[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 5, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53681-53689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22656]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[OEI-100004; FRL-6722-3]

RIN 2070-AC00


Addition of Diisononyl Phthalate Category; Community Right-to-
Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a petition filed under section 313(e)(1) of the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), EPA is 
proposing to add a diisononyl phthalate (DINP) category to the list of 
toxic chemicals subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA 
section 313 and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). EPA 
is proposing to add this chemical category to the EPCRA section 313 
list pursuant to its authority to add chemicals and chemical categories 
because EPA believes this category meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) 
toxicity criterion. The proposed addition of this category is based on 
DINP's carcinogenicity and liver, kidney, and developmental toxicity.

DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number OEI-100004, 
must be received by EPA on or before December 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in 
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as 
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information on this 
proposed rule contact: Daniel R. Bushman, Petitions Coordinator, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2844, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 260-3882, e-
mail address: [email protected]. For general information on EPCRA 
section 313, contact the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-535-
0202, in Virginia and Alaska: (703) 412-9877, or Toll free TDD: 1-800-
553-7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or 
otherwise use any of the chemicals included in the proposed DINP 
category. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but 
are not limited to:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Examples of Potentially Interested
             Category                             Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                            SIC major group codes 10 (except
                                     1011, 1081, and 1094), 12 (except
                                     1241), or 20 through 39; industry
                                     codes 4911 (limited to facilities
                                     that combust coal and/or oil for
                                     the purpose of generating power for
                                     distribution in commerce); 4931
                                     (limited to facilities that combust
                                     coal and/or oil for the purpose of
                                     generating power for distribution
                                     in commerce); or 4939 (limited to
                                     facilities that combust coal and/or
                                     oil for the purpose of generating
                                     power for distribution in
                                     commerce); or 4953 (limited to
                                     facilities regulated under the
                                     Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                     Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. section
                                     6921 et seq.), or 5169, or 5171, or
                                     7389 (limited to facilities
                                     primarily engaged in solvent
                                     recovery services on a contract or
                                     fee basis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government                  Federal facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of this Document or 
Other Support Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To 
access this document, on the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations,'' 
``Regulations and Proposed Rules,'' and then look up the entry for this 
document under the ``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.'' You 
can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this proposal under docket control number OEI-100004. The official 
record consists of the documents specifically referenced in Unit VIII. 
of this proposal and other information related to this proposal,

[[Page 53682]]

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 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 
is (202) 260-7099.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or 
electronically. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket control 
number (i.e., ``OEI-100004'') in your correspondence.
    1.By mail. Submit written comments to: Document Control Office 
(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    2.In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document 
Control Office (DCO) in East Tower Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M 
St., SW., Washington, DC. 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: (202) 260-7093.
    3.Electronically. Submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: 
``[email protected].'' Please note that you should not submit any 
information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be 
accepted on standard computer disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII 
file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be 
identified by the docket control number OEI-100004. Electronic comments 
on this proposal may also be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI Information that I Want to Submit to the 
Agency?

    You may claim information that you submit in response to this 
proposal as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does 
not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. 
Information not marked confidential will be included in the public 
docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI 
or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with the technical 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Introduction

A. What is the Statutory Authority for this Proposed Action?

    EPA is proposing this action under EPCRA section 313(d) and (e)(1), 
42 U.S.C. 11023. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the 
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

B. What is the General Background for this Proposed Action?

    Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain facilities that manufacture, 
process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above 
reporting threshold levels to report their environmental releases and 
other waste management quantities of such chemicals annually. These 
facilities must also report pollution prevention and recycling data for 
such chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of the PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13106. 
EPCRA section 313 established an initial list of toxic chemicals that 
comprised more than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical categories.
    EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from 
the list and sets forth criteria for these actions. Under EPCRA section 
313(e)(1), any person may petition EPA to add chemicals to or delete 
chemicals from the list. EPA has added and deleted chemicals from the 
original statutory list. Pursuant to EPCRA section 313(e)(1), EPA must 
respond to petitions within 180 days either by initiating a rulemaking 
or by publishing an explanation of why the petition has been denied.
    EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that EPA may add a chemical to the 
list if any of the listing criteria are met. Therefore, to add a 
chemical, EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but 
need not determine whether any other criterion is met. Conversely, to 
remove a chemical from the list, EPA must demonstrate that none of the 
criteria are met. The EPCRA section 313(d)(2) criteria are:
    (A) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated 
to cause significant adverse acute human health effects at 
concentration levels that are reasonably likely to exist beyond 
facility boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, 
releases.
    (B) The chemical is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated 
to cause in humans
    (i) cancer or teratogenic effects, or
    (ii) serious or irreversible
    (I) reproductive dysfunctions,
    (II) neurological disorders,
    (III) heritable genetic mutations, or
    (IV) other chronic health effects.
    (C) The chemical is known to cause or can be reasonably anticipated 
to cause, because of
    (i) its toxicity,
    (ii) its toxicity and persistence in the environment, or
    (iii) its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the 
environment, a significant adverse effect on the environment of 
sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to 
warrant reporting under this section.
    EPA often refers to the section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion as the 
``acute human health effects criterion''; the section 313(d)(2)(B) 
criterion as the ``chronic human health effects criterion''; and the 
section 313(d)(2)(C) criterion as the ``environmental effects 
criterion.''
    EPA issued a statement of petition policy and guidance in the 
Federal Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR 3479) to provide guidance 
regarding the recommended content and format for submitting petitions. 
On May 23, 1991 (56 FR 23703), EPA issued guidance regarding the 
recommended content of petitions to delete individual members of the 
section 313 metal compounds categories. EPA has also published in the 
Federal Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432) a statement 
clarifying its interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) and (d)(3) 
criteria for modifying the section 313 list of toxic chemicals.

