[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63349-63350]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24752]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0542; FRL-9917-76-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Imperial
County; Ozone Precursor Emissions Inventories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Imperial County portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements for volatile organic compounds and oxides of
nitrogen emissions inventories in areas designated nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). We
are proposing to approve the 2002 volatile organic compound and oxides
of nitrogen emissions inventories as submitted by Imperial County and
California.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by November 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0542, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Jerry Wamsley (Air-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4111<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal concerns the volatile organic
compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 2002 emissions
inventories submitted by California on December 21, 2010 in the
document ``Final 2009 1997 8-hour Ozone Modified Air Quality Management
Plan'' for Imperial County. California submitted these emissions
inventories to meet CAA requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we are
approving these VOC and NOX emissions inventories provided
by California in a direct final action without prior proposal because
we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive
adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based
on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment
on a portion of the state's submittal and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the submittal, we may adopt as final
those provisions of the submittal that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: September 24, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-24752 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


September 25, 2006

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Portland Cement Association (PCA) proposal to remove Hydrogen
	Chloride (HCl) emissions from the Portland Cement Manufacturing
Industry NESHAP

FROM:	Ted Palma

		Sector Based Assessment Group/OAQPS/HEID (C539-02)

TO:		Keith Barnett

		Metals and Minerals Group/OAQPS/SPPD (D243-02)

	After reviewing the material provide by the Portland Cement Association
(PCA) in support of removing Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) emissions from the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry NESHAP, I concur with PCA’s
conclusion that HCL emissions are not likely to either result in adverse
health effects to humans or result in any significant ecological
impacts.

	Under section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act, EPA has the authority to
determine that no further control of a substance is required if the
substance has an established health threshold, and granting the
exemption would provide “an ample margin of safety”, that is, in
protecting human health and the environment.

	A review of the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) shows
a Reference Concentration for Chronic Inhalation Exposure (RfC) to HCl
of 0.02 mg/m3.  The RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning
perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure to
the human population (including sensitive subgroups which include
children, asthmatics and the elderly) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.  Further,
under IRIS, HCl has not been classified as a carcinogen.  Thus, HCl
meets the definition of a “threshold” pollutant.

	To show that the exemption would result in an “an ample margin of
safety” in protecting human health and the environment, PCA provides a
tiered-based dispersion modeling analysis of 112 kilns at 67 facilities
emitting HCl.   This represents about two-thirds of the facilities in
the industry and should adequately bound the range of emissions and
risks for the source category.

	Following the EPA risk characterization guidance (USEPA, 2004), PCA
shows maximum modeled off-site impacts from the subject facilities will
result in chronic human inhalation exposures significantly less than RfC
(i.e., less than 50%).  Further, it is important to note that these
predicted impacts are located adjacent to facility property lines, many
times in locations where chronic exposure is not expected.  Impacts at
potential residential locations would be expected to be significantly
below those presented.   The assessment also examines acute impacts and
finds similar results well below established health criteria.

	The PCA assessment states that inhalation is the only pathway of
concern for exposure to humans for HCl.  A review of EPA risk guidance
does not list HCl as a Persistence and Bioaccumulation compound (PB-HAP)
and thus is not expected to be a concern for other exposure pathways.
Finally, the assessment outlines a justification to show that HCl
emitted at these levels will not result in any harmful ecological
impacts.

	Thus, based upon my review of the provided materials, I concur with PCA
that the current emissions of HCl will not result in adverse health
effects to humans or result in any significant ecological impacts.

References:

USEPA 2006, Presented at USEPA’s IRIS website on August 21, 2006 at:
 HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm

USEPA, 2004, Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library -Volume 2 -
Facility-Specific Assessment; EPA-453-K-04-001B; RTP, NC; April 2004

Environ 2006; “Tiered Modeling Evaluation Of Potential Risks
Associated With HCl Emissions From Portland Cement Kilns” ENVIRON
International Corporation Groton, Massachusetts, July 31, 2006

PCA 2006; Letter to Office of Environmental Information Docket U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters EPA Docket Center dated
August 1, 2006; RE:  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from the Portland cement Manufacturing Industry; Proposed
Rule; reopening of the public comment period.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: May 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30418-30421]
[DOCID:fr25my11-139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64522; File No. SR-NYSE-2011-22]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Rule 70.40(3) to
Permit Member Organizations to Engage in Proprietary Trading From Their
Approved Booth Premises in Certain OTC Bulletin Board and OTC Markets
Securities

May 19, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on May 11, 2011, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 70.40(3) to permit member
organizations to engage in proprietary

