[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1780-1784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-323]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63 and 302
[FRL-6216-8]
RIN 2060-AI08
Redefinition of the Glycol Ethers Category Under Section
112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act and Section 101 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed rule, upon promulgation, will amend the Clean Air
Act (CAA) list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in section 112(b)(1).
Under section 112(b)(3)(D), EPA may delete specific substances from
listed categories. This proposed rule modifies the definition of the
glycol ethers category in a manner to exclude each of the compounds
known as surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives (SAED).
This delisting action is being proposed by EPA in response to an
analysis of potential exposure and hazards of SAED that was prepared by
the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) and submitted to EPA. Based on
this information, EPA has made an initial determination that there are
adequate data on the health and environmental effects of these
substances to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations,
bioaccumulation, or deposition of these substances may not reasonably
be anticipated to cause adverse human health or environmental effects.
By today's document, EPA is also proposing to make conforming changes
in the definition of glycol ethers with respect to designation of
hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
DATES: Written comments must be received by EPA on or before March 15,
1999. The EPA will hold a public hearing if EPA receives a written
request for such a hearing on or before February 11, 1999. If a hearing
is requested in a timely manner, EPA will publish an additional
document in the Federal Register advising interested persons of the
date, time, and location of the hearing. Moreover, if a hearing is
held, EPA will keep the record open for 30 days after such hearing to
receive rebuttal or supplementary information.
ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on both of the proposed actions discussed
in this notice should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to the
EPA's Air and Radiation and Information Docket (6101), Attention Docket
Number A-98-39, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Docket. Docket No. A-98-39, which
includes a copy of the submission by the SDA, and an EPA analysis of
that submission, will be available for inspection and copying between 8
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation
and Information Docket, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Roy L. Smith, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-
15), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; (919) 541-5362.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Listing and Delisting of HAP
Section 112 of the CAA contains a mandate for EPA to evaluate and
control emissions of HAP. Section 112(b)(1) includes an initial list of
HAP that is composed of specific chemical compounds and groups of
compounds. This list is used to identify source categories for which
the EPA will subsequently promulgate emissions standards.
Section 112(b)(2) requires EPA to conduct periodic reviews of the
initial list of HAP set forth in section 112(b)(1) and outlines
criteria to be applied in deciding whether to add or delete particular
substances. Section 112(b)(2) identifies pollutants that should be
added to the list as:
* * * pollutants which present, or may present, through
inhalation or other routes of exposure, a threat of adverse human
health effects (including, but not limited to, substances which are
known to be, or may reasonably be anticipated to be, carcinogenic,
mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, which cause reproductive
dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse
environmental effects whether through ambient concentrations,
bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise * * *
Section 112(b)(3) establishes general requirements for petitioning
EPA to modify the HAP list by adding or deleting a substance. In
general, the burden is on a petitioner to include sufficient
information to support the requested addition or deletion under the
substantive criteria set forth in section 112(b)(3)(B) and (C). The
Administrator must either grant or deny a petition within 18 months of
receipt. If the Administrator decides to grant a petition, the Agency
publishes a written explanation of the Administrator's decision, along
with a proposed rule to add or delete the substance. If the
Administrator decides to deny the petition, the Agency publishes a
written explanation of the basis for denial. A decision to deny a
petition is final Agency action subject to review in the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals under section 307(b).
To promulgate a final rule deleting a substance from the HAP list,
section 112(b)(3)(C) provides that the Administrator must determine
that:
* * * there is adequate data on the health and environmental
effects of the substance to determine that emissions, ambient
concentrations, bioaccumulation, or deposition of the substance may
not reasonably be anticipated to cause any adverse effects to the
human health or adverse environmental effects.
The EPA will grant a petition to delete a substance and publish a
proposed rule to delete that substance if it makes an initial
determination that this criterion has been met. After affording an
opportunity for comment and for a hearing, EPA will make a final
determination whether the criterion has been met.
The Administrator may also act to add or delete a substance on her
own initiative. In this instance, the EPA has been engaged in a
substantive dialogue with the SDA, a national trade association
representing manufacturers of cleaning products and ingredients,
concerning the toxicity of and exposure to SAED, a group of compounds
which is within the current definition of the glycol ethers category as
listed in section 112(b)(1). At the request of EPA, the SDA compiled
information on this class of compounds needed by EPA to apply the
statutory criteria for delisting under section 112(b)(3). The SDA
submitted the resulting report to EPA. Although the SDA has elected not
to formally petition EPA to delete SAED compounds from the HAP list,
EPA has made an initial determination based on the SDA report that the
statutory criteria for delisting SAED are satisfied, and is, therefore,
issuing this proposal.
