[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61997-61999]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21676]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34029]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

September 25, 2020.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of
September 2020. A copy of each application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. An order granting each
application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving the relevant
applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email address is
listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by mail, if a
physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below. Hearing
requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on October 20,
2020, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in
the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service.
Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES:  The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Shawn Davis, Assistant Director, at
(202) 551-6413 or Chief Counsel's Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; SEC,
Division

of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-8010.

BMT Investment Funds [File No. 811-23234]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On April 24, 2020, applicant made liquidating
distributions to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$6,295 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by the
applicant, and the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 1, 2020, and
amended on September 18, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Capital Group Emerging Markets Total Opportunities Fund [811-22605]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On December 31, 2019, and April 20, 2020,
applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders based on
net asset value. Expenses of $7,935 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 27, 2020, and
amended on September 18, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
CC Real Estate Income Fund-C [File No. 811-23310]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On August 6,
2020, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $316 incurred in connection with
the liquidation were paid by the applicant. Applicant has also retained
$4,959 for the purpose of paying outstanding obligations.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 18, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
CSOP ETF Trust [File No. 811-22998]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Pacer CSOP FTSE China A50 ETF, a series of Pacer Funds Trust, and on
January 23, 2020, made a final distribution to its shareholders based
on net asset value. Expenses of $57,932 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on July 31, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Entoro Gray Swan Fund [File No. 811-23571]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has
never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to
make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on May 21, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
First Investors Equity Funds [File No. 811-06618]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Delaware Group Equity Funds IV, and on October 4, 2019 made a final
distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$1,935,468 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
the applicant's investment adviser and Macquarie Investment Management
Business Trust.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 6, 2019, and
amended on July 28, 2020, and September 10, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
First Investors Income Funds [File No. 811-03967]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Delaware Group Equity Funds IV, and on October 4, 2019 made a final
distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
$612,992 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
the applicant's investment adviser and Macquarie Investment Management
Business Trust.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 6, 2019, and
amended on July 28, 2020, and September 10, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
First Investors Life Series Funds [File No. 811-04325]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Delaware VIP Trust, and on October 4, 2019 made a final distribution to
its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $539,840
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the
applicant's investment adviser and Macquarie Investment Management
Business Trust.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 6, 2019, and
amended on July 28, 2020, September 10, 2020, and September 25, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
First Investors Tax Exempt Funds [File No. 811-03690]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Delaware Group Limited-Term Government Funds, and on October 4, 2019
made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $415,626 incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by the applicant's investment adviser and acquiring fund's
investment advisor.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 6, 2019, and
amended on July 28, 2020, and September 10, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Harvest Volatility Edge Trust [File No. 811-23286]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On August 26, 2019, applicant made
liquidating distributions to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of approximately $30,600 incurred in connection with the
liquidation were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on October 31, 2019, and
amended on March 10, 2020 and July 31, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Miller/Howard Funds Trust [File No. 811-23111]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On June 15, 2020, applicant made liquidating
distributions to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of
approximately $20,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by the applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 31, 2020.

    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nuveen Mortgage Opportunity Term Fund 2 [File No. 811-22374]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December
20, 2019, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $6,748 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 11, 2020, and
amended on September 17, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Oppenheimer Integrity Funds [File No. 811-03420]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
AIM Investment Funds (Invesco Investment Funds) and, on May 24, 2019,
made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value.
Expenses of $1,300,306.94 incurred in connection with the
reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser (or it's
affiliates) and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 30, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Resource Real Estate Diversified Income Fund [File No. 811-22749]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant
has transferred its assets to Goldman Sachs Real Estate Diversified
Income Fund and, on May 18, 2020, made a final distribution to its
shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $653,634 incurred in
connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant's
investment adviser and the acquiring fund's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 2, 2020, and
amended on September 18, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
USAA ETF Trust [File No. 811-23271]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to
Victory Portfolios II and on July 1, 2019, made a final distribution to
its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $511,491.16
incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the
applicant's investment adviser and Victory Capital Management Inc.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 26, 2019, and
amended on August 10, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
UST Global Private Markets Fund, LLC [File No. 811-22069]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On August 4,
2020, applicant made liquidating distributions to its shareholders
based on net asset value. Expenses of $32,450 incurred in connection
with the liquidation were paid by the applicant. Applicant has also
retained $195,136 for the purpose of paying outstanding liabilities and
unclaimed distributions.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 26, 2020.
    Applicant's Address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21676 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 78631]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32374]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2210-207]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Designation of Certain
Commission Personnel as Non-Decisional

    Commission staff members Jon Cofrancesco (Office of Energy Projects
(202) 502-8951<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Elizabeth Molloy (Office
of the General Counsel;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>are
assigned to help resolve issues associated with development of a
settlement agreement for the Smith Mountain 2011 updated Shoreline
Management Plan.
    As ``non-decisional'' staff, Mr. Cofrancesco and Ms. Molloy will
not participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of
any offer of settlement or settlement agreement, or deliberations
concerning the disposition of the 2011 updated Shoreline Management
Plan.
    Different Commission ``advisory staff'' will be assigned to review
any offer of settlement or settlement agreement, and to process the
2011 updated Shoreline Management Plan, including providing advice to
the Commission with respect to the agreement and the plan. Non-
decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from communicating
with one another concerning the settlement and the 2011 updated
Shoreline Management Plan.

    Dated: December 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32374 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3741-3742]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Permanent Closure of Grove Hill Municipal Airport
(3A0), Grove Hill, Alabama

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of permanent closure of Grove Hill Municipal Airport
(3A0) and

removal from the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received written
notice, dated November 26, 2019, from the Town of Grove Hill Alabama
requesting the permanent closure of Grove Hill Municipal Airport (3A0)
and the removal of the airport from the NPIAS. The FAA hereby publishes
the intent of the Town of Grove Hill's notice of permanent closure of
Grove Hill Municipal Airport in accordance with U.S.C. 46319(b).

DATES: The permanent closure of the airport is effective as of December
28, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Graham Coffelt, Program Manager,
Jackson Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B,
Jackson, MS 39208-2307,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The closure request may be
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Grove Hill Municipal Airport is a single
runway, general aviation airport located in Southwest Alabama and is an
unobligated and unclassified NPIAS airport. On November 26, 2019, The
Town of Grove Hill, Alabama, sponsor of Grove Hill Municipal Airport
(3A0), informed the FAA of its intent to finalize the closure. Section
46319 of Title 49 of the United States Code [49 U.S.C. 46319] provides
that a public agency (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102) may not
permanently close an airport listed in the national plan of integrated
airport systems under 49 U.S.C. 47103 without providing written notice
to the Administrator of the FAA at least 30 days before the date of the
closure. The FAA recognizes the letter received November 26, 2019 from
the Town of Grove Hill meets that requirement. The FAA is publishing
the Town of Grove Hill's notice of permanent closure of Grove Hill
Municipal Airport in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 46319(b). Questions may
be directed to the individual named above under the heading, FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Jackson, Mississippi on December 10, 2019.
Rans D. Black,
Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-00934 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 114 (Thursday, June 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27533-27542]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12411]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 355

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318; FRL-9995-03-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AH00

