Friday October 5, 2001 v1 w Part IV Environmental Protection Agency Forty Eighth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator, Receipt of Report and Request for Comments; Notice ` * .. 51276 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 194 / Friday October 5, 2001 / Notices ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPPTS QI 056; FRL 6786 71 Forty Eighth Report of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee to the Administrator; Receipt of Report and Request for Comments AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

~

SUMMARY: The Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) Interagency Testing Committee ( ITC) transmitted its Forty Eighth Report to the Administrator of the EPA on May 15, 2001. In the 48L11 ITC Report, which is included with this notice, the ITC adds 5 " chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines," 2 " trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes," 3 chlorotrifluralin, and 4 " trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols" to its Priority Testing List and solicits voluntary information for these chemicals under the ITC's Voluntary Information Submissions Policy ( VISP). This action is part of the ITC's ongoing effort to evaluate chemicals with potential to persist and bioconcentrate, and with suspicions of toxicity and few data. In this Report, the ITC also removes 22 alkylphenols and ethoxylates, methylal, and ethyl silicate from its Priority Testing List and requests that EPA promulgate TSCA section 8( d) health and safety data reporting rules for 3 amino 5 mercapto 1.2,4 triazole and glycoluril. DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPPTS 41056, must be received on or before November 5, 2001. 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 control number OPPTS 41056 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general in[ ormation contact: Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division ( 7408), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone numbers: ( 202) 554 1404; e mail address: TSCA Hotline@ epa. gov. For technical information contact: John D. Walker, ITC Executive Director [ 7401), Environmental Protection Agency. 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 564 7527; fax: ( 202) 564 7528; e mail address: walker. johnd@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

in general. It may, however, be of particular interest to you if you manufacture ( defined by statute to include import) and/ or process TSCA covered chemicals and you may he identified by the North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes 325 and 32411. Because this notice is directed to the general public and other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document or Other Related Documents? 1. Elecfronically. 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: ll 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 littp:// www. epa. govifedrgstr1.

information about the ITC and the TSCA testing program through the web site for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS) at http: ll www. epa. govlopptsfrsihome1 opptsim. htm/, or go directly to the ITC home page at http: ilwww. epa. govl opptintrlitcl. 2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS 41056. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, 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 This notice is directed to the public You may also access additional 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 TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B 607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 pm., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is ( 202) 260 7099. 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 control number OPPTS 41056 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1. By mail. Submit your comments to: Document Control Office ( 7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics [ OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office ( DCO) in East Tower Rm. G 099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The DCO is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is ( 202)

3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e mail to: oppt. ncic@ epa. gov, or mail your computer disk to the address identified above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard disks in Wordperfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must he identified by docket control number OPPTS 41056. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. D. How Should I Handle CBI Information that I Want to Submit to the Agency?

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. 260 7093.

Do not submit any information ii`

Report 28 ................

30 ................ 31 ................ ",

.>

Date Chemicaligroup Action ................ ........................... May 1991 May 1992 ................ 5 Siloxanes .................................................................................................................. Recommended January 1993 .......... 13 Chemicals with insufficient dermal absorption rate data ....................................... Designated Chemicals with Low Confidence Reference Dose ( RfD) Acetone Thiophenol 3 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 194 / Friday October 5, 2001 / Notices . I .

. 51278 Date May 1993 ................ November 1994 ...... November 1995 ......

May 1998 ................ May 1998 May 2000 ................ November 2000 ...... ................

November 2000 ...... November 2000 ......

November 2000 ...... May 2001 May 2001 ................ ................ Report 32 ................ 35 ................

41 ................ 42 ................ 42 ................

47 ................ 47 ................ 47 ................ 47 ................

4% ................ 48 ................ 4% ................ 48 ................ Chemicaligroup Action 16 Chemicals with insufficient dermal absorption rate data ... 4 Chemicals with insufficient dermal absorption rate data ..... 12 Alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates .. 8 Nonylphenol ethoxylates ............................... 7 Alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates ............................................................... Recommended 3 Amino 5 mercapto I ,2,4 triazole .............................. Glycoluril ............ Recommended 8 Nonylphenol polyethoxyl egradation products .. 37 Indium chemicals ......................................... Pentachlorothiophenol ............................ Recommended Tetrachloropyrocatechol ............. Recommended p Toluidine, 5 chloro. alpha. ,. alpha .. . alpha . trifluoro 2 Benzoic acid, 3[ 2 chloro 4 ( trifluoromethy1) phe 3 Chloroalkenes ................................................................. 5 Chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines Recommended 2 Trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes ........................ Recommended 3 Chlorotrifluralin ................................................ 4 Trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols ....................... ............................... Designated .......................... ...........................................................

...................................................... ..................................................................

oxoethyl ester.

.......................................................

