[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15609-15617]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6430]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 799

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033; FRL-9335-6]
RIN 2070-AD16

Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing Requirements for Certain
High Production Volume Chemical Substances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain testing requirements for six chemical
substances and all the testing requirements for four chemical
substances. EPA is basing its decision to take this action on
information received since publication of the first test rule for
certain high production volume chemical substances (HPV1). HPV1
established testing requirements for those 10 chemical substances. On
the effective date of this direct final rule, persons who export or
intend to export the four chemical substances for which all the testing
requirements are revoked are no longer subject to section 12(b) of the
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) export notification requirements
triggered by HPV1.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective May 15, 2012 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment in writing, or a request to
present comment orally, on or before April 16, 2012. If EPA receives
adverse comment, or a written request for an opportunity to present
oral comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register informing the public that this direct final rule, or relevant
portions of this direct final rule, will not take effect. If you write
EPA to request an opportunity to present oral comments on or before
April 16, 2012, EPA will hold a public meeting on this direct final
rule in Washington, DC. The announcement of the meeting will be
published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO), EPA
East Bldg.,

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket
ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the DCO is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the DCO's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. 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 in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Catherine Roman, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8157; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
particular interest to those persons who manufacture (defined by
statute to include import), process, or export the chemical substances
identified in this direct final rule. Because other persons may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
persons that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and
then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Statutory Authority

    Section 4(a) of TSCA authorizes EPA to require testing if certain
findings are made. EPA is amending the chemical testing requirements
for certain HPV chemical substances in 40 CFR 799.5085 because some of
the findings that EPA made for 10 chemical substances are no longer
supported. These findings were that:
    1. The chemical substances were produced in substantial quantities.
    2. There are insufficient data upon which the effects of
manufacture, distribution, processing, use, or disposal of those
chemical substances on health or the environment can reasonably be
determined or predicted.
    3. Testing of the chemical substance with respect to such effects
is necessary to develop such data. (See TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i),
(ii), and (iii); also, see Ref. 1).
    Unit III. discusses which findings are not supported for each
specific chemical substance subject to this direct final rule.

III. Amendment to Chemical Testing Requirements

    EPA is amending the chemical testing requirements for certain HPV
chemical

substances in 40 CFR 799.5085 by direct final rule. Specifically, this
direct final rule revokes the testing requirements for the following
four chemical substances: Acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75-36-5);
imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No. 108-19-0); methane, isocyanato- (CAS
No. 624-83-9); and urea, reaction products with formaldehyde (CAS No.
68611-64-3). This direct final rule also revokes some of the testing
requirements for the following six chemical substances: 9,10-
Anthracenedione (CAS No. 84-65-1); 1-chlorododecane (CAS No. 112-52-7);
phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis [2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118-
82-1); methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt (CAS No. 149-
44-0); benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-
(phenylimino)-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS
No. 1324-76-1); and C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No. 8005-02-5). EPA is
basing its decision to revoke all testing requirements for four
chemical substances and some of the testing requirements for six other
chemical substances on information received since publication of HPV1
(40 CFR 799.5085), as described in this unit.

A. Revocation of All Testing Requirements for Four Chemical Substances

    1. Acetyl chloride. EPA is revoking all testing requirements for
acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75-36-5) because there is no longer support
for the TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i) ``substantial production'' finding
for this chemical substance. ``Substantial production'' of a chemical
substance under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i) is generally interpreted by
EPA to be an aggregate production (including import) volume equaling or
exceeding 1 million pounds per year. See EPA's TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)
Final Statement of Policy (``B'' policy) (Ref. 2). The ``substantial
production'' finding for this chemical substance was based on reports
from several companies to the 2002 TSCA Inventory Update Reporting
(IUR) rule. The Albemarle Corporation which manufactured and imported
the largest volume of acetyl chloride, without which a finding of
substantial production could not have been made, informed EPA in 2007
that its manufacture and importation of acetyl chloride at the time the
test rule was promulgated were only for non-TSCA purposes (i.e., for
use in pharmaceuticals) (Ref. 3), and was, therefore, not subject to
HPV1.
    Three other companies had reported importing smaller volumes of
acetyl chloride in the 2002 IUR, the sum of which would not have
provided support for a finding of substantial production. Two of these
companies, Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., and a company, which claimed its
name as CBI, have since ceased importation of acetyl chloride.
Tessenderlo Kerley ceased importation several years ago, and the other
company ceased importation over a year prior to the effective date of
HPV1, April 17, 2006 (Ref. 4). Neither of these companies is,
therefore, subject to HPV1. The third small importer, Chartkit Chemical
Corporation, reported that it imported only a small amount of acetyl
chloride after the effective date of HPV1 in 2006, but none since (Ref.
5). EPA's review of data in the 2006 IUR (which required reporting on
chemical substances manufactured or imported during calendar year 2005)
did not identify any companies manufacturing or importing acetyl
chloride. (Chartkit Chemical Corporation did not import acetyl chloride
in 2005, making a report to the 2006 IUR unnecessary.) Because the
finding for substantial production for acetyl chloride was not
supported when HPV1 was promulgated, the Agency is revoking all the
testing requirements for acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75-36-5) by removing
it from Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
    2. Imidodicarbonic diamide. EPA is revoking all the testing
requirements for imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No. 108-19-0), also known
as biuret, by removing imidodicarbonic diamide from Table 2 in 40 CFR
799.5085(j). EPA considers the test requirements for this chemical
substance unnecessary at this time because sufficient data have been
provided to allow the Agency to reverse its finding under TSCA section
4(a)(1)(B)(ii) for ``insufficient data.'' Information that satisfied
HPV1's requirements was voluntarily submitted by The Fertilizer
Institute (TFI) on behalf of a member company that manufactures the
chemical substance as an impurity in its products. EPA considers a
company that manufactures a chemical substance only as an impurity to
be a Tier 2 manufacturer with regard to its obligations under HPV1.
Although subject to HPV1 and responsible for providing reimbursement to
persons in Tier 1, Tier 2 manufacturers do not have to respond to HPV1
with a letter of intent to test or a request for exemption, unless
directed to do so by EPA through a document published in the Federal
Register. Although EPA did not publish such a document, TFI, acting on
behalf of its member company, volunteered to provide information to EPA
on the endpoints specified by HPV1 for that chemical substance. This
information (Refs. 6-8) was provided to the Agency and found to meet
the standards prescribed by EPA (Refs. 9-11) and is being made
available in the docket for this direct final rule and will be added to
the High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS).
    3. Methane, isocyanato. EPA is revoking all the testing
requirements for methane, isocyanato- (CAS No. 624-83-9) by removing it
from Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). On May 11, 2007, Bayer CropScience
submitted a test plan and robust summaries of existing data for
methane, isocyanato- along with a request that EPA determine if the
robust summaries satisfied the Agency's need for data on physical/
chemical properties (Ref. 12). In the same letter, Bayer CropScience
requested a waiver for the requirement to determine an octanol-water
partition coefficient and the requirement to conduct aquatic toxicity
tests because of the extreme reactivity in water of methane,
isocyanato-. Bayer CropScience also asked EPA to consider, as a
substitute for aquatic toxicity studies of methane, isocyanato-, robust
summaries of aquatic toxicity studies of dimethyl urea (CAS No. 96-31-
1) (DMU), one of the two degradation products of methane, isocyanato-
in water, the other being carbon dioxide. EPA concluded that the
submitted data satisfied the Agency's need for data on the physical/
chemical properties of boiling point, melting point, vapor pressure,
and water solubility (Ref. 13). EPA also agreed that methane,
isocyanato- hydrolyzes very rapidly and, as a result, an octanol-water
partition coefficient is not relevant (Ref. 13). Because of the rapid
hydrolysis of methane, isocyanato- to carbon dioxide and DMU, EPA is
revoking the requirement to test for aquatic toxicity (fish acute
toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to algae). EPA believes
that the aquatic toxicity studies of DMU, provided by Bayer
CropScience, which the Agency reviewed and found adequate, provide
information on the aquatic effects of methane, isocyanato- (Ref. 14).
Therefore, EPA, in this direct final rule, is revoking the testing
requirements for boiling point, melting point, vapor pressure, octanol-
water partition coefficient, water solubility, fish acute toxicity,
Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to algae for methane, isocyanato-
by removing it from Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
    4. Urea, reaction products with formaldehyde. EPA is revoking all
the testing requirements for urea, reaction products with formaldehyde
(CAS No. 68611-64-3) by removing it from Table