Amendment to Emergency Release Notification Regulations on
Reporting Exemption for Air Emissions From Animal Waste at Farms;
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
amending the release notification regulations under the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to add the reporting
exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms provided in
section 103(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, EPA is adding
definitions of ``animal waste'' and ``farm'' to the EPCRA regulations
to delineate the scope of this reporting exemption. This amendment
maintains consistency between the emergency release notification
requirements of EPCRA and CERCLA in

accordance with the statutory text, framework and legislative history
of EPCRA, and is consistent with the Agency's prior regulatory actions.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0318. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. 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, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, (Mail Code 5104A), Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    A list of entities that could be affected by this final rule
include, but are not necessarily limited to:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Type of entity                                    Examples of affected entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................................  NAICS code 111--Crop production.
                                                                NAICS code 112--Animal production.
States and/or Local Governments...............................  NAICS code 999200--State Government, excluding
                                                                 schools and hospitals.
                                                                NAICS code 999300--Local Government, excluding
                                                                 schools and hospitals.
                                                                State Emergency Response Commissions, Tribal
                                                                 Emergency Response Commissions, Tribal
                                                                 Emergency Planning Committees and Local
                                                                 Emergency Planning Committees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provide a
guide for readers regarding the types of entities that EPA is aware
could be involved in the activities affected by this action. However,
other types of entities not listed in this table could be affected by
this final rule. To determine whether your entity is affected by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found
in Sec.  355.30 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    The EPA is amending the EPCRA emergency release notification
regulations to include the reporting exemption for air emissions from
animal waste at farms provided in CERCLA section 103(e). In addition,
EPA is adding definitions of ``animal waste'' and ``farm'' to the EPCRA
regulations to delineate the scope of this reporting exemption.

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

    This final rule is being issued under EPCRA, which was enacted as
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986 (Pub. L. 99-499). EPA finalizes this action under the authority of
EPCRA section 304 (42 U.S.C. 11004) and the Agency's general rulemaking
authority under EPCRA section 328 (42 U.S.C. 11048).

D. What is the background of this final rule?

    Section 103 of CERCLA requires the person in charge of a vessel or
facility to immediately notify the National Response Center (NRC) when
there is a release of a hazardous substance, as defined under CERCLA
section 101(14), in an amount equal to or greater than the reportable
quantity for that substance within a 24-hour period. In addition to
these CERCLA reporting requirements, EPCRA section 304 requires owners
or operators of certain facilities to immediately notify state and
local authorities when there is a release of an extremely hazardous
substance (EHS), as defined under EPCRA section 302, or of a CERCLA
hazardous substance in an amount equal to or greater than the
reportable quantity for that substance within a 24-hour period.
    EPCRA and CERCLA are two separate but interrelated environmental
laws that work together to provide emergency release notifications to
Federal, state and local officials. Notice given to the NRC under
CERCLA serves to inform the Federal government of a release so that
Federal personnel can evaluate the need for a response in accordance
with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan
(NCP),\1\ the Federal government's framework for responding to both oil
discharges and hazardous substance releases. Relatedly, notice under
EPCRA is given to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) for
any state likely to be affected by the release and to the community
emergency coordinator for the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
for any area likely to be affected by the release so that state and
local authorities have information to help protect the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR part 300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Release reporting under EPCRA depends, in part, on whether
reporting is required under CERCLA.\2\ Specifically, EPCRA section
304(a) provides for reporting under the following three release
scenarios:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In this document, emergency release notification and release
reporting are used interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EPCRA section 304(a)(1) requires notification if a release
of an EPCRA EHS occurs from a facility at which a hazardous chemical is
produced, used or stored, and such release requires a notification
under CERCLA section 103(a).
     EPCRA section 304(a)(2) requires notification if a release
of an EPCRA EHS occurs from a facility at which a hazardous chemical is
produced, used or stored, and such release is not subject to the
notification requirements under CERCLA section 103(a), but only if the
release:
    [cir] Is not a federally permitted release as defined in CERCLA
section 101(10),
    [cir] Is in an amount in excess of the reportable quantity as
determined by EPA, and
    [cir] Occurs in a manner that would require notification under
CERCLA section 103(a).
     EPCRA section 304(a)(3) requires notification if a release
of a substance not designated as an EPCRA EHS occurs from a facility at
which a hazardous chemical is produced, used or stored, and such
release requires a notification under CERCLA section 103(a).
    On March 23, 2018, the President signed into law the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2018 (``Omnibus Bill''). Title XI of the Omnibus
Bill is entitled the ``Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act'' or the
``FARM Act.'' See Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act, Public Law
115-141, sections 1101-1103 (2018). The FARM Act expressly exempts
reporting of air emissions from animal waste (including decomposing
animal waste) at a farm from CERCLA section 103. The FARM Act also
provides definitions for the terms ``animal waste'' and ``farm.''
    The FARM Act amended CERCLA by providing an exemption from
reporting air emissions from animal waste at farms. Because these types
of releases are exempted under CERCLA, based on the release reporting
criteria under EPCRA section 304, these types of releases are also
exempt under EPCRA section 304.
    Consequently, on November 14, 2018, EPA published a proposed rule
to amend the release reporting regulations under EPCRA section 304. The
comment period closed on December 14, 2018. EPA received 87,473
comments, of which 87,091 are mass mail campaigns opposing the proposed
rule. The remaining were individual letters that either supported or
opposed the proposed rule. EPA's response to significant comments are
generally addressed below in Section V of this preamble. EPA developed
a response to comment document to address all the comments received by
the Agency on the proposed rule, which is in the docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2018-0318 to this final rule. In addition, this rulemaking generally
tracks the guidance document EPA had previously issued after enactment
of the FARM Act. Thus, EPA formally withdraws the guidance document
entitled, ``How does the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act
impact reporting of air emissions from animal waste under CERCLA
Section 103 and EPCRA Section 304?'' dated April 27, 2018.

II. Summary of This Final Rule

    This final rule amends the release reporting regulations under
EPCRA section 304 by adding the reporting exemption in 40 CFR 355.31
for air emissions from animal waste at farms, as proposed. EPA is also
adding definitions of ``animal waste'' and ``farm'' to the definition
section of the EPCRA regulations in 40 CFR 355.61 to delineate the
scope of this reporting exemption, as proposed. EPA believes this final
rule appropriately reflects the relationship between CERCLA and EPCRA
release reporting requirements and is consistent with the statutory
text, framework and legislative history of EPCRA, as well as the
Agency's prior regulatory actions.

III. Legal Rationale for This Final Rule

    This rulemaking maintains consistency between the emergency release
notification requirements of EPCRA and CERCLA in accordance with the
statutory text, framework and legislative history of EPCRA, and is
consistent with the Agency's prior regulatory actions. Specifically,
this rulemaking is based on the relationship of the EPCRA section 304
reporting requirements to the CERCLA section 103 reporting
requirements, as recently amended. As previously noted, EPCRA section
304 reporting depends, in part, on whether reporting is required under
CERCLA section 103. EPCRA's legislative history further indicates that
the EPCRA section 304 reporting requirements are designed to be
consistent with the reporting requirements of CERCLA section 103. EPA
has thus revised the EPCRA emergency release notification regulations
from time to time, as appropriate, to maintain consistency with the
CERCLA reporting requirements.
    Consistent with the Agency's interpretation of EPCRA section 304
and the Agency's prior regulatory actions, EPA is amending the EPCRA
release notification regulations to explicitly exempt air emissions
from animal waste at farms from reporting under EPCRA section 304.