I. Background The ITC was established by section 4( e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) " to make recommendations to the Administrator respecting the chemical substances and mixtures to which the Administrator should give priority consideration for the promulgation of a rule for testing under section 4[ a) .... At least every six months ..., the Committee shall make such revisions to the Priority Testing List as it determines to be necessary and transmit them to the Administrator together with the Committee's reasons for the revisions" ( Public Law 94 469, 90 Stat. 2003 et seq., 15 U. S. C. 2601 et seq.). Since its creation in 1976, the ITC has submitted 47 semi annual [ May and November) Reports to the EPA Administrator transmitting the Priority Testing List and its revisions. ITC Reports are available from the ITC's web site ( http:/ iwww. epa. gov/ opptintriitc) within a few days of submission to the Administrator and from http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr after publication in the Federal Register. The ITC meets monthly and produces its revisions to the Priority Testing List with administrative and technical support from the ITC Staff, ITC Members, and their U. S. Government organizations and contract support provided by EPA. ITC Members and Staff are listed at the end of this Report. 11. TSCA Section 8 Reporting A. TSCA Section 8 Reporting Rules Following receipt of the ITC's Report ( and the revised Priority Testing List) by the USEPA Administrator, the USEPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( OPPT) promulgates TSCA section 8( a) PAIR and TSCA section 8( d) Health and Safety Data ( HaSD) reporting rules for chemicals added to the Priority Testing List. The PAIR rule requires producers and importers of CAS numbered chemicals added to the Priority Testing List to submit production and exposure reports under TSCA section 8( a). The HaSD reporting rule requires producers, importers, and processors of all chemicals ( including those with no CAS numbers) added to the Priority Testing List to submit unpublished health and safety studies under TSCA section 8( d) that must be in compliance with the revised HaSD reporting rule published in the Federal Register of April 1, 1998 ( 63 FR 15765) ( FRL 5750 4). All submissions must be received by the USEPA within 90 days of the reporting rules' Federal Register publication date. The reporting rules are automatically promulgated by OPPT unless otherwise requested by the ITC. It is an ITC policy, for most chemicals that are added to the Priority Testing List, to delay automatic promulgation of HaSD reporting rules to allow voluntary submission of studies of specific interest ( see Unit 1I. C. of this Report for further details). B. ITC` s Use of TSCA Section 8 and Other Information The ITC reviews the TSCA section 8( a) PAIR reports, TSCA section 8( d) HaSD reporting studies and " other information" that becomes available after the ITC adds chemicals to the Priority Testing List. " Other information" includes TSCA section 4( a) and 4( d) studies, TSCA section 8( c) submissions, TSCA section 8( e) " substantial risk" notices, " For Your Information" ( FYI) submissions, ITC voluntary submissions, unpublished data submitted to and from U. S. Government organizations represented on the ITC, published papers, as well as use, exposure, effects, and persistence data that are voluntarily submitted to the ITC by manufacturers, importers, processors, and users of chemicals recommended by the ITC. The ITC reviews this information and determines if data needs should be revised, if chemicals should be removed from the Priority Testing List, or if recommendations should be changed to designations. C. Promoting More Efficient Use of Informa tion Submission Resources To promote more efficient use of information submission resources, the ITC developed VISP. VISP provides examples of data needed by ITC Member U. S. Government organizations, examples of studies that should not be submitted, the milestones for submitting information, guidelines for using the TSCA Electronic HaSD Reporting Form, and instructions for electronically submitting full studies. The TSCA Electronic HaSD Reporting Form can be used to provide information electronically on ITC voluntary submissions, TSCA section 8( d) studies, FYI submissions, and TSCA section 8( e) studies. VISP is described in the ITC's 41St Report published in the Federal Register of April 9, 1998 ( 63 FR 17658) ( FRL 5773 5) and is accessible through the world wide web ( http:/ f www. epa, gov/ opptintr/ itcivisp. htm ). To facilitate the implementation of VISP, the ITC developed the Voluntary Information Submissions Innovative Online Network ( VISION). VISION is described in the ITC's 4Znd Report Federal RegisterIVol. 66, No. 194 / Friday October published in the Federal Register of trifluralins and August 7, 1998 ( 63 FR 42554) ( FRL trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols in 5797 8) and is accessible through the response to its solicitation for use and world wide web ( http: i/ www. epa. gov/ exposure information in the ITC's 45111 opptintr/ itcivision. htm). VISION Report. Therefore, the ITC is asking the includes the VISP and links to the TSCA EPA to promulgate a TSCA section 8( a) Electronic HaSD Reporting Form ( http:/ PAIR rule for the 3 chloroalkenes added iwww. epa. govlopptintr/. er/ hasd. htm) to the Priority Testing List in the ITC's including revised section 3.2 of the 47`'' Report published in the Federal TSCA Electronic HaSD Reporting Form Register of April 3, 2001 ( 66 FR 17768) to provide more use and exposure ( FRL 6763 6) and 5 chlorinated information ( see the ITC's 46`" Report bihalomethyl pyridines, 2 published in the Federal Register of trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes, 3 December 1, 2000 ( 65 FR 75552) ( FRL chlorotrifluralin, and 4 6594 7) for details. trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols added to the Priority Testing List in this 48l" producers, importers, processors, and ITC Report. The PAIR data will provide users provide information electronically production and exposure information via VISION on chemicals for which the and aid in the selection of chemicals for ITC is soliciting voluntary information. potential TSCA section 8( d) HaSD To enhance visibility, the ITC will be reporting rules. adding all chemicals to the Priority The ITC is asking the USEPA not to Testing List for which it is soliciting promulgate TSCA section 8( d) HaSD voluntary information. If the ITC does reporting rules for the alkylphenols and not receive voluntary information alkylphenol ethoxylates that were added submissions to meet its data needs to the Priority Testing List in the ITC's according to the procedures in VISP, the 39' h Report published in the Federal ITC may then request that EPA Register of February 25, 1997 ( 62 FR promulgate the appropriate TSCA 8578) ( FRL 5580 9) and in the ITC's sections 8( a) and 8( d) reporting rules to 4lS1 Report because of a need to further determine if there are unpublished data review the data. The TSCA section 8( d) to meet those needs. The ITC requests HaSD reporting rule for methylal that that those companies responding to a was added to the Priority Testing List in TSCA section 8( d) HaSD reporting rule the ITC's 42nd Report is no longer provide data by using the TSCA needed since this chemical is being Electronic HaSD Reporting Form. removed from the Priority Testing List in this Report ( see Unit IV. B. 2. of this D. Coordinating Information Requests Report). To avoid duplicate reporting, the ITC At this time, the ITC is requesting that carefully coordinates its information solicitations and reporting requirements with other national and international testing programs, e. g., the National Toxicology Program, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD) Screening Information Data Set ( SIDS) Program, and the USEPA's HPV Challenge Program. The TTC is currently focusing its efforts on persistent non HPV chemicals that have exposure potential, but few, if any. publicly available ecological or health effects data. The workgroups, such as the Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics ( PBT), Endocrine Disruption, and perfluoroctylsulfonate chemicals workgroups to develop data that will complement the objectives of those programs. E. Requests to Promulgate TSCA Section S( aj PAIR and Section 8( dj HaSD Reporting Rules The ITC has not received any submissions on the chloroalkenes, Chlorinated trihalometliyl pyridines, trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes, The ITC requests that chemical EPA not promulgate TSCA section 8( d) HaSD reporting rules for the 5 chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines, 2 trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes, 3 chlorotrifluralin, and 4 trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols added to the Priority Testing List in this ITC Report, to allow producers, importers, processors, and users an opportunity to voluntarily provide the requested information ( see Unit IV. of this Report). After review of the information provided in the TSCA section 8( a) PAIR rule published in the Federal Register 6589 l), the ITC is requesting that the USEPA promulgate TSCA section 8( d) HaSD reporting rules for 3 amino 5 mercapto 1 ,2,4 triazole ( CAS No. 16691 43 3) and glycoluril ( CAS No. 496 46 8). These TSCA section 8( d) HaSD reporting rules will require the submission of pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, ~ mmunotox~ c~ ty, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental effects, and ecological effects studies. The chemical purity of 3 amino 5 mercapto 1,2,4 triazole and glycoluril in these studies should exceed 90%. ITC is working with the USEPA's of July 24, 2000 ( 65 FR 45535) ( FRL 111. ITC's Activities During this Reporting Period ( November 2000 to April 2001) In its 45Ii1 and 46''' ITC Reports, the ITC discussed its strategies to screen and evaluate chemicals for persistence and bioconcentration potential. These strategies are referred to as Degradation Effects Bioconcentration Information Testing Strategies ( DEBITS). DEBITS provides a means to prioritize chemicals based on degradation, ecological or human health effects, and bioconcentration information. In its 45` 11 ITC Report, the ITC added several chemicals to its web site to solicit measured bioconcentration data and use and exposure information. To avoid duplicate reporting requirements, the ITC is removing the USEPA's HPV Challenge Program chemicals ( http: l/ www. epa. govlopptintr/ chemrtk/ 1ipvchmlt. htm) and European Union's HPVCs ( http:/ lecb. ei. jrc. it/ existing chemicals/) from its web site. In its 46111 ITC Report, the ITC initiated efforts to implement DEBITS by focusing its efforts on structural classes of chemicals from a subset of 42 moderate production volume ( MPV) chemicals ( production/ importation volumes between 100,000 and 1,000,000 pounds) with estimated or measured bioconcentration factors ( BCFs) > 250 and about 70 structurally related non MPV chemicals ( also with BCFs > 250). In its 47Ih ITC Report, the ITC added more of these chemicals from its DEBITS prioritization to its Priority Testing List. Other chemical groups such as nitro musks, polycyclic musks, and tertiary butyl peroxyl chemicals were reviewed but not added to the Priority Testing List. During this reporting period, the ITC continued to focus its efforts on structural classes of MPV chemicals by adding 5 chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines, 2 trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes, 4 trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols, and 3 chlorotrifluralin to its Priority Testing List and soliciting voluntary health and ecological effects information for these chemicals under the ITC's VISP. The ITC evaluated several chlorinated pyridines, and azo bis ( alpha nitriles) and decided not to add them to the Priority Testing List at this time. IV. Revisions to the TSCA Section 4( e) Priority Testing List A. Chemicals Added to the Priority Testing List pyridines i. Recommendation. Five non HPV chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines are being added to the Priority Testing List to obtain information on 1. Chlorinated trihalomethyl 51280 uses, exposures, environmental releases, ( trichloromethy1) pyridine ( CAS No. pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, non HPV chlorinated trihalomethyl 1 2 0 1 30 5), 2,6 dichloro 3 mutagenicity, reproductive and pyridines are 3,5 dichloro 2 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine ( CAS No developmental effects, carcinogenicity, ( trichloromethy1) pyridine ( CAS No. 5 5366 3 0 8), and 2,3 dichloro 5 and ecological effects as well as the 1128 16 l), 2,3,4,5 tetrachloro 6 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine ( CAS No. percent by weight of any of the 5 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine ( CAS No. 69045 84 7). See Table 2 below. unreacted chlorinated trihalomethyl 11 34 04 9), 3,4,5 trichloro 2 Federal RegisterIVol. 66, No. 194 / Friday October 5, 2001 / Notices pyridines in formulated products. The 5 TABLE 2. cHLORINATED TRIHALOMETHYL PYRIDINES IDENTIFIED BY DEBITS CASNo. I Chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridine 1 HPV I BCF I Fish LCso 001128 16 1 ..... 00113444 9 ..... 001201 30 5 ..... 001817 13 6 ..... 001929 82 4 ..... 055366 30 8 ..... 069045 78 9 ..... 069045 83 6 ..... 069045 84 7 ..... 3,5 Dichloro 2( trichloromethyl) pyridine ...........