III. What is the Description of the Petition?

    On February 29, 2000, EPA received a petition from the Washington 
Toxics Coalition (WTC) requesting EPA to add DINP to the list of toxic 
chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA Section 313 and PPA section 
6607. The WTC contends that DINP causes cancer, systemic toxicity, 
developmental toxicity, and endocrine disruption, and therefore should 
be added to the list of chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA 
section 313 and PPA section 6607. The petitioner alleges that DINP is 
``a dangerous phthalate ester that is used as the principal plasticizer 
in toys and many other products used by children and adults.'' WTC also 
claims that ``DINP has been shown to cause cancer

[[Page 53683]]

and other very serious toxic effects.'' The petitioner also asserts 
that ``in every study conducted to measure DINP exposure from 
children's use of plastic, DINP has been shown to migrate from the 
plastic into saliva when the plastic object is chewed or put into the 
child's mouth (Babich, 1998).''

IV. What was EPA's Technical Review of Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP)?

    In reviewing DINP for listing, EPA conducted a thorough hazard 
assessment and has preliminarily determined, based on the weight-of-the 
evidence, that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the DINP 
category met the statutory criteria for addition to EPCRA section 313. 
To make this determination, EPA senior scientists reviewed readily 
available toxicity information on the chemical for each of the 
following effect areas: acute human health effects; cancer and other 
chronic human health effects; and environmental effects. In addition, 
EPA reviewed information on the environmental fate of the chemical. The 
review is summarized in this proposal, and a more detailed discussion 
for each related topic can be found in EPA's technical report (Ref. 1). 
Referenced studies are contained in the public docket.
    The hazard assessment was conducted in accordance with relevant EPA 
guidelines for each adverse human health or environmental effect (Refs. 
14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21). During this assessment, the severity and 
significance of the effects induced by the chemical, the dose level 
causing the effect, and the quality and quantity of the available data, 
including the nature of the data (e.g., human epidemiological, 
laboratory animal, field or workplace studies) and confidence level in 
the existing data base, were all considered. EPA's assessment 
preliminarily concluded that the DINP category can reasonably be 
anticipated to cause carcinogenicity and liver, kidney, and 
developmental toxicity. In light of the continuous assessment of the 
developmental and reproductive toxicity potential of phthalates by the 
National Toxicology Program, the Agency may decide to evaluate 
potential hazards from other branched alkyl di-ester phthalates in the 
future (e.g., with eight or ten carbon alkyl chains).

A. What is the Chemistry and Use of DINP?

    Diisononyl phthalates (DINP) are the branched alkyl di-esters of 
1,2- benzenedicarboxylic acid in which the alkyl ester moieties contain 
a total of nine carbons. They constitute a family of di-ester 
phthalates widely used as plasticizers. They are colorless, oily 
liquids with high boiling points, low volatilities, and are poorly 
soluble in water (less than 10-4 milligrams per liter (mg/
L)). Multiple CAS numbers are associated with DINP: 28553-12-0, 71549-
78-5, 14103-61-8 and 68515-48-0. There is no single generic CAS number 
that represents all DINPs. The chemicals represented by CAS numbers 
28553-12-0, 71549-78-5, and 14103-61-8 consist of a mixture of isomers 
(compounds which have the same molecular formula but differ in the 
arrangement of their atoms). The alkyl ester moieties of the DINP 
esters represented by the three CAS numbers stated above are branched 
and contain a total of nine carbons. These alkyl ester moieties are 
represented by the molecular formula C9H19 (see 
structure below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE00.017

    The molecular formulas of these nine-carbon alkyl ester moieties 
are the same for these DINP isomers. They differ in structure due to 
the arrangement of the carbons in the alkyl ester moieties. CAS number 
68515-48-0 is also considered a DINP, but unlike the chemicals 
represented by the other three CAS numbers discussed above, 68515-48-0 
consists of di-ester phthalates with nine-carbon alkyl ester moieties 
(approximately 70% by weight), mixed with lesser amounts of di-ester 
phthalates with eight- and ten-carbon alkyl ester moieties.
    Of the chemicals represented by the four CAS numbers stated above, 
two (68515-48-0 and 28553-12-0) were reported by industry to EPA under 
the Inventory Reporting Regulations at 40 CFR part 710 of having 
production volumes of greater than 10,000 pounds per year. Actual 
production volumes for the chemicals represented by these two CAS 
numbers ranged in the millions of pounds per year. While reviewing data 
for the hazard assessments, it was noted that only a limited number of 
studies reported the CAS numbers for the DINP test chemical base 
stocks. When reported, the CAS numbers were either 68515-48-0 or 28553-
12-0. These two CAS numbers represent the primary DINP products 
manufactured commercially in the United States. Again, these two CAS 
numbers represent a mixture of DINP isomers and not any one single 
specific DINP isomer. There was no literature available for review 
which identified a single specific DINP isomer as the test chemical. 
Please refer to EPA technical report (Ref. 1) for the full report on 
chemistry and environmental fate.
    The principle use of DINP is as a plasticizer, particularly in the 
production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The treatment of plastics with 
DINP provides greater flexibility and softness to the final product. 
Some of the uses of DINP treated plastics are the production of coated 
fabrics, plastic toys, electrical insulation, and vinyl flooring. In 
1999, at the request of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(CPSC), manufacturers voluntarily removed DINP from toys intended to be 
mouthed and intended to be used by children under age 3, due to health 
concerns. The voluntary action has had little impact on the demand for 
DINP as DINP is used in other types of toys (e.g., squeeze toys) and in 
other products (Refs. 1 and 15).
    Approximately 2 billion pounds of phthalate plasticizers are 
produced in the United States each year. Of this total, production of 
DINP represents approximately 10% to 15% of the market, or 200 to 300 
million pounds per year (Ref. 1). This figure is supported by the 
Chemical Economics Handbook (CEH), published by SRI, a proprietary 
source of information on the chemical industry which estimates a 1999 
U.S. production of DINP of 250 million pounds (Ref. 20). Domestic 
consumption is approximately equal to production (Ref. 1).