trading from their approved booth premises in certain OTC Bulletin
Board (``OTCBB'') and OTC Markets \4\ securities. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, at http://
www.nyse.com, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The OTCBB and OTC Markets Group Inc. each operate electronic
quotation systems for broker-dealers to trade unlisted securities.
The marketplaces operated by OTC Markets Group Inc. include OTCQX,
OTCQB and OTC Pink.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NYSE proposes to amend NYSE Rule 70.40(3) to permit member
organizations to engage in proprietary trading from their approved
booth premises in certain OTCBB and OTC Markets securities.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange's affiliate, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), has
proposed to adopt the same rule. See SR-NYSEAmex-2010-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2007, the Exchange adopted NYSE Rule 70.40, which permits a
member organization to operate its booth premises on the Exchange Floor
in a manner similar to its ``upstairs'' office, thereby allowing member
organizations to access other markets and trade a wider array of
products from their booth premises and thus operate more efficiently
and competitively.\6\ At the time that NYSE Rule 70.40 was adopted, it
included certain conditions and limitations on such trading, including
that only trading on behalf of customers would be permitted. As such,
NYSE Rule 70.40(3) prohibits member organizations approved to operate
booth premises pursuant to such Rule from effecting any transaction
from their approved booth premises for their own account, the account
of an associated person, or an account with respect to which they or an
associated person thereof exercise investment discretion on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 55908 (June 14, 2007),
72 FR 34056 (June 20, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-51) (notice of filing and
immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change permitting member
organizations to operate booth as upstairs office). Under NYSE Rule
70.40, only Floor brokers may conduct activity from booth premises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After more than three years of experience with NYSE Rule 70.40,
member organizations have requested that certain types of proprietary
trading be permitted under the Rule, and the Exchange has determined
that it is appropriate to do so. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to
revise NYSE Rule 70.40(3) to permit member organizations to effect
transactions in the common, preferred, and debt securities of an
operating company that is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board or OTC
Markets (an ``OTC Security'') from their approved booth premises for
their own account, the account of an associated person, or an account
with respect to which they or an associated person thereof exercise
investment discretion, except that such member organizations could not
effect such transactions in an OTC Security that is related to a
security listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex.\7\ Because
trading would be limited to the common, preferred, and debt securities
of an operating company, a member organization could not trade in an
index-based or derivative security (e.g., a right or warrant) that is
quoted on the OTCBB or OTC Markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Since the merger of NYSE and NYSE Amex in 2008, the
exchanges have conducted equity trading from the same Trading Floor,
and NYSE Amex has conducted options trading in rooms adjacent the
Trading Floor. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673
(September 29, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-62 and SR-NYSE-2008-60), 73 FR
57707 (October 3, 2008), and NYSE Rule 6A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed rule change, an OTC Security would be considered
related to a security listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex \8\
if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Securities listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market are traded on
NYSE Amex pursuant to unlisted trading privileges and thus would be
considered a security traded on NYSE Amex under the proposed rule
change. See Rules 500-525-NYSE Amex Equities.

    (a) the OTC Security is issued by an issuer of a security that
is listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex or that underlies
an NYSE Amex option, or an affiliate of such issuer;
    (b) the OTC Security is subject to a corporate action that
relates to the issuer of a security that is listed or traded on the
Exchange or NYSE Amex or that underlies an NYSE Amex option, or an
affiliate of such issuer;
    (c) the OTC Security is issued by an issuer of a security that
is a component of a narrow-based security index \9\ that is linked
to a security that listed or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex or
that underlies an Amex option; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of the proposed rule, the definition of narrow-
based security index would be the same as the definition in Section
3(a)(55) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) the OTC Security is issued by a foreign issuer or is a
depositary receipt (or the equivalent thereof) for such a security,
and a security issued by such foreign issuer or a depositary receipt
(or the equivalent thereof) for such a security is listed or traded
on the Exchange or NYSE Amex or underlies an NYSE Amex option.

    Under the proposed rule, a corporate action would be any action by
an issuer of an OTC Security or a security listed or traded on the
Exchange or NYSE Amex that causes a relationship between the price of
the OTC Security and the price of the security that is listed or traded
on the Exchange or NYSE Amex or that underlies an NYSE Amex option,
such as the announcement of a merger, acquisition, joint venture,
spinoff, dissolution, bankruptcy filing or other similar type of event
involving the issuers.
    The Exchange believes that an NYSE member organization would not
have any type of time, place, or information advantage with respect to
the proposed proprietary trading activity that could create a potential
issue or conflict with respect to the federal securities laws or
Exchange rules. A member organization's proprietary transactions in OTC
Securities would receive the same treatment as any other investor's
transactions in such securities. Consistent with the permitted customer
trading under current NYSE Rule 70.40, the Exchange would deem the
proposed proprietary transactions to be off-Floor or ``upstairs''
transactions for purposes of its Rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Because the transactions would be (1) solely in securities
not listed or admitted to unlisted trading privileges on NYSE or
NYSE Amex, and (2) deemed initiated from off the Floor of NYSE, NYSE
does not believe that Section 11(a) of the Act or the rules
thereunder would be implicated by the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that member organizations face increased
competition as a result of changes in the structure of securities
markets and are continually searching for ways to operate more
efficiently.\11\ The proposed rule change would allow member
organizations to expand the types of activities that can be conducted
from booth premises and more efficiently use member organization staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, the proposed proprietary transactions in OTC
Securities would remain subject to all of the other provisions of NYSE
Rule 70.40. First, a member organization