A. Statutory Text and Framework

    EPCRA section 304 provides for release reporting under three
scenarios, each of which depends in some way on whether the release
requires notice under CERCLA. If a release requires notice under CERCLA
section 103(a), the release may be subject to reporting under EPCRA if
the release meets the requirements of EPCRA section 304(a)(1) or
304(a)(3). Because the FARM Act exempted air emissions from animal
waste at farms from CERCLA reporting, these types of releases no longer
require notice under CERCLA section 103(a). If a release is not subject
to notification under CERCLA section 103(a), the release may
nonetheless be subject to reporting under EPCRA if the release meets
the requirements of EPCRA section 304(a)(2). Pursuant to EPCRA section
304(a)(2), a release of an EPCRA EHS that is not subject to
notification under section 103(a) of CERCLA need only be reported under
EPCRA if the release:
     Is not a federally permitted release as defined in section
101(10) of CERCLA,
     Is in an amount in excess of the reportable quantity as
determined by EPA, and
     Occurs in a manner that would require notification under
section 103(a) of CERCLA.
    A release that is not subject to CERCLA section 103(a) reporting
must meet all three criteria in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) to be subject
to EPCRA reporting. Here, air emissions from animal waste at farms
could meet the first two criteria because such releases are generally
not federally permitted and may exceed the applicable reportable
quantity. Yet these types of releases do not ``occur[ ] in a manner''
that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a) and thus do
not meet the third criterion of EPCRA section 304(a)(2). Because air
emissions from animal waste at farms do not meet all three criteria
under EPCRA section 304(a)(2), and do not fall within the EPCRA section
304(a)(1) or (a)(3) reporting scenarios, these types of releases are
not subject to EPCRA reporting. As such, EPA is amending the EPCRA's
emergency release notification regulations to clarify reporting
exemptions for certain types of releases under EPCRA section 304.
    Air emissions from animal waste at farms no longer ``occur[ ] in a
manner'' that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a)
because the FARM Act exempted these types of releases from CERCLA
reporting. Importantly, the CERCLA reporting exemption is specifically
tied to the nature or manner of these releases rather than to a
specific substance. For example, the FARM Act amendment does not exempt
specific substances typically associated with animal waste (such as
ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) from reporting; rather, it exempts from
reporting releases of any substance from animal waste at a farm into
the air. Because air emissions from animal waste do not ``occur[ ] in a
manner'' that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a),
these types of releases do not meet the third criterion of EPCRA
section 304(a)(2) and are thus not subject to EPCRA reporting.
    EPCRA section 304(a)(2) promotes consistency between the reporting
requirements of EPCRA and CERCLA by ensuring that only releases that
``occur[ ] in a manner'' that would require CERCLA notification be
reported under EPCRA. Yet, the provision also contemplates scenarios
where releases not subject to reporting under CERCLA may still need to
be reported under EPCRA, such as releases of substances designated as
EHSs under EPCRA but not as hazardous substances under

CERCLA. For example, trimethylchlorosilane (Chemical Abstract Service
No. 75-77-4) is designated as an EPCRA EHS but not as a CERCLA
hazardous substance. Since trimethylchlorosilane is not a CERCLA
hazardous substance, its releases are not subject to notification under
CERCLA section 103(a) and need only be reported under EPCRA if such
releases meet the criteria of EPCRA section 304(a)(2). A
trimethylchlorosilane release that (1) is not a federally permitted
release as defined in CERCLA section 101(10); (2) exceeds the
applicable reportable quantity; and (3) ``occurs in a manner'' that
would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a) would still be
subject to EPCRA reporting. In this example, a release of
trimethylchlorosilane ``occurs in a manner'' that would require
notification under CERCLA section 103(a) where it is not one of the
excluded or exempted types of releases described in CERCLA sections
101(22), 103(e), or 103(f). (See section C of this preamble, for
further explanation of these exemptions.) The reason the release is not
subject to notification under CERCLA section 103(a) is because
trimethylchlorosilane is not a CERCLA hazardous substance, not because
there is anything particular about the release that renders it exempt.
    As another example, petroleum (including crude oil or any fraction
thereof) is expressly excluded from the definition of ``hazardous
substance'' in CERCLA section 101(14). Because of this ``petroleum
exclusion,'' releases of petroleum are not subject to notification
under CERCLA section 103(a) and so need to be reported under EPCRA only
if such releases meet the criteria of EPCRA section 304(a)(2). Where a
petroleum release meets the first two criteria of EPCRA section
304(a)(2), the question becomes whether the release ``occurs in a
manner'' that would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a).
Notably, unlike air emissions from animal waste at farms, Congress did
not exempt petroleum releases from CERCLA reporting based on the manner
or nature of these releases. Instead, Congress exempted these types of
releases from CERCLA reporting by excluding petroleum (including crude
oil or any fraction thereof) from the definition of ``hazardous
substance.'' See 42 U.S.C. 9601(14). As such, these types of releases
still ``occur[ ] in a manner'' that would require notification under
CERCLA section 103(a) and could thus be subject to reporting under
EPCRA section 304(a)(2) where the petroleum release contains an EHS.
See 52 FR 13378, 13385 (April 22, 1987). In sum, where a CERCLA
reporting exemption or the reason a release is not subject to CERCLA
reporting is unrelated to the manner in which such releases occur,
EPCRA section 304(a)(2) may compel reporting of such releases.
    In addition to the statutory text of EPCRA section 304(a)(2), the
statutory framework of EPCRA's reporting requirements indicates a
desire to maintain consistency between the EPCRA and CERCLA reporting
requirements. Indeed, ``[i]n drafting the EPCRA reporting requirements,
Congress expressly tied them to CERCLA's'' such that ``all of EPCRA's
reporting mandates are piggybacked on the CERCLA mandates in one form
or another.'' Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 853 F.3d 527, 532 (D.C. Cir.
2017). Under EPCRA sections 304(a)(1) and (a)(3), EPCRA reporting
depends on whether a release requires notification under CERCLA section
103(a), and under EPCRA section 304(a)(2), EPCRA reporting depends on
whether a release ``occurs in a manner'' that would require
notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Therefore, EPCRA requires
reporting only for releases that require notification under CERCLA or
occur in a manner that would require notification under CERCLA. Under
CERCLA section 103 as amended, air emissions from animal waste at farms
do not require notification under CERCLA section 103(a) and do not
occur in a manner that would require such notification. As a result,
these types of releases are not subject to reporting under EPCRA
section 304(a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(3). Thus, to clarify that these types
of releases are not subject to reporting under EPCRA section 304, EPA
is amending the EPCRA release notification regulations to exempt air
emissions from animal waste at farms from reporting under section 304.
In doing so, EPA seeks to avoid inconsistent regulation of these types
of releases under EPCRA and CERCLA, in furtherance of the underlying
purpose of this statutory framework.