B. What are the Environmental Fate Data for DINP?

    Due to the limited available information specific to DINP, some of 
the information presented is based upon other di-ester phthalates, in 
particular di-octyl phthalates. Because of the close similarity in 
structure and physical-chemical properties of DINP to other di-ester 
phthalates, appropriate environmental fate analogies can be deduced for 
DINP (Ref. 1).
    In water, hydrolysis is not considered a major mechanism for the 
degradation of phthalate esters under typical environmental conditions. 
At a neutral pH, phthalate esters are hydrolyzed at slow rates. The 
hydrolysis of DINP can be characterized as a two-step process, with the 
first step resulting in the creation of a monoester phthalate and one 
free nine-carbon alcohol molecule, and the second hydrolysis step 
resulting in the formation of phthalic acid and the

[[Page 53684]]

creation of a second nine-carbon alcohol (Ref. 1).
    Due to its physical-chemical properties, DINP can be expected to 
partition in the environment to soils and sediments. Modeling results 
indicate that DINP would reside in the sediment fraction of rivers, 
ponds, and eutrophic lakes where they would be susceptible to 
biological degradation (Ref. 1). Microorganisms from diverse 
environments have been shown to degrade phthalate esters and associated 
degradation products. The microbial metabolism of phthalates under both 
aerobic and anaerobic conditions begins by ester hydrolysis resulting 
in the formation of the monoester and the corresponding alcohol. The 
rate of degradation is dependent upon chemical concentration and test 
matrix. Half-life values range from weeks to months. Biological 
degradation of the phthalates appears to be the dominant loss mechanism 
in the environment.
    Very limited experimental data are available on the bioaccumulation 
potential of DINP. In general it can be stated that phthalates that are 
readily biotransformed have limited potential to bioaccumulate in most 
aquatic and terrestrial food animals. The Estimation Programs Interface 
for Windows (EPIWIN) model estimates a BCF value of 3.162 for DINP, 
indicating low bioaccumulation potential (Ref. 1).
    Based on the available environmental fate data and model estimates, 
DINP is not expected to persist in most waters and soils or to 
bioaccumulate in aquatic or terrestrial organisms.

C. What are the Absorption and Metabolism Data for DINP?

    DINP is well absorbed in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract of the rat 
and readily distributed to major tissues, particularly the liver, 
within 1 hour of administration; studies have shown that the majority 
of an oral dose of 14C-DINP is excreted in the urine with 
the majority of the radiolabeled species appearing within 24 to 48 
hours. DINP is poorly absorbed through the skin. In a dermal absorption 
study in rats, only 3% of the applied dose was recovered by the end the 
7 days (Ref. 1). DINP is de-esterified to the monoester in the GI tract 
which is further metabolized by side chain oxidation to the oxidation 
products (ketones, diacids, aldehydes/alcohols) or by hydrolysis to 
phthalic acid occurring primarily in the liver. A major sex difference 
is demonstrated in the recovery of low amounts of the monoester 
oxidation products such as in the GI tract of female rats. This may 
suggest that intestinal hydrolysis of the diester is more limited in 
female rats. Livers had the highest concentration of radioactivity, 
followed by kidney, blood, muscle, and fat. There was no evidence of 
accumulation of DINP or metabolites in blood or tissue following 
repeated dosing and all metabolic products were completely eliminated 
by 72 hours.