2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). EPA considers the test requirements for this
chemical substance unnecessary at this time because sufficient data
have been provided to allow the Agency to reverse its finding under
TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(ii) for ``insufficient data.'' Information
which satisfied HPV1's requirements was voluntarily submitted by TFI on
behalf of its member companies that manufacture this chemical substance
as an impurity in their products. EPA considers companies that
manufacture a chemical substance only as an impurity to be Tier 2
manufacturers with regard to their obligations under HPV1. Although
subject to HPV1 and responsible for providing reimbursement to persons
in Tier 1, Tier 2 manufacturers did not have to respond to HPV1 with a
letter of intent to test or a request for exemption, unless directed to
do so by EPA through a document published in the Federal Register.
Despite the lack of an EPA published Federal Register document, TFI,
acting on behalf of its member companies, volunteered to provide
information to EPA on the endpoints specified by HPV1 for this chemical
substance. This information (Refs. 7 and 16) has been provided to the
Agency and found to meet the standards for testing prescribed by EPA
(Refs. 17-19) and is being made available in the docket for this direct
final rule and will be added to HPVIS.

B. Revocation of Some Test Requirements for Six Chemical Substances

    1. 9,10-Anthracenedione. In a letter dated July 10, 2006, the
Chemical Products Corporation (CPC) requested EPA's permission to
submit the values for boiling point and vapor pressure of 9,10-
anthracenedione (CAS No. 84-65-1) contained in the International
Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID) instead of conducting
the tests required by HPV1 (Ref. 20). CPC stated that the ASTM methods
specified by HPV1 would not work for 9,10-anthracenedione because the
boiling point and vapor pressure listed for that chemical substance in
IUCLID and the boiling point listed for that chemical substance in the
``Handbook of Chemistry and Physics'' (Ref. 21) fell outside the
determination ranges of the ASTM methods. EPA agreed and approved CPC's
request to submit IUCLID and other existing values because those values
matched or were in close agreement with measured values in various
literature sources (Ref. 22). CPC also requested a modification of the
ASTM method E 324 to determine the melting point for 9,10-
anthracenedione (Ref. 23). While evaluating this request, EPA reviewed
available data on measured melting points of 9,10-anthracenedione and
found the existing data to be in sufficiently close agreement that they
could be used to satisfy the Agency's data need for that endpoint (Ref.
22). EPA is, therefore, revoking the requirement that the boiling
point, vapor pressure, and melting point of 9,10-anthracenedione be
determined by the ASTM methods specified in HPV1 and accepts the
submitted existing data as sufficient to satisfy those data needs,
making the testing requirements unnecessary. Therefore, EPA is revoking
the testing requirements for boiling point, vapor pressure, and melting
point for 9,10-anthracenedione by removing those requirements from
those listed for 9,10-anthracenedione in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
The test requirements for 9,10-anthracenedione that are not revoked by
this direct final rule include tests to determine octanol/water
partition coefficient and water solubility, and to screen for
reproduction/developmental toxicity. Studies responding to those test
requirements have been submitted to the Agency (Ref. 24).
    2. 1-Chlorododecane. In a letter dated February 21, 2008, EPA
informed Lonza, Inc., that the testing of 1-chlorododecane (CAS No.
112-52-7), which Lonza had committed to sponsor, did not have to
include a test for melting point because, in publicly available
documents, 1-chlorododecane is reported to be a liquid (Ref. 25).
Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirement for melting point
for 1-chlorododecane by removing that requirement from those listed for
1-chlorododecane in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). The test
requirements for 1-chlorododecane that are not revoked by this direct
final rule include tests for boiling point, vapor pressure, octanol/
water partition coefficient, water solubility, biodegradation, Daphnia
chronic toxicity, toxicity to algae, acute mammalian toxicity,
mutagenicity, chromosomal damage, and 28-day repeated-dose toxicity
with a reproduction/developmental toxicity screen. Studies responding
to those test requirements have been submitted to the Agency (Ref. 26).
    3. Phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]-. In
letters dated May 12, 2006, July 14, 2006, May 1, 2007, and May 16,
2007 (Refs. 27-30), the Albemarle Corporation requested EPA to review
existing data that it was submitting for phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-
bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118-82-1) to determine if they
satisfied the Agency's need for data on water solubility, octanol/water
partition coefficient, acute mammalian toxicity, bacterial reverse
mutation, and screening level reproduction/developmental toxicity. EPA
found that the data satisfied the Agency's data needs for those testing
endpoints in HPV1, making the testing requirements unnecessary (Refs.
31-33). Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirements for water
solubility, octanol/water partition coefficient, acute mammalian
toxicity, bacterial reverse mutation assay, and a reproduction/
developmental toxicity screen for phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-
bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- by removing those requirements from Table 2 in
40 CFR 799.5085(j). The test requirements for phenol, 4,4'-
methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- that are not revoked by this
direct final rule include tests for melting point, boiling point, vapor
pressure, inherent biodegradation, and chromosomal damage. Studies
responding to those test requirements have been submitted to the Agency
(Ref. 34).
    4. Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt. On May 14,
2007, the Sodium Formaldehyde Sulfoxylate Consortium (SFS Consortium)
formed under the auspices of the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) submitted existing data to satisfy
some of the testing requirements for methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,
monosodium salt (CAS No. 149-44-0) (Ref. 35). The submitted studies
used the dihydrate form of methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium
salt (CAS No. 6035-47-8) as the test substance to address the endpoints
of inherent biodegradation, fish acute toxicity, Daphnia acute
toxicity, and toxicity to algae (Ref. 35). Although the hydrated form
is identified by a different CAS number, in general, EPA does not
recognize a hydrate as a separate entity from the corresponding
anhydrous material for TSCA purposes, and accepts studies of the
hydrated form of a chemical substance as predictive of the effects of
the anhydrous chemical (Ref. 15). EPA found that the submitted study on
ready biodegradation satisfied the need for information on
biodegradability, making the test requirement for inherent
biodegradation unnecessary (Refs. 36 and 37). The existing studies on
fish acute toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to algae were
reviewed by the Agency and found to satisfy EPA's data needs for those
endpoints (Ref. 38).
    In the test plan submitted with the May 14, 2007 letter, the SFS
Consortium

