[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 67 (Thursday, April 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18097-18101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8543]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPPTS-211044A; FRL-6496-6]


TSCA Section 21 Petition; Response to Citizens' Petition

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On December 27, 1999, EPA received a petition under section 21 
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) from People for the Ethical 
Treatment of Animals (PETA) on its own behalf and on behalf of four 
other organizations. The petition requests that EPA initiate TSCA 
rulemaking proceedings with respect to all chemicals included on the 
HPV (High Production Volume chemical) Challenge Program list as updated 
through the date of initiation of the requested proceedings. 
Specifically, the petition requests that EPA issue a TSCA section 8(a) 
Preliminary Assessment Information Reporting (PAIR) rule and a Health 
and Safety Data Reporting rule under TSCA section 8(d). For the reasons 
set forth in this notice, EPA has denied the petition to initiate 
rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: 
Barbara Cunningham, Director, Office of Program Management and 
Evaluation, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7401), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-
mail address: [email protected].
    For technical information contact: Frank D. Kover, Chemical Control 
Division (7405), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 260-8130; e-
mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, 
however, be of particular interest to U.S. chemical manufacturers 
(defined by statute to include importers) and processors. Because other 
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to 
describe all the specific entities 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. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this 
Document or Other Related Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document, and certain other related documents that might be available 
electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. 
To access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and 
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under 
``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly 
to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 
copy of the petition and its supplement are available on EPA's homepage 
at http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/sc21main.htm.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this action under docket control number OPPTS-211044A. The official 
record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this 
action, any public comments received during an applicable comment 
period, and other information related to this action, including any 
information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This 
official record includes the documents that are physically located in 
the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those 
documents. The public version of the official record does not include 
any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official 
record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic 
comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available 
for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North 
East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. 
The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 
260-7099.

II. Background

A. What is a TSCA Section 21 Petition?

    Section 21 of TSCA allows citizens to petition EPA to initiate a 
proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA 
sections 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA sections 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A 
section 21 petition must set forth facts which the petitioner believes 
establish the need for the action requested. EPA is required to grant 
or deny the petition within 90 days of its receipt. If EPA grants the 
petition, the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. 
If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the 
denial in the Federal Register. Within 60 days of denial or no action, 
petitioners may commence a civil action in a U.S. District Court to 
compel initiation of the requested rulemaking. When reviewing a 
petition for a new rule, as in this case, the court must provide an 
opportunity for de novo review of the petition. Pursuant to TSCA 
section 21(b)(4)(B)(ii), ``if the petitioner demonstrates to the 
satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of evidence that ... there 
is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such [TSCA 
section 8 rules] is necessary to protect health or the environment 
against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment'' 
the court can order EPA to initiate the requested action.

[[Page 18098]]

B. What Action is Requested Under This TSCA Section 21 Petition?

    On December 27, 1999, EPA received a TSCA section 21 petition from 
PETA on its own behalf and on behalf of the Physicians Committee for 
Responsible Medicine (PCRM), the Doris Day Animal League (DDAL), the 
International Marine Mammal Project of Earth Island Institute, and the 
National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS). The petitioners supplemented 
their original petition with additional references in a letter, dated 
January 19, 2000. The petition and its supplement are in the docket and 
are also available at http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/sc21main.htm.
    The petition asks EPA to initiate rulemaking proceedings with 
respect to all chemicals included in the HPV Challenge Program as 
updated through the date of initiation of the requested proceedings for 
the issuance of :
    1. A TSCA section 8(a) PAIR rule (40 CFR part 712).
    2. A Health and Safety Data Reporting rule under TSCA section 8(d) 
(40 CFR part 716).
    The petitioners further petition that ``[s]uch rule[s] should 
neither be limited to participants in the Challenge Program nor exclude 
substances or mixtures as to which a participant has enrolled in the 
Program.'' While the petitioners recognize that companies are obligated 
under TSCA section 8(e) to report to the Agency information suggesting 
that a chemical poses a substantial risk to health or the environment, 
they are asking the Agency to initiate the requested rulemakings in 
order to obtain essentially exculpatory information from companies that 
might ``exonerate'' a chemical so that additional testing would not be 
needed.
    This request is based in part upon assertions that regulations 
requiring the submission of existing hazard test data provide a better 
approach for implementing the HPV Challenge Program and associated TSCA 
section 4 HPV test rule(s) than the approach currently utilized, 
namely, the voluntary submission of relevant existing screening-level 
hazard test data in connection with sponsorship of chemicals under the 
HPV Challenge Program or as comments on proposed HPV rule(s) under TSCA 
section 4. The HPV Challenge Program and associated test rule(s) are 
part of a broader Agency program called the ``Chemical Right-to-Know 
Initiative.'' See http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/ for a description of the 
Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative, including the HPV Challenge 
Program).