would have to obtain approval from NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSER'') to
engage in proprietary OTC Securities trading from booth premises.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NYSE Rule 70.40(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, all such transactions would be subject to the regulatory
requirements that apply to ``upstairs'' trading, including registration
requirements and audit trail requirements applicable to those markets
and supervision requirements under NYSE Rule 342.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NYSE Rule 70.40(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, a member organization would be required to adopt and
implement comprehensive written procedures governing the conduct and
supervision of proprietary trading in OTC Securities handled through
the booth and the staff responsible for such activities; such
procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure that the member
organization would be trading in compliance with the requirements of
NYSE Rule 70.40, including that it is not effecting transactions from
booth premises in OTC Securities that are related to securities listed
or traded on the Exchange or NYSE Amex. A member organization would be
required to obtain NYSER approval of such written procedures before
such trading commences.\14\ A member organization would be required to
regularly review such procedures and compliance therewith, and obtain
approval from NYSER of any subsequent changes to such procedures.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ If a member organization had already obtained approval to
operate a booth premises under NYSE Rule 70.40, it would still be
required to update its written procedures to address proprietary
trading in OTC Securities and obtain NYSER approval under NYSE Rule
70.40(7).
    \15\ NYSE Rule 70.40(6) and (7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At a minimum, such written procedures must require the member
organization to exercise due diligence before commencing trading in an
OTC Security from the booth premises pursuant to this Rule to ensure
that such trading is in compliance with the requirements of this Rule
and that the member organization has procedures to monitor its trading
activity in order to remain in compliance. A member organization must
have supervisory systems in place that produce records sufficient to
reconstruct, in a time-sequenced manner, all orders with respect to
which the member organization is trading from the booth premises under
this Rule. The member organization must be able to demonstrate which
OTC Security transactions were effected from the booth premises (as
compared to off-Floor trading, if applicable). If the member
organization could not demonstrate which trading is from the booth
premises, the Exchange would presume that all such trading was effected
from the booth premises.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
proposed rule change provides member organizations with a means to
remain competitive in view of changes in the markets by permitting
Floor brokers to engage in proprietary trading in certain OTC
Securities from their booth premises. Such trading offers member
organizations no time, place, or information advantage but permits them
to more fully utilize booth staff and thereby operate their booth
premises more efficiently in conjunction with upstairs trading. The
permitted proprietary trading activity in OTC Securities would remain
subject to robust, existing regulatory requirements that serve to
foster just and equitable principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2011-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2011-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-

2011-22 and should be submitted on or before June 15, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12876 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38889-38891]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0536; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-030-AD;
Amendment 39-15595; AD 2008-13-32]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; APEX Aircraft Model CAP 10B Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of

another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms
of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP
10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified.
    If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to
erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity
(CG) and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved
limits which may result in control difficulty.

    We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2008.
    On August 12, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved
the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this
AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace
Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2008 (73 FR
26351). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms
of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP
10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified.
    If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to
erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity
(CG) and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved
limits which may result in control difficulty.
    To prevent this condition, the present Airworthiness Directive
(AD) mandates revision of the AFM which introduces the corrected
values and replaces the previous loading graphs by loading tables.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 31 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is
$80 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S.
operators to be to be $2,480, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD Docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-13-32 APEX Aircraft: Amendment 39-15595; Docket No. FAA-2008-
0536; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-030-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August
12, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to CAP 10B airplanes, all serial numbers up
to and including 282, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 08: Leveling
and Weighing.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    It has been determined that the currently used values for Arms
of front and rear fuel tanks, and luggage compartment from the CAP
10B Airplane Flight Manuals (AFM), must be rectified.
    If left uncorrected, these weight and balance data could lead to
erroneous determination of the location of the Center of Gravity
(CG) and possibly cause operation with the CG outside the approved
limits which may result in control difficulty.
    To prevent this condition, the present Airworthiness Directive
(AD) mandates revision of the AFM which introduces the corrected
values and replaces the previous loading graphs by loading tables.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within the next 50 hours time-in-
service (TIS) after August 12, 2008 (the effective date of this AD),
incorporate Apex Aircraft AVION CAP 10B Document Number 1000977 GB,
Revision 8, dated February 2007 into the limitations section of the
airplane flight manual as specified in APEX Aircraft Service
Bulletin No. 030502, dated April 11, 2008. The owner/operator
holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by
section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 14 CFR 43.7 may do
this action. Make an entry in the aircraft records showing
compliance with this portion of the AD following 14 CFR 43.9.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2008-0071, dated April 15, 2008; and APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin
No. 030502, dated April 11, 2008, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use APEX Aircraft Service Bulletin No. 030502,
dated April 11, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Apex
Aircraft, Bureau de Navigabilit[eacute], 1 route de Troyes, 21121
DAROIS, France.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 19, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-14484 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58686-58693]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23255]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0110; FRL-9915-59-OEI]
RIN 2025-AA34

Addition of Nonylphenol Category; Community Right-To-Know Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adding a
nonylphenol category to the list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and section 6607 of the Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. EPA is adding this chemical category to
the EPCRA section 313 list pursuant to its authority to add chemicals
and chemical categories because EPA has determined that this category
meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) toxicity criterion.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 30, 2014, and shall
apply for the reporting year beginning January 1, 2015 (reports due
July 1, 2016).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0110. All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OEI
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental
Analysis Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access (2842T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-0677; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for specific information on
this notice. For general information on EPCRA section 313, contact the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, toll free at
(800) 424-9346 (select menu option 3) or<PHONE_NUMBER> in Virginia and
Alaska or toll free, TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/contacts/infocenter/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this notice apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
process, or otherwise use nonylphenol. Potentially affected categories
and entities may include, but are not limited to:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Examples of potentially affected
               Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................  Facilities included in the
                                        following NAICS manufacturing
                                        codes (corresponding to SIC
                                        codes 20 through 39): 311*,
                                        312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316,
                                        321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*,
                                        327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*,
                                        336, 337*, 339*, 111998*,
                                        211112*, 212324*, 212325*,
                                        212393*, 212399*, 488390*,
                                        511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*,
                                        511191, 511199, 512220, 512230*,
                                        519130*, 541712*, or 811490*.
                                       *Exceptions and/or limitations
                                        exist for these NAICS codes.
                                       Facilities included in the
                                        following NAICS codes
                                        (corresponding to SIC codes
                                        other than SIC codes 20 through
                                        39): 212111, 212112, 212113
                                        (correspond to SIC 12, Coal
                                        Mining (except 1241)); or
                                        212221, 212222, 212231, 212234,
                                        212299 (correspond to SIC 10,
                                        Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081,
                                        and 1094)); or 221111, 221112,
                                        221113, 221119, 221121, 221122,
                                        221330 (Limited to facilities
                                        that combust coal and/or oil for
                                        the purpose of generating power
                                        for distribution in commerce)
                                        (corresponds to SIC 4911, 4931,
                                        and 4939, Electric Utilities);
                                        or 424690, 425110, 425120
                                        (Limited to facilities
                                        previously classified in SIC
                                        5169, Chemicals and Allied
                                        Products, Not Elsewhere
                                        Classified); or 424710
                                        (corresponds to SIC 5171,
                                        Petroleum Bulk Terminals and
                                        Plants); or 562112 (Limited to
                                        facilities primarily engaged in
                                        solvent recovery services on a
                                        contract or fee basis
                                        (previously classified under SIC
                                        7389, Business Services, NEC));
                                        or 562211, 562212, 562213,
                                        562219, 562920 (Limited to
                                        facilities regulated under the
                                        Resource Conservation and
                                        Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42
                                        U.S.C. 6921 et seq.)
                                        (corresponds to SIC 4953, Refuse
                                        Systems).
Federal Government...................  Federal facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Some of the entities listed in the table have exemptions and/or
limitations regarding coverage, and other types of entities not listed
in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility
would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in part 372 subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Introduction