requested that EPA revoke the requirement to determine vapor pressure
because the chemical substance is an organo-metallic salt that does not
volatilize (Ref. 35). The SFS Consortium also requested that EPA revoke
the requirement to determine the octanol/water partition coefficient
(log Kow) because its estimated value was -6.17 and HPV1 did
not require a determination of octanol/water partition coefficient if
its estimated value is less than zero (Ref. 35). EPA agreed with the
SFS Consortium's position that testing was not needed to determine
vapor pressure (Ref. 39) and octanol/water partition coefficient (Ref.
40). Also, in the test plan submitted on May 14, 2007, (Ref. 35), the
SFS Consortium reported that in a test to determine boiling point, the
test substance decomposed. EPA, therefore, is waiving the test for
boiling point (Ref. 41).
    EPA is revoking the testing requirements for boiling point, vapor
pressure, octanol/water partition coefficient, biodegradation, fish
acute toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, and toxicity to algae for
methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt by removing those
requirements from those listed for that chemical substance in Table 2
in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). The testing requirements for methanesulfinic
acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt that are not revoked by this direct
final rule include tests for melting point, water solubility,
chromosomal damage, and 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity screen. Studies responding to those
test requirements, also using the dihydrate form of methanesulfinic
acid, hydroxyl-, monosodium salt, were submitted to the Agency (Ref.
42).
    5. Benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-
(phenylimino)-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]-. On
July 17, 2006, the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association (CPMA)
submitted a test plan for benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-
(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5-cyclohexadien-1-
ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS No. 1324-76-1), also known as C.I.
Pigment Blue 61. CPMA also submitted robust summaries of existing data
which CPMA asked EPA to accept as satisfying some of the Agency's data
needs for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. Some of the existing data described in
the summaries addressed C.I. Pigment Blue 56, a close analog of C.I.
Pigment Blue 61, which CPMA requested EPA to accept as satisfying the
Agency's data needs for C.I. Pigment Blue 61, providing a structure-
activity relationship (SAR) argument in the test plan to justify that
request (Refs. 43 and 44). CPMA also asked EPA to accept results for
water solubility and octanol/water partition coefficient which were
obtained by using an alternative method, due to the extremely low
predicted solubility of C.I. Pigment Blue 61, instead of the methods
specified by the test rule (Ref. 43). Finally, CPMA asked EPA to accept
that determining a melting point for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 was not
relevant because the pigment thermally decomposes before it melts (Ref.
43).
    EPA reviewed the submitted information on physical/chemical
properties and decided that melting point, boiling point, and vapor
pressure determinations were not relevant because C.I. Pigment Blue 61
decomposes before it melts and the decomposition temperature had been
reported (Ref. 45). EPA accepted the submitted data on water solubility
as satisfying the Agency's data needs for that endpoint, but did not
accept the calculated value submitted to satisfy the testing
requirement for octanol/water partition coefficient (Ref. 45). EPA
believes the calculated value would, most likely, underestimate the
measured value (Ref. 45) required to be determined by HPV1.
    EPA reviewed CPMA's SAR argument concerning C.I. Pigment Blue 61
and C.I. Pigment Blue 56 and agreed that C.I. Pigment Blue 56 is an
acceptable surrogate for C.I. Pigment Blue 61, thereby allowing
adequate data on C.I. Pigment Blue 56 to satisfy data needs for C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 (Ref. 46). As a result, a biodegradation study of C.I.
Pigment Blue 56, found adequate by an EPA review, satisfies the need
for biodegradation data on C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (Ref. 46). Likewise, a
chromosomal damage test of C.I. Pigment Blue 56, which EPA reviewed and
found adequate, will satisfy the data need for that endpoint (Ref. 47)
for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. EPA's review of the existing data on C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 found the studies on fish acute toxicity, mammalian
acute toxicity, and bacterial mutation assay to be adequate to satisfy
the data needs for those endpoints (Ref. 47). The existing study on
repeated-dose toxicity, however, did not satisfy the test requirement
for that endpoint (Ref. 47).
    Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirements for melting
point, boiling point, vapor pressure, water solubility, biodegradation,
fish acute toxicity, mammalian acute toxicity, bacterial reverse
mutation, and chromosomal damage for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 by removing
those requirements from those listed for that chemical substance in
Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). In order to clarify that test
requirements for acute toxicity to Daphnia and toxicity to algae had
not been satisfied by existing studies, and that the fish acute
toxicity test requirement had been satisfied, the test symbol C2
replaces C1 for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
The testing requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 that are not revoked
by this direct final rule include tests for octanol/water partition
coefficient, acute toxicity to Daphnia, toxicity to algae, and combined
28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a reproduction/developmental
toxicity screen. Studies responding to those test requirements were
submitted to the Agency. The full studies were claimed to be CBI and
are not available to the public, but robust summaries of those studies
(Ref. 48) are in the docket.
    6. C.I. Solvent Black 7. On July 29, 2006 and August 4, 2006, the
Solvent Black 7 Consortium formed under the auspices of SOCMA submitted
eight existing studies on C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No. 8005-02-5) and
requested EPA to determine if they satisfied some of the Agency's data
needs specified in HPV1 (Ref. 49). EPA found that the studies satisfied
the need for data on inherent biodegradation, fish acute toxicity,
Daphnia acute toxicity, toxicity to algae, acute mammalian toxicity,
chromosomal damage, and repeated-dose 28-day oral toxicity in rodents,
making those test requirements for C.I. Solvent Black 7 unnecessary
(Ref. 50). Although the 28-day oral toxicity study in rodents was
accepted, it lacked a required screening test for reproduction/
developmental toxicity. Although a test for chronic toxicity to Daphnia
was not required for this chemical substance, SOCMA submitted a Daphnia
magna reproduction test because the log Kow of C.I. solvent
Black 7 is close to 4.2 and a log Kow greater than 4.2 would
have made a Daphnia chronic toxicity test a requirement (Refs. 1 and
51). The submitted study was evaluated and was not found adequate to
satisfy the objectives of a Daphnia chronic toxicity study because the
study was only 10 days long instead of 21 days, and only one
concentration was tested and it was lethal, preventing observation of
sub-lethal endpoints (Ref. 52).
    Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirements for inherent
biodegradation, fish acute toxicity, Daphnia acute toxicity, toxicity
to algae, acute mammalian toxicity, chromosomal damage, and repeated-
dose 28-day oral toxicity in rodents for C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No.
8005-02-5) by removing those requirements from those listed for that
chemical substance

in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). In order to clarify that the
requirement for a reproduction/developmental toxicity screening test
had not been satisfied, but that the requirement for a repeated-dose
28-day oral toxicity test had been satisfied, the test symbol F2
replaces F1 for C.I. Solvent Black 7 in Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j).
The testing requirements not revoked by this direct final rule include
the tests to determine five physical/chemical properties and to screen
for reproduction/developmental toxicity. Studies responding to those
test requirements have been submitted to the Agency (Refs. 51 and 53).