III. Disposition of Petition

    EPA agrees with the underlying general premise of the petition, 
i.e., that relevant extant hazard data on the HPV Challenge Program 
chemicals, both ``positive'' data that indicate an effect and 
``negative'' data that do not indicate an effect, should be considered 
by the Agency and made publicly available before any screening-level 
hazard testing (animal or non-animal) under the HPV Challenge Program 
or associated test rule(s) is conducted. However, EPA does not believe 
that it is required to grant the petition under the relevant standard 
set forth in TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B)(ii), namely that ``there is a 
reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule or order 
is necessary to protect health or the environment against an 
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.'' The 
petition does not argue that the requested rules are necessary to 
protect against an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, but 
rather asserts that the TSCA sections 8(a) PAIR and 8(d) rules provide 
a more efficient and effective approach to obtaining existing 
screening-level hazard data on HPV Challenge Program chemicals. 
Regardless of the validity of this assertion, it would not compel the 
Agency to take the requested action under TSCA section 21.
    Moreover, as a policy matter, EPA does not believe that the 
petitioner's approach is more efficient and effective than the approach 
already being pursued by the Agency under the HPV Challenge Program and 
associated test rule(s). It should be recognized that the presence of a 
chemical on the HPV Challenge Chemical List is based upon production 
and/or importation volume for chemicals reported under the 1990 
Inventory Update Rule (IUR), see 40 CFR part 710 for the current IUR 
regulations, and does not imply that any additional testing or re-
testing is needed. Following the guidance provided by EPA, a 
comprehensive search for and review of existing toxicity studies is 
occurring and will occur for each of the chemicals in the HPV Challenge 
Program and any other chemicals listed under associated HPV test rules 
(see EPA guidance documents on searching for chemical information and 
assessing adequacy of existing data at http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/guidocs.htm). The collection of these data is already a fundamental 
part of both the HPV Challenge Program and associated test rule(s). EPA 
firmly believes that all stakeholders in the HPV Challenge Program 
share the goal of avoiding unnecessary testing, in particular the 
participants who are and will be gathering and making publicly 
available extant test data and only developing data where screening 
level data are needed. Further, considering the significant costs and 
resource burdens involved in animal testing EPA perceives no motivation 
on the part of program participants or others for re-testing where 
adequate data already exist.
    Finally, EPA disagrees with petitioners' opinion that rules under 
TSCA sections 8(a) PAIR and 8(d) are necessary to fulfill the 
objectives of the HPV Challenge Program. The Agency bases its position 
on this matter on the following considerations:

A. The HPV Challenge Program Maximizes the Use of Existing Data

    The concerns expressed by the petitioners regarding animal testing 
have been and continue to be recognized and carefully considered by 
EPA. Recognition of those concerns is reflected in the Agency's letter 
of October 14, 1999 (see http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/ceoltr2.htm) to HPV 
Challenge Program participants. Specifically, the October 14 letter 
clearly already addresses the petitioners' concerns for maximizing the 
use of existing data. The second listed principle in the October 14 
letter states that ``Participants shall maximize the use of existing 
and scientifically adequate data to minimize further testing.'' The 
letter also indicates that EPA is firmly committed to reducing and 
eliminating the use of animals during any HPV chemical testing that 
must be conducted. EPA works domestically within the framework of the 
Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative 
Methods (ICCVAM) and internationally with the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development (OECD) to ensure the scientific 
acceptability of alternative test methods for regulatory as well as 
international data sharing purposes.
    The tenth principle listed in the October 14 letter states that 
``Companies shall allow 120 days between the posting of test plans and 
the implementation of testing plans.'' Anyone (including companies not 
participating in the HPV Challenge Program as well as any other person) 
having relevant test data is encouraged to submit them during the 120-
day review period following posting of test plans and ``robust'' (i.e., 
detailed) summaries of scientifically adequate extant data on the 
Internet. This approach, which has evolved through