B. Legislative History

    EPA's understanding of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) is informed by the
legislative history of EPCRA itself. In 1986, Congress passed EPCRA
pursuant to Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA). In the committee conference report addressing EPCRA,
Congress discussed the three scenarios requiring release reporting
under EPCRA section 304. With respect to EPCRA section 304(a)(2), the
report states: ``This requires notification where there is a release of
an extremely hazardous substance that would require notice under
section 103(a) of CERCLA but for the fact that the substance is not
specifically listed under CERCLA as requiring such notice.'' See 99
Cong. Conf. Report H. Rep. 962, October 3, 1986; SARA Leg. Hist. 38
(Section 304 Emergency Notification).
    Congress thus expressed its intent that state and local authorities
be notified of a qualifying release under EPCRA, even if the substance
released is not identified as a hazardous substance under CERCLA, when
the release occurs in a manner as the types of releases that require
notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Conversely, if the release
occurs in a manner that Congress determines does not require
notification under CERCLA section 103(a)--such as air emissions from
animal waste at farms--then no reporting is required under EPCRA
section 304(a)(2) (i.e., the third criterion of EPCRA section 304(a)(2)
has not been met).
    The legislative history also reveals that Congress intended EPCRA
section 304(a)(2) to operate to exclude continuous releases from
EPCRA's immediate notification requirements because such releases do
not occur in a manner that requires reporting under CERCLA section
103(a).\3\ The committee conference report explains: ``[R]eleases which
are continuous or frequently recurring and do not require reporting
under CERCLA are not required to be reported under [EPCRA section
304].'' Rather, continuous releases are subject to reduced reporting
requirements pursuant to CERCLA section 103(f). As explained in section
C.3. of this preamble, EPA incorporated an alternative for continuous
releases into EPCRA and promulgated regulations that allow continuous
releases to be reported in a manner consistent with CERCLA's continuous
release reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CERCLA section 103(a) requires the person in charge of a
vessel or facility to ``immediately notify'' the NRC when there is a
release of a hazardous substance in an amount equal to or greater
than the reportable quantity for that substance within a 24-hour
period. In contrast, releases that are continuous and stable in
quantity and rate may qualify for reduced, ``continuous release''
reporting under CERCLA section 103(f)(2). Similarly, EPCRA section
304 requires owners or operators of certain facilities to
``immediately'' notify state and local authorities of qualifying
releases, and EPA has promulgated regulations that allow continuous
releases to be reported under EPCRA in a manner consistent with
CERCLA's continuous release reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress's intent in adopting the three scenarios in EPCRA section
304(a)(1)-(3) was to ensure that when

Federal authorities receive notice of a release under CERCLA section
103(a), state and local authorities receive similar notice under EPCRA.
Note that CERCLA notification applies to the list of hazardous
substances (located in 40 CFR 302.4), while EPCRA notification applies
to the lists of both CERCLA hazardous substances and EPCRA EHSs
(located in 40 CFR part 355 Apps. A and B). When a substance is not a
listed CERCLA hazardous substance (or a federally permitted release and
is above the applicable reportable quantity), but is on the EPCRA EHSs
list, EPCRA section 304(a)(2) provides for notification only if the
release of such substance occurs in a manner as the types of releases
that require notification under CERCLA section 103(a). On the other
hand, if Congress determines that a release occurs in a manner that
does not require notification under CERCLA section 103(a), EPCRA
section 304(a)(2) works to logically exclude that release from EPCRA
reporting.

C. Prior Regulatory Actions

    As noted, CERCLA release notification was established to alert
Federal authorities to a release so that the need for a response can be
evaluated and any necessary response undertaken in a timely fashion.
EPCRA release notification supplements CERCLA release notification by
similarly preparing the community at the state and local level. Based
on the criteria for EPCRA section 304 release reporting, and to promote
consistency between CERCLA and EPCRA release notification requirements,
the Agency has incorporated many of CERCLA's release notification
exemptions into the EPCRA release notification regulations through
prior rulemakings. Each of these prior regulatory actions are
summarized below.
1. Exemptions From the Definition of ``release'' Under CERCLA and EPCRA
    Both CERCLA and EPCRA define the term ``release.'' Under CERCLA
section 101(22), the term ``release'' generally means ``any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting,
escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment
(including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and
other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance or
pollutant or contaminant),'' but also includes specific exclusions for
workplace releases, vehicle emissions, nuclear material releases and
fertilizer application. Similar to the CERCLA workplace exposure
exclusion, EPCRA section 304(a)(4) exempts from reporting any release
which results in exposure to persons solely within the site or sites on
which a facility is located. Though the definition of ``release'' under
EPCRA section 329 mirrors the CERCLA definition, it does not contain
three exclusions provided in the CERCLA section 101(22) definition of
``release'': (1) Emissions from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle,
rolling stock, aircraft, vessel or pipeline pumping station engine; (2)
releases of source, byproduct or special nuclear material from a
nuclear incident; and (3) the normal application of fertilizer.
However, because the types of releases excluded from CERCLA's
definition of ``release'' do not occur in a manner that would be
reportable under CERCLA section 103(a), these types of releases do not
meet the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 304. See 52 FR
13381, 13384-85 (April 22, 1987) and related Response to Comments
document, April 1987, Docket Number 300PQ. Thus, EPA adopted these
statutory CERCLA exclusions into the EPCRA regulations codified at 40
CFR 355.31.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 1987 rule codified these exemptions at 40 CFR
355.40(a)(2), which was later reorganized into 40 CFR 355.31. See 73
FR 65451 (November 3, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Exemptions From Immediate Notification Requirements
    There are four types of statutory exemptions from the immediate
notification requirements for releases of hazardous substances provided
in CERCLA sections 101(10) and 103(e) and (f). Specifically, these
statutory exemptions include: (1) Federally permitted releases, as
defined in section 101(10); (2) the application of a pesticide product
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
or from the handling and storage of such a pesticide product by an
agricultural producer (section 103(e)); (3) certain releases of
hazardous wastes that are required to be reported under the provisions
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and that are reported to
the NRC (section 103(f)(1)); and (4) certain releases that are
determined to be continuous under the provisions of section 103(f)(2).
    In the final rulemaking on April 22, 1987 (52 FR 13378) for
emergency planning and release notification requirements under EPCRA,
the Agency adopted exemptions from CERCLA section 103(a) reporting
``based on the language in EPCRA section 304(a) which requires that
releases reportable under that Section occur in a manner which would
require notification under section 103(a) of CERCLA.'' 52 FR 13378,
13381 (April 22, 1987).
    Although EPA stated in the April 1987 rulemaking that it was
incorporating CERCLA reporting exemptions into the EPCRA regulations
based on the criteria for EPCRA section 304 release reporting, the
Agency inadvertently omitted the exclusion for the ``application of a
pesticide product registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act or to the handling and storage of such a pesticide
product by an agricultural producer'' from the EPCRA section 304
regulations at that time. Thus, in a technical amendment published on
May 24, 1989 (54 FR 22543), EPA added a provision to the EPCRA
regulations in 40 CFR 355.40(a)(2)(iv) (currently codified at 40 CFR
355.31(c)) providing that releases exempted from CERCLA section 103(a)
reporting by CERCLA section 103(e) are also exempt from reporting under
EPCRA section 304. In addition, the May 1989 technical amendment
clarified the language in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of 40 CFR 355.40
(currently codified at 40 CFR 355.31(d)), explaining that this section
exempts from EPCRA section 304 reporting ``any occurrence not meeting
the definition of release under section 101(22) of CERCLA,'' as
``[s]uch occurrences are also exempt from reporting under CERCLA
section 103(a).'' See 54 FR 22543, 22543 (May 24, 1989).
3. Continuous Release Reporting
    CERCLA section 103(f) provides relief from the immediate
notification requirements of CERCLA section 103(a) for a release of a
hazardous substance that is continuous and stable in quantity and rate.
Instead, continuous releases are subject to a significantly reduced
reporting requirement under regulations promulgated pursuant to CERCLA
section 103(f). In adopting the implementing regulations for EPCRA in
40 CFR part 355, EPA relied on EPCRA section 304(a)(2) to likewise
exclude continuous releases from the immediate notification requirement
of EPCRA section 304, reasoning: ``Because such releases do not `occur
in a manner' which requires immediate release reporting under section
103(a) of CERCLA, they are also not reportable under section 304 of
[EPCRA].'' See 52 FR 13381, 13384 (April 22, 1987). EPA later
promulgated continuous release reporting regulations for EPCRA that
cross-reference and follow the CERCLA continuous release reporting
regulations, finding that EPCRA release reporting is ``closely tied''
and ``parallel'' to CERCLA release reporting. See 55 FR 30169, 30179
(July 24, 1990).