IV. Economic Analysis

    In the economic impact analysis of this direct final rule, the
Agency estimated the total testing cost to industry to be $4.03 million
for all 17 chemical substances, with an average of approximately
$237,000 per chemical substance (Ref. 54). This total included an
additional 25% in administrative costs. An amendment to HPV1 revoking
testing requirements for Coke-Oven Light Oil (Coal) reduced the total
cost to industry to an estimated $3.7 million for the remaining 16
chemical substances, with an average compliance cost of approximately
$232,000 per chemical substance. This direct final rule would have the
effect of further reducing the total testing cost by an estimated $1.5
million (approximately 41%), by eliminating all the testing
requirements for acetyl chloride; imidodicarbonic diamide; methane,
isocyanato-; and urea, reaction products with formaldehyde; as well as
some of the testing requirements for 9,10-anthracenedione; 1-
chlorododecane; phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis [2,6-bis (1,1-
dimethylethyl)]-; methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt;
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylmino)-2,5-
cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]-; and C.I. Solvent Black 7
(Ref. 55). In addition, the 25% administrative costs would be
eliminated for these tests. The reduced total cost for the remaining 12
chemical substances with testing requirements is estimated to be $2.2
million (i.e., $3.7 million minus $1.5 million), with an average
compliance cost per chemical substance of approximately $184,000 (Ref.
55).

V. Export Notification

    On the effective date of the revocations in this direct final rule
of the TSCA section 4 testing requirements for acetyl chloride (CAS No.
75-36-5); imidodicarbonic diamide (CAS No. 108-19-0), methane,
isocyanato- (CAS No. 624-83-9); and urea, reaction products with
formaldehyde (CAS No. 68611-64-3), persons who export or intend to
export those chemical substances will no longer be subject to any TSCA
section 12(b) export notification requirements triggered by HPV1 (See
40 CFR part 707, subpart D). The export notification requirements
remain the same for the other six chemical substances discussed in the
preamble of this direct final rule that are listed as subject to the
requirements of HPV1 (Ref. 1); these chemical substances are 9,10-
anthracenedione (CAS No. 84-65-1); 1-chlorododecane (CAS No. 112-52-7);
phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- (CAS No. 118-82-
1); methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt (CAS No. 149-44-0);
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5-
cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS No. 1324-76-1); and
C.I. Solvent Black 7 (CAS No. 8005-02-5).

VI. Direct Final Rule Procedures

    EPA is publishing this direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment as this action simply revokes testing
which is not feasible, or testing for which the substantial production
finding was not supported, or testing for which EPA has adequate data
at this time. This direct final rule is effective May 15, 2012 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment or a written
request for an opportunity to present oral comments on or before April
16, 2012. If EPA receives adverse comment or a written request for an
opportunity to present oral comments on one or more distinct
amendments, paragraphs, or sections of this direct final rule, the
Agency will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
indicating which provisions will become effective and which provisions
are being withdrawn due to adverse comment or a written request for an
opportunity to present oral comments. Any distinct amendment,
paragraph, or section of this direct final rule for which the Agency
does not receive adverse comment or a request for an opportunity to
present oral comments is effective May 15, 2012, notwithstanding any
adverse comment or request on any other distinct amendment, paragraph,
or section of this direct final rule. For any distinct amendment,
paragraph, or section of this direct final rule that is withdrawn due
to adverse comment or a request for an opportunity to present oral
comments, EPA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in a future
issue of the Federal Register. The Agency will address the comment or
request for an opportunity to present oral comments on any such
distinct amendment, paragraph, or section as part of that notice of
proposed rulemaking.

VII. References

    Each reference listed in this unit has a docket ID number (EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033) followed by a four-digit document ID number. All
document ID numbers are listed in numerical order in the docket. To
access a particular document in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions.

1. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Final
Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 13708, March 16, 2006) (FRL-7335-2).
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0001).
2. EPA. TSCA Section 4(a)(1)(B) Final Statement of Policy; Criteria
for Evaluating Substantial Production, Substantial Release, and
Substantial or Significant Human Exposure; Notice. Federal Register
(58 FR 28736, May 14, 1993) (FRL-4059-9). (Document ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0060).
3. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from M.G. Clisby to Catherine
Roman, Chemical Information and Testing Branch (CITB), Chemical
Control Division (CCD), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT), EPA. April 16, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0344).
4. Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. Email from Dawn Kominski to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT, EPA. March 23, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0342).
5. Charkit Chemical Corporation. Letter from Bryant Hinnant to
Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA. December 7, 2006. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0220).
6. TFI. Submission for fulfillment of data requirements for biuret
under TSCA section 4. July 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0343).
7. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Screening Information Data Set (SIDS), Urea, CAS No.: 57-13-6. Also,
a supporting document for biuret. 1994. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0360).
8. IUCLID Data Set, Biuret, CAS No. 108-19-0. March 7, 2007.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0359).
9. EPA. Memorandum from Tracy Williamson, Industrial Chemistry
Branch (ICB), Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division (EETD),
OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of the physical-
chemical endpoints for HPV orphan chemical biuret (CAS No.