3,4,5 Trichtoro 2( trichloromethyl) pyridine ....... 3,6 Dichloro 2( trichloromethyl) pyridine ............................................. 2 Chloro 6( trichloromethyl) pyridine ..... 2,6 Dichloro 3( trichloromethyl) pyridine ............................................. 2 Chloro 5( trichloromethyl) pyridine ................................................... 2,3 Dichloro 5( trichloromethyl) pyridine ............................................. 2,3 Dichloro 5( trifluoromethyl) pyridine .............................................. 2,3,4,5 Tetrachloro 6( trichloromethyl) pyridine , .

ii. Rationole for recommendation. The 5 non HPV chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines are predicted to persist in the environment. They present suspicions of toxicity based on fish LC50 values and mutagenicity based on data from structurally related compounds. Several of these non HPV chlorinated trihalometliyl pyridines are produced/ imported in substantial amounts (> 100,000 pounds) and have potential to bioconcentrate. iii. Supporting information. The ITC used DEBITS to identify 9 chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines ( Table 2 of this unit). Four of these chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines are in the USEPA's HPV Challenge Program, including the registered pesticide, nitrapyrin ( CAS No. 1929 82 4). The ITC is not soliciting information on the HPV chemicals but did review the available toxicity and ecological effects information on these compounds to better evaluate the data needs for the non HPV chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines. The trichloro and tetrachloro trichloromethyl pyridines have estimated bioconcentration factors ( BCFs) > 250 while 2 of 3 dichloro trichloromethyl pyridines have estimated BCFs very close to this threshold ( Le,, BCFs of 238). All five chloro trihalomethyl pyridines have fish 12C50 values about 10 milligramiLiter ( ing/ L) or less, indicating that they have potential to cause acute effects in fish. The fish LC3<) values are based on measured or estimated values for fathead minnows. The predicted mode of toxic action ( based on fathead minnow models described by Russom et al., 1997) for 4 of 5 chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines is narcosis. The tetrachloro trichloromethyl pyridine No ..................... 238 .................... ............... 2343 ............. ............... 747 ............... Yes ................... 238 ............... Yes ................... 84 ......................

Yes ................... 238 .................... No ..................... 45 ......................

, .

[ CAS No. 3134 04 9) with the lowest fish LC50 value and highest BCF is predicted to have a mode of toxic action based on uncoupling of oxidative phosphorylation.

available for the 5 chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines being added to the Priority Testing List. However, there were some available health effects data for the two HPV monochloro substituted trichloromethyl pyridines ( CAS Nos. 1929 82 4 and 69045 78 9) and a HPV dichloro trichloromethyl pyridine ( CAS Subchronic and mutagenicity data There were no health effects data NO. 69045 83 6).

were available for 2 chloro 5 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine ( CAS No. 69045 78 9). Mice exposed to 10 parts per million ( ppm) of 2 chloro 5 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine died after 4 days. Histologic examination of these animals revealed hepatic necrosis and vacuolization. No treatment related effects were observed at 0 , 0.1, or 1.0 ppm exposure levels ( DOW Chemical Co., 1991). In a dermal irritation study with rats, a dose of 500 mg/( kilogram) kg/ day [ for 2 1 days ( 18 hours per day)] 2 chloro 5( trichloromethyl) pyridine produced a well defined systemic toxic response characterized by hepatic necrosis and a disturbance of lipid metabolism. As a result of topical irritation among the rats in the 100 mg/ kg/ day group, the no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) was 20 mg/ kg/ day ( Hazelton Laboratories, 1992). In a number of mutagenicity test systems, 2 chloro 5 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine was found to be mutagenic ( Confidential, 1984a; Confidential 1984b; and Confidential 1984~). Subchronic data were available for 2,3 dichloro 5( trichloromethyl) pyridine ( CAS No. 69045 83 6). Degenerative 3.5 0.1 2.7 3.5 9.3 3.1 7.6 3.2 12.2 lesions occurred in the nasal turbinates of rats and mice exposed to 0.5 ppm 2,3 dichloro 5( trichloromethyl) pyridine for 2 weeks ( Confidential, 1986). Numerous health effects data were available for 2 chloro 6 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine or nitrapyrin ( CAS No. 1929 824). Nitrapyrin was well absorbed by dogs when administered using the oral route ( Redemann et al., 1966). Oral administration of nitrapyrin at doses of 30 to 50 mglkgiday and greater in pregnant rats and rabbits caused maternal and fetal toxicity ( Berdasco et al., 1988). Nitrapyrin is also reported to be mutagenic in the reverse mutation assay in Salmonella typhimuriurn under most conditions ( Zeiger et al., 1988). Hepatotoxicity occurred in rats dermally exposed to 500 mg/ kg/ day of 2 chloro 5 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine for 3 weeks ( Hazelton Laboratory, 1992). iv. Information needs. For the 5 non HPV chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines in Table 2 of this unit, the ITC needs:

percentages of production or importation that are associated with different uses; b. Identification of the chlorinated trihalomethyl pyridines that are intermediates and the final products in which they are contained;

trihalomethyl pyridines in commercial formulated products; and toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental effects, carcinogenicity, and ecological effects data. 2. Trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes i. Recommendation. Two non HPV trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes are being added to the Priority Testing List to obtain information on uses, exposures, a. Use information, including c. Weight percent of chlorinated d. Pharmacokinetics, subchronic Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 194 / Friday October 5, 2001 / Notices 51281 . E environmental releases, and ecological effects. The 2 non HPV ( 2,2,2 trichloroethylidene) bis. See pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes are Table 3 below. mutagenicity, reproductive and hexafluoroisopropylidenebis ( 4 developmental effects, carcinogenicity, hydroxybenzene) and benzene, 1, l'