[[Page 18099]]

interactions with stakeholders, expands the potential respondent 
community well beyond the domestic manufacturers (including importers) 
and processors who would be the only ones subject to any TSCA section 
8(a) PAIR or 8(d) reporting requirements. As related in comments by an 
HPV Challenge Program participant ``Domestic and foreign participants 
in voluntary programs have agreed to include all relevant unpublished 
and published data in publicly available 'robust summaries.' Indeed, it 
is expected that more data will be available through the 'robust 
summaries' which will include collaborative efforts with foreign 
producers, than through a Section 8 rule.'' (Ref. 1)
    Further, EPA's implementation of the HPV Challenge Program has 
involved a proactive approach to increase by collaboration 
participants. EPA has sent letters to apparent duplicate sponsors 
notifying them of other participants' commitments and encouraging them 
to form consortia or initiate other data sharing efforts thus 
potentially avoiding duplicative testing by creating further 
opportunity to maximize use of existing data. The Agency has 
established an automatic e-mail notification feature on its ChemRTK 
website to update HPV Challenge Program information in real time for 
participants, as well as the public-at-large, thus taking further steps 
to avoid duplicative testing when ``new'' information becomes 
available. EPA's approach also broadens the scope to an international 
level, considering that many consortia and companies participating in 
the HPV Challenge Program are coordinating their data collection 
efforts on a global basis and are obtaining studies from companies and 
other sources throughout the world. EPA agrees with the Environmental 
Defense statement in their comments (Ref. 2) that ``Even assuming 
arguendo that any appreciable quantity of unpublished exculpatory 
information actually exists there is every reason to believe that such 
information will be made available in the voluntary [HPV Challenge] 
program.'' EPA also agrees with HPV participant statements that they 
``. . . will not initiate new testing without thoroughly evaluating the 
need for such testing based on review of published and unpublished 
data. . . . In this highly competitive market, companies cannot afford 
to waste limited resources in conducting unwarranted or unnecessary 
testing; it is too costly.'' (Ref. 1)

B. Submissions Under the Requested Regulations Would Substantially 
Duplicate Data that HPV Challenge Program Participants Already have an 
Incentive to Provide

    EPA believes the requested TSCA sections 8(a) PAIR and 8(d) 
regulatory actions are not necessary in order to obtain relevant 
existing hazard test data for chemicals included in the HPV Challenge 
Program because these data will be submitted (to the extent they exist) 
by participants and others under the HPV Challenge Program and by 
respondents to any associated TSCA section 4 rule(s). EPA believes that 
for the chemicals sponsored under the HPV Challenge Program, the data 
obtained via the requested TSCA sections 8(a) PAIR and 8(d) regulatory 
actions would substantially duplicate the extant data that program 
participants have already committed themselves to provide voluntarily 
under the HPV Challenge Program (where such data exist), and thus these 
actions would not supplement the program in a meaningful way. EPA also 
is guided by TSCA section 8(a)(2) which states that ``To the extent 
feasible, the Administrator [EPA] shall not require . . . any reporting 
which is unnecessary or duplicative.'' As a further safeguard to avoid 
unnecessary testing, EPA encourages anyone (including companies not 
participating in the HPV Challenge Program as well as any other person) 
having relevant ``positive'' or ``negative'' hazard test data to submit 
such data during the 120-day review period for test plans as specified 
in the EPA letter of October 14, 1999.
    A fundamental component of the HPV Challenge Program from its 
inception has been the principle that extant ``positive'' or 
``negative'' test data should be submitted in order to satisfy 
specified program data needs and thereby obviate the need for certain 
testing under the program. This principle has been clearly stated from 
the initiation of the program (see http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk). 
Further, EPA developed detailed guidance for program participants to 
use when searching for existing hazard test data (see http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/srchguid.htm). HPV Challenge Program participants 
have formally committed to prepare and make available for public 
inspection test plans that will include extant hazard test data in the 
form of ``robust'' (i.e. detailed) summaries before any needed new 
testing is initiated (see http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk). The content of 
these summaries has been accepted and adopted by the International 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for its 
Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) Program (for a description of the 
OECD HPV SIDS Program see http://www.oecd.org/ehs/HPV.htm).
    HPV Challenge Program participants and other entities that would be 
subject to the associated TSCA section 4 test rule(s) have a strong 
incentive to provide the needed data voluntarily (if such data exist), 
and in particular where such data support a conclusion that some or all 
of the proposed testing is not necessary. Such responses have occurred 
with past TSCA section 4 test rules. The petitioners present no reason 
to support a presumption that chemical producers would not respond 
similarly in this case. By providing these extant hazard test data 
voluntarily, companies recognize that they will save themselves both 
money and time (see, e.g., Refs. 1, 3, 4).
    EPA intends to consider including HPV chemicals that remain 
unsponsored in one or more TSCA section 4 test rules. Comments relating 
to the use of TSCA section 8 information gathering rules have been 
raised previously in association with developing TSCA section 4 test 
rules. The Agency previously responded ``. . . that these sections of 
TSCA have served as useful tools in the gathering of production, 
release, health effects, and safety information for many previous test 
rule candidates. . . . However, the use of the rulemaking authorities 
under TSCA section 8 for information gathering purposes is not required 
prior to conducting rulemaking pursuant to TSCA section 4. . . and 
conventional rulemaking would not have produced section 8(a) and (d) 
data on a timely basis. Furthermore, any available studies could have 
been submitted to EPA in response to the proposed section 4 rule'' 
published in the Federal Register of June 15, 1988 (53 FR 22300, 
22304). Thus, based on its past experience in implementing TSCA section 
4 rules, EPA believes that potentially regulated persons will have a 
strong incentive during any proposed HPV rule comment period to submit 
any existing data, of which the Agency may not be aware, that are 
relevant to the specified test rule endpoints. In so doing, these 
persons may demonstrate to EPA that proposed testing on a particular 
endpoint for a chemical is not needed, and EPA may eliminate such 
testing from the rule.