108-19-0). Sept 17, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-
0356).
10. EPA. Email from Robert Boethling, Exposure Assessment Branch
(EAB), EETD, OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of TFI
submission on biuret. August 20, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0347).
11. EPA. Email from David Brooks, High Production Volume Chemical
Branch (HPVCB), Risk Assessment Division (RAD), OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of biuret (CAS No. 108-19-0).
October 2, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0358).
12. Bayer CropScience. Letter to Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA,
submitting a test plan and request for review of existing data on
physical chemical properties and aquatic toxicity. May 11, 2007.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0249).
13. EPA. Email from Tracy Williamson, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. June 18, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0281).
14. EPA. Email and attached review of aquatic studies of methane,
isocyanato from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Greg Schweer,
CITB, CCD, OPPT. August 29, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0284).
15. EPA. Emails on acceptability of studies on dihydrate form of CAS
No. 149-44-0. August 18, 2009. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0357).
16. TFI. Submission for Fulfillment of Data Requirements for Urea,
Reaction Products with Formaldehyde under TSCA Section 4. Revised
March 2008. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0361).
17. EPA. Memorandum from Kathryn Schechter, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. September 13, 2007. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0345).
18. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen and Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. April 23, 2008.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0346).
19. EPA. Email from Robert Boethling, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. August 14, 2007. Includes copyrighted
attachment: Ahapir, Nir, et al. Purification and Characterization of
TrzF: Biuret Hydrolysis by Allophanate Hydrolase Supports Growth.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 72(4):2941-2495 (2006).
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0363).
20. CPC. Letter from Jerry A. Cook to Document Control Office, OPPT,
EPA, concerning existing data on boiling point and vapor pressure.
July 10, 2006. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0182).
21. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 85th Edition. David R.
Lide, ed., CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. 2004.
22. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to Jerry A.
Cook, CPC, concerning acceptance of existing data on boiling point,
vapor pressure, and melting point. August 30, 2006. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0211).
23. CPC. Email from Jerry Cook to Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT,
EPA, concerning determination of melting point. July 24, 2006.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0348).
24. CPC. Studies submitted for 9,10-anthracenedione on octanol/water
partition coefficient, water solubility, and a screen for
reproduction/developmental toxicity. Submitted on February 15, 2007.
(Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0222.1, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0222.1, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0222.2, respectively).
25. EPA. Letter from Mike Mattheisen, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to John Van
Miller, Toxicology/Regulatory Services, Charlottesville, VA.
February 21, 2008. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0291).
26. Lonza, Inc. Studies submitted for 1-chlorododecane on boiling
point, vapor pressure, octanol/water partition coefficient, water
solubility, biodegradation, Daphnia chronic toxicity, toxicity to
algae, acute mammalian toxicity, mutagenicity, chromosomal damage,
and 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a reproduction/developmental
toxicity screen. Submitted on September 17, 2008. (Document ID
numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.6, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-314.10,
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.8, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.11, EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0314.9, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.7, EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0314.5, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.1, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0314.2, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0314.3, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0314.4, respectively).
27. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Ronald Zumstein to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning existing data on water
solubility and octanol-water partition coefficient. May 12, 2006.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0163).
28. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim Boudreaux to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning existing data on acute
toxicity, gene mutation, and reproductive/developmental toxicity.
July 14, 2006. (Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0181, EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0181.1, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0181.2, and EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0181.3).
29. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim Boudreaux to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning an existing Ames study. May 1,
2007. (Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0250, EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0250.1, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0250.2).
30. Albemarle Corporation. Letter from Kim Boudreaux to Document
Control Office, OPPT, EPA, concerning existing data on repeated-dose
toxicity and reproduction/developmental toxicity screening. May 16,
2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0247).
31. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to Ronald
Zumstein and Kim Boudreaux, Albemarle Corporation, concerning EPA's
acceptance of existing data on water solubility and octanol-water
partition coefficient. August 9, 2006. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0033-0210).
32. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to Kim
Boudreaux, Albemarle Corporation, concerning EPA's acceptance of
existing data on mammalian acute toxicity. April 5, 2007. (Document
ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0237).
33. EPA. Letter from Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, to Kim
Boudreaux, Albemarle Corporation, concerning EPA's acceptance of
existing data on bacterial reverse mutation and reproductive/
developmental toxicity. October 23, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0285).
34. Albemarle Corporation. Studies submitted for phenol, 4,4'-
methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)]- on melting point, boiling
point, vapor pressure, inherent biodegradation, and chromosomal
aberration. Submitted on October 31, 2007 and November 1, 2007.
(Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0274, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0274, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0274, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0275.1,
and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0257, respectively).
35. SFS Consortium, SOCMA. Letter to Document Control Office, OPPT,
EPA, submitting a test plan and request for review of existing data
on biodegradation and aquatic toxicity. May 14, 2007. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0238).
36. EPA. Memorandum from Robert Boethling, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, concerning biodegradation test
requirement. July 6, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0277).
37. EPA. Memorandum from Jed Costanza, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen,CITB, CCD, OPPT. October 9, 2008. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0352).
38. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of CAS No. 149-44-0. August 13, 2009.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0349).
39. EPA. Memorandum from Daniel Lin, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT, concerning vapor pressure requirement.
June 19, 2007. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0278).

40. EPA. Letter from Charles Auer, OPPT, to Tucker Helmes, SOCMA.
May 28, 2008. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0307).
41. EPA. Memorandum from Greg Fritz, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen, CITB, CCD, OPPT. August 25, 2008. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0351).
42. SOCMA. Studies submitted for methanesulfinic acid, hydroxyl-,
monosodium salt on melting point, water solubility, chromosomal
damage, and 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a reproduction/
developmental toxicity screen. Submitted on June 16, 2008. (Document
ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0309).
43. CPMA. Letter to Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA, from J.
Lawrence Robinson concerning existing data and test plan. July 17,
2006. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0185).
44. CPMA. Letter to Document Control Office, OPPT, EPA, from J.
Lawrence Robinson concerning existing data and test plan. May 9,
2007. (Document ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0246).
45. EPA. Memorandum from Diana Darling, ICB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Testing requirements and existing data for
physical/chemical properties of the HPV test rule chemical, C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324-76-1). May 17, 2007. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0280).
46. EPA. Memorandum from Robert Boethling, EAB, EETD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of SAR argument and a
biodegradation test concerning an HPV test rule chemical, C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324-76-1). May 15, 2007. (Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0279).
47. EPA. Email and attached review from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD,
OPPT, to Greg Schweer and Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review
of C.I. Pigment Blue (CAS No. 1324-76-1). August 22, 2007. (Document
ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0286).
48. SOCMA. Robust summaries submitted for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 on
octanol/water partition coefficient, acute toxicity to Daphnia,
toxicity to algae, and combined 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity screen. Submitted on November
14, 2008. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0318).
49. SOCMA. Letters from C. Tucker Helmes to Document Control Office,
OPPT, EPA. Submission of existing data on C.I. Solvent Black 7. June
29, 2006 and August 4, 2006. (Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0168, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0169, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0170,
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0171, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0172, EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0173, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0174, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-
0175, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0176, and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0184).
50. EPA. Memorandum from Mark Townsend, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Greg
Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. November 27, 2006. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0283).
51. SOCMA. Letter from C. Tucker Helmes to Document Control Office,
OPPT, EPA. Justification for providing Daphnia reproduction study
for C.I. Solvent Black 7. February 28, 2008. (Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0290).
52. EPA. Email from David Brooks, HPVCB, RAD, OPPT, to Mike
Mattheisen, CITB, CCD, OPPT. July 15, 2008. (Document ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0353).
53. SOCMA. Studies submitted for C.I. Solvent Black 7 on physical/
chemical properties and prenatal developmental toxicity. Submitted
on February 28, 2008. (Document ID numbers EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0290.2
and EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0290.4).
54. EPA, EPAB, EETD, OPPT. Economic Analysis for the Final Section 4
Test Rule for High Production Volume Chemicals. October 28, 2005.
(Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0131).
55. EPA. Email from Stephanie Suazo, EPAB, EETD, OPPT, to Catherine
Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. RE: ``Revised Economic Analysis for
Revocation of Testing Requirements'' with attached economic
analysis. December 14, 2009. (Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-
0033-0350).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This direct final rule only eliminates existing requirements; it
does not otherwise impose any new or revised requirements. As such,
this action is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) as a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Nor does it impose or change any information
collection burden that requires additional review by OMB under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
    Because this direct final rule eliminates existing requirements
without imposing any new or revised requirements, the Agency certifies
pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For the same reasons, it is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538), and does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as
described in sections 203 and 204 of UMRA. This direct final rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), or federalism
implications as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
    Since this action is not economically significant under Executive
Order 12866, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and 13211, ``Actions concerning
Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
    This direct final rule does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order
12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).