TABLE 3. TRIHALOETHYLIDENE BISBENZENES IDENTIFIED BY DEBITS CAS No. I Trihaloethylidene bisbenzene I BCF ii. Rationale for recommendation. The 2 non HPV trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes have been producedl imported in substantial amounts (~ 100,000 pounds) and are predicted to persist and bioconcentrate in the environment, Benzene, 1 ,1'( 2, 2,2 trichloroethylidene) bis ( CAS No. 2971 22 4) is structurally related to the insecticide methoxychlor, which has estrogenic activity and has been shown to alter hormone levels, decrease fertility, damage reproductive organs, and retard reproductive development in experimental animals. iii. Supporfiing information. The ITC used DEBITS to identify 3 trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes ( Table 3 of this unit). All are MPV chemicals that have estimated BCFs well over 2 5 0 ( Table 3 of this unit). One of the trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes is the well studied insecticide, methoxychlor ( CAS No. 72 43 5), that is not being added to the Priority Testing List but which is currently regulated by a number of international, Federal, and State agencies because of its potential to cause adverse effects in humans. Methoxychlor is included in the USEPA's Toxics Release Inventory ( TRI) PET rule published in the Federal Register of November 4, 1999 ( 64 FR 60194) ( FRL 6097 7) and is a candidate for regulatory action under the USEPA's PBT Initiative. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) has recently completed a Toxicological Profile for methoxychlor which summarizes available health effects data ( ATSDR, 2000). Among the effects that are relevant to predicting the effects of hexafluoroisopropylidenebis [ 4 hydroxybenzene) and benzene, 1, l' ( 2,2,2 trichloroethylidene) bis are those related to alteration of hormone levels, including increasing levels of prolactin, follicle stimulating hormone [ FSH), and thyroid stimulating hormone ( TSH) in the pituitary of male rats ( Goldman et al. 1986; Gray et al. 1989). In addition to the ATSDR Toxicological Profile that summarizes the health effects of methoxychlor, a Pesticide Information Profile that summarizes the ecological effects of methoxychlor is available on the web ( http:/ lace. orst. edulcgi binlmfsl ol/ pips/ methoxyc. htm). Methoxychlor is slightly toxic to bird species, with reported acute oral LD50 values of greater than 2,000 mgikg in the mallard duck, sharp tailed grouse, and California quail ( Hudson et al., 1984). In contrast, methoxychlor is highly toxic to fish; 96 hour LDso values for the technical grade 90% pure chemical are less than 20 ugiL for cutthroat trout, atlantic salmon, brook trout, lake trout, northern pike, and large mouth bass ( Johnson and Finley, 1980).

hexafluoroisopropylidenebis( 4 hydroxybenzene) and benzene, 1, l' ( 2,2,2 trichloroethylidene) bis. In an in vitro study evaluating endocrine disruption, hexafluoroisopropylidenebis( 4 hydroxybenzene) was found to be estrogenic in MCF 7 cells, promoting cell proliferation and increasing protein synthesis ( Olea Serrano, 1998; Perez et al., 1998). Benzene, 1,1'( 2,2,2 trichloroethy1idene) bis had estrogenic activity at doses as low as 1 mglrat ( Bitman and Cecil, 1970). No other health or ecological effect studies were available for these two trihaloethylidene bisbenzenes. iv. Information needs. The ITC needs information on uses, exposures, environmental releases, pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental effects, carcinogenicity, and ecological effects.

Recommendation. 3 Chlorotrifluralin ( CAS No. 29091 20 1) is being added to the Priority Testing List to obtain information on uses, exposures, environmental releases, pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental effects, carcinogenicity, and ecological effects. ii. Rationale for Recommendation. 3 Chlorotrifluralin is a non HPV chemical that has been produced/ imported in There are some health effects data for 3. 3 Chlorotrifluralin i. substantial amounts (~ 100,000 pounds) and is predicted to persist and bioconcentrate in the environment. It is a chlorinated analog of the herbicide, trifluralin ( CAS No. 1582 09 8). Trifluralin causes adverse effects in experimental animals and is considered to be a possible human carcinogen by the USEPA. 3 Chlorotrifluralin has limited toxicity data even though its potential to persist and bioconcentrate in the environment may be greater than trifluralin. iii. Supporting Information. 3 Chlorotrifluralin meets the DEBITS criteria and has an estimated BCF of 7,700. There are no available subchronic toxicity studies or ecological effects data on this compound. The LDso in mice was determined to be 2,744 mglkg ( Industrial Bio Test Laboratories, 1992) I The structurally related trifluralin caused adverse liver and kidney effects in rodents and dogs as a result of subchronic and chronic feeding studies. Trifluralin induced urinary tract tumors ( renal pelvis carcinomas and urinary bladder papillomas) and thyroid tumors ( adenomaslcarcinomas combined) in one animal species ( Fisher 344 rats) in one study ( USEPA, 2000). Trifluralin is included in the USEPA's TRI PBT rule and is a candidate for regulatory action under the USEPA's PBT Program. iv. Information Needs. The ITC needs information on uses, exposures, environmental releases, pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental effects, carcinogenicity, and ecological effects.

4. Trichloroph enyldihydropyrazols i. Recommendation. Four trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols are being added to the Priority Testing List to obtain information on uses, exposures, environmental releases, pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental effects, carcinogenicity, and ecological effects ( Table 4 of this unit).

7 51282 Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 194 / Friday October 5, 2001 / Notices TABLE 4. TRICHLOROPHENYLDIHYDROPYRAZOLS IDENTIFIED BY DEBITS * .

CAS No.

030707 68 7 ...................... 040567 1 8 8 ...................... 05341 1 33 9 ...................... 0631 34 25 8 ...................... Trichlorophenyldihydropyrazol 3H Pyrazol 3 one, 5[( 2 chloro 5 nitrophenyl) amino] 2,4 dihydro 2( 2,4,6 trichlorophenyl) ....... Benzamide, 3 amino K[ 4,5 dihydro 5 oxo l( 2,4,6 trichlorophenyl) 1 H pyrazol 3 yll ............... 3H Pyrazol 3 one, 5[( 5 amino 2 chlorophenyl) amino] 2,4 dihydro 2( 2,4,6 trichlorophenyl) ..... Benzamide, N[ 4,5 dihydro 5 oxo l( 2,4,6 trichlorophenyl) l H pyrazol 3 yl1 3 nitro .................. BCF 2230 92 44 338 ii. Rationale for recommendation. The 4 trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols are predicted to persist in the environment. Two of these trichlorophenyl dihydropyrazols ( CAS Nos. 30707 68 7 and 63134 25 8) are produced/ imported in substantial amounts (> 100.000 pounds) and have potential to bioconcentrate. iii. Supporting information. Two of the four trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols have estimated BCFs > 250 ( Table 4 of this unit). The other two chemicals are structurally related but are predicted to have lower bioconcentration potential. There are no available health or ecological effects studies for any of the trichlorophenyldihydropyrazols.

information on uses, exposures, iv. Information needs. The ITC needs TABLE 5. ALKYLPHENOLS AND ALK environmental releases, pharmacokinetics, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity, reproductive and developmental effects, carcinogenicity, and ecological effects.

B. Chemicals Removed From the Priority Testing List 1. Alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates. In this Report, the ITC is removing 22 alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates that were added to the Priority Testing List in the ITC's 41"` Report published in the Federal Register of April 9, 1998 ( 63 FR 17658) ( FRL 5773 5). The 22 alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates are being removed from the Priority Testing List because: i. No domestic production or importation volumes were reported to the USEPA in response to 1986,1990, 1994, and 1998 IURs ( indicating that volumes were less than 10,000 pounds per site in 1985, 1989, 1993, and 1997) and importation volumes were reported to the USEPA in response to the PAIR rule published in the Federal Register of 1) ( indicating that volumes were less than 1,000 pounds per site in 1999).

ethoxylates being removed from the Priority Testing List are listed in Table 5 of this unit. ii. No domestic production or July 5, 2000 ( 65 FR 41371) ( FRL 6589

The 22 alkylphenols and alkylphenol : YLPHENOL ETHOXYLATES BEING REMOVED FROM THE PRIORITY TESTING LIST CAS No.

000136 81 2 ....................... 002446 69 7 ....................... 002589 78 8 ....................... 003279 27 4 ................. 009004 87 9 ....................... 009063 89 2 ....................... 025401 86 9 ...................... 025735 67 5 ...................... 02640147 8 ....................... 026401 74 1 ....................... 027157 66 0 ....................... 059911 95 4 ....................... 061723 87 3 ....................... 068081 86 7 ........... 068784 24 7 ........... 068891 67 8 ........... 068954 70 1 ................ 070682 80 3 ....................... 071902 25 5 ....................... 084605 25 4 .......................