EPA does not interpret section 112(b)(3)(C) to require absolute
certainty that a pollutant will not cause adverse effects on human
health or the environment before it may be deleted
[[Page 1781]]
from the list. The use of the terms ``adequate'' and ``reasonably''
indicate that the Agency must weigh the potential uncertainties and
their likely significance. Uncertainties concerning the risk of adverse
health or environmental effects may be mitigated if EPA can determine
that projected exposures are sufficiently low to provide reasonable
assurance that such adverse effects will not occur. Similarly,
uncertainties concerning the magnitude of projected exposures may be
mitigated if EPA can determine that the levels which might cause
adverse health or environmental effects are sufficiently high to
provide reasonable assurance that exposures will not reach harmful
levels.
II. EPA Analysis of the SDA Submission
The SDA contended that the present definition of glycol ethers
adopted by Congress in section 112(b)(1) was incorporated verbatim from
the definition of glycol ethers utilized in section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.
11023. The SDA noted that EPA subsequently modified the definition of
glycol ethers under EPCRA to exclude SAED compounds (59 FR 34386, July
5, 1994), and requested that EPA make a conforming change in the CAA
list. EPA has responded that the substantive criteria for deleting
chemicals under EPCRA section 313(d) are materially different than the
criteria for deleting a hazardous pollutant under section 112(b)(3). It
is EPA's view that, whatever the origins of the glycol ethers
definition in section 112(b)(1), EPA cannot redefine the glycol ethers
category to exclude particular compounds without making a substantive
determination that such compounds meet the applicable criteria for HAP
delisting. Under section 112(3)(D), EPA may delete specific substances
included in certain listed categories without a Chemical Abstract
Service number, including the glycol ethers category.
Although the SDA does not necessarily agree with EPA that deletion
of individual compounds is the only manner in which EPA may adopt the
requested redefinition of the glycol ethers category, the SDA agreed to
assist EPA in this effort by collecting information concerning SAED
compounds that would enable EPA to make a substantive assessment of
potential risks under section 112(b)(3). On April 25, 1997, the SDA
submitted to EPA a report entitled ``Exposure Assessment Undertaken to
Support the Evaluation of the HAP Definition `Glycol Ethers'.''
Surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives comprise a
group of compounds that, individually, satisfy the following
definition:
R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR'
Where:
n = 1, 2, or 3;
R = alkyl C8 or greater
R'= any group
Rather than asking the SDA to compile an exhaustive list of each
specified SAED compound, EPA requested that the SDA undertake a generic
analysis of the potential toxicity of, and potential exposure to, SAED
compounds as a group. EPA requested that the analysis be based to the
extent possible on worst-case assumptions which could be deemed to be
conservative with respect to each and every individual compound in the
SAED group. Such an approach to delisting would normally be
impracticable due to the likelihood that use of such extreme
assumptions would greatly exaggerate the magnitude of potential risks.
In this instance, such an approach was considered practical only
because of assertions by the SDA that SAED compounds present both very
low potential toxicity and very limited exposure potential.
The report submitted by the SDA presented estimates of both the
potential exposure to, and potential toxicity of, SAED compounds. The
principal emissions estimate in the report was based on a hypothetical
facility using 600 million pounds per year of SAED, a figure coinciding
with the total annual domestic production of Shell Chemical Company,
the largest SAED manufacturer. The report then conservatively estimated
emissions for this hypothetical facility associated with the storage
and transmission, processing, and fugitive releases of the SAED
compounds.
Emissions of SAED from raw materials during storage and handling
were estimated by assuming emissions of a total volume of air, fully
saturated with SAED, equal to the total volume of liquid SAED. This
estimate was based, in turn, on the vapor pressure of the lowest
molecular weight compound in the SAED category, although typical SAED
compounds have greater molecular weight and substantially lower
volatility. Additional SAED emissions from manufacture of SAED
compounds and formulation of other products containing SAED were
estimated by making assumptions concerning the effect on emissions of
increased temperatures and ventilation rates and reduced SAED
concentrations in the finished products. Finally, an estimate of
fugitive emissions was calculated from the estimated point source
emissions by applying a proportionality factor derived from reported
emissions for all glycol ethers in the EPA Toxics Release Inventory
database, although it is likely that the proportion of total emissions
attributable to fugitive releases would be much less for SAED compounds
than for the lower molecular weight glycol ethers. This analysis
produced an aggregate emissions rate for the hypothetical facility of
105 pounds of SAED per year.
Exposures at the fence line for the hypothetical facility were then
estimated using the SCREEN3 dispersion model and the calculated
aggregate emissions rate, based on a variety of assumptions concerning
terrain, stack height and configuration, and distance to the fence
line. The predicted annual average SAED concentration associated with
an emissions rate of 105 pounds/year was 0.03 micrograms of SAED per
cubic meter of air for a ``representative'' facility and 97.3
micrograms per cubic meter for a ``hypothetical worst-case'' facility.
