack of risk estimates. A qualitative discussion
of the potential benefits associated with the final action for HCBD is
provided. HCBD is persistent, bioaccumulative, and a possible human
carcinogen. It is not intentionally manufactured in the United States.
Since EPA is effectively excluding from prohibition all current
activities involving HCBD as a byproduct, no benefits to human health
or the environment are expected; the benefit is the prevention of
individuals from being occupationally exposed to HCBD via the
inhalation and dermal routes in the future. The toxicity of potential
substitutes for HCBD has not been assessed at this time.
    d. Cost effectiveness, and effect on national economy, small
business, and technological innovation.
    With respect to the cost effectiveness of the final regulatory
action and the primary alternative regulatory action, EPA is unable to
perform a traditional cost-effectiveness analysis of the actions and
alternatives for the PBT chemicals. As discussed in the proposed rule,
the cost effectiveness of a policy option would properly be calculated
by dividing the annualized costs of the option by a final outcome, such
as cancer cases avoided, or to intermediate outputs such as tons of
emissions of a pollutant curtailed. Without the supporting analyses for
a risk determination, EPA is unable to calculate either a health-based
or environment-based denominator. Thus, EPA is unable to perform a
quantitative cost-effectiveness analysis of the final and alternative
regulatory actions. However, by evaluating the practicability of the
final and alternative regulatory actions, EPA believes that it has
considered elements related to the cost effectiveness of the actions,
including the cost and the effect on exposure to the PBT chemicals of
the final and alternative regulatory actions.
    EPA considered the anticipated effect of this rule on the national
economy and concluded that this rule is highly unlikely to have any
measurable effect on the national economy (Ref. 3). EPA analyzed the
expected impacts on small business and found that no small entities are
expected to experience impacts of more than 1% of revenues (Ref. 3).
Finally, EPA has determined that this rule is unlikely to have
significant impacts on technological innovation.
    4. Consideration of alternatives.
    EPA has not identified any uses of HCBD. Therefore, chemical
alternatives were not considered.

C. TSCA Section 26(h) Considerations

    In accordance with TSCA section 26(h) and taking into account the
requirements of TSCA section 6(h), EPA has used scientific information,
technical procedures, measures, and methodologies that are fit for
purpose and consistent with the best available science. For example,
EPA based its determination that human and environmental exposures to
the HCBD byproduct are likely in the Exposure and Use Assessment (Ref.
5) discussed in Unit II.A.2, which underwent a peer review and public
comment process, as well as using best available science and methods
sufficient to make that determination. The extent to which the various
information, procedures, measures, and methodologies, as applicable,
used in EPA's decision making have been subject to independent
verification or peer review is adequate to justify their use,
collectively, in the record for this final rule. Additional information
on the peer review and public comment process, such as the peer review
plan, the peer review report, and the Agency's response to comments,
are in the public docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080). In
addition, in accordance with TSCA section 26(i), and taking into
account the requirements of TSCA section 6(h), EPA has made scientific
decisions based on the weight of the scientific evidence.

IV. References

    The following is a list 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. All
records in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080 are part of the record for this
rulemaking. For assistance in locating these other documents, please
consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

    1. EPA. TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments: 2014 Update.
October 2014. https://www.epa.gov/assessingand-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tsca-work-plan-chemical-ssessments-2014-update. Accessed
March 1, 2019.
    2. EPA. TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document. February
2012. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/work_plan_methods_document_web_final.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019.
    3. EPA. Economic Analysis for Regulation of Hexachlorobutadiene
(HCBD) Under TSCA Section 6(h). December 2020.
    4. EPA. Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h). Response to Public Comments.
December 2020. (Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0080).