112375 89 0 ....................... Chemical ~

Phenol, 2 pentyl Phenol, 4 hexyl Phenol, 4 hexadecyl Phenol, 2( I , I dimethylpropyl) Poly( oxy I ,2 ethanediyl), a( iso octylpheny1) w hydroxy Poly( oxy I ,2 ethanediyl), a ( octylpheny1)* hydroxy Phenol, Z hexadecyl Phenol, 4 sec pentyl Poly( oxy I ,2 ethanediyl), a( 4 dodecylphenyl) w hydroxy Phenol, Z sec pentyl Phenol, decyl Poly( oxy I ,2 ethanediyl), a( 4 hexadecylphenyl) w hydroxy Poly( oxy l, 2 ethanediyl), a( tridecylpheny1) o hydroxy Phenol, nonyl derivs Phenol, C18 30 alkyl derivs Phenol, polypropene derivs Phenol, polyethylene derivs Phenol, tetradecyl Phenol, octenylated Phenol, I methylhexyl derivs Phenol, 2 nonyl, branched Phenol, ool~~ 2,4,4 trimethylpentene) derivs 2. Methylal. Methylal ( CAS No. 109 87 5) was added to the Priority Testing List in the ITC's 4Znr1 Report and recommended for information reporting to meet U. S. Government data needs. In response to that recommendation, the USEPA added methylal to the PAIR rule published in the Federal Register of 1). The ITC reviewed the data submitted in response to the PAIR rule. These data indicated that in 1999, 10,000 to July 24, 2000 ( 65 FR 45535) ( FRL 6589 500,000 pounds of methylal were produced under controlled release and enclosed conditions, involving < I O and 10 100 workers, respectively. Methylal's manufacture was associated with industrial products. The ITC is removing methylal from the Priority Testing List because it is being sponsored for testing under the USEPA's HPV Challenge Program. Test plans and data developed under the challenge program may be reviewed to determine if they meet the needs of the U. S. Government. 3. Ethyl silicate. Ethyl silicate ( CAS No. 78 10 4) was also added to the Priority Testing List in the ITC's 4212d Report and recommended for information reporting to meet U. S. Government data needs. In response to that recommendation, the USEPA added ethyl silicate to the PAIR rule published in the Federal Register of July 24, 2000 ( 65 FR 45535) ( FRL 6589 1) and the Federal Register / Vel. 66, No. 194 / Friday October 5, 2001 / Notices 51283 ITC received voluntary use and toxicity data from the Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council ( SEHSC). Data submitted in response to the PAIR rule indicated that in 1999, 10,000 to 500,000 pounds of ethyl silicate were produced under enclosed conditions, that 10 100 workers were involved in the production of ethyl silicate under those conditions and that ethyl silicate's manufacture and customer uses were associated with industrial products. SEHSC's voluntary submissions confirmed that ethyl silicate is used as an industrial, not consumer chemical. Toxicity data voluntarily submitted by SEHSC indicated that: i. Ethyl silicate's rat oral LDso was 5,920 mg/ kg ( Smyth et al., 1949); ii. No deaths occurred when rats, mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits were exposed to 50 and 88 ppm ethyl silicate for 90 days and the only significant observation was a depression in kidney weights in the mice exposed to 88 ppm ethyl silicate ( Pozzani and Carpenter, 1951); iii. The mutagenic potential of ethyl silicate was evaluated using the Chinese Hamster Ovary ( CHO), Sister Chromatid Exchange ( SCE), and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis ( UDS) assays; the only significant mutagenic effect was seen in the UDS assay ( Slesinski et al., 1981). The ITC is removing ethyl silicate from the Priority Testing List because it is being sponsored for testing under the USEPA's HPV Challenge Program. Test plans and data developed under the challenge program may be reviewed to determine if they meet the needs of the U. S. Government. V. References for Methoxychlor. Update DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT edition. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.

M., and Hanley, T. 1988. Teratologic evaluation of orally administered nitrapyrin in rats and rabbits. Fnndameiitals of Applied Toxicology.

3. Bitman, J. and Cecil, H. C. 1970. Estrogenic activity of DDT analogs and polychlorinated biphenyls. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 18: 1108 12. 4. Confidential. 1984a. Summary of results from several genotoxicity studies with 2 chloro 5 trichloromethyl pyridine; EPA Document No. 88 8500683; Fiche No. OTS0509740.

mutagenicity evaluation of 2 chloro 5 trichloromethyl pyridine in the Ames test with cover letter dated 121284; EPA 1. ATSDR. 2000. Toxicological Profile 2. Berdasco, N., Lomax, L., Zimmer,

1 1 ( 3) ~ 464 4 71.

5. Confidential. 1984b. The Document No. 88 85704; Fiche No. OTS0509740. 6. Confidential. 1984c. Substance H. 109345: a cytogenetic study in human lymphocytes ( in vitro) and an evaluation in the Salmonella mutagenicity assay with cover letter dated 122684; EPA Document No. 88 8500713; Fiche No. OTS0509740. 7. Confidential. 1986. Two week inhalation toxicity study in Fischer 344 rats and B6C3F1 mice ( company sanitized) with cover letter dated 101686; EPA Document No. FYI OTS 1086 0473; Fiche No. OTS0000473 1. 8. Dow Chemical Co. 1991. Initial submission: 2 chloro 5 trichloromethyl pyridine: two week inhalation toxicity study in b6c3f1 mice ( final report) with attachment and cover letter ( sanitized). EPA Document No. 88 920000186s; Fiche No. OTS0534636. 9. Goldman, J. M., Cooper, R. L., and Rehnberg, G. L., et al. 1986. Effects of low subchronic doses of methoxychlor on the rat hypothalamic pituitary reproductive axis. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 86: 474 483.

J. M., et al. 1989. A dose response analysis of methoxychlor induced alterations of reproductive development and function in the rat. Fundamentals of Applied Toxicolo 11. Hazelton Lagratories. 1992. Initial submission: three week dermal toxicity study in the rat with cover letter. EPA Document No. 88 920007444; Fiche No. OTS0545698. 12. Hudson, R. H., Tucker, R. K., and Haegele, M. A. 1984. Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Pesticides to Wildlife, Resource Publication 153. US. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. pp.

13. Johnson, W. W. and Finley, M. T. 1980. Handbook of Acute Toxicity of Chemicals to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates. Resource Publication 13 7. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. pp.

14. Olea Serrano, M. F., Pulgar. R., Perez, P., Metzler, M., Pedraza, V., and Olea, N. 1998. Bisphenols: in vitro effects. Hormonal Active Agents Food, Symposium. 1998: 161 180. 15. Perez, P., Pulgar, R., Olea Serrano, F., Villalobos, M., Rivas, A., Metzler, M., Pedraza, V., and Olea, N. 1998. The estrogenicity of bisphenol A related diphenylalkanes with various substituents at the central carbon and the hydroxy groups. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106( 3): 16 7 1 74. 16. Pozzani, U. C. and Carpenter, C. P. 1951. Response of Rodents to Repeated Inhalation of Vapors of Tetraethyl 10. Gray, L. E., Otsby, J. S., and Ferrell,

1 2: 92 1 08.

6 54.

6 56. Orthosilicate. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine. 4: 465 468. 17. Redemann, C., Williams, E., Clark, H., and Kaku, J. 1966. The excretion of n 6 chloropicolinoyl glycine by the dog fed 2 chloro 6 ( trichloromethy1) pyridine. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 14 ( 5) : 5 3 0 532. 18. Russom, C. L., Bradbury S. P., Braiders SJ,, Hammermeister D. E., and Drummond R. A. 1997. Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure: Acute toxicity in the fathead minnow ( Pimephales Promelas). Environmental Toxic01 ogy and Chemistry. 16( 5) : 948 967.

Hengler, W. C., and Wagner, K. J. 1981. TetraethylOrthosilicate In Vitro Mutagenesis Studies 3 Test Battery. Export, PA: Bushy Run Research Center, Project Report 44 68, June 1981. 20. Smytli, H. F., Jr., Carpenter, C. P., and Weil, C. S. 1949. Range Finding Toxicity Data, List 111. Journal of In dustrial Hygiene and Toxicology.