D. What is EPA's Toxicity Evaluation for DINP?

    1.What is EPA's evaluation of the chronic toxicity of DINP?
    a.What developmental toxicity data were found for DINP? DINP has 
been shown to cause developmental toxicity in rats exposed during 
gestation to doses as low as 250 milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/
kg/day). Developmental effects were observed in a two-generation 
reproductive study in rats, where the mean pup body weights in males 
and females of the first generation (F1) were significantly 
reduced at all doses including 250 mg/kg/day, the lowest dose tested, 
by postnatal day (PND) 21. In the second generation (F2), 
the mean female pup weight was significantly reduced at 250 mg/kg at 
PND 7 and male and female pup body weights were reduced on PND 7, 14 
and 21 at 290 mg/kg/day. The significant decreases in the mean body 
weight of pups from two generations may result in serious developmental 
delays in growth throughout the lifetime of the rat. In a recent 
meeting conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Chronic 
Hazard Advisory Panel on DINP (Ref. 2) the data from the two-generation 
reproductive toxicity study on DINP (Ref. 3) were analyzed using 
benchmark dose analysis to more precisely define the dose at which 
developmental effects would be expected. The serious effect noted was a 
reduction in offspring (both F1 and F2) body 
weight at all dietary levels during the lactational phase. The 
estimated point of departure from the data was 200 to 260 mg/kg/day, 
which was consistent with the experimental dose of 250 mg/kg/day.
    Skeletal variations including extra cervical and accessory (14th) 
ribs were significantly increased in two developmental studies in two 
different strains of rats. There were statistically significant 
increases in the percentage of litters with dilated kidney pelvises in 
both studies (Refs. 4 and 5). Developmental toxicity with the kidney 
and skeletal system as target organs was evident in the study conducted 
in Wistar dams given 1,000 mg/kg/day (Ref. 4). There were statistically 
significant increases in the number of affected fetuses per litter that 
had rudimentary cervical ribs and accessory 14th ribs in the high dose 
group. Skeletal malformations (i.e., shortened and bent long bones) 
were observed in the high dose group. There were increased incidences 
of dilated kidney pelvises at the high dose; three fetuses also had a 
total absence of kidney and ureter development. The same skeletal 
variations were demonstrated in offspring in Sprague-Dawley dams given 
500 mg/kg/day while the kidney effects were observed at 1,000 mg/kg/day 
(Ref. 5). These skeletal variations and kidney effects occurred in the 
absence of or at minimal maternal toxicity (decreased body weight gain 
or increased organ weight). While the effect of extra lumbar ribs may 
not be considered serious malformations, the effect on cervical ribs is 
of great toxicological concern. Cervical ribs are an uncommon finding 
and their presence may indicate a disruption of gene expression leading 
to this structural anomaly (Ref. 22). In addition, there is concern 
that cervical ribs may interfere with normal nerve function and blood 
flow. The kidney effects in fetuses might lead to progressive kidney 
damage and impaired kidney function and therefore are considered to be 
serious.
    b. What other chronic toxicity effects data were found for DINP? 
Increased liver weight and liver enzyme activities occurred at doses of 
DINP as low as 152 mg/kg in rats and chronic liver lesions were noted 
at 307 mg/kg/day. These liver effects are indicators of serious liver 
damage produced by DINP. In addition, these effects are early 
indicators of the tissue damage which leads to DINP-induced liver 
tumors (Ref. 7).
    In addition to chronic liver toxicity, biochemical indicators of 
chronic kidney toxicity were evident in male rats given DINP at 307 mg/
kg/day and female rats given DINP at 885 mg/kg/day. Also, chronic 
progressive irreversible kidney damage (nephropathy) occurred in female 
mice exposed to DINP at 1,888 mg/kg/day which lead to early mortality 
(Refs. 6 and 7).
    c. What carcinogenicity data were found for DINP? DINP is a liver 
carcinogen in rats and mice. Liver tumors have been demonstrated in 
male F-344 rats exposed to dietary DINP at 733 mg/kg/day and female and 
male B6C3F1 mice exposed to 335 and 741 mg/kg/day, respectively, for 2 
years (Ref. 6). Based on these data, EPA currently believes that DINP 
is a carcinogen.
    One issue that has been raised with respect to other phthalate 
esters, such as di-(ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), is the mechanism of 
the tumor production in

[[Page 53685]]