    5. EPA. Exposure and Use Assessment of Five Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals. December 2020.
    6. United Nations Environment Program Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (2012). Risk profile on
hexachlorobutadiene. Report of the Persistent Organic Pollutants
Review Committee on the work of its eighth meeting.
    7. EPA. Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution, Use, and Disposal: Hexachlorobutadiene. August 2017.
(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0738-0004).
    8. EPA. Environmental and Human Health Hazards of Five
Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals. December 2020.
    9. EPA. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing; Final
Rule. Federal Register (63 FR 63852, Nov. 10, 2003) (FRL-7551-3)
    10. EPA. Economic Analysis for Proposed Regulation of
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals under TSCA section
6(h). June 2019.
    11. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Re: Notification of
Consultation and Coordination on a Rulemaking Under the Toxic
Substances Control Act: Regulation of Persistent, Bioaccumulative,
and Toxic Chemicals Under TSCA Section 6(h). September 25, 2018.
    12. Harper, Barbara and Ranco, Darren, in collaboration with the
Maine Tribes. Wabanaki Traditional Cultural Lifeways Exposure
Scenario. July 9, 2009.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for this action as required by
section 6(a)(3)(E) of Executive Order 12866.
    EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. A copy of this economic analysis,
Economic Analysis for Final Regulation of Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD)
Under TSCA Section 6(h) (Ref. 3) is in the docket and is briefly
summarized in Unit III.B.3.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered a regulatory action under Executive Order
13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). Details on the estimated costs of
this final rule can be found in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3), which
is briefly summarized in Unit III.B.3.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared
has been assigned EPA ICR number 2599.02 and OMB Control No. 2070-0213.
A copy of the ICR is available in the docket for this rule, and it is
briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
paperwork requirements of this final rule include manufacturers
(including importers), processors, and distributors of HCBD.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 751.413).
    Estimated number of respondents: 9.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 4.5 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $354 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    The ICR submitted to OMB for approval under OMB Control No. 2070-
0213 addresses the paperwork requirements of this final rule as well as
the paperwork requirements of the other final rules addressing PBT
chemicals under TSCA section 6(h) promulgated by EPA elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. For the combined paperwork requirements
of all five final rules, EPA estimates a total of 102 respondents, 88
burden hours (per year), and a cost of approximately $6,920 (per year)
that includes no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal
Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule and the other final rules
addressing PBT chemicals under TSCA section 6(h).

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. One small business, an importer, is expected to be
affected by the rule familiarization and recordkeeping requirements of
the final rule. The one small entity assessed is not expected to incur
impacts of 1% (or greater) of their revenue. Because this entity's
impacts are less than 1%, EPA presumes no significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Details of this analysis are
presented in the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The final rule is
not expected to result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (when adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202, 203, or 205 of UMRA. The total quantified annualized
social costs for this final rule are approximately $77,900 (at both 3%
and 7% discount rate), which does not exceed the inflation-adjusted
unfunded mandate threshold of $160 million.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on the 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 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian

tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with tribal officials during the
development of this action. EPA consulted with representatives of
Tribes via teleconference on August 31, 2018, and September 6, 2018,
concerning the prospective regulation of the five PBT chemicals under
TSCA section 6(h).
    Tribal members were encouraged to provide additional comments after
the teleconferences. EPA received two comments from the Keweenaw Bay
Indian Community and Maine Tribes (Refs. 11 and 12).

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. While the action
is not subject to Executive Order 13045, the Agency considered the
risks to infants and children under EPA's Policy on Evaluating Health
Risks to Children. EPA did not perform a risk assessment or risk
evaluation of HCBD, the available data indicate exposure to HCBD may
disproportionately affect children, and effects information indicating
developmental effects. This regulation will reduce the exposure to HCBD
that could occur from the prohibited activities for the general
population and for potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations
such as children. More information can be found in the Exposure and Use
Assessment (Ref. 5).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy and has not otherwise been designated by
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
as a significant energy action.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA).

    This rulemaking does not involve any technical standards.
Therefore, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to
this action.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high
and adverse health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in the Economic Analysis
(Ref. 3), which is in the public docket for this action. EPA believes
that the restrictions on HCBD in this final rule will reduce the
potential for exposure in the United States, thus benefitting all
communities, including environmental justice communities.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 751

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export Notification, Hazardous
substances, Import certification, Reporting and recordkeeping.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 751
is amended as follows:

PART 751--REGULATION OF CERTAIN CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND MIXTURES
UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 751 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2605, 15 U.S.C. 2625(l)(4).

0
2. Amend Sec.  751.403 by adding in alphabetical order the term
``HCBD'' to read as follows:

Subpart E--Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals

Sec.  751.403   Definitions.

* * * * *
    HCBD means the chemical substance hexachlorobutadiene (CASRN 87-68-
3).
* * * * *

0
3. Add Sec.  751.413 to read as follows:

Sec.  751.413   HCBD.

    (a) Prohibition. After March 8, 2021, all persons are prohibited
from all manufacturing, processing and distribution in commerce of HCBD
and HCBD-containing products or articles, except for the following:
    (1) Unintentional production of HCBD as a byproduct in the
production of chlorinated solvents; and
    (2) Processing and distribution in commerce of HCBD for burning as
a waste fuel.
    (b) Recordkeeping. After March 8, 2021, manufacturers, processors
and distributors of HCBD or HCBD-containing products or articles must
maintain ordinary business records related to compliance with the
prohibitions, restrictions and other provisions of this section, such
as invoices and bills-of-lading. These records must be maintained for a
period of three years from the date the record is generated.