A. What is the statutory authority for this final rule?

    This rule is issued under EPCRA section 313(d) and section 328, 42
U.S.C. 11023 et seq.. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

B. What is the background for this action?

    Section 313 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023, requires certain facilities
that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in
amounts above reporting threshold levels to report their environmental
releases and other waste management quantities of such chemicals
annually. These facilities must also report pollution prevention and
recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA,
42 U.S.C. 13106. Congress established an initial list of toxic
chemicals that comprised more than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical
categories.
    EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from
the list and sets criteria for these actions. EPCRA section 313(d)(2)
states that EPA may add a chemical to the list if any of the listing
criteria in Section 313(d)(2) are met. Therefore, to add a chemical,
EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but need not
determine whether any other criterion is met. Conversely, to remove a
chemical from the list, EPCRA section 313(d)(3) dictates that EPA must
demonstrate that none of the listing criteria in Section 313(d)(2)(A)-
(C) are met. The EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A)-(C) criteria are:
     The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be
anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at
concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond
facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently
recurring, releases.
     The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be
anticipated to cause in humans:
    [cir] cancer or teratogenic effects, or
    [cir] serious or irreversible--
    [ssquf] reproductive dysfunctions,
    [ssquf] neurological disorders,
    [ssquf] heritable genetic mutations, or
    [ssquf] other chronic health effects.
     The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably
anticipated to cause, because of:
    [cir] its toxicity,
    [cir] its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or
    [cir] its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the
environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of
sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to
warrant reporting under this section.
    EPA often refers to the section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the
``acute human health effects criterion;'' the section 313(d)(2)(B)
criterion as the ``chronic human health effects criterion;'' and the
section 313(d)(2)(C) criterion as the ``environmental effects
criterion.''
    EPA published in the Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR
61432), a statement clarifying its interpretation of the section
313(d)(2) and (d)(3) criteria for modifying the section 313 list of
toxic chemicals.

III. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. What chemical did EPA propose to add to the EPCRA section 313 list
of toxic chemicals?

    EPA proposed to add a nonylphenol category to the EPCRA section 313
list of toxic chemicals. As discussed in the proposed rule (78 FR
37176, June 20, 2013) because there is no one Chemical Abstract Service
Registry Number (CASRN) that adequately captures what is referred to as
nonylphenol and because of the apparent confusion that has resulted
from the use of multiple CASRNs, EPA proposed to add nonylphenol as a
category defined by a structure. EPA proposed to define the

nonylphenol category using the structure and text presented below.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30SE14.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

B. What was EPA's rationale for proposing to list nonylphenol?

    As EPA stated in the proposed rule (78 FR 37176, June 20, 2013),
nonylphenol is highly toxic to numerous species of aquatic organisms.
EPA's technical evaluation of nonylphenol showed that it can reasonably
be anticipated to cause, because of its toxicity, significant adverse
effects in aquatic organisms. The observed effects from nonylphenol
exposure occur at very low concentrations demonstrating that
nonylphenol is highly toxic to aquatic organisms. Data summarized in
the proposed rule included acute toxicity values for freshwater
organisms ranging from 21 micrograms per liter ([mu]g/L) for a
detritivorous amphipod to 774 [mu]g/L for an algal grazing snail. Acute
toxicity values for freshwater fish ranged from 110 [mu]g/L for the
fountain darter to 128 to 360 [mu]g/L for the fathead minnow. Acute
toxicity values for saltwater organisms ranged from 17 [mu]g/L for the
winter flounder to 310 [mu]g/L for the sheepshead minnow. The proposed
rule also cited chronic toxicity values for several aquatic species
ranging from 5 [mu]g/L for growth effects in mysid shrimp to 377 [mu]g/
L for survival effects in water fleas. Chronic toxicity values for
rainbow trout ranged from 8 [mu]g/L for effects on growth to 53 [mu]g/L
for abnormal development. Reproductive, developmental, and estrogenic
effects on aquatic organisms have also been reported for nonylphenol
with some effects observed at concentrations of 4 [mu]g/L or less. In
the proposed rule EPA stated it believes that the evidence is
sufficient for listing the nonylphenol category on the EPCRA section
313 toxic chemical list pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on
the available ecological toxicity data.