rodents (peroxisome proliferation-induced hepatocarcinogenicity) and 
its relevance to human cancer risk. DEHP's cancer classification is 
currently being reviewed by the Agency. As with DEHP, in the DINP 
studies the liver tumor production in rodents is associated with 
peroxisome proliferation. Several subchronic and chronic studies in 
rats (21-day, 13 week) demonstrate biochemical evidence of dose-related 
peroxisome proliferation in liver. Studies in rat hepatocytes indicate 
that the monoester (MINP) is the active form of DINP which stimulates 
peroxisomes. It has been suggested that liver tumors induced by chronic 
peroxisome proliferation are unique to rodents in that rats and mice 
are particularly responsive to peroxisome proliferators whereas other 
species (hamsters, guinea pigs, primates and humans) are relatively 
resistant. However, the Agency believes that there are still questions 
regarding the relationship between liver tumors and peroxisome 
proliferation. In accordance with EPA's cancer guidelines (Refs. 14 and 
21), in the event that the data are insufficient to demonstrate that a 
response in animals is not relevant to any human situation, the default 
assumption is that positive effects in animal studies indicate that the 
agent under study can have carcinogenic potential in humans. Therefore, 
at this time, EPA's belief that DINP can reasonably be anticipated to 
cause cancer in humans is unchanged.
    DINP has been shown to induce kidney tumors in male F-344 rats 
after prolonged exposure (2 year) to high doses (733 mg/kg/day) of 
dietary DINP (Ref. 7). These tumors occurred in male rats at high doses 
and a male rat-specific mechanism involving alpha 2u-
globulin accumulation in the kidney has been postulated. However, in 
the same study, indicators of kidney toxicity occurred in females rats 
given 885 mg/kg/day as evidenced as a high urine creatinine clearance, 
suggesting a compromised ability to concentrate in the kidney tubules 
and a high blood urea nitrogen (biomarker of kidney damage). Also, in a 
chronic toxicity study in mice, female mice exposed to 1,888 mg/kg/day 
had a statistically significant increase in the incidence and severity 
of chronic progressive nephropathy which lead to early mortality (Ref. 
6). The kidney toxicity in female rats and the chronic progressive 
kidney toxicity in female mice argues against a male rat-specific 
mechanism (i.e. alpha 2u-globulin accumulation). The tumors 
in male rats could be the result of a response to kidney damage induced 
by chronic DINP administration and not solely a consequence of the 
alpha 2u-globulin mechanism (Ref. 8).
    There is also a dose-related statistically significant increase in 
the incidence of mononuclear cell leukemia (MNCL) with associated 
anemia (decreased hemoglobin levels and red blood cell numbers) and 
decreased body weight gain in male and female Fisher rats exposed to 
doses of 152/307 mg/kg/day and higher (Ref. 7). It is known that MNCL 
is life threatening in Fisher rats and results in a decreased life 
span. In addition, although MNCL is recognized as a common neoplasm in 
Fisher rats, the mechanism of producing MNCL is not completely 
understood. Therefore, the significance of MNCL and its biological 
relevance for human cancer risk remains uncertain and cannot be 
discounted.
    d. What genotoxicity data were found for DINP? DINP has been 
evaluated for gene mutations, cytogenetic effects, cell transformation 
ability and unscheduled DNA synthesis and none of the data evaluated 
indicate that DINP is mutagenic or genotoxic (Ref. 1).
    e. What reproductive toxicity data were found for DINP? No 
reproductive toxicity was observed in a one- and two-generation 
reproductive study in rats at doses as high as 1,000 mg/kg (Ref. 3). 
However, in this study, landmarks of sexual maturation (i.e., preputial 
separation, anogenital distance, nipple retention, biochemical and 
structure of the developing reproductive system) were not examined. 
These landmarks of sexual maturation are used to assess the effects of 
a chemical on reproductive tract development. Other phthalates, such as 
DEHP and dibutyl phthalate, have been shown to have an effect on 
reproductive tract development. At this time, therefore, EPA has 
preliminarily determined that the data are insufficient to indicate 
whether or not DINP exposures are associated with detectable effects on 
reproductive function.
    f. What endocrine disruption data were found for DINP? There are 
reports that phthalates may have endocrine modulating effects. Early 
reports suggested that DINP was very weakly estrogenic in in vitro 
screening assays using a recombinant yeast screen and estrogen-
responsive human breast cancer cell lines (Ref. 9). Although these 
screening assays are highly specific for estrogen, later in vivo 
studies have shown that neither DINP nor any other phthalate was 
positive in screening assays such as vaginal certification and 
uterotrophic assays in mice (Ref. 10). Therefore, EPA has preliminarily 
determined that there is insufficient evidence, at this time, to 
demonstrate whether or not DINP causes hormone disruption.
    2. What acute toxicity data were found for DINP? Acute toxicity 
studies in rats and rabbits indicate that DINP, like other long chain 
phthalate esters, has low oral (rat oral LD50 >10 grams/
kilogram (g/kg)) (LD50, i.e., the dose that is lethal to 50% 
of test organisms) and dermal (rabbit dermal LD50 >3 g/kg) 
acute toxicity. Acute inhalation toxicity (LC50) (i.e., the 
concentration that is lethal to 50% of test organisms) data are not 
available because information on measurements of test-chamber 
atmospheric levels were generally inadequately reported or the 
generating and monitoring concentrations were not described. However, 
the low vapor pressure of DINP usually precludes inhalation of any 
significant amount except perhaps as an aerosol adsorbed to airborne 
particulates. DINP is only minimally irritating to eyes and skin. In 
human adults, it is estimated that the probable lethal oral dose is 
between .5 and 5 g/kg (1 ounce--1 quart/adult). DINP does not penetrate 
the skin very well (3% dermal absorption) and is not a dermal 
sensitizer (Ref. 1). Based on the available data, EPA has preliminarily 
determined that DINP does not cause acute toxic effects.
    3. What ecotoxicity data were found for DINP? Based on available 
ecotoxicity data, this group of chemicals has not been tested at levels 
high enough to cause 50% mortality in fish or invertebrates. In one 
study, insufficient mortality was observed at the highest 
concentrations tested (Ref. 12) to calculate acute toxicity values. 
Technically, the acute no observed effect concentrations (NOECs) for 
these chemicals are greater than the highest concentrations tested. The 
lowest effect level for assessment purposes is 0.06 mg/L for Daphnia 
magna, and 0.10 mg/L for fathead minnows.
    The only reported studies with actual effects were embryo larval 
studies with Channel catfish, Fowler's toad, and Leopard frog, with 
reported effects noted between 1 and 100 parts per million. The water 
solubility of DINP must be considered as a factor in these studies. 
Since this compound is sparingly soluble (water solubility is 
approximately 10-4 mg/L), it would be difficult to conduct 
aquatic toxicity studies at concentrations high enough to cause 
mortality. All of the published aquatic toxicity studies have 
unsuitable test designs for these poorly water soluble compounds.
    The reported maximum acceptable toxicant concentration of 0.055 mg/
L (Ref. 13), actually was due to physical entrapment of Daphnids at the 
surface

[[Page 53686]]

of the test vessel, rather than due to direct toxicity.
    Based on the available data, EPA cannot preliminarily determine 
whether or not DINP can cause or reasonably be anticipated to cause, 
because of its toxicity, a significant adverse effect on the 
environment.

E. What is the Basis for a DINP Category?

    In this proposal, the Agency has classified DINP as a category 
consisting of any branched alkyl di-ester of 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic 
acid in which the alkyl ester moieties contain a total of nine carbons. 
The molecular formula for DINP is 
C26H42O4. The structure of DINP is 
shown below with the nine carbon alkyl ester moieties represented by 
the molecular formula -C9H19.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05SE00.018

    EPA is proposing to create the DINP category for several reasons. 
There is no single CAS number which encompasses all DINP isomers. The 
human health hazard assessment included the review of studies conducted 
with chemical test base stocks which consisted of solely diisononyl 
phthalates isomers or test stocks composed of mostly DINP 
(approximately 70% by weight). Of the studies reviewed, all were found 
to show serious adverse human health effects (liver, kidney, or 
developmental toxicity or carcinogenicity) regardless of the test base 
stock that was used. The common component of the tested materials are 
the branched alkyl di-esters of 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid with nine 
carbon alkyl ester moieties. EPA believes that the available data on 
the carcinogenicity and liver, kidney, and developmental toxicity for 
certain members of the DINP category for which EPA has data are 
sufficient for listing those members under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B). 
EPA also believes that there is sufficient information to conclude that 
based on structural and physical/chemical property similarities to 
those members of the category for which data are available it is 
reasonable to anticipate that all members of the DINP category will 
exhibit carcinogenicity and/or liver, kidney, and developmental 
toxicity in humans. For these reasons and because no one CAS number 
adequately covers all diisononyl phthalate isomers, EPA is proposing a 
DINP category.