At that time, the Agency also reiterated that ``[t]o the extent that
releases are continuous and stable in quantity and rate as defined by
CERCLA section 103(f)(2) . . . , they do not occur in a manner that
requires notification under CERCLA section 103(a)'' and are thus not
subject to the EPCRA section 304 immediate notification requirements.
Id. (emphasis added).

IV. Scope of the Final Rule

    The scope of this rulemaking is limited to air emissions from
animal waste (including decomposing animal waste) at a farm. The Agency
is adding this reporting exemption to the EPCRA section 304 emergency
release notification regulations as implemented in 40 CFR part 355,
subpart C, entitled ``Emergency Release Notification.'' The scope of
this rulemaking stems from existing requirements under EPCRA section
304(a)(2) and under CERCLA section 103(e), as amended, and is tied to
the nature or manner of these releases rather than to a specific
substance. In other words, the Agency is not exempting substances
typically associated with animal waste (such as ammonia or hydrogen
sulfide) from reporting. Rather, this rulemaking codifies EPA's
interpretation that air emissions from animal waste at farms are not
subject to EPCRA section 304 release reporting by explicitly exempting
releases from animal waste into the air at farms from reporting. Thus,
the Agency is excluding all releases to the air from animal waste at a
farm from reporting under EPCRA section 304.
    This rulemaking does not apply to releases of substances from
animal waste into non-air environmental media, nor to releases into the
air from sources other than animal waste or decomposing animal waste at
a farm. For example, a release from animal waste into water (e.g., a
lagoon breach) or a release from an anhydrous ammonia storage tank into
the air might trigger reporting requirements if the release exceeds the
applicable reportable quantities.
    This exemption is added to those currently listed in the EPCRA
regulations codified at 40 CFR 355.31, entitled ``What types of
releases are exempt from the emergency release notification
requirements of this subpart?''
    To delineate the scope of this exemption, EPA is finalizing, as
proposed, the definitions of ``animal waste'' and ``farm'' to be
consistent with CERCLA section 103(e). See 40 CFR 355.61 for the full
text of these definitions.

V. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments from various organizations, including the
National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO),
agricultural trade associations, farm bureaus, a university research
center and environmental groups. EPA also received individual comment
letters. This section provides a summary of major comments received and
EPA's responses. A detailed summary of the comments and EPA's responses
are in the Response to Comments document, a copy of which is in the
docket for this rulemaking.

A. General Comments Supporting the Proposed Rule

    Several commenters, NASTTPO, agricultural trade associations, the
Department of Agriculture from West Virginia and North Dakota, farm
bureaus and a few private citizens, expressed general support for the
proposed amendment to the EPCRA section 304 release reporting
regulations to add the reporting exemption for air emissions from
animal waste at farms provided in CERCLA section 103(e). In support of
the proposed amendment, commenters stated that the proposed rule lays
out the proper reading of the law and is consistent with Congress'
clear intent that EPCRA section 304 and CERCLA release reporting
requirements should be applied consistently except in certain very
limited circumstances. Some of the commenters stated that EPCRA was
never intended to govern agricultural operations, where emissions from
livestock are a part of everyday life and are certainly not emergency
situations. The natural breakdown of livestock manure does not
constitute an emergency release pursuant to the CERCLA and EPCRA laws.
One commenter stated that EPCRA was created to protect citizens from
disasters such as 1984 Bhopal tragedy, however, animal agriculture
cannot be compared to or included in a similar category designed to
address toxic chemicals, hazardous substances and chemical emergencies.

B. General Comments Opposing the Proposed Rule

    EPA received numerous mass mail campaigns which include anonymous
private citizens, citizen & environmental groups opposing the proposed
amendment to add the reporting exemption to the EPCRA section 304
emergency release notification regulations for air emissions from
animal waste at farms. Several commenters strongly urge the EPA to
withdraw the proposed rule, which commenters said would exempt
concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from EPCRA reporting
requirements so that reports of hazardous substance releases will be
available to the public. Certain members of the Senate Environment and
Public Works (SEPW) Committee strongly urged EPA to withdraw the
proposed rule and faithfully execute and enforce EPCRA and CERCLA
reporting requirements consistent with the laws passed by Congress.
    EPA also received individual comment letters opposing the proposed
amendment. One commenter stated that it is the job of the EPA to
regulate sources of hazardous emissions and protect the population from
known sources of these emissions. One commenter asked EPA not to ignore
and vacate their right-to-know by exempting the CAFO's responsibility
to control and report the toxic emissions they are required to control
and report.
    EPA's Response: While EPA recognizes commenters' concerns regarding
animal waste emissions, this amendment is based on the statutory
language in EPCRA section 304 and its relationship to CERCLA section
103 release reporting requirements. The basic purpose of emergency
release notification requirements under EPCRA section 304 is for
facilities to inform state and local agencies of accidental releases so
that these agencies can exercise the local emergency response plan if
necessary. This may include, but is not limited to, providing shelter
or evacuating the community to prevent acute exposure from accidental
releases of chemicals. EPCRA section 304 serves as a notification
requirement for chemical accidental releases, it is not intended to
regulate emissions.
    In their letter to EPA dated June 1, 2017, the members of NASTTPO
indicated that the release reports for air emissions from animal waste
at farms provide little value to local agencies and first responders,
and are generally ignored. NASTTPO states that open dialogue and
coordination among farms and local agencies can be more effective than
release reporting to address animal waste management at farms. NASTTPO
reiterated this principle in its comment to this rulemaking, dated
December 14, 2018. In addition, regardless of reporting, EPA can still
enforce applicable laws and regulations to address threats to human
health and the environment. This rulemaking does not limit the Agency's
authority under CERCLA sections 104 (response authorities), 106
(abatement actions), 107 (liability), or any other provisions of

CERCLA to address releases of hazardous substances at farms.