The SDA submission also summarized the available toxicity data on
SAED compounds. There have been few acute and no subchronic inhalation
studies utilizing SAED compounds. Available animal study data do not
indicate any adverse effects at air concentrations up to those produced
by full saturation with SAED vapors. Acute toxicity has been
demonstrated only when animals inhaled undiluted SAED in the form of a
respirable aerosol. In one 10-day repeated inhalation study, test
animals exhibited local respiratory irritation. Long-term animal
studies of SAED administered by the oral or dermal routes have not
reported any significant effects such as skin sensitization,
reproductive or developmental toxicity, genetic mutations, or cancer.
Evidence on the toxic potential of glycol ethers as a group strongly
suggests that toxic potency decreases as molecular weight increases.
Therefore, SAED (which have high molecular weight) are likely to be
substantially less toxic than lighter glycol ether compounds for which
more complete toxicity data are available.
There is no verified or proposed reference concentration (RfC) for
any SAED compound. The SDA developed a proposed ``key exposure index''
for chronic exposure to SAED compounds based on the subchronic RfC for
2-methoxy-1-propanol (MP), a structurally similar compound which also
has no demonstrated systemic toxicity by
[[Page 1782]]
inhalation. Two-methoxy-1-propanol has a lower molecular weight (90
grams per mole) than the lightest SAED compound (ethylene glycol octyl
ether, 174 grams per mole). Therefore, MP is expected to be more toxic
than any SAED compound, and its use as a surrogate should be
conservative.
The SDA's analysis began with the subchronic RfC for MP, then
reduced it by a factor of 10 to account for the differences between
subchronic effects and chronic effects, and by an additional factor of
between 1 and 10 to account for the use of data for a structurally
related compound. This resulted in a proposed concentration range of
0.2 to 2.0 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) at which no
adverse effects would be expected in human populations, including
sensitive individuals. The SDA's proposed concentration range is
approximately 1,000 to 10,000 times lower than the acutely toxic level
for inhalation in rats. It is also approximately 1,000 to 10,000 times
greater than the exposure estimated by the SDA for a ``representative''
facility and 2 to 20 times greater than the estimated exposure for a
``hypothetical worst-case'' facility.
The proposed chronic no-effect concentration range for SAED of 0.2
to 2.0 mg/m3 is also consistent with chronic RfCs available
from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for lower-
molecular weight, non-SAED glycol ethers (i.e., 0.2 mg/m3
for 2-ethoxyethanol and 0.09 mg/m3 for 2-methoxyethanol
acetate). A third IRIS assessment will shortly be proposed for 2-
butoxyethanol, in which EPA expects to include an RfC in the range of
10 to 70 mg/m3. The SDA's analysis has, therefore, treated
SAED as if they were as toxic as much lighter glycol ether compounds,
which EPA considers to be unlikely.
Although the SDA document does not include a discussion of levels
of SAED that would be protective of non-human species, the toxicity
data used to support the health impact assessment were obtained from
animal studies. The derivation of human no-effect levels from these
animal data, appropriately adjusted for uncertainty, should be
protective of non-human animal species as well. Overall, there is no
evidence to suggest that any species or any ecosystem would be harmed
by any exposure below the SAED no-effect level proposed for humans.
Based on the SDA submission as a whole, EPA believes that the
available data on potential exposure to, and toxicity of, SAED
compounds are considerably more limited than would normally be
necessary to support the findings required by section 112(b)(3) before
EPA may delete a substance from the HAP list. However, there is a
sufficiently large discrepancy between the maximum predicted exposure
level for these compounds based on plausible worst-case assumptions and
the lowest concentration likely to present any potential risk of
adverse effects to compensate for the paucity of the data. The
conservative techniques used by the SDA in its submission, which tend
to overestimate both exposure to and toxicity of SAED, are appropriate
in the context of the limited data which are available on SAED
compounds.
Unlike the SDA, EPA does not believe that the process by which
Congress adopted the current definition of glycol ethers in section
112(b)(1) can be construed as relieving EPA of the obligation to apply
the statutory criteria before deleting any substance included in the
present definition. Nevertheless, it is important to observe that there
is no evidence suggesting that the current broader definition of glycol
ethers was adopted because of any actual concerns regarding the
potential hazards of SAED compounds. EPA believes that the absence of
any discernable affirmative rationale for the initial inclusion of SAED
compounds in the statutory HAP list, while not dispositive in itself,
lends additional support to the Agency's conclusion that the available
evidence supports deletion of these compounds.