21. USEPA. 2000. Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS]: Trifluralin, oral RfD last revised 7/ 89, cancer assessment updated 10/ 93. Online chemical toxicity database, available at www. epa. gov/ iris, accessed 12/ 00. 22. Zeiger, E., Anderson, B., Haworth, S., Lawlor, T., and Mortelmans, K. 1988. Salmonella mutagenicity tests: IV. Results from the testing of 300 chemical. Environmental Molecular Mutagenesis. ll( s12): 1 158. VI. TSCA Interagency Testing Committee Representatives 19. Slesinski, R. S., Guzzie, P. J,,

31 : 60 62.

Statutory Organizations and Their Council on Environmental Quality Department of Commerce Vacant National I~ 7stitute of Standards and Tech 17 ology Robert Huie, Member Barbara C. Levin, Alternate National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Vacant Environmental Protection Agency Paul Campanella, Member David R. Williams, Alternate Alan Poland, Member National Cancer Institute National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Scott Masten, Member, Chair William Eastin, Alternate , ' ' *  ' 51284 Federal Register / Val. 66, No. 194 / Friday October 5, 2001 / Notices National Institute for Occupational Albert E. Munson, Member Mark Toraason, Alternate National Science Foundation A. Frederick Thompson, Member Marge Cavanaugh, Alternate Occupational Sa/ ety and Health Safety and Health . . A dmini'stra tion Val H. Schaeffer, Member, Vice Chair Lyn Penniman, Alternate Liaison Organizations and Their Agency for Toxic Substances and William Cibulas, Member Stephanie Miles Richardson,

Cons urn er Produ ct Safety Commission Representatives Disease Registry Alternate Jacqueline Ferrante, Member Treye Thomas, Alternate Clifford P. Rice, Member Laurau L. McConnell, Alternate Barbara Larcom, Member Kenneth Still, Alternate Josh Centeno, Alternate Barnett A. Rattner, Member David Hatten, Alternate Vera W. Hudson, Member Department of Agriculture Department of Defense Department of the Inferior Food and Drug Administration National Library of Medicine National Toxicology Program NIEHS. FDA, and NIOSH Members Counsel Scott Sherlock, OPPT, EPA Technical Support Contractor Syracuse Research Corporation ITC Staff John D. Walker, Executive Norma S. L. Williams, Executive Director Assistant TSCA Interagency Testing Committee, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ( 7401), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: ( 202) 564 7527; fax: ( 202) 564 7528; e mail address: williams. norma@ epa. gov; url: http : llwww. epa. govlopptintr/ itc. [ FR Doc. 01 25046 Filed 10 4 01; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 5560 50 S


                                  ENCLOSURE 1
        Facility Questionnaire for Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking[,]

Part A.  Facility Information

1. 	Name and address of the PARENT COMPANY that owns the facility:
North American Stainless
6870 Highway 42 East
Ghent, KY 41045

2. 	Name and address of legal OPERATOR of the facility, if different than the legal OWNER

3. 	Complete street address of facility (physical location) and latitude/longitude (in decimal degrees to 6 decimal places):
a. 	Address:  6870 Highway 42 East
b. 	City: Ghent
c. 	State: KY
d. 	Zip: 41045
e. 	County: Carroll
f.	Latitude:  38.728209
g.   Longitude:  -85.07555

4. 	Provide mailing address of the facility if different than physical location:
a. 	Address:
b. 	City:
c. 	State:
d. 	Zip:

5. 	Facility contact able to answer technical questions about the completed survey:
a. 	Name (First Name, Last Name): Maria Eichelberger
b. 	Title: Environmental Manager
c. 	Telephone number:  _____502-347-6534______________________   ext.
d. 	Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>
e. 	E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>6. 	Is the facility a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions? (CHECK one)  (A definition of size classification for HAP emissions is located at the following link: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollsour.html).  See Appendix B for a list of HAP.

                Yes
         x     No

      If yes, please list the specific HAPs that result in major source status and the major source categories or subcategories that apply under Section 112:

      Specific HAPs:  __________________________________________________________
      Section 112 standard (s) or subpart (s):_______________________________________

7. 	Facility NAICS codes (FILL in)
Note: The primary NAICS code represents the line of business that generates the most income for the facility.  The list of NAICS codes is located at the following link:  http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
a.	Primary NAICS code      331111
b.	Other facility NAICS codes: ______________, ______________,

8. 	Company Size (CHECK one)
Note:  Approximate number of employees (worldwide) of the business enterprise that owns this facility, including where applicable, the parent company and all subsidiaries, branches, and unrelated establishments owned by the parent company.
            ___ <50
            ___ 50-99
            ___ 100-499
            ___500-749
            ___ 750-999
            _x_ >1000

9. 	Facility Size (CHECK one)
Note:  Approximate number of employees at facility in location identified in question #3 above.
            ___ <50
            ___ 50-99
            ___ 100-499
            ___ 500-749
            ___ 750-999
            _x_ >1000

10. 	Is the legal owner a small entity as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (if known)?
(CHECK one)
Note:  For private businesses, small entity is defined for each NAICS of the owning entity based on number of employees and/or company revenue.  The parent company number of employees is used for the iron and steel mills industry subsector (331).  The small business size standards for NAICS subsectors is located at the following link: https://epic.od.nih.gov/naics/Naicscodelist.asp#Manufacturing
            ___ Yes
            _x_ No

11. 	a)	Does this facility have a Title V permit?
            _x_ Yes
            ___ No

	b)	If yes, please provide a copy of the most current Title V permit.

	c)	Is the facility subject to Part 63, Subpart YYYYY (EAF Area Source Rule)?
		_x_ Yes
		___ No

	d)	If yes, please indicate the selected compliance option(s):
		___ Site specific plan for mercury switches
		_x_ Option for EPA-approved mercury programs
		_x_ Option for specialty metal scrap
		___ Scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap

	e)	Is the facility subject to the NSPS for EAF (Subparts AA or AAa)?
		_x_ Yes
		___ No

	f)	If yes, please indicate which NSPS limits apply:
		___ Subpart AA
		_x_ Subpart AAa

	g)	Is the facility subject to a state mercury emission limit?
		___ Yes
		_x_ No
		If yes, please identify the limit and the regulation:
		______________________________________________

12. 	Normal Facility Production Hours:
	Most recent year of normal operation for your facility: __2006______
	Hours/day: _____24______________
	Shifts/day: _____2______________
	Days/week:____7_______________
	Weeks/year: ____52______________

	2009 Facility Production Hours (if different from above):
	Hours/day: ________24___________
	Shifts/day: ________2___________
	Days/week:________7___________
	Weeks/year: _______51___________

13. 	Amount of steel produced in 2009 and the most recent year of normal operation since 2003 (if different).  Please SPECIFY the alternate year below, if used:
	0		tons of carbon steel produced 2009
752,022		tons of stainless steel produced 2009
0		tons of high alloy steel produced 2009

0		tons of carbon steel produced in last normal operating year
Not applicable		Year OTHER THAN 2009

936,591		tons of stainless steel produced in last normal operating year
2006		Year OTHER THAN 2009

0		tons of high alloy produced in last normal operating year
Not applicable		Year OTHER THAN 2009

14. 	Amount of scrap charge in 2009 OR the most recent year of normal operation since 2003 (if different).   Please SPECIFY the alternate year below, if used:
               _705,269_______	tons of scrap charged in 2009
885,585		tons of scrap charged in last normal operating year
2006		Year OTHER THAN 2009

15. 	Please provide a copy of a schematic of the plant layout for equipment in service under subpart YYYYY.  Please include unit IDs in the schematic that correspond to the unit IDs used in Table 1.
	(CHECK one)

            _x_ Yes, I have provided a schematic.
            ___ No, I have not provided a schematic because (state reason):
            	_____________________________________________

16. 	Types of charging system and burners used at a facility's EAF.

	a)	What type of charging system does your EAF employ?
		_x_ Top Charge
		___ Side Charge
		___ Continuous charging system

	Please describe the charging system (e.g., Consteel, shaft furnace, twin shell, etc.):
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 	_Basket charge_________________________________________________________

	b)	Does the EAF employ a sidewall burner system?
		___ Yes
		_x_ No

		If yes, please describe the burner system: ____________________________Part B.  Previously Performed Testing and Test Reports for Mercury, PM, Opacity, and CO Emissions at Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities

For Part B 1., 2., 3. and Table 1 below, EAF1, EAF2, AOD1 & AOD2 emission compliance test reports and details have been previously submitted and testing exemptions and/or similarity determinations have been granted.  Please refer to the attached NAS Testing Exemption Chart and EAF/AOD Similarity Tables.