C. Comments on the Proposal To Add Definitions of ``animal waste'' and
``farm''

    EPA requested comments on adding the definitions of ``animal
waste'' and ``farm'' to the definition section of EPCRA regulations in
40 CFR part 355.
1. Support
    A few commenters supported adding the definitions of ``animal
waste'' and ``farm'' to EPCRA regulations in 40 CFR part 355. These
commenters expressed that the incorporation of the FARM Act's
definitions of ``animal waste'' and ``farm'' into the ECPRA regulations
provides important regulatory clarity to agricultural producers. In
their comments, NASTTPO expressed that EPA has crafted a narrow and
specific exemption from the reporting of releases from animal waste
from farms.
2. Oppose
    Many commenters as part of mass mail campaigns as well as few
individual commenters opposed adding the definitions of ``animal
waste'' and ``farm'' to the EPCRA regulations in 40 CFR part 355. One
of the commenters specifically stated that limiting definitions of what
constitutes a farm, or animal waste merely hides problems and that we
should be striving for more transparency on issues concerning emissions
that affect climate and public health, not trying to limit
transparency. Another commenter stated that it is only the large CAFOs
that can release sufficient volumes of toxic pollutants, as ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide into the air which obviously will then end up in our
soil and water.
    EPA's Response: On March 23, 2018, the Fair Agricultural Reporting
Method (FARM) Act of 2018 amended CERCLA section 103 to exempt the
reporting of air emissions from animal waste at a farm. See Fair
Agricultural Reporting Method Act, Public Law 115-141 Sec. Sec.  1101-
1103 (2018). The FARM Act includes definitions for ``animal waste'' and
``farm.'' On August 1, 2018, EPA promulgated a final rule to
incorporate the FARM Act legislation into the CERCLA reporting
regulations at 40 CFR part 302 (see 83 FR 37446), including definitions
for ``animal waste'' and ``farm.'' This amendment is based on EPA's
interpretation of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and its relationship to
CERCLA section 103 as amended by the FARM Act. Thus, the Agency
believes it is reasonable to promulgate the same definitions for
``animal waste'' and ``farm'' into the EPCRA release reporting
regulations to maintain consistency between the statutes and to
effectuate the exemption under EPCRA.

D. Comments on the Legal Rationale for the Proposed Rule

    EPA received comments supporting and opposing the legal rationale
for the proposed rule. Below is a summary of the significant comments
received and EPA's responses. Details of these comments and the
Agency's responses are addressed in the Response to Comments document
which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
1. Support
    A few commenters state that Congress intended for EPCRA reporting
requirements to be consistent with or ``linked to'' CERCLA reporting
requirements, which is evinced by the statutory language in EPCRA
section 304(a)(2). Commenters stated that EPA has the authority to
amend the EPCRA emergency release notification regulations to include
the reporting exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms
provided in CERCLA section 103(e). Commenters also note that an
analysis prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the
request of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW)
supports EPA's interpretation as presented in the proposed rule. In
sum, commenters state the proposed rule is a sound and lawful
codification based on the statutory language in EPCRA and CERCLA.
2. Oppose
    EPA received comments with a wide range of arguments opposing the
Agency's legal rationale for the proposed rule. The following is a
brief summary of comments on each topic presented in the preamble to
the proposed rule. Details of comments received and the Agency's
response can be found in the Response to Comments document at the
docket for this rulemaking.
i. Statutory Text
    A few commenters argue the proposed rule is in direct contravention
of the plain language of EPCRA and CERCLA and is therefore
``fundamentally flawed'' and ``illegal.'' One commenter argues that the
phrase ``occurs in a manner'' makes it clear that even if a release is
not reported under CERCLA, EPCRA reporting would still be required if
the ``factual'' circumstances of the release would otherwise require
CERCLA reporting. The commenter also stated that EPA arbitrarily based
its interpretation of ``occurs in a manner'' on the method or type of
release (i.e., into the air) rather than on the substance emitted.
Additionally, this commenter argues that the statute provides no
support for such an interpretation. Another commenter expressed that
the plain language of EPCRA is unambiguous in that it prohibits EPA
from exempting animal feeding operations from EPCRA's reporting
requirements; but even if there was some ambiguity in the statute, the
proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because EPA has not provided
a reasoned explanation to justify its departure from the statute or
supported that explanation with substantive record evidence.
    EPA's Response: EPA's interpretation is lawful and based on the
plain language of EPCRA and CERCLA. EPA reasonably interpreted the
operative language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) as requiring EPCRA
reporting when the release ``occurs in a manner'' which would require
notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Because air emissions from
animal waste at farms do not ``occur in a manner'' that would require
notification under CERCLA section 103(a), such releases are not
reportable under EPCRA section 304(a)(2).
    EPA disagrees with commenters' analysis that reporting of these
types of air emissions would still be required under EPCRA so long as
they are factually releases under CERCLA. EPA understands these
comments to propose that the ``occurs in a manner'' language in EPCRA
section 304(a)(2) means that a release only has to satisfy the
definition of a ``release'' under CERCLA to be eligible for EPCRA
reporting. Such a reading is unnecessary as the definition of a
``release'' in EPCRA already mirrors the definition of a ``release'' in
CERCLA. (see the definition of ``release'' under EPCRA section 329(8)
and CERCLA section 101(22). While the CERCLA definition may focus more
on hazardous substances and the EPCRA definition focusses more on
extremely hazardous substances and hazardous or toxic chemicals, both
definitions list similar types, ways, or manners of a release.
    EPA believes it is not a full and fair reading of EPCRA section
304(a)(2) to say that EPCRA reporting would still be necessary if a
release to the environment qualifies as a release to the environment
under CERCLA, regardless of whether reporting is legally required under
CERCLA. An EPCRA release into the environment already follows the
definition of a release into the environment under CERCLA. Applied to
the present rulemaking, emissions into

the air from animal waste at farms already qualify as releases into the
environment under both statutes (i.e., they are ``emitting'' or
``escaping'' under the statutory definitions). Further analysis of what
factually is a release to the environment does not shed light on the
Congressional intent of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and does not follow the
plain language of the statute, which requires, in part, that a release
occurs in a manner which would require notification under CERCLA
section 103(a).
    In enacting the FARM Act, the Senate EPW requested an analysis from
the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the potential effects of
the FARM Act's amendments to CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting. The
CRS issued two memorandums, March 7, 2018 (an overview of CERCLA and
EPCRA release reporting, statutory exemptions, the 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA
rule and resulting litigation, etc.) and March 13, 2018 (``Supplemental
Analysis: Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act/FARM Act (S.2421'').
CRS agreed with this interpretation in its memorandum dated March 7,
2018, which states:

    [T]he phrase ``occurs in a manner'' generally has been
implemented over time to mean the nature of the release in terms of
how the substance enters the environment. [CRS March 7, 2018
memorandum page 6].