IV. What comments did EPA receive on the proposed rule and what are
EPA's responses to those comments?

    EPA received three comments on the proposed rule to add a
nonylphenol category to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals.
The comments received were from the following groups, the Alkylphenols
& Ethoxylates Research Council (APERC) (Reference (Ref.) 1), Intel
Corporation (Ref. 2), and the National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement (NCASI) (Ref. 3). Summaries of the most significant
comments and EPA's response are discussed below. The complete set of
comments and EPA's detailed responses can be found in the response to
comments document in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 4).
    All three commenters requested that EPA define the nonylphenol
category by chemical name and CASRN rather than by a chemical
structure. The commenters were concerned that reporting by chemical
structure would be difficult for some reporters who lacked detailed
knowledge of the chemicals they use. The commenters felt that using
chemical names and CASRNs would simplify reporting and be less
burdensome.
    There are several TRI chemical categories listed based on chemical
structures or chemical formulas and reporting has not been a
significant issue for those listings. EPA continues to believe that
listing nonylphenol as a category defined by structure would be an
appropriate way to list the category. However, since there are a
limited number of CASRNs used to identify nonylphenol mixtures, EPA has
decided to modify the category listing to address the commenter's
concerns. EPA is listing nonylphenol as a delimited category defined by
the existing names and CASRNs. The nonylphenol category will be listed
as:

                               Nonylphenol
       [This category includes only those chemicals listed below]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               CAS No.                           Chemical name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
104-40-5.............................  4-Nonylphenol.
11066-49-2...........................  Isononylphenol.
25154-52-3...........................  Nonylphenol.
26543-97-5...........................  4-Isononylphenol.
84852-15-3...........................  4-Nonylphenol, branched.
90481-04-2...........................  Nonylphenol, branched.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The category includes all of the CASRNs and chemical names that the
commenters cited as having been used to define nonylphenol. In
addition, EPA has identified one additional CASRN (26543-52-3) that is
covered by the category. This limited set of chemical names and CAS
numbers covers all the chemicals we are aware of that would have been
in the category as described by chemical structure. At this time, EPA
does not expect that reports will be filed for any of the identified
CASRNs other than 84852-15-3 and 25154-52-3, which were used to
estimate the cost of the proposed nonylphenol category (Ref. 5).
Nevertheless, the other CASRNs are included in order to cover the
complete nonylphenol category that has been identified at this time. As
noted by one commenter, this type of category listing is similar to the
current listings for diisocyanates, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds,
and polycyclic aromatic compounds. While listing nonylphenol as a
chemical structure based category would be appropriate, listing the
category by name and CASRN should eliminate the potential reporting
issues the commenters identified with a structure based category.
    APERC stated that EPA proposed to list nonylphenol based on its
toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment under EPCRA
section (d)(2)(C)(iii). APERC noted that nonylphenol is not persistent
or

bioaccumulative and suggested that be recognized in EPA's hazard review
for determining whether nonylphenol represents a sufficiently serious
hazard to warrant significant nation-wide reporting under EPCRA section
313. APERC stated that EPA should rely on definitions for
``persistence'' and ``bioaccumulative'', which are consistent with
those established for EPCRA section 313 (64 FR 58666, October 29,
1999). APERC also stated that nonylphenol was mischaracterized in the
proposed rule as persistent based on statements previously made in the
EPA Action Plan (Ref. 6). APERC requested that EPA correct the record
for the proposed rule and Action Plan to reflect that nonylphenol is
not persistent or bioaccumulative.
    APERC is mistaken in their understanding of the basis EPA cited to
support the listing of the nonylphenol category. EPA did not propose to
list the nonylphenol category under EPCRA section (d)(2)(C)(iii). While
bioaccumulation data was discussed in the technical section of the
proposed rule, the rationale that EPA cited for listing the nonylphenol
category was:

    ``EPA's technical evaluation of nonylphenol shows that it can
reasonably be anticipated to cause, because of its toxicity,
significant adverse effects in aquatic organisms. Toxicity values
for nonylphenol are available for numerous species of aquatic
organisms. The observed effects from nonylphenol exposure occur at
very low concentrations demonstrating that nonylphenol is highly
toxic to aquatic organisms. Data summarized in this document include
acute toxicity values for freshwater organisms ranging from 21
[micro]g/L for a detritivorous amphipod to 774 [micro]g/L for an
algal grazing snail. Acute toxicity values for freshwater fish
ranged from 110 [micro]g/L for the fountain darter to 128 to 360
[micro]g/L for the fathead minnow. Acute toxicity values for
saltwater organisms ranged from 17 [micro]g/L for the winter
flounder to 310 [micro]g/L for the sheepshead minnow. Chronic
toxicity values are also available for several aquatic species
ranging from 5 [micro]g/L for growth effects in mysid shrimp to 377
[micro]g/L for survival effects in water fleas. Chronic toxicity
values for rainbow trout ranged from 8 [micro]g/L for effects on
growth to 53 [micro]g/L for abnormal development. Reproductive,
developmental, and estrogenic effects on aquatic organisms have also
been reported for nonylphenol with some effects observed at
concentrations of 4 [micro]g/L or less. Therefore, EPA believes that
the evidence is sufficient for listing the nonylphenol category on
the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list pursuant to EPCRA section
313(d)(2)(C) based on the available ecological toxicity data.'' (78
FR 37176, June 20, 2013)

The above rationale discussed only the toxicity data for nonylphenol,
not the bioaccumulation data. EPA's stated rationale for listing is
based on the toxicity data for nonylphenol not a combination of
toxicity and bioaccumulation. Nonylphenol is highly toxic to aquatic
organisms and is sufficiently toxic as to meet the EPCRA section
313(d)(2)(C) criteria without consideration of bioaccumulation
potential.