V. What is the Summary of EPA's Technical Review?

    After a review of the available data in response to this petition, 
the Agency has preliminarily determined that there is sufficient 
evidence for listing this category of DINP on EPCRA section 313 
pursuant to EPCRA section 313 (d)(2)(B) because the DINP category can 
reasonably be anticipated to cause carcinogenicity and liver, kidney, 
and developmental toxicity. The following is a summary of the findings.
    DINP has been shown to cause developmental toxicity in prenatal 
rats. This developmental toxicity included significant decreases in the 
mean body weight of pups from two generations which may result in 
serious developmental delays in growth throughout the lifetime. In 
addition, skeletal variations were observed which may interfere with 
normal nerve function and blood flow. Kidney effects in fetuses were 
observed which might lead to progressive kidney damage and impaired 
kidney function.
    DINP has been shown to cause chronic liver and kidney toxicity in 
rats and mice. The liver effects are indicators of the serious liver 
damage produced by DINP and are early indicators of the tissue damage 
which leads to DINP-induced tumors. In addition to chronic liver 
toxicity, biochemical indicators of chronic kidney toxicity were 
evident in male and female rats. Also, chronic progressive irreversible 
kidney damage (nephropathy) occurred in female mice which lead to early 
mortality.
    DINP has been shown to be a liver carcinogen in rats and mice, to 
induce kidney tumors in male rats, and to increase the incidence of 
mononuclear cell leukemia.

VI. What is EPA's Explanation of the Petition Response and 
Rationale for Listing?

    EPA is proposing to grant the petition to add DINP to the EPCRA 
section 313 list of toxic chemicals. In light of the discussion in Unit 
IV.E., EPA is proposing to add a chemical category entitiled 
``Diisononyl Phthalate (DINP) category,'' to the EPCRA section 313 list 
of toxic chemicals. This category will include the four CAS numbers 
that represent the DINP esters identified by name and CAS number in 
Unit IV.A., as well as any other branched alkyl di-ester of 1,2-
benzenedicarboxylic acid in which the alkyl ester moieties contain a 
total of nine carbons. As EPA has explained in the past (see 59 FR 
61442-61443 November 30, 1994), the Agency believes that EPCRA allows 
the Agency, in its discretion, to add a chemical category to the list, 
where EPA identifies the toxic effect of concern for at least one 
member of the category and then shows why that effect can reasonably be 
expected to be caused by all other members of the category. Here, 
individual toxicity data do not exist for all members of the proposed 
category; however, as discussed in Unit IV.E. of this preamble, EPA 
believes that the available data on the carcinogenicity and liver, 
kidney, and developmental toxicity for certain members of the DINP 
category are sufficient for listing those members under EPCRA section 
313(d)(2)(B). EPA currently believes that it is reasonable to 
anticipate that all members of the DINP category as described will 
exhibit carcinogenicity and liver, kidney, and developmental toxicity 
in humans and that creating a category of DINP is the most appropriate 
way to list this class of chemicals.
    EPA does not believe that it is required to consider exposure for 
chemicals that are moderately high to highly toxic based on a hazard 
assessment when determining if a chemical can be added for chronic 
effects pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) (59 FR 61432, 61433, 
61440-61442). The technical review of the toxicity data clearly 
indicates that DINP is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated 
to cause cancer and other serious or irreversible chronic liver, 
kidney, and developmental toxicity in humans. EPA has preliminarily 
determined that DINP can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer and 
that the observed liver, kidney, and developmental toxicity occur at 
relatively low doses, and thus the Agency believes DINP to have 
moderately high to high chronic toxicity for each of these effects. EPA 
also believes that there is sufficient information to conclude that all 
of the members of the DINP category are moderately high to highly toxic 
based on structural and physical/chemical property similarities to 
those members of the category for which data are available. EPA, 
therefore, does not believe that an exposure assessment is required or 
appropriate for determining whether the DINP category (or its members) 
proposed for listing in this rulemaking meet the criteria of EPCRA 
section 313(d)(2)(B).
    In sum, EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence to show that 
the DINP category is known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to 
cause cancer and other serious or irreversible chronic liver, kidney, 
and

[[Page 53687]]

developmental toxicity in humans. EPA believes it has the authority to 
list the DINP category under EPCRA section 313 based on any one of 
these effects. Therefore, EPA believes that this chemical category 
meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria for listing.
    For purposes of EPCRA section 313, threshold determinations for 
chemical categories must be based on the total of all chemicals in the 
category (see 40 CFR 372.25(d)). For example, a facility that 
manufactures three members of a chemical category would count the total 
amount of all three chemicals manufactured towards the manufacturing 
threshold for that category. When filing reports for the DINP category, 
the releases are determined in the same manner as the thresholds. One 
report is filed for the category and all releases are reported on one 
Form R (the form for filing reports under EPCRA section 313 and PPA 
section 6607). With regard to mixtures of chemicals, facilities only 
need to report releases and other waste management activities for the 
portion of the mixture that is covered by the category. For example, 
CAS number 68515-48-0 represents a mixture of phthalate esters which 
includes alkyl ester moieties containing eight, nine, and ten carbons. 
For such a mixture only the percentage of the mixture that contains 
phthalate esters that have nine carbons in the alkyl ester moiety would 
be reportable under the DINP category.