    The next question is whether the release would require notification
under CERCLA section 103(a). As discussed earlier, the FARM Act
exempted only releases of a certain kind or manner--air emissions from
animal waste at farms--from notification under CERCLA section 103(a).
Accordingly, these types of releases do not occur in a manner that
would require notification under CERCLA section 103(a). Because the
third criteria of EPCRA section 304(a)(2) is not met, no reporting
under EPCRA is required.
    EPA believes its interpretation follows the plain language of the
statute and carries out the Congressional intent of EPCRA section
304(a)(2).
ii. Legislative History and Prior Agency Actions
    Commenters opposing the proposal argue that the legislative history
of the FARM Act makes it clear that Congress intended for EPCRA
reporting to continue notwithstanding the FARM Act's CERCLA exemption.
The letter from certain Senate EPW members cites to testimony by
Senators and witnesses explaining that the FARM Act makes no changes to
reporting requirements for releases of extremely hazardous substances
under EPCRA. Commenters assert that the proposed rule violates the
legislative intent of the FARM Act. One commenter argues that EPCRA's
legislative history does not support EPA's prior actions exempting
certain releases from EPCRA reporting, such as the CERCLA continuous
release provision.
    EPA's Response: In enacting the FARM Act, Congress amended the
CERCLA section 103 reporting requirements; it did not amend the EPCRA
section 304 reporting requirements. While the FARM Act legislative
history has relevance with respect to the statutory changes to
reporting under CERCLA section 103, EPA considered the text of EPCRA
section 304 and its legislative history in issuing this rule. As stated
throughout the proposed rule, EPA has interpreted EPCRA section
304(a)(2) as carrying over CERCLA reporting exemptions related to the
manner or nature of release. In this way, EPCRA section 304(a)(2)
promotes consistency between EPCRA and CERCLA reporting. The
legislative history of the FARM Act does not address the legislative
history of EPCRA, and if Congress wished to ensure that the exemption
in the FARM Act did not carry over into EPCRA reporting, it could have
expressly enacted such statutory text, but it did not.
    The legislative history of the FARM Act is correct to the extent
that the amendment does not exempt all releases from animal waste at
farms from reporting under EPCRA. Rather, the amendment only exempts
certain types of releases, and this rule tracks the FARM Act to provide
that a limited type of release, air emissions from animal waste at
farms, are not subject to reporting under EPCRA. This rule does not
apply to releases of substances from animal waste into non-air
environmental media, nor to releases into the air from sources other
than animal waste or decomposing animal waste at a farm. For example, a
release from animal waste into water (e.g., a lagoon breach) or a
release from an anhydrous ammonia storage tank into the air might
trigger reporting requirements if the release exceeds the applicable
reportable quantities. This is because the releases occur in a manner
that require reporting under CERCLA because they are releases into a
non-air media or they are not emissions from animal waste.
    The proposed rule also explains how, in the 1986 committee
conference report addressing EPCRA, Congress expressed its intent that
EPCRA release reporting be aligned with CERCLA reporting. As an
example, the committee conference report explains how continuous
releases which are not subject to immediate reporting requirements
under CERCLA should likewise not be subject to EPCRA reporting. As
result, EPA promulgated reduced reporting requirements that cross-
reference and follow the CERCLA reduced reporting requirements for
continuous releases. In this manner, EPA reasonably followed
Congressional intent to state that numerous types of releases are not
subject to reporting under EPCRA when reporting wasn't required under
CERCLA, including vehicle emissions, the normal application of
fertilizer, and the application of registered pesticide products (see
the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule for a more detailed
discussion).
    The legislative history of the FARM Act's amendment to CERCLA did
not nullify the statutory text in EPCRA section 304(a)(2). EPA
reasonably interpreted that text and the proposed rule is supported by
EPCRA's legislative history.

E. Other Comments

    EPA also received adverse comments on the rulemaking and its impact
on environment and public health. These commenters expressed that the
proposed exemption will prevent local emergency responders from
accessing information to protect the community. Some commenters assert
that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because the Agency
failed to consider environmental justice, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act prior to issuing the
proposed rule.
    EPA's Response: Although these comments are outside the scope of
this rulemaking, the Agency's response to these comments are provided
in the Response to Comments document, which can be found in the docket
to this rulemaking.

F. Request for Public Comment Period Extension & Public Hearings

    Three commenters, a university research organization, mass mail
campaign and community group, requested EPA to extend the public
comment period for the proposed rule. These commenters stated that the
proposed rule may have significant consequences on the ability of local
governments and their residents to protect their health and wellbeing,
none of which seems to have been considered by EPA during the
preparation of the proposed rule. Additionally, these commenters
expressed that they need an additional 60 days to collect information
from studies on health and

environmental impacts of CAFO air emissions on surrounding communities
as rulemaking docket does not contain any scientific studies or other
documents about toxic emissions from CAFOs and their impact on
surrounding communities.
    Two groups, mass mail campaigns and community organization,
requested public hearings on the proposed rule stating that given the
impact that the proposed rule will have on communities across the
country, including a disproportionate number of low-income and minority
communities, EPA should schedule at least three public hearings in
various locations across the country to ensure adequate public
participation in the rulemaking process. EPA should hold these hearings
in locations near to communities affected by CAFOs, for example,
communities in North Carolina, Maryland, Iowa, or Oklahoma, to name a
few.
    EPA's Response: EPA believes that the 30-day comment period was
appropriate. The proposed rule is based on a reasonable interpretation
of the statutory language in EPCRA section 304(a)(2) and its
relationship with CERCLA section 103 as amended by the FARM Act. EPA's
rationale is set out in the Federal Register notice for the proposed
rule and all the supporting documents the Agency relied on are
available in the associated docket.
    The proposed rule is not based on health or environmental risk, so
no such associated studies are necessary. Because the proposed rule is
based on a statutory interpretation, the record is not extensive, and
therefore EPA did not believe such an extension should be granted. EPA
also generally set out its statutory interpretation in the guidance
document entitled ``How does the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method
(FARM) Act impact reporting of air emissions from animal waste under
CERCLA Section 103 and EPCRA Section 304?'' dated April 2018. That
guidance document states: ``EPA intends to conduct a rulemaking to
address the impact of the FARM Act on the reporting of air emissions
from animal waste at farms under EPCRA.'' Accordingly, the commenters
were provided a meaningful opportunity to comment and no extensions
were necessary to comment on EPA's statutory interpretation. Similarly,
no public meetings or hearing were required or deemed necessary to
allow for comment on EPA's interpretation.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders

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

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13771 because this
final rule does not result in additional costs.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. The Agency is codifying a provision exempting farms from
reporting air releases from animal waste under EPCRA section 304
release notification regulations.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. Consistent with the Agency's
interpretation that air emissions from animal waste at farms are not
subject to EPCRA section 304 release reporting, this final rule
explicitly exempts these types of releases from EPCRA reporting and
would not result in additional costs.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. The Agency is
amending the EPCRA section 304 release notification regulations to add
the reporting exemption for air emissions from animal waste at farms
provided in CERCLA section 103(e), as amended.

F. 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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA is amending the EPCRA section 304
release notification regulations to add the reporting exemption for air
emissions from animal waste at farms provided in CERCLA section 103(e),
as amended. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of covered regulatory action in section 2-
202 of the Executive Order. This final rule is not based on health or
environmental effect, rather, it is intended to maintain consistency
between EPCRA section 304 and CERCLA section 103(a) emergency release
notification requirements by exempting reporting of air emissions from
animal waste at farms.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The EPA is amending the EPCRA section
304 release notification regulations to add the reporting exemption for
air emissions from animal waste at farms provided in CERCLA section
103(e), as amended.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard. EPA has no authority under
EPCRA to prevent or reduce emissions from certain facilities or their
operations. The rule presents a statutory interpretation intended to
maintain consistency between EPCRA section 304(a) and CERCLA section
103 release notification requirements and does not have any impact on
human health or the environment.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 355

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Disaster assistance, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous waste, Natural resources, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund.

    Dated: June 4, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part
355 as follows:

PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 355 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 302, 303, 304, 325, 327, 328, and 329 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA)
(42 U.S.C. 11002, 11003, 11004, 11045, 11047, 11048, and 11049).

0
2. Amend Sec.  355.31 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  355.31  What types of releases are exempt from the emergency
release notification requirements of this subpart?

* * * * *
    (g) Air emissions from animal waste (including decomposing animal
waste) at a farm.

0
3. Amend Sec.  355.61 by adding in alphabetical order definitions for
``Animal waste'' and ``Farm'' to read as follows:

Sec.  355.61  How are key words in this part defined?