    With regards to persistence and bioaccumulation, these are not
properties that a chemical is required to have in order to meet the
EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) listing criteria. As noted in Unit II, the
EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) listing criteria is comprised of three
separate parts:
     The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably
anticipated to cause, because of:
    [cir] its toxicity,
    [cir] its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or
    [cir] its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the
environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of
sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to
warrant reporting under this section.

Under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C), a chemical may be added based on its
toxicity, its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or its
toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment. A chemical
only needs to meet one of these three criteria to be added.

    Regarding the general use of the terms persistence and
bioaccumulative, these terms are not absolutes. Chemicals that have
persistence or bioaccumulation values below criteria established by EPA
or some other organization for categorizing chemicals as Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) chemicals does not mean that the
chemicals are not persistent or bioaccumulative. For example, a
chemical with a bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 500 bioaccumulates,
just not to the extent that a chemical with a BCF of 1,000 does.
Similarly, a chemical that persists in the environment with a half-life
of 40 days is persistent just not as persistent as a chemical with a
half-life of 60 days. As noted in the proposed rule, some of the
nonylphenol BCF values for fish range from 203 to 344 with a BCF value
of 2,168 for the blue mussel. As discussed in the Water Quality
Criteria (WQC) document (Ref. 7), many studies have shown that
nonylphenol is present in the environment, which indicates some level
of persistence. EPA cited language from EPA's Action Plan for
nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates that described nonylphenol as
persistent and moderately bioaccumulative (Ref. 6). Given the available
data, those characterizations were correct. EPA did not address the
issue of whether the persistence and bioaccumulation data were
sufficient to classify nonylphenol as a PBT chemical under EPA's
established EPCRA section 313 PBT criteria since EPA was not attempting
to classify nonylphenol as a PBT chemical.
    APERC also stated that in the proposed rule EPA proposed listing
nonylphenol based on the following reasoning:

    ``Nonylphenol is toxic to aquatic organisms and has been found
in ambient waters. Because of nonylphenol's toxicity, chemical
properties, and widespread use as a chemical intermediate, concerns
have been raised over the potential risks to aquatic organisms from
exposure to nonylphenol. All of the hazard information presented
here has been adapted from EPA's 2005 Criteria document for
nonylphenol, which was previously peer reviewed (Ref. 3). Water
Quality'' (78 FR 37176, June 20, 2013).

APERC stated that there is no discussion of the numeric WQC developed
for nonylphenol and that EPA does not consider whether concentrations
in U.S. waters represent a risk based on those WQC. APERC stated that
this approach provides that best method to assess whether a compound
can be reasonably anticipated to cause significant adverse effects in
aquatic organisms.

    The text quoted by APERC is from the introduction to the unit in
the proposed rule entitled ``IV. What Is EPA's evaluation of the
environmental toxicity of nonylphenol?'' and is not the basis for the
addition of nonylphenol. The quoted text simply states why EPA has
developed concerns for potential releases of nonlyphenol. The basis for
the addition of nonylphenol was discussed under ``Unit V. Rationale for
Listing,'' which summarized the extensive aquatic toxicity data for
nonylphenol (see previous comment response).
    With regards to the use of EPA's 2005 WQC document for nonylphenol
(Ref. 7), EPA relied on the hazard information contained in the WQC
document and not the numeric WQC values developed for nonylphenol. The
numeric WQC values are not toxicity values; they are concentrations
that, if not exceeded, should not unacceptably affect aquatic organisms
and their uses. For nonylphenol, the numeric WQC values are:

``9.1. Freshwater

    The procedures described in the ``Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses'' (Stephan et al. 1985) indicate
that, except possibly where a locally important species is very

sensitive, freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not be
affected unacceptably if the one-hour average concentration of
nonylphenol does not exceed 28 [micro]g/L more than once every three
years on the average and if the four-day average concentration of
nonylphenol does not exceed 6.6 [micro]g/L more than once every
three years on the average.

9.2. Saltwater

    The procedures described in the ``Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses'' (Stephan et al. 1985) indicate
that, except possibly where a locally important species is very
sensitive, [saltwater] aquatic organisms and their uses should not
be affected unacceptably if the one-hour average concentration of
nonylphenol does not exceed 7.0 [micro]g/L more than once every
three years on the average and if the four-day average concentration
of nonylphenol does not exceed 1.7 [micro]g/L more than once every
three years on the average.'' (Page 34, Ref. 7)

Since, as discussed in other responses, EPA is not required to consider
exposure or risk in the listing of chemicals that are highly ecotoxic,
there was no need to discuss the numeric WQC values in the proposed
rule. However, EPA notes that the numeric WQC values are very low for
nonylphenol, ranging from just 1.7 to 28 [micro]g/L, which indicates a
very high level of concern for this chemical.