[FR Doc. 2020-28693 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


59500 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2002 / Notices establish a Spinning Reserve market for PJM and PJM West and new compensation rules. PJM amended its August 29, 2002 filing to include conforming amendments to both the PJM Tariff and Operating Agreement consistent with the proposed Spinning Reserve market and new compensation rules. PJM requests an effective date of December 1, 2002 for the amendments filed on August 29, 2002 and September 11, 2002. Copies of this filing were served upon all parties listed on the official service list in Docket No. ER02– 2519– 000, all PJM members, and each state electric utility regulatory commission in the PJM control area and PJM West region. Comment Date: October 2, 2002.

7. PJM Interconnection, L. L. C.

[Docket No. ER02– 2547– 000]

Take notice that on September 10, 2002 PJM Interconnection, L. L. C. (PJM), submitted for filing an executed interim interconnection service agreement between PJM and Dominion Equipment, Inc. and an executed interconnection service agreement between PJM and Fairless Energy, LLC. PJM requests a waiver of the Commission's 60 day notice requirement to permit the effective dates agreed to by the parties. Copies of this filing were served upon each of the parties to the agreements and the state regulatory commissions within the PJM region. Comment Date: October 1, 2002.

8. New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

[Docket No. ER02– 2548– 000]

Take notice that on September 11, 2002, the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) filed revisions to its Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff (Services Tariff) to provide further clarity and improve the administration of the Installed Capacity market in the New York Control Area. The NYISO has served a copy of this filing to all parties that have executed Service Agreements under the NYISO's Open Access Transmission Tariff or Services Tariff, the New York State Public Service Commission and to the electric utility regulatory agencies in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Comment Date: October 2, 2002.

9. Occidental Power Services, Inc.

[Docket No. ER02– 2549– 000]

Take notice that on September 12, 2002, Occidental Power Services, Inc. (OPSI) tendered for filing a proposed amendment to the Western Systems Power Pool (WSPP). The proposed amendment reflects the admission of OPSI to membership in the WSPP. OPSI requests that the Commission authorize the proposed amendment to become effective on September 12, 2002. Comment Date: October 3, 2002.

10. Tenaska Oxy Power Services, L. P. [Docket No. ER02– 2550– 000] Take notice that on September 12, 2002, Tenaska Oxy Power Services, L. P., 1701 E. Lamar Boulevard, Suite 100, Arlington, TX 76006 (TOPS) submitted for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for blanket authorization and certain waivers under regulations of the Commission, and for an order accepting its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective the earlier of November 11, 2002, or the date of a Commission order granting approval of its Rate Schedule. TOPS intends to engage in electric power and energy transactions as a marketer and a broker. In transactions where TOPS purchases power, including capacity and related services from electric utilities, qualifying facilities, and independent power producers, and resells such power to other purchasers, TOPS will be functioning as a marketer. In TOPS' marketing transactions, TOPS proposes to charge rates mutually agreed upon by the parties. In transactions where TOPS does not take title to electric power and/ or energy, TOPS will be limited to the role of a broker and will charge a fee for its services. TOPS is not in the business of producing electric power nor does it contemplate acquiring title to any electric power transmission facilities. Comment Date: October 3, 2002.

Standard Paragraph E. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at http:// www. ferc. gov using the `` RIMS'' link, select `` Docket #'' and follow the instructions (call 202– 208– 2222 for assistance). Protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the `` e Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [FR Doc. 02– 24040 Filed 9– 20– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717– 01– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0202; FRL– 7273– 8]

Lindane Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED); Notice of Availability for Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ACTION: Notices.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document and technical support documents for the pesticide active ingredient, lindane. These documents have been developed using a public participation process designed by the EPA and the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to involve the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and the reregistration of individual pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This notice starts a 60– day public comment period for lindane, during which the public is invited to submit comments on the Agency's risk management decision. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0202, must be received on or before November 22, 2002 ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0202 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Howard, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308– 8172; fax VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 19: 13 Sep 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23SEN1. SGM 23SEN1 59501 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2002 / Notices number: (703) 308– 8005; e mail address: howard. markt@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, nevertheless, a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in obtaining the revised risk assessments and submitting risk management comments on lindane including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. As such, the Agency has not attempted to specifically describe all the entities potentially affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents?