 Please provide copies of all previous emission test reports for the emission units and pollutants listed in the table below performed using any EPA reference test methods within the last five (5) years.  Please provide either the full test reports or summary pages that contain the information listed below:

   If only test summaries are submitted, please ensure that the following information is included (at a minimum):
   (a) Pollutants and emission rates measured (e.g., lb/hr, gr/dscf, lb/ton) for the pollutants of interest for this survey, including mercury, CO, and any of the forms of PM plus melt shop opacity observations,
   (b) Stack parameters (volumetric flow rates, temperature, % oxygen, % moisture, etc.),
   (c) Names of the test methods or procedures used,
   (d) For PM, identify whether it is filterable (front half) PM, total PM (filterable plus condensable), PM10, or PM2.5 (indicating whether it is filterable, condensable, or both),
   (e) Information on actual production or processing rates during the test, and
   (f) Identify any runs where the process or control device was not operating normally and any runs that were invalidated (including the reason).

   Please include test reports for tests conducted for engineering purposes if the tests were performed according to EPA reference test methods and are representative of normal operation.

   We expect all facilities to have recent PM and opacity compliance test results for the GACT PM and opacity limits in Subpart YYYYY.  Please submit opacity data for the meltshop collected during PM performance or compliance tests conducted over the past 5 years, plus up to 50 sets of daily opacity observations (if available) representative of normal operations, conducted at other times over the past 5 years.

                                 Emission unit
                              Pollutants/Opacity
EAF primary control device[1]
PM (including any tests for filterable and condensable PM, PM10, PM2.5), mercury (including any tests for particulate divalent mercury, gaseous divalent mercury, and elemental gaseous mercury), carbon monoxide (CO)
EAF meltshop
Opacity by EPA Method 9
EAF control device for fugitive emissions from charging and tapping (if different from the primary control device)
Mercury, PM (including any tests for filterable and condensable PM, PM10, PM2.5)
Argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel control device
PM (including any tests for filterable and condensable PM, PM10, PM2.5)
Ladle metallurgy facility (LMF) control device
PM (including any tests for filterable and condensable PM, PM10, PM2.5)
[1] The primary control device for an EAF with multiple baghouses is the baghouse serving the direct-shell evacuation control (DEC) of the EAF.  If there is no DEC, the baghouse primarily responsible for controlling emissions from melting and refining operations is the primary control device.

For the previous tests that you enclose, please fill in the summary of operation information during source testing in Table 1 for each test report submitted.  You may make duplicates of Table 1 for each test, facility, or emission unit tested.  Note that the production rate of raw steel during each of the emission tests is part of the requested information.  You are not required to enter previously-conducted emission test results into the ERT database.

Note that facilities with previously performed PM, PM2.5, mercury, opacity, or CO tests are only exempt from the testing request in Enclosure 2 if the testing was performed in the last five years, the testing was done with EPA methods or approved alternative methods, and certain criteria specified in Section 1.0 of Enclosure 2 are met.  If you intend to submit past test data, you must do so by 30 days from receipt of this letter because if EPA determines that such data are not representative, you will need to conduct the testing and submit the test data required by this survey by 120 days from the receipt of this letter.

2. 	If you are providing test reports, please fill in the following information:

 I have included previous test reports from the last five years (2005 to present):

	_________	No

      ___X _____	Yes, from 2005 or later (for SOME of the pollutants requested*) AND
			_X______	I am asking for a testing waiver for this pollutant
			_X______	Pollutant name (CO, PM filterable, Opacity)

	_________	Yes, from 2005 or later (for ALL of the pollutants requested *) AND
			________	I am asking for a full waiver for this testing

	* Test requests include stack emissions of mercury, speciated forms of mercury, PM, PM10, PM2.5 (filterable and condensable), and CO and EPA Method 9 observations of opacity of melt shop fugitive emissions.

 If you have enclosed test reports, please indicate the pollutants measured, the EPA methods used, the production rate during the tests, and the year the data was taken.  The pollutants of primary concern are Hg, PM, PM2.5 (filterable and condensable), CO, and opacity.

SEE ATTACHED TABLES OF APPENDIX C FOR TESTING EXEMPTIONS AND SIMILARITY DETERMINATIONS  -  STACK TEST REPORTS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED FOR CO AND PM FILTERABLE.  ADDITIONAL OPACITY READINGS ARE ENCLOSED.

	Pollutant: 		______________ 	Pollutant:		______________
	Test(s) Used:		______________	Test(s) Used:		______________
	Production Rate:	______________	Production Rate:	______________
	Year(s) of Data:	______________	Year(s) of Data:	______________

3.   	What percent of your scrap charge is shredded automobile scrap (e.g., ISRI Code 210)?   Please provide your best estimate (average and a range) if you do not have actual records:  Please differentiate between what is typical and what was used during the source tests

      Typical		__________% (average) and ____0____% to ______% (range)
      During tests		__0 (for previous tests)_% (average) and _0__% to __0_% (range)

NAS DID NOT HISTORICALLY USE AUTO SHRED.  NAS RECENTLY RECEIVED REVISED PERMIT TO USE AUTO SHRED.

4.   	Please provide any available information on the mercury content of the carbon electrodes:

      ______0____ppm (average) and ________ppm to ______ppm (range)

5. 	Use the table below to report the generation rate of your EAF dust (PM) and its HAP metal content.  Fill in the average and range in the table below for HAP metals listed below, or provide the results of at least five of the most recent analyses of the EAF dust for metals.

      Dust (PM) generation rate: __2009:  0.0127 ton eaf dust/ton steel
                                                  2006 :  0.0148 ton eaf dust/ton steel

                                   HAP Metal
                                    Content

                                 ppm (average)
                                   ppm (low)
                                  ppm (high)
Mercury
13.2
1
26
Antimony
82
65
100
Arsenic
31
25
100
Beryllium
0.17
0.07
0.3
Cadmium
220
100
500
Total Chromium
15,000
13,000
88,000
Hexavalent Chromium
0.26
0.08
0.44
Cobalt
270
200
350
Lead
4,900
4,200
50,000
Manganese
21,000
15,000
26,000
Nickel
9,400
5,700
14,000
Selenium
22
5
200

6. 	Indicate below the fate of your EAF dust in 2009 and last year of normal/full operation, if different.   (Indicate the year if not 2009: _____2006_____.)