Based on the available information, EPA has made an initial
determination, with respect to each and every individual substance
which satisfies the definition of SAED compounds set forth above, that
there is adequate data on the health and environmental effects of those
substances to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations,
bioaccumulation or deposition of the substances may not reasonably be
anticipated to cause adverse human health or environmental effects. As
such, EPA is proposing to effectuate this determination by redefining
the entire glycol ethers category in a manner which excludes each of
the deleted substances.
III. Proposed Revision of CERCLA Designation
When a HAP is listed under section 112 of the CAA, it is also
defined as a hazardous substance under section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. 9601(14). In an April 4, 1985 final rule, under its authority in
section 102(a) of CERCLA, EPA designated and listed, in the table at 40
CFR 302.4, all the elements and compounds and hazardous wastes
incorporated as hazardous substances by reference to other
environmental statutes under section 101(14)(see 50 FR 13456). In a
June 12, 1995 final rule, EPA revised Table 302.4 to add, among other
HAP newly listed by the 1990 CAA Amendments, the broad generic category
of glycol ethers (see 60 FR 30926). The EPA designated the broad
generic category of glycol ethers as hazardous under CERCLA based
solely on its inclusion in the CAA HAP list. The Agency has no
independent basis upon which to retain the current definition of the
glycol ethers category in order to include the SAED compounds as CERCLA
hazardous substances. Therefore, should the definition of glycol ethers
in the HAP list in the CAA be amended as proposed in today's
rulemaking, the Agency is also proposing to make a corresponding change
to the list of CERCLA hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302, Table
302.4.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Today's proposed actions do not meet the definition of
``significant regulatory action'' as set forth in Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866 and are, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The E.O. 12886 defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the E.O.
Although EPA is not aware of any adverse effects associated with
the present inclusion of SAED compounds on the CAA HAP and the CERCLA
hazardous substance lists, the effect of the proposed rules will be to
reduce potential regulatory obligations. There are no identifiable
adverse effects associated with either of the proposed rules. Neither
of the proposed rules meets any of the criteria enumerated above, and
EPA, therefore, has determined that neither of these actions
[[Page 1783]]
constitutes a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of E.O.
12866.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., OMB must clear any reporting and recordkeeping requirements that
qualify as an ``information collection request'' under PRA. Neither of
the proposed rules in this notice contain any new information
collection requirements.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires that a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis be performed for proposed rules that potentially
have ``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
Small entities are small businesses, organizations, and governmental
jurisdictions.
Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines indicate that an
economic impact should be considered significant if it meets one of the
following criteria: (1) Compliance increases annual production costs by
more than 5 percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers; (2)
compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities are at
least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of sales
for large entities; (3) capital costs of compliance represent a
``significant'' portion of capital available to small entities,
considering internal cash flow plus external financial capabilities; or
(4) regulatory requirements are likely to result in closure of small
entities.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify
that neither of the proposed rules, if promulgated, will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Neither of the proposed rules in
this document contain any Federal mandate (under the regulatory
provisions of title II of UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments
or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13045
The E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) requires EPA rulemaking that involves decisions on environmental
health risks or safety risks to consider whether such risks may
disproportionately affect children. Toxicological data used to support
this proposed rule were obtained from animal studies. Estimated human
no-effect levels were derived by applying an intraspecies uncertainty
factor designed to protect children and other sensitive members of
human populations. EPA anticipates that, in the absence of studies of
exposed children, that this uncertainty factor will adequately protect
the entire human population, including children.
F. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments because it will result in no
increase either in air pollution or reporting requirements.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 63
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Glycol ethers.
40 CFR Part 302
Hazardous substances, Chemicals, Glycol ethers.
Dated: December 30, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that title
40, chapter I, parts 63 and 302 of the Code of Federal Regulations be
amended as follows:
[[Page 1784]]
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Part 63, subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 63.61 to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.61 Redefinition of glycol ethers listed as hazardous air
pollutants.
The definition of the glycol ethers category of hazardous air
pollutants, as established by 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1) includes mono- and
di-ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and triethylene glycol
R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR'
Where:
n= 1, 2, or 3
R= alkyl C7 or less, or phenyl or alkyl substituted phenyl
R'= H, or alkyl C7 or less, or carboxylic acid ester,
sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, or sulfonate.
PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and
1361.
Sec. 302.4 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 302.4, footnote d to Table 302.4 is revised to read as
follows:
* * * * *
d Includes mono- and di-ethers of ethylene glycol,
diethylene glycol, and triethylene glycol R-
(OCH2CH2)n-OR'
where:
n= 1, 2, or 3
R= alkyl C7 or less, or phenyl or alkyl substituted
phenyl
R'= H, or alkyl C7 or less, or carboxylic acid ester,
sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, or sulfonate.
[FR Doc. 99-323 Filed 1-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P