1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and most other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations, '' `` Regulations and Proposed Rules, '' and then look up the entry for this document under the `` Federal Register —Environmental Documents. '' You can also go directly to the FEDERAL REGISTER listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. You can obtain copies of the RED and related documents discussed in this notice from EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page, http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ using the following links: `` Reregistration Eligibility (REDs) '' under the heading `` Reregistration and Special Review'' and then `` Lindane. '' You can also go directly to the `` Lindane RED'' at http:/ /www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm. Available documents include the RED, supporting technical documents, and FEDERAL REGISTER notices. Information on pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment, including the purpose and status of Agency programs to complete REDs, Interim REDs, and tolerance reassessment decisions (TREDs), is available at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ tolerance. General information is available on the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page, http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0202. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– 5805.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments on any part of the RED through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0202 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– 5805. 3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e mail to: opp docket@ epa. gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0/ 9.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0202. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI that I Want to Submit to the Agency?

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any 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 version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

The Agency has issued a RED for the pesticide active ingredient lindane. Under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996, EPA is conducting an accelerated reregistration program to re evaluate existing pesticides to make sure they VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 19: 13 Sep 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23SEN1. SGM 23SEN1 59502 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2002 / Notices meet current scientific and regulatory standards. The data base to support the reregistration of lindane is substantially complete, and the Agency has identified risk mitigation measures that, if adopted by the registrant, will address the human health and ecological risks associated with the remaining uses of lindane. As part of the lindane RED, the Agency will revoke all existing lindane tolerances because all lindane products for which the tolerances were originally established have been cancelled. The Agency has also determined that the currently registered lindane seed treatment products would be eligible for reregistration if the registrants make the changes to the terms and conditions specified in the lindane RED and provide the required data, and if EPA is able to establish all required tolerances for residues of lindane in food. The RED document includes guidance and time frames for complying with any label changes for products containing lindane. The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes both the need to make timely reregistration decisions and to involve the public. Therefore, EPA is issuing the lindane RED as a final document with a 60 day public comment period. Although the 60 day comment period does not affect the registrants's response due date, it is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments will be carefully considered by the Agency. If any comment significantly affects the lindane RED, EPA will amend the RED by publishing the amendment in the Federal Register.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

The legal authority for these RED falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4( g)( 2)( A) of FIFRA directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient,`` the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration. ''

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Lindane, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: September 13, 2002. Lois Ann Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 02– 24096 Filed 9– 20– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0252; FRL– 7200– 9]

Thiabendazole and Salts; Availability of Reregistration Eligibility Decision Documents for Comment AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces availability and starts a 60– day public comment period on the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) documents for the pesticide active ingredients thiabendazole and salts. The RED represents EPA's formal regulatory assessment of the health and environmental data base of the subject chemical and presents the Agency's determination regarding which pesticidal uses are eligible for reregistration.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0252, must be received on or before November 22, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0252 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Lorilyn Montford, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308– 8170; e mail address: montford. lorilyn@ 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 persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; pesticides users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations, '' `` Regulations and Proposed Rules, '' and then look up the entry for this document under the `` Federal Register— Environmental Documents. '' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. To access RED documents and RED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page, at http:/ /www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0252. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– 5805.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0252 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 19: 13 Sep 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23SEN1. SGM 23SEN1


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 14657]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07160]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR19-21-000]

Notice of Complaint: American Airlines, Inc., Chevron Products
Company, HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC, Southwest Airlines
Co., Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. SFPP, LP

    Take notice that on April 4, 2019, Pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC), 18 CFR 385.206, Section 343.2 of the
Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.2,
and Sections 1(5), 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act
(ICA), 49 U.S.C. App. 1(5), 8, 9, 13, 15, and 16 (1988), American
Airlines, Inc., (American), Chevron Products Company, a division of
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (Chevron), HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC
(HollyFrontier), Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest), and Valero
Marketing and Supply Company (VMSC) (jointly, Complainants) filed a
formal complaint (complaint) against SFPP, L.P. (SFPP) challenging the
justness and reasonableness of West Line (Tariff No. 198.20.0), East
Line (Tariff No. 197.13.0), North Line (Tariff No. 199.9.0), and Oregon
Line (Tariff No. 200.12.0) index rate increases taken and implemented
for the 2018 Index, as more fully explained in the complaint.
    The Complainant certify that copies of the complaint was served on
the contacts for SFPP, L.P. as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time May 3, 2019.

    Dated: April 5, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07160 Filed 4-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P