IX. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 799--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 799 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.

0
2. In Sec.  799.5085, revise the section heading and Table 2 of
paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  799.5085  Chemical testing requirements for first group of high
production volume chemicals (HPV1).

* * * * *
    (j) * * *

                              Table 2--Chemical Substances and Testing Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Required tests (see table 3 of this
           CAS No.                 Chemical name            Class                       section)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74-95-3.....................  Methane, dibromo-......               1  A, C1, E2, F2.
78-11-5.....................  1,3-Propanediol, 2,2-                 1  A4, A5, B, C6, F2.
                               bis[(nitrooxy)methyl]-
                               , dinitrate (ester).
84-65-1.....................  9,10-Anthracenedione...               1  A4, A5, F2.
110-44-1....................  2,4-Hexadienoic acid,                 1  A, C4.
                               (E,E)-.
112-52-7....................  1-Chlorododecane.......               1  A2, A3, A4, A5, B, C3, D, E1, E2, F1.
118-82-1....................  Phenol, 4,4'-                         1  A1, A2, A3, B, E2.
                               methylenebis[2,6bis(1,
                               1-dimethylethyl)]-.
149-44-0....................  Methanesulfinic acid,                 1  A1, A5, E2, F1.
                               hydroxy-, monosodium
                               salt.
409-02-9....................  Heptenone, methyl-.....               2  A, B, C1, D, E1, E2, F1.
594-42-3....................  Methanesulfenyl                       1  A, B, C1, E1, E2, F2.
                               chloride, trichloro-.
1324-76-1...................  Benzenesulfonic acid,                 2  A4, C2, F1.
                               [[4-[[4-
                               (phenylamino)phenyl][4-
                               (phenylimino)-2,5-
                               cyclohexadien-1-
                               ylidene]methyl]phenyl]
                               amino]-.
2941-64-2...................  Carbonochloridothioic                 1  A, B, C1, E2, F1.
                               acid, S-ethyl ester.
8005-02-5...................  C.I. Solvent Black 7...               2  A, F2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-6430 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67293-67294]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26927]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0176; Airspace Docket No. 13-AGL-13]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kankakee, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Kankakee, IL.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate amended Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Greater Kankakee
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.
Geographic coordinates are also updated.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, February 6, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this

incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR Part 51, subject to the
annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming
amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 12, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the
Kankakee, IL, area, creating additional controlled airspace at Greater
Kankakee Airport (78 FR 48841) Docket No. FAA-2013-0176. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September
15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to contain aircraft executing new standard instrument
approach procedures at Greater Kankakee Airport, Kankakee, IL.
Accordingly, segments will extend from the 7-mile radius of the airport
to 16 miles and 16.6 miles southwest and 7.5 miles northeast of the
airport, to retain the safety and management of IFR aircraft in Class E
airspace to/from the enroute environment. Geographic coordinates are
also updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Greater Kankakee Airport, Kankakee,
IL.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

AGL IL E5 Kankakee, IL [Amended]

Kankakee, Greater Kankakee Airport, IL
    (Lat. 41[deg]04'17'' N., long. 87[deg]50'47'' W.)

Kankakee VOR/DME
    (Lat. 41[deg]04'28'' N., long. 87[deg]51'01'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Greater Kankakee Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 218[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 16.6 miles southwest of the
airport, and within 4 miles northwest and 8 miles southeast of the
Kankakee VOR/DME 212[deg] radial extending from the 7-mile radius of
the airport to 16 miles southwest of the airport, and within 2.4
miles each side of the Kankakee VOR/DME 051[deg] radial extending
from the 7-mile radius of the airport to 7.5 miles northeast of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 25, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-26927 Filed 11-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Form Approved OMB Control No. XXX Approval Expires XXX The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average XXX hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW 2004 0035, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is ( 202) 566 2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search", then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. ( OW 2004 0035) and OMB control number ( XXXX XXXX) in any correspondence. Attach Address Label U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DRAFT DRINKING WATER TREATMENT SHORT SCREENER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE EPA Form No. XXX Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire i INTRODUCTION The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is conducting a survey of drinking water treatment facilities as part of its effort to develop national effluent guidelines regulations for the drinking water treatment point source category. This survey requests information on drinking water treatment facilities operating during the 2004 calendar year.

This survey is conducted under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water Act ( Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U. S. C. Section 1318). All facilities that receive this survey must respond to it within 30 days of receiving it. Failure to respond, late filing, or failure to comply with the instructions may result in criminal fines, civil penalties, and other sanctions, as provided by law.

OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY EPA will use the technical data collected in this survey to determine rates of residual generation and residual management and treatment and to estimate the costs and benefits associated with any new national effluent guidelines regulations considered by EPA.

COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY All facilities must have the corporate official or designee responsible for directing or supervising the response to the survey sign one of the Certification Statements on page v to either ( 1) verify and validate the information provided, or ( 2) certify that this facility did not perform drinking water treatment operations during the 2004 calendar year.

Not All Questions Will Be Applicable to Every Facility EPA prepared this survey to be applicable to a variety of facilities; therefore, not all of the questions will apply to every facility. Complete each relevant item in the survey. If a question is not applicable to your facility, write " NA."

Survey Does Not Require Performance of New or Non Routine Tests or Measurements You are not required to perform new or nonroutine tests or measurements solely for the purpose of responding to this survey. EPA intends that responses to all questions be based upon available data and information. In the event that exact data are not available, please provide best engineering estimates.

Keep a Copy of the Completed Survey Please keep a copy of the completed survey, including attachments. EPA will review the information submitted and may request your cooperation in answering follow up questions, if necessary, to complete analyses. Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire ii EPA DRINKING WATER TREATMENT SURVEY E MAIL ADDRESSES AND WEBSITE Information: E Mail Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Siddiqui. Ahmar@ epa. gov Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide SURVEY ASSISTANCE WHEN TO RETURN THE SURVEY The response to this survey is due 30 days after receiving it.

If you wish to request an extension, you must do so in writing within 15 days of receipt of this survey. Written requests may be e mailed to Mr. M. Ahmar Siddiqui at Siddiqui. Ahmar@ epa. gov or may be mailed to:

Mr. M. Ahmar Siddiqui U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Engineering and Analysis Division ( 4303T) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Extension requests will be evaluated on a case by case basis. Submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your survey unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

WHERE TO RETURN THE SURVEY After completing the survey and certifying the information that it contains, use the enclosed mailing label to mail the completed survey to:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Treatment Survey c/ o Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 REQUESTING AN ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THE SURVEY If you would like an electronic version of the survey, it is available on the EPA website at http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ guide.