[[Page 18100]]

C. The Requested Regulations Would be a Less Effective and Efficient 
Means to Gather Extant Screening-level Hazard Data on HPV Chemicals 
than the HPV Challenge Program, which is Similar to the Internationally 
Accepted OECD SIDS Program

    Over the past several years, EPA and the regulated community have 
expressed a general preference for voluntary approaches, where 
feasible, in data gathering under TSCA (as opposed to regulatory 
approaches, such as the regulations requested by this petition). The 
voluntary HPV Challenge Program represents one of the most successful 
voluntary programs to collect chemical toxicity and fate data ever 
developed by EPA in cooperation with industry and others. To date, the 
HPV Challenge Program has resulted in commitments by 437 companies, 
acting individually or through 155 consortia, to provide basic toxicity 
and fate information on 2080 HPV industrial chemicals, either by 
submitting extant data in the form of ``robust'' summaries, or by 
agreeing to conduct testing where extant data are not available. The 
success of the HPV Challenge Program is due to the benefits that accrue 
under voluntary programs that would not be available under regulatory 
approaches. These benefits include but are not limited to: Less 
resource intensive, less adversarial, needed information will be 
submitted sooner and will be available to the public sooner, and 
stakeholders are provided more effective interactive input than a 
similar program developed solely via regulatory means.
    EPA believes that the success of the HPV Challenge Program could be 
undermined by the promulgation of the requested TSCA sections 8(a) PAIR 
and 8(d) rules, which, as described in Unit III.B. would largely 
duplicate data that companies have already committed to provide 
voluntarily under the program, and which could also delay the program 
significantly due to the time needed to promulgate the regulations 
(potentially years), permit an industry response, and allow EPA to 
review the information. For example, if a TSCA section 8(d) rule was 
promulgated for all HPV Challenge Program chemicals, the rule would 
require the submission of complete copies of all unpublished health and 
safety studies for program chemicals, rather than ``robust'' summaries 
of existing studies as required in the HPV Challenge Program. Given the 
scope of the program, the standardized format for ``robust'' summaries 
is a much more useful format for access and review by EPA and others, 
including the public-at-large for purposes of the program. By contrast, 
with a TSCA section 8(d) rule, the Agency would have to manage the 
information, complete a full review of the studies, and extract the 
``robust'' summary type information on its own at substantial taxpayer 
cost. In addition, the data will be more quickly and easily, 
accessible, searchable and useable under the HPV Challenge Program 
because they will be submitted electronically in a standardized format, 
whereas they would be submitted primarily in hard copy in an 
unstandardized format under the requested regulation.
    A regulatory approach to data collection could further delay the 
HPV Challenge Program information collection and review because a TSCA 
section 8(d) rule would require the submission of existing health and 
safety studies beyond those that would be useful in eliminating data 
needs from the HPV Challenge Program. For example, with respect to the 
requested TSCA section 8(d) rule, studies of mixtures that contain a 
substance included in the rule would generally have to be reported (40 
CFR 716.10(a)(2)), and the rule would result in duplicative submissions 
if several manufacturers submit copies of the same study. Yet these 
additional studies would also need to be reviewed by the Agency even 
though they would not have the potential to affect the program. As a 
result of these and other difficulties, EPA agrees with the Chemical 
Manufacturers Association's (CMA's) comment that ``the requested 
actions would undermine industry's ability to complete the work already 
underway in the HPV Challenge Program'' (Ref. 3).
    EPA's experience in implementing the OECD HPV SIDS Program in the 
United States has indicated that past efforts to bring forward extant 
hazard test data have been successful. Similar to the HPV Challenge 
Program, companies sponsoring SIDS chemicals frequently form consortia 
or collaborative panels and thus gain access to studies that may be 
held by other companies in other countries. Neither EPA nor the 
petitioners have identified any instance in the OECD HPV SIDS Program 
where proposed testing, subsequently performed, was later found to be 
duplicative of existing adequate test data.
    Likewise, the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) 
has demonstrated the willingness of industry to provide existing test 
data in order to satisfy screening-level data needs. This organization, 
which is also implementing a program that is similar to the HPV 
Challenge Program, will make existing data held by international 
companies available for public use (Ref. 5).
    EPA believes that the HPV Challenge Program must be given an 
opportunity to work before regulatory requirements are imposed. This 
belief is shared by the HPV Challenge Program participants, some of 
whom have stated that ``From a time, cost and animal use perspective, 
the HPV Challenge Program represents the most efficient means yet 
devised to ensure the evaluation of existing chemical substances, and 
it must go forward in parallel with other similar international 
programs'' (Ref. 3). EPA fully anticipates that the HPV Challenge 
Program will result in the submission of relevant extant hazard test 
data on the chemicals included in the program.
    The HPV Challenge Program is similar in many ways to the voluntary 
OECD HPV SIDS Program. The OECD HPV SIDS Program is widely acknowledged 
to be a successful voluntary program that is internationally supported 
by 29 countries, including the United States. It is considered by those 
countries to be fully adequate for purposes of an initial assessment of 
chemical hazards. Further, EPA believes that pursuing development of 
TSCA sections 8(a) PAIR and 8(d) rules would require reporting of 
little relevant information beyond that obtained under the HPV 
Challenge Program as it is now structured. Compelling the submission of 
entire studies under a section 8(d) rule would place on EPA the burden 
of reviewing the studies, compiling summaries and making the summaries 
available to the public. Such an approach could potentially take months 
or years to accomplish, impose substantial costs on EPA with little 
likely benefit accruing to the HPV Challenge Program while 
unnecessarily delaying the program's goal of making screening-level 
hazard data on HPV chemicals publicly available. EPA also believes that 
there should be no further unnecessary delay collecting data under the 
HPV Challenge Program and making the data publicly available, and that 
it is in the public interest to proceed expeditiously with the HPV 
Challenge Program.
    For the foregoing reasons, EPA is denying the petitioners' request. 
Although the Agency has decided to deny the petition, EPA recognizes 
that it may in the future have a legitimate need for information that 
can be obtained via TSCA section 8(a) PAIR and/or TSCA section 8(d) 
rules, for example, e.g., in order to support the development of future 
test rules for chemicals for which the Agency cannot base a finding 
under TSCA section 4(a)