    With regards to the criteria language ``a significant adverse
effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of
the Administrator, to warrant reporting under this section'' chemicals
that are highly ecotoxic meet this determination. Chemicals that are
highly ecotoxic are considered to meet all the listing requirements of
EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) since they can cause significant adverse
effects at very low concentrations.
    APERC contends that a probabilistic risk assessment of the
extensive monitoring of nonylphenol in U.S. waters indicates a low
likelihood that this compound will exceed EPA's WQC. APERC stated that
there are extensive monitoring data on the occurrence and
concentrations of nonylphenol in U.S. surface water, much of it
conducted by EPA and the United States Geological Survey. APERC
contends that based on available data the likelihood that
concentrations of nonylphenol and other metabolites of nonylphenol
ethoxylates in United States surface waters will exceed EPA's chronic
WQC (6.6 [mu]g/L) for nonylphenol is low.
    EPA does not consider potential exposures or risks under the EPCRA
section 313(d)(2)(C) criteria when adding a chemical that is highly
toxic to aquatic organisms. With regard to the use of exposure or risk
assessments in the listing of chemicals under the EPCRA section
313(d)(2) criteria, EPA has stated its policy:

    ``The Agency believes that exposure considerations are not
appropriate in making determinations (1) under section 313(d)(2)(B)
for chemicals that exhibit moderately high to high human toxicity
(These terms, which do not directly correlate to the numerical
screening values reflected in the Draft Hazard Assessment
Guidelines, are defined in unit II.) based on a hazard assessment,
and (2) under section 313(d)(2)(C) for chemicals that are highly
ecotoxic or induce well-established adverse environmental effects.
For chemicals which induce well-established serious adverse effects,
e.g., chlorofluorocarbons, which cause stratospheric ozone
depletion, EPA believes that an exposure assessment is unnecessary.
EPA believes that these chemicals typically do not affect solely one
or two species but rather cause changes across a whole ecosystem.
EPA believes that these effects are sufficiently serious because of
the scope of their impact and the well documented evidence
supporting the adverse effects. EPA, however, disagrees with those
commenters who suggest that EPA must include a risk assessment
component to EPCRA section 313 determinations. Specifically, EPA
does not agree with the commenters about the extent to which
exposure must be considered in making determinations under sections
313(d)(2)(B) and (C). This is primarily because EPA does not agree
with the commenters' understanding of EPCRA section 313. Risk
assessment may be pertinent and appropriate for use under statutes
that control the manufacture, use, and/or disposal of a chemical,
such as the Clean Air Act or the Toxic Substances Control Act.
However, EPCRA section 313 is an information collection provision
that is fundamentally different from other environmental statutes
that control or restrict chemical activities. EPCRA section 313
charges EPA with collecting and disseminating information on
releases, among other waste management data, so that communities can
estimate local exposure and local risks; risks which can be
significantly different than those which would be assessed using
generic exposure considerations. The intent of EPCRA section 313 is
to move the determination of what risks are acceptable from EPA to
the communities in which the releases occur. This basic local
empowerment is a cornerstone of the right-to-know program.'' (59 FR
61432, November 30, 1994)

EPA went on to state that:

    ``Therefore, to meet its obligation under section 313(d)(2)(C),
in cases where a chemical is low or moderately ecotoxic, EPA may
look at certain exposure factors (including pollution controls, the
volume and pattern of production, use, and release, environmental
fate, as well as other chemical specific factors, and the use of
estimated releases and modeling techniques) to determine if listing
is reasonable, i.e., could the chemical ever be present at high
enough concentrations to cause a significant adverse effect upon the
environment to warrant listing under section 313(d)(2)(C). Of the
chemicals being added in today's action pursuant to section
313(d)(2)(C), all but one are highly ecotoxic. These highly ecotoxic
chemicals are being added to the EPCRA section 313 list pursuant to
section 313(d)(2)(C) based on their hazard. The other chemical,
which is moderately ecotoxic, is being added to the EPCRA section
313 list pursuant to section 313(d)(2)(C) based on both its hazard
and an exposure assessment for this chemical.'' (59 FR 61432,
November 30, 1994)

EPA also noted that its established exposure policy is consistent with
the legislative history of ECRCA section 313:

    ``EPA believes that its position regarding the use of hazard;
exposure, and risk in listing decisions is consistent with the
purpose and legislative history of EPCRA section 313, as illustrated
in the following passage from the Conference report:
    The Administrator, in determining to list a chemical under any
of the above criteria, may, but is not required to conduct new
studies or risk assessments or perform site specific analyses to
establish actual ambient concentrations or to document adverse
effects at any particular location. (H. Rep. 99-962, 99th Cong., 2nd
Sess., p. 295 (Oct. 3, 1986)).
    This passage indicates Congress did not intend to require EPA to
conduct new studies, such as exposure studies, or perform risk
assessments, and therefore did not consider these activities to be
mandatory components of all section 313 decisions. EPA believes that
this statement combined with the plain language of the statutory
criteria clearly indicate that Congress intended that the decision
of whether and how to consider exposure under EPCRA section
313(d)(2)(B) and (C) should be left to the Agency's discretion. EPA
has carefully considered when and how to use exposure to fully
implement the right-to-know provisions of EPCRA. The Agency believes
that in this final rule, EPA has appropriately used the discretion
provided to it to assure the addition of chemicals that meet the
right-to-know objectives of EPCRA section 313 while not unduly
burdening the regulated community.'' (59 FR 61441, November 30,
1994)

More recently, EPA again explained its policy on the use of exposure in
a Federal Register notice on the lifting of the reporting stay for
hydrogen sulfide:

    ``Hydrogen sulfide has also been determined to cause ecotoxicity
at relatively low concentrations, and thus is considered to have
high ecotoxicity. EPA believes that chemicals that induce death or
serious adverse effects in aquatic organisms at relatively low
concentrations (i.e., they have high ecotoxicity) have the potential
to cause significant changes in the population of fish and other
aquatic organisms, and can therefore reasonably be anticipated to
cause a significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient
seriousness to

warrant reporting. EPA does not believe that it is required to
consider exposure for chemicals that have high ecotoxicity based on
a hazard assessment when determining if a chemical can be listed for
effects pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) (see 59 FR 61432,
61433, 61440-61442).'' (75 FR 8889, February. 26, 2010)

Additional discussion of EPA's use of exposure in chemical listing
actions can be found in the final notice that lifted the reporting stay
for hydrogen sulfide (76 FR 64022, October 17, 2011). Nonylphenol is
one of the most ecotoxic chemicals that EPA has proposed to add to the
EPCRA section 313 chemical list. EPA did not consider exposure or risk
in its assessment of nonylphenol since it is toxic to numerous aquatic
organisms at very low concentrations and thus is considered to be
highly toxic to aquatic organisms.