If you choose to complete an electronic version of this survey, you are still responsible for submitting a properly formatted hard copy response which matches this survey's format and pagination. The electronic formatting of this survey is complex and may require more experienced clerical support. Improperly formatted survey responses will be returned to the respondent. Therefore, we do not recommend that you complete this survey electronically. Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire iii CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION If no business confidentiality claim accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice.

Regulations governing the confidentiality of business information are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) at Title 40 Part 2, Subpart B. You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part or all of the information you submit, other than effluent data and information or data that is otherwise publicly available, as described in 40 CFR 2.203( b):

"( b) Method and time of asserting business confidentiality claim. A business which is submitting information to EPA may assert a business confidentiality claim covering the information by placing on ( or attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice complying language such as ` trade secret,' ` proprietary,' or ` company confidential.' Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise nonconfidential documents should be clearly identified by the business, and may be submitted separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the business desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state."

You may claim as confidential all information included in the response to a question by checking the Confidential Business Information ( CBI) box next to the question number. Note that you may be required to justify any claim of confidentiality at a later time. Note also that facility effluent data are not eligible for confidential treatment, pursuant to Section 308( b) of the Clean Water Act, and thus will be treated as nonconfidential even if the CBI box is checked. In addition, information that is publicly available should not be claimed confidential. Note also that information claimed confidential cannot be accessed or used by the industry to evaluate data and analyses supporting the national effluent guidelines regulations.

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent of, and by means of, the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. In general, submitted information protected by a business confidentiality claim may be disclosed to other employees, officers, or authorized representatives of the United States concerned with implementing the Clean Water Act.

Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be made available to EPA contractors to enable the contractors to perform the work required by their contracts with EPA. All EPA contracts provide that contractor employees use the information only for the purpose of performing the work required by their contracts and will not disclose any CBI to anyone other than EPA without prior written approval from each affected business or from EPA's legal office. Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire iv GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SURVEY Read all question specific instructions and definitions of key terms. Carefully read the definitions of key terms ( found on the following pages) and any instructions for specific questions.

Enter Facility SDWIS ID number on top of each page. The Facility SDWIS ID number is provided on the mailing label.

Mark responses for each question. Fill in the appropriate response( s) to each question. Please use black ink or type in the spaces provided. Answer the questions in sequence unless you are directed to SKIP. Do not leave any entry blank. If the answer is zero, write " 0" or " zero". If a question is not applicable to your facility, write " NA."

Include any clarifying attachments. If additional attachments are required to clarify a response, please place the associated question number and your facility name and SDWIS ID number in the top right corner of each page of the attachments. The following list contains examples of items which may be included as attachments to this survey:   Facility brochure, pamphlet, general description;   Piping and residual/ wastewater treatment flow diagrams; and   Hard copy summaries of analytical data collected from monitoring locations.

Provide best estimates when data are not available. EPA intends that responses to all questions be based upon available data and information. Please provide best estimates when exact data are not available. You are not required to perform new or non routine tests or measurements solely for the purpose of responding to this survey.

To estimate the amount of residuals generated annually ( Question 10), please estimate to the nearest 1,000 gallons and/ or 100 tons generated, exact volumes are not necessary. Estimates may be calculated using basic equations with average volumes and average frequencies. For example, the estimate of filter backwash generated annually may be calculated as the average volume of water used per filter backwash multiplied by the average number of filter backwashes per week multiplied by 52 weeks per year.

Indicate information that should be treated as confidential. You may claim as confidential all information included in the response to a question by checking the Confidential Business Information ( CBI) box next to the question number. Note that you may be required to justify any claim of confidentiality at a later time. See the CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION section on page iii.

Questions? If you have any questions regarding the completion of this survey, see the SURVEY ASSISTANCE section on page ii for the e mail addresses.

BE SURE TO RETAIN A COPY OF THE COMPLETED SURVEY FOR YOUR RECORDS. Facility SDWIS ID:

Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire v CERTIFICATION STATEMENT The individual responsible for directing or supervising the preparation of the survey must read and sign the Certification Statement listed below. The certifying official must be a responsible corporate official or his/ her authorized representative.

Check (

) Certification Statement # 1 if this facility performed drinking water treatment operations during the 2004 calendar year and the facility has completed the survey.

Check (

) Certification Statement # 2 if this facility did not perform drinking water treatment operations during the 2004 calendar year.

Sign the bottom of this Certification Statement page after checking the appropriate certification statement.

G Certification Statement # 1 I certify under penalty of law that the attached survey was prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. The information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, accurate and complete. In those cases where we did not possess the requested information, we provided best estimates. We have to the best of our ability indicated what we believe to be company confidential business information as defined under 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. We understand that we may be required at a later time to justify our claim in detail with respect to each item claimed confidential. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment as explained in Section 308 of the Clean Water Act.

G Certification Statement # 2 I certify under penalty of law that this facility did not perform drinking water treatment operations during the 2004 calendar year. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment as explained in Section 308 of the Clean Water Act.

Signature of Certifying Official Date ( ) Printed Name of Certifying Official Telephone Number Title of Certifying Official Facility Name Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire vi DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS Clean Water Act ( CWA)  Federal legislation enacted by Congress to " restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" ( Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, 33 U. S. C. 1251 et seq.).

Contract Haul  Collection of wastewater or sludge by a private disposal service, scavenger, or purveyor, in containers for subsequent transportation, treatment, and disposal off site.

Discharge  The conveyance of wastewater to: ( 1) United States surface waters such as rivers, lakes, and oceans, or ( 2) a publicly owned, privately owned, federally owned, combined, or other treatment works.

Disposal  Intentional placement of waste into or on any land where the material will remain after closure. Waste placed into water is defined as discharge, not disposal.

Drinking Water Treatment Plant  Facility where water is filtered, disinfected, and/ or otherwise treated prior to its transmission into the distribution system ( or its conveyances to another purchasing water utility).

Evaporation  The process by which water or other liquid becomes a gas. Water from land areas, bodies of water, and all other moist surfaces is absorbed into the atmosphere as a vapor.

Facility  Physical location corresponding to the site where industrial and nonindustrial activities are conducted. The activities conducted include, but are not limited to: drinking water supply and treatment operations.

Groundwater  Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the surface of land or water.

Landfill  A natural or man made formation in the earth into which solid waste, sludges, or other process residuals are placed for permanent disposal.

NPDES Program  The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program authorized by Sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act that applies to facilities that discharge wastewater directly to United States surface waters.

Pollutant  Under the Clean Water Act, a dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical waste, biological material, certain radioactive material, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste ( 40 CFR 122.2).