VII. What Issues is EPA Requesting Comment On?

    EPA requests public comment on this proposal to add a DINP category 
to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals. Specifically, EPA 
requests comment on its technical review of DINP, including its 
environmental fate, absorption and metabolism, toxicity, and 
carcinogenicity, and on EPA's preliminary determination that there is 
sufficient evidence to establish that the DINP category meets the 
statutory criteria for addition to EPCRA Section 313. EPA also requests 
that commenters provide any additional data they may have on the 
environmental fate, absorption and metabolism, toxic effects and 
carcinogenicity of DINP. Finally, EPA requests comment on alternative 
methods for adding DINP instead of by category.

VIII. What are the References Cited in this Proposed Rule?

    1. USEPA, OEI. 2000. Office of Environmental Information, Becki 
Madison, Christine Augustyniak, Ron Bloom, Candace Brassard, Ossi Meyn, 
Nicole Paquette, Pam Russell, and John Scalera. Technical Review of 
Diisononyl Phthalate.
    2. McKee, RH. 2000. Presented at Meeting of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission's Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on Diisononyl 
Phthalate (DINP). Bethesda, MD. Exxon Mobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.
    3. Waterman, SJ, Keller LH, Trimmer, GW, Freeman, JJ, Nikiforov, 
AI, Harris, SB, McKee, RH. 2000. Two generation reproduction study in 
rats given di-isononyl phthalate in the diet. Reprod Toxicol Jan-
Feb;14(1):21-36.
    4. Hellwig, J, Freudenberger, H, Jack, R. 1997. Differential 
prenatal toxicity of branched phthalate esters in rats. Food and Chem 
Toxicol 35: 501-512.
    5. Waterman, SJ, Ambroso, JL, Keller, LH, Trimmer, GW, Nikiforov, 
AI, Harris, SB. 1999. Developmental toxicity of di-isodecyl and di-
isononyl phthalates in rats. Repro Toxicol 13(2):131-136.
    6. TSCATS Doc 89980000046 Moore MRCL.1998 Oncogenicity study in 
mice with di(isononyl)phthalate including ancillary hepatocellular 
proliferation and biochemical analyses. Fiche 1B OTS05562833 Old Doc 
8EHQ0119813083. Aristech Chem Corp/Covance 2598-105.
    7. TSCATS Doc 89980000308, Moore MRCL.1998. Oncogenicity study in 
rats with di(isononyl)phthalate including ancillary hepatocellular 
proliferation and biochemical analyses. Fiche 1B OTS05562832 Old Doc 
8EHQ099813083 Aristech Chem Corp/Covance 2598-104.
    8. Lington, AW, Bird, MG, Plutnick, RT, Stubblefield, WA, Scala RA. 
1997. Chronic toxicity a carcinogenic evaluation of diisononyl 
phthalate in rats. Fundam Appl. Toxicol 36: 79-89.
    9. Harris, CA, Henttu, P, Parker, MG, Sumpter, JP. 1997. The 
estrogenic activity of phthalate esters in vitro. Environ Health 
Perspect 105: 802-811.
    10. Zacharewski, TR, Meek, MD, Clemons, JH, Wu, ZF, Fielden, MR, 
Matthews, JB. 1998. Examination of the in vitro and in vivo estrogenic 
activities of eight commercial phthalate esters. Toxicol Sci 46: 282-
293.
    11. Staples, CA, Peterson, DR, Parkerton, TF, Adams, WJ. 1997. The 
Environmental Fate of Phthalate Esters: A Literature Review. 
Chemosphere, 35(4): 667-749.
    12. Adams, WJ, Biddinger, GR, Robillard, KA, and Gorsuch, JW. 1995. 
A summary of the acute toxicity of 14 phthalate esters to 
representative aquatic organisms. Journal of Environmental Toxicology 
and Chemistry. 14(9): 1569-1574.
    13. Rhodes, JE, Adams, WJ, Biddinger, GR, Robillard, KA, and 
Gorsuch, JW. 1995. Chronic Toxicity of 14 phthalate esters to Daphnia 
magna and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Journal of Environmental 
Toxicology and Chemistry. 14(11): 1967-1976.
    14. USEPA. 1996. Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 
Assessment. EPA/600/P-92/003c, April 1996.
    15. USEPA. 1996. Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment Guidelines. 
EPA/630/R-96/009, September 1996.
    16. USEPA. 1991. Guidelines for Developmental Toxicity Risk 
Assessments. 56 Federal Register 63789 (December 5, 1991).
    17. USEPA. 1989. Reference Dose (RfD): Description and Use in 
Health Risk Assessments. Appendix A to the Integrated Risk Information 
System (IRIS). http://www.epa.gov/iris/cfd.htm.
    18. USEPA. 1998. Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances Harmonized Test Guidelines. Series 870. Health Effects. 
Guidelines OPPTS 870.3700, 870.3800, 870.4300. http://www.epa.gov/docs/
OPPTS-Harmonized/
870-Health-Effects-Test-Guid
elines/.
    19. Babich, M.A. 1998. The risk of chronic toxicity associated with 
exposure to diisononyl phthalate (DINP) in children's products. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission. Bethesda, MD.
    20. Chemical Economics Handbook. 2000. Stanford Research 
International, Menlo Park, CA.
    21. USEPA. 1987. Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment. EPA/
600/8-87/045, August 1987.
    22. National Toxicology Program. 2000. CERHR Expert Panel Review of 
Phthalates. Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction. 
May 24, 2000. http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/news/
ms7-18-00.html.