    Animal waste means feces, urine, or other excrement, digestive
emission, urea, or similar substances emitted by animals (including any
form of livestock, poultry, or fish). This term includes animal waste
that is mixed or commingled with bedding, compost, feed, soil, or any
other material typically found with such waste.
* * * * *
    Farm means a site or area (including associated structures) that--
    (1) Is used for--
    (i) The production of a crop; or
    (ii) The raising or selling of animals (including any form of
livestock, poultry, or fish); and
    (2) Under normal conditions, produces during a farm year any
agricultural products with a total value equal to not less than $1,000.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-12411 Filed 6-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14173-14174]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06089]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74485; File No. SR-DTC-2015-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Make Technical Revisions to the DTC Settlement Service Guide

March 12, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on March 3, 2015, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \4\
thereunder. The proposed rule change was effective upon filing with the
Commission. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of technical amendments to the
Settlement Service Guide (``Guide'') in order to make technical changes
and updates to its text.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Each term not otherwise defined herein has the respective
meaning set forth in DTC's rules (the ``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change the Guide would be revised to:
    (i) Refer to the ``Settlement User Interface'' rather than the
``Settlement Web'', ``Participant Terminal System'' and ``Participant
Browser Service'';
    (ii) update the text of the Settling Bank Processing Schedule and
other text in the Guide to reflect that DTC end-of-day net settlement
is processed through the National Settlement Service (NSS) of the
Federal Reserve System, specifically, that DTC submits to the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York a file to debit and credit Federal Reserve
accounts of Settling Banks simultaneously;
    (iii) delete references to the ``U.S. program'' of EuroCCP (which
has ceased to exist) as well as any references to related DTC
processing provisions that are obsolete as a result;
    (iv) simplify and update other text, including descriptions of
processes and timeframes, contact information for settlement processing
and cross-references; and
    (v) conform grammar and usage throughout the Guide.
Implementation Date
    The proposed rule changes would become effective immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change would update the Guide to make technical
changes and updates to the Guide to reflect current terminology,
systems functionality, practices and processing timeframes, which would
simplify and clarify the Guide's text. Therefore, DTC believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of: (i) The
Act, in particular Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\6\ which requires
that the rules of the clearing agency be designed, inter alia, to
promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions, and (ii) Rule 17Ad-22(d)(9) \7\ promulgated under the Act
which requires, inter alia, that a clearing agency establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to identify and evaluate the risks and costs
associated with using its services, because the proposed changes
simplify and clarify the Guide's text for the users of DTC's services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-DTC-2015-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2015-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTCC's
Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). 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-DTC-2015-02 and should be
submitted on or before April 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06089 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Lindane Food Chain Bio Accumulation, Magnification and Concentration PC Code No. 009001; Case No. 818566; DP Barcode: D283666 TO: B. Shackleford, Branch Chief M. Howard, Team Leader Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

FROM: ERB V RED Team for Lindane: N. E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Effects Reviewer, Team Leader F. A Khan, Ph. D., Environmental Scientist Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

THROUGH: Mah T. Shamim, Ph. D., Chief Environmental Risk Branch V EFED (7507C)

Lindane Food Chain Bio Accumulation, Magnification and Concentration Due to extensive use over the past 50 years, lindane is present in most environmental media and biological compartments and is present in terrestrial and aquatic food chains. However, evidence suggests that concentrations have been gradually decreasing. Recent data suggest that the declines of   HCH isomer concentrations in the environment have resulted from reduced use of technical HCH, especially in Asian countries (Iwata et al., 1993). The behavior of HCH isomers in the environment is complex because they are multimedia chemicals, existing and exchanging among different compartments of the environment such as atmosphere, surface water, soil and sediment. In addition, temperature, humidity, and other environmental properties, may have significant influence on environmental degradation rates. The most common isomers found in the environment are lindane (   ),   , and   HCHs, with   HCH as the predominant isomer in air and ocean water and   HCH the predominant isomer in soils, animal tissues and fluids (Willett et al., 1998). The physical and chemical properties of the HCH isomers can be quite different from one another. For example,   HCH has a lower vapor pressure and a higher bio concentration factor in fat than either   HCH or lindane. In contrast, lindane and   HCH seem to be more volatile than   HCH (Willett et al., 1998). These properties likely reflect some of the differences seen in HCH isomer persistence and variability in bio magnification, concentration and accumulation in the various biological compartments. Differences in accumulation are also likely due to different modes of uptake, metabolism and sources of contamination. Bio concentration factors (BCF) for Lindane were 780x in fillet, 2500x in viscera and 1400x in whole fish. It would seem this is partly due to high lipid solubility. Lindane can become enriched in lipid containing biological compartments. However, although lindane may bioconcentrate rapidly, most data suggest bio transformation, depuration and elimination are relatively rapid once exposure is eliminated. After a 28 day exposure and 14 days of depuration, levels were reduced by 96%, 95% and 85% in fillet, viscera and in whole fish, respectively.

HCH bio accumulation/ food chain data from Russia (Moisey et al 2001) and from Central/ Western Canada (Kelly and Gobas 2001) suggests that   HCH does bio accumulate/ biomagnify alpha does also, but at a lower level, and gamma (Lindane) the least. Data from Moisey et al (2001) suggests that the relative proportions of HCH isomers varied dramatically across species in the arctic marine food web studied. Kelly and Gobas (2001) indicate that the fugacity of lindane decreases with increasing trophic level suggesting trophic dilution (the lichen caribouwolf food chain was studied). It appears that upper trophic level mammals may be able to efficiently eliminate lindane and to a smaller extent   HCH, but not   HCH. In birds,   HCH seems to have a tendency to accumulate to a greater extent than the other isomers, which may be due to consuming contaminated prey (Elliot et al., 1989), although concentrations have been on the decline. Even though concentrations of HCH isomers were detected in surface waters of the Arctic, bioaccumulation in the aquatic food chains was significantly less than the other organochlorine compounds (Norstrom and Muir, 1994) analyzed.

In conclusion, although there is evidence that HCH isomers can and do bio magnify, bioconcentrate and bio accumulate in different biological compartments and at different rates, the overall magnitude is an uncertainty. Overall, lindane seems to accumulate environmentally but generally to a lesser extent than either the alpha, and especially, the beta isomers. Generally, Lindane tends to bio magnify in lower trophic levels where bio transformation was minimal, although not to the extent   HCH does.   HCH tends to mainly bio accumulate in upper trophic levels (fish, birds, mammals) at higher concentrations.

Literature Cited Elliot, J. E., D. G. Noble and R. J. Norstrom. 1989. Organochlorine contaminants in seabird eggs from the Pacific coast of Canada, 1971 1986. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 12: 67 82.

Iwata, H., S. Tanabe, N. Sakai and R. Tatsukawa. 1993. Distribution of persistent organochlorines in the oceanic air and surface seawater and the role of ocean on their global transport and fate. Environmental Science and Technology 27: 1080 1098.

Kelly, B. and F. Gobas. 2001. Bioaccumulation of POPs in lichen caribou wolf food chains of Canada's Central and Western Arctic. Environmental Science and Technology 35( 2): 325 334.

Moisey, J., A. Fisk, K. Hobson and R. Norstrom. 2001. Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) isomers and chiral signatures of alpha HCH in Arctic marine food web of the Northwater Polynya. Environmental Science and Technology 35( 10): 1920 1927. Norstrom, R. J., and D. C. G. Muir. 1994. Chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants in arctic marine mammals. Sci Total Environ. 154: 107 128.

Willet, K., E. M. Ulrich and R. A. Hites. 1998. Differential toxicity and environmental fates of hexachlorocyclohexane isomers. Environmental Science and Technology 32 (15): 2197 2207.