Process Water  Water applied to the process, including any combination of service water, water recycled from the process, water reused from other processes, and any other water applied to the process.

Publicly Owned Treatment Works ( POTW)  Any device or system owned by a state or municipality that is used to recycle, reclaim, or treat liquid municipal sewage and/ or liquid industrial wastes.

Purchased Water  Water obtained from a third party vendor.

Recycle/ Recovery  The process of recovering usable constituent fractions within a waste material or removal of contaminants from a waste material to allow it to be reused.

Residuals  The waste products generated during potable water treatment process, including organic and inorganic compounds in liquid and solid forms. Examples of residuals include sludges generated Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire vii from presedimentation and coagulation, membrane reject water, spent backwash, and ion exchange resins.

Surface Waters  Waters of the United States including, but not limited to, oceans and all interstate and intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds.

Treatment  Any activity designed to change the character or composition of any waste so as to prepare it for transportation, storage, or disposal; render it amenable for recycling or recovery; or reduce it in volume. Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION Attach Facility Address Label Here 1. Is the mailing address and SDWIS ID on the mailing label correct?

Yes ( Skip to Question 3)

No 2. Please print the correct mailing address.

Facility Name Street Address or Post Office Box  City State Zip Code SDWIS ID 3. Did the drinking water treatment facility generate residuals during 2004? Residuals refer to the waste products generated during potable water treatment processes, including organic and inorganic compounds in liquid and solid forms. Examples of residuals include sludges generated from presedimentation and coagulation, membrane reject water, spent backwash, and ion exchange resins.

Yes

No ( Complete and sign Certification Statement # 1 on page v and return this survey and the signed certification statement to the survey return address on page ii.) Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire 2 CBI?

Yes CBI?

Yes CBI?

Yes 4. Provide the following information for the primary contact for the technical information supplied in this questionnaire:

( ) Primary Contact Name Telephone Number ( ) Title Fax Number E mail Address Convenient time to call: between am/ pm and am/ pm Street Address or Post Office Box ( Eastern Time)

 City State Zip Code 5. Indicate (

) how many people were served by the facility in 2004? Check one.

100 or less

10,001  50,000

101  500

50,001  100,000

501  3,300

100,001  500,000

3,301  10,000

More than 500,000 6. Indicate (

) what type of source water was treated at the facility in 2004? Check all that apply. Identify (

) whether the source water is the primary water source treated at the facility or nonprimary water source.

Surface water

Primary

Non primary

Ground water

Primary

Non primary

Purchased water

Primary

Non primary

Other ( Specify):

7. What was the total amount of finished water produced at the facility in 2004? Select one category.

10 MG or less

> 2,000  4,000 MG

> 10  40 MG

> 4,000  10,000 MG

> 40  400 MG

> 10,000  20,000 MG Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire 3

> 400  2,000 MG

More than 20,000 MG Facility SDWIS ID:

Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire 4 CBI?

Yes 8. Identify processes used to treat residuals or reduce residual production at the facility in 2004. Check (

) all that apply.

Residuals Treatment Treatment/

P2 Code Prevention of Residuals Production Treatment/

P2 Code

No treatment 5A

Recycling filter backwash 5K

Dewatering 5B

Optimizing surface water intake to reduce suspended solids intake 5L

Drying 5C

Coagulant recovery 5M

Thickening tanks ( from flocculation tanks) 5D

Lime recovery 5N

Aeration 5E

Optimizing sludge collection 5O

Hydrogen sulfide removal 5F

Optimizing filter bed media to reduce filter backwash volumes 5P

pH adjustment 5G

Other ( specify): 5Q

Sedimentation tanks and ponds 5H

Evaporation ponds 5I

Other ( specify): 5J Facility SDWIS ID:

Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire 5 CBI?

Yes 9. Identify the method of disposal of residuals generated at the facility in 2004. Identify the destination of residuals discharged to surface waters or a POTW. Check (

) all that apply.

Residuals Management Managemen t Code Zero Discharge of Residuals Management Code Discharge of Residuals: On Site Management:

Discharge to surface waters 6A

On site landfill disposal 6F Name of receiving surface waters:

On site composting 6G

On site spray irrigation 6H

Discharge to Municipal Separate Storm Sewer ( MS4) 6B

On site evaporation 6I Name of surface waters receiving MS4 discharge:

On site recovery of chemicals 6J

Other ( specify): 6K Off site Management:

Discharge to a POTW 6C

Off site municipal non hazardous landfill disposal 6L Name of receiving POTW:

Off site hazardous landfill disposal 6M

Off site low level radioactive waste disposal 6N

Other ( specify): 6D

Off site disposal with POTW biosolids 6O

Off site underground injection 6P

Off site composting 6Q

Other ( specify): 6E

Off site land application ( e. g., soil amendment) 6R

Off site spray irrigation 6S Facility SDWIS ID:

Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire 6 CBI?

Yes

Other ( specify): 6T 10. Identify the type of residuals generated at the facility in 2004. Check (

) all that apply. For each residuals waste stream, identify if you use any treatment or pollution prevention for that waste stream and indicate the treatment or pollution prevention by using the Treatment/ P2 Codes from Question 5. For each residuals waste stream, also identify the management option and indicate the type of management by using the Management Codes from Question 6. Estimate the amount of residuals generated annually to the nearest 1,000 gallons and/ or 100 tons. The amount of residuals generated annually can be estimated using average flows/ volumes and average frequencies. See the instructions on page iv for more information.

Drinking Water Treatment Residuals Type Treatment or Pollution Prevention Used on these Residuals? Type of Treatment or Pollution Prevention Used on these Residuals ( Use Treatment/ P2 Codes from Question 5) Type of Management Used on these Residuals ( Use Management Codes from Question 6) Amount of Residuals Generated Annually ( Please Check the Box for the Appropriate Unit, i. e. ` gallons'

or ` tons')

Coagulant sludge

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Filter backwash ( including filter to waste rewash)

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Dewatered solids filtrate ( e. g. filtrate from filter press)

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Sedimentation tank/ pond supernatant ( lagoon overflow)

Yes

No

gallons

tons Facility SDWIS ID:

Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire 7

Calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide sludge

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Scraping waste

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Raking waste

Yes

No

gallons

tons Question 10 ( continued)

Drinking Water Treatment Residuals Type Treatment or Pollution Prevention Used on these Residuals? Type of Treatment or Pollution Prevention Used on these Residuals ( Use Treatment/ P2 Codes from Question 5) Type of Management Used on these Residuals ( Use Management Codes from Question 6) Amount of Residuals Generated Annually ( Please Check the Box for the Appropriate Unit, i. e. ` gallons'

or ` tons')

Membrane reject waste ( e. g. brine)

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Rinse water

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Raw water suspended solids

Yes

No

gallons

tons Facility SDWIS ID:

Draft Drinking Water Treatment Short Screener Survey Questionnaire 8

Natural organics

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Spent granular activated carbon ( GAC)

Yes

No

gallons

tons

Other ( specify)

Yes

No

gallons

tons