[[Page 18101]]

on currently available hazard or exposure-related information.

IV. Comments Received

    EPA received many comments in response to the Federal Register 
notice announcing EPA's receipt of this TSCA section 21 petition. EPA 
considered all comments received by February 23, 2000, in determining 
the proper response to the petitioners' requests. The majority of the 
comments were from individuals, most of whom identified themselves as 
members of one or more of the petitioning organizations. These comments 
urged EPA to grant the petition, but, generally did not provide 
additional support for the requested action beyond the rationales 
expressed in the petition itself. The United States Humane Society 
(Ref. 6) did present some additional reasons to support granting the 
petition. These comments which pertain primarily to the perceived 
limitations of the voluntary submission of extant data and the need for 
EPA to collect positive as well as negative extant data prior to the 
conduct of testing under the HPV Challenge Program are addressed 
throughout Unit III. (Ref. 6).
    In addition, CMA, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers 
Association (CSMA), the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA), the 
American Petroleum Institute (API), the Great Lakes Chemical 
Corporation (GLCC), the Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety 
Council (SEHSC), the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturers 
Association (SOCMA), Elf Atochem(ATO) , and Environmental Defense all 
urged EPA to deny the petition in its entirety. These comments 
generally express the view that the ``Framework'' and design of the HPV 
Challenge Program will fulfill the need to make existing hazard test 
data available. CMA, CSMA, SDA, API, GLCC, SEHSC, SOCMA, ATO, and 
Environmental Defense presented a number of arguments in support of 
denying the petition.
    All of the comments received by EPA on the petition are located in 
the official record, as described in Unit I.B.2.

V. References

    1. Comments of Elf Atochem North America, Inc. February 2, 2000.
    2. Comments of Environmental Defense. February 3, 2000.
    3. Comments of the Chemical Manufacturers Association. February 2, 
2000.
    4. Comments of the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association. 
February 3, 2000.
    5. International Council of Chemical Associations. Description of 
High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals Initiative. http://www.icca-chem.org/hpv/. 2000.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: March 30, 2000.
Susan H. Wayland,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 
Toxic Substances.
[FR Doc. 00-8543 Filed 4-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F