V. Summary of Final Rule

    EPA is finalizing the addition of a nonylphenol category to the
EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals. EPA has determined that
nonylphenol meets the listing criteria under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C)
based on the available ecological toxicity data. However, based on the
comments received on the propose rule, the nonylphenol category will be
defined by a list of chemical names and CASRNs rather than by a
chemical structure. The category definition will be:

                               Nonylphenol
       [This category includes only those chemicals listed below]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
104-40-5.............................  4-Nonylphenol.
11066-49-2...........................  Isononylphenol.
25154-52-3...........................  Nonylphenol.
26543-97-5...........................  4-Isononylphenol.
84852-15-3...........................  4-Nonylphenol, branched.
90481-04-2...........................  Nonylphenol, branched.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. References

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0110. The public docket includes
information considered by EPA in developing this action, including the
documents listed below, which are electronically or physically located
in the docket. In addition, interested parties should consult documents
that are referenced in the documents that EPA has placed in the docket,
regardless of whether these referenced documents are electronically or
physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating documents
that are referenced in documents that EPA has placed in the docket, but
that are not electronically or physically located in the docket, please
consult the person listed in the above FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

1. Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council. Comments on US EPA
Proposed Rule for Addition of Nonylphenol Category To Community
Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting under Section 313 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0110. August 19, 2013.
2. Intel Corporation. Comments on the Proposed Addition of
Nonylphenol Category; Community Right[hyphen]to[hyphen]Know Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting (78 FR 37176[hyphen]37186; June 20,
2013). July 9, 2013.
3. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. RE: Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2012-0110, Addition of Nonylphenol Category;
Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (78 Federal
Register 37176, June 20, 2013). August 19, 2013.
4. USEPA, OEI, Response to Comments Received on the June 20, 2013
Proposed Rule (78 FR 37176): Addition of Nonylphenol Category;
Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Information, Office of Information Analysis and Access. May 14,
2014.
5. USEPA, OEI. Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to add
Nonylphenol to the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic Chemicals. May 7,
2014.
6. USEPA. 2010. Nonylphenol (NP) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs)
Action Plan (RIN 2070-ZA09). United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. August 18, 2010.
7. USEPA. 2005. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria--
Nonylphenol Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. Office of Water. EPA-822-R-05-005. December 2005.

VII. What are the statutory and Executive Order reviews associated with
this action?

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not contain any new information collection
requirements that require additional approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting
requirements under EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use either the EPA Toxic
Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or the EPA
Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350-2). The Form
R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise
uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain
other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative
threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed
toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting
thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of
the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of
an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1
million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain
conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In
addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a
substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 42 U.S.C.
11042: 40 CFR part 350.
    OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under
OMB Control number 2025-0009 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR)
No. 1363) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB
Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428). As provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b)
and 1320.6(a), 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
relevant to EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9, 48 CFR
chapter 15, and displayed on the information collection instruments
(e.g., forms, instructions).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of
today's rule on small entities, small

entity is defined as: (1) A business that is classified as a ``small
business'' by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR 121.201; (2)
a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the 54
entities estimated to be impacted by this rule, 39 are small
businesses. Of the affected small businesses, all 39 have cost-to-
revenue impacts of less than 1% in both the first and subsequent years
of the rulemaking. No small businesses are projected to have a cost
impact in the first year of 1% or greater. Facilities eligible to use
Form A (those meeting the appropriate activity threshold which have 500
pounds per year or less of reportable amounts of the chemical) will
have a lower burden. No small governments or small organizations are
expected to be affected by this action. Thus, this rule is not expected
to have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. A more detailed analysis of the impacts on small
entities is located in EPA's economic analysis support document (Ref.
5).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
EPA's economic analysis indicates that the total cost of this rule is
estimated to be $183,953 in the first year of reporting (Ref. 5). Thus,
this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Small governments
are not subject to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not 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. This action relates to toxic
chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects
private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
relates to toxic chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which
primarily affects private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule adds an additional chemical to the EPCRA section
313 reporting requirements. By adding a chemical to the list of toxic
chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of EPCRA, EPA would be
providing communities across the United States (including minority
populations and low income populations) with access to data which they
may use to seek lower exposures and consequently reductions in chemical
risks for themselves and their children. This information can also be
used by government agencies and others to identify potential problems,
set priorities, and take appropriate steps to reduce any potential
risks to human health and the environment. Therefore, the informational
benefits of the rule will have a positive impact on the human health
and environmental impacts of minority populations, low-income
populations, and children.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
Major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective September 30, 2014.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: September 23, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 372 is amended as follows:

PART 372--TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING: COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW

0
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

0
2. In Sec.  372.65, paragraph (c) is amended by adding in the table the
entry for ``Nonylphenol'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  372.65  Chemicals and chemical categories to which this part
applies.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Category name                       Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Nonylphenol (This category includes only those chemicals          1/1/15
 listed below)..........................................
     104-40-5 4-Nonylphenol.
    11066-49-2 Isononylphenol.
    25154-52-3 Nonylphenol.
    26543-97-5 4-Isononylphenol.
    84852-15-3 4-Nonylphenol, branched.
    90481-04-2 Nonylphenol, branched.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-23255 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P