                               Fate of EAF dust
                    Tons per year at 2009 production rates
                   Tons per year at normal production rates
Landfilled
775
5,142
Shipped to a zinc recovery facility
0
0
Shipped for use as fertilizer
0
0
Recycled to EAF
0
0
Other (describe):
Shipped to recovery facility  -  Inmetco (for Stainless  -  recover Ni and Cr )

8,795
8,736
          Table 1:  Previously Performed Source Tests (2005 to 2010)
      Summary of Operational Information for Each Test Report Submitted*
Facility name

Emission unit(s) ID - use same ID as in schematic

Latitude of stack (decimal degrees, 6 decimal places)

Longitude of stack (decimal degrees, 6 decimal places)

Date of test

Indicate if before or after MACT or GACT controls in place

                                     Item

Run 1

Run 2

Run 3
Units of Measure
Steel production (EAF, AOD vessel, LMF)

Type of scrap charged (for EAF test reports only):

 No. 2 heavy melting steel (ISRI Codes 204-206)

 Shredded scrap (ISRI Code 210)

 Other type of scrap 1 (describe)

 Other type of scrap 2 (describe)

 Other type of scrap 3 (describe)

 Other type of scrap 4 (describe)

 Other type of scrap 5 (describe)

Direct reduced iron charged

Other ferrous materials charged (describe):

Metallurgical coke charged

Petroleum coke charged

Coal charged

Lime charged

Alloy 1 charged (describe):

Alloy 2 charged (describe):

Alloy 3 charged (describe):

Tires charged

Other materials charged (list):

* Please make copies of this page for each previous test report submitted.  We prefer receiving the completed tables electronically in the MS Word file included with this package.

                                  Appendix C

    Documentation of Rationale for Reduced Mercury Testing for Similar EAFs

Please fill out the following table and include a description of the required parameters used to establish the similarity between your EAFs.  All parameters noted with * are required to be the same for EAFs to be considered "similar" with respect to mercury emissions potential.

                                   Parameter
                               EAF Being Tested
                                  Similar EAF
                                  Similar EAF
                                  Similar EAF
EAF ID No.
EAF1
EAF2

Latitude and longitude of stack(s) decimal degrees, 6 decimal places
38.721253,
-85.081894
38.721584,
-85.082256

*Type and proportion of scrap charged (please list scrap grades and percent or tons of each)
Stainless Steel(~75%) Carbon Steel (~25%)
201 (4.3%)
301 (3.6%)
304 (53.6)
316 (11.97)
409 (3.7)
430 (1.6%)
Ferrous (21.2%)

Stainless Steel(~75%) Carbon Steel (~25%)
201 (4.3%)
301 (3.6%)
304 (53.6)
316 (11.97)
409 (3.7)
430 (1.6%)
Ferrous (21.2%)

*Scrap supplier(s)
ELG, ISA, Allied Alloys,
Simms Metals,
Cronimet,
Omnisource
ELG, ISA, Allied Alloys,
Simms Metals,
Cronimet,
Omnisource

*Materials charged other than scrap (please list each material)
FeCr, FeSi,
Lime Oxide,
MO Oxide
Dolomitic Lime
FeCr, FeSi,
Lime Oxide,
MO Oxide
Dolomitic Lime

*Type of steel produced

Stainless Steel
Stainless Steel

Amount of steel produced (tpy)
410,223.73 tpy
Sep `09  -  Aug `10
486,137.27 tpy
Sep `09  -  Aug `10

EAF1 and EAF2 have identical process rates of 154 tons per batch and both have independent direct evacuation control systems consisting of ductwork which draws the emissions from the furnace to their own baghouse. Scrap baskets are loaded indiscriminate of which furnace is used to charge/melt the material.  Scrap percentages listed above taken from total consumptions for year end of 2009.

        Documentation of Rationale for Reduced Testing for Similar AODs

Please fill out the following table and include a description of the required parameters used to establish the similarity between your argon-oxygen decarburization vessels (AODs).  All parameters noted with * are required to be the same or reasonably close for AODs to be considered "similar" with respect to particulate matter emissions potential.

                                   Parameter
                                     AOD 1
                                     AOD 2
AOD ID No.
AOD 1
AOD 2
Latitude and longitude of stack(s) decimal degrees, 6 decimal places
38.720910
-85.081588
38.720435
-85.081344
*Type and proportion of steel processed
100% Stainless Steel; processes molten steel delivered by either EAF

100% Stainless Steel; processes molten steel delivered by either EAF
*Type of steel product produced
100% Stainless Steel
100% Stainless Steel
*Vessel size
165 tons/batch
165 tons/batch
Control Device ID No.
AOD 1 Baghouse
AOD 2 Baghouse
*Type of baghouse fabric
16 oz. Polyester Felt
16 oz. Polyester Felt
*Baghouse design/cleaning mechanism (e.g., pulse jet, reverse air, etc.)
Pulse Jet
Pulse Jet
*Air-to-cloth ratio of baghouse (acfm/ft2)
4.5
4.1

        Documentation of Rationale for Reduced Testing for Similar EAFs

Please fill out the following table and include a description of the required parameters used to establish the similarity between your Electric Arc Furnace Baghouses.  All parameters noted with * are required to be the same or reasonably close for EAF baghouses to be considered "similar" with respect to particulate matter emissions potential.

                                   Parameter
                                EAF  1 Baghouse
                                EAF 2 Baghouse
Control Device ID No.
                                EAF 1 Baghouse
                                EAF 2 Baghouse
*Type of baghouse fabric
                             16 oz. Polyester Felt
                             16 oz. Polyester Felt
*Baghouse design/cleaning mechanism (e.g., pulse jet, reverse air, etc.)
                                   Pulse Jet
                                   Pulse Jet
*Air-to-cloth ratio of baghouse (acfm/ft2)
                                      4.5
                                      5.0

EAF#1 4.5  A/C
EAF#2 5.0  A/C
AOD#1 4.5 A/C
AOD#2 4.1 A/C

                     North American Stainless  -  11/10/10
                            Contact:  Brian Carson
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 North American Stainless:  Ghent, KY  -  Request for New Testing Exemptions

                                   Facility
                                    Source
                                   Pollutant
                                 EPA Response
                               Test Method Used
                                    Comment
Ghent, KY
EAF #1 Baghouse
CO
                                      Yes

EPA Method 10

Ghent, KY
EAF #2 Baghouse
CO
                                      Yes

EPA Method 10

Ghent, KY
AOD2
CO
                                 Not required

ICR does not require CO testing of the AOD control device
Ghent, KY
EAF #1 Baghouse
PM Filterable
                                      Yes

EPA Method 5

Ghent, KY
AOD-1
PM Filterable
                                      Yes

EPA Method 5

Ghent, KY
EAF #2 Baghouse
PM Filterable
                                      Yes

EPA Method 5

Ghent, KY
AOD2
PM filterable
                                      Yes
EPA Method 5
Compliance demonstration
4/13-14/2010.
Ghent, KY
Melt Shop
Opacity

                                     Maybe
Need individual field reports for 180 minutes of observation concurrent with EAF Jan 2010 PM testing.
EPA Method 9
Provided daily summaries of melt shop opacity readings.

 North American Stainless:  Ghent, KY  -  Requests for Similar EAFs and AODs

                                   Facility

                                    Source

                                   Pollutant

                                 EPA Response

                                   Comment
Ghent, KY
EAF 2
Mercury
                                      Yes
Based on information provided below, these two EAFs are similar.
Ghent, KY
EAF 2
PM2.5 filterable
and condensable
                                      Yes
PM2.5 filterable & condensable testing has already been completed at EAF1 per the request and is believed to be representative of EAF2.
Ghent, KY
AOD2
PM2.5 filterable and condensable performed on AOD1
                                      Yes
PM2.5 filterable & condensable testing has already been completed at AOD1 as per the request and is believed to be representative of both processes.


[Federal Register: September 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 46421]
[DOCID:fr09se09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

September 2, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC09-107-000.
    Applicants: Krayn Wind LLC, Everpower Wind Holdings, Inc.,Trireme
Energy Investments, Inc.
    Description: Krayn Wind LLC, et al. Joint Application for
Authorization under FPA 203 Waivers and Expedited Consideration.
    Filed Date: 09/02/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090902-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 23, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1642-000.
    Applicants: Bangor Hydro-Electric Company.
    Description: Bangor Hydro Electric Company submits Settlement
Agreement with Covanta Maine, LLC etc.
    Filed Date: 08/27/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090831-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 17, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21732 Filed 9-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P