IX. What are the Regulatory Assessment Requirements for this 
Proposed Action?

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Pursuant to the 
terms of this Executive Order, it has been determined that this 
proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et. seq., the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed 
action does not have a significant adverse economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 53688]]

Based on what EPA currently knows about DINP EPA believes that, under 
current EPCRA reporting thresholds, between 35 and 100 additional TRI 
reports would be filed and no facility will file more than 1 additional 
TRI report. EPA estimates a first year time burden on reporting 
facilities to be 78 hours, or less, for a cost of $5,640 per affected 
facility or less. These costs are approximately $5,640 per report in 
the first year (for a total first year cost of between $195,000 and 
$565,000). In subsequent years this cost falls to $4,000 per report 
(for a total cost of $140,000 to $400,000). These estimates include the 
time needed to review instructions; search existing data sources; 
gather and maintain the data needed; complete and review the collection 
of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The 
actual burden on any specific facility may be different from this 
estimate depending on the complexity of the facility's operations and 
the profile of the releases at the facility.
    The estimated time burden for the first year of reporting is 0.4% 
of the labor hours of the firms with exactly ten full-time employees, 
which have the smallest number of total labor hours of any firm subject 
to this rule. Facilities eligible to use Form A (those meeting the 
appropriate activity threshold which have 500 pounds per year or less 
of reportable amounts of the chemical) will have a lower burden. Thus 
this rule is not expected to have a significant adverse economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. A more detailed economic 
analysis is located in EPA's technical report (Ref. 1).

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection 
requirements that require additional approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting 
requirements under EPCRA 313 and PPA 6607 may use either the EPA Toxic 
Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or the EPA 
Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350-2). The Form 
R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise 
uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain 
other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative 
threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed 
toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting 
thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of 
the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of 
an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 
million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain 
conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In 
addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a 
substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 42 U.S.C. 
11042: 40 CFR part 350.
    OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
related to Form R, supplier notification, and petitions under OMB 
Control 1B 2070-0093 (EPA ICR 1B1363): those related to Form A under 
OMB control 2070-0143 (EPA ICR 1B 1704): and those related to trade 
secret designations under OMB Control 2070-0078 (EPA ICR1B 1428). As 
provided in 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.6(a), an Agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The OMB control numbers of EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 
9, 48 CFR chapter 15, and displayed on the information collection 
instruments (e.g., forms, instructions).
    For Form R, EPA estimates the industry reporting and recordkeeping 
burden for collecting this information to average 78 hours per report 
in the first year, at an estimated cost of $5,640 per Form R (for a 
total first year cost of between $195,000 and $565,000). In subsequent 
years, the burden for collecting this information is estimated to 
average 55 hours per report, at an estimated cost of $4,000 per report 
(for a total cost of $140,000 to $400,000). These estimates include the 
time needed to become familiar with the requirement (first year only); 
review instructions; search existing data sources; gather and maintain 
the data needed; complete and review the collection information; and 
transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The actual burden on 
any facility may be different from this estimate depending on the 
complexity of the facility's operations and the profile of the releases 
at the facility. Upon promulgation of a final rule, the Agency may 
determine that the existing burden estimates in both ICRs need to be 
amended in order to account for an increase in burden associated with 
the final action. If so, the Agency will submit an information 
collection worksheet (ICW) to OMB requesting that the total burden in 
each ICR be amended, as appropriate.
    The Agency would appreciate any comments or information that could 
be used to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information 
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 
evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the 
propose collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and, (4) minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, 
including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of 
responses. Please submit your comments within 90 days as specified at 
the beginning of this proposal. Copies of the existing ICRs may be 
obtained from Sandy Farmer, Office of Environmental Information (2822), 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by calling (202) 
260-2740, or electronically by sending an e-mail message to 
``[email protected]''.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Orders 13084 and 13132

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) (Public Law 104-4), EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of 
$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. It is estimated that 
the total cost of the rule, which is summarized in Unit IX.B. of this 
preamble, is $195,000 to $565,000 in the first year of reporting. In 
addition, today's proposal would not create a mandate on State, local 
or tribal governments, nor would it significantly or uniquely affect 
the communities of Indian tribal governments; therefore, it is not 
subject to the requirement for prior consultation with Indian tribal 
governments as specified in Executive Order 13084, entitled 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 
27655, May 19, 1998). Nor would this action have a substantial direct 
effect on States, on the relationship between the national government 
and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 
13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

[[Page 53689]]

E. Executive Order 12898

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16 1994), 
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 
Populations and Low Income Populations, the Agency has considered 
environmental justice related issues with regard to the potential 
impacts of this action on environmental and health conditions in low-
income and minority populations. By adding a DINP category to the list 
of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of EPCRA, EPA 
would be providing communities across the United States (including low-
income populations and minority populations) with access to data that 
may assist them in lowering exposures and consequently reducing 
chemical risks for themselves and their children. This information can 
also be used by government agencies and others to identify potential 
problems, set priorities, and take appropriates steps to reduce any 
potential risks to human health and the environment. Therefore, the 
informational benefits of the proposed rule will have a positive impact 
on the human health and environmental impacts of minority populations, 
low-income populations, and children.

F. Executive Order 13045

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), if an action is economically significant under Executive 
Order 12866, the Agency must, to the extent permitted by law and 
consistent with the Agency's mission, identify and assess the 
environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately 
affect children. Since this action would not be economically 
significant under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or impractical. Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test 
methods, and sampling procedures) 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 action 
does not involve technical standards, nor did EPA consider the use of 
any voluntary consensus standards. In general, EPCRA does not prescribe 
technical standards to be used for threshold determinations or 
completion of EPCRA section 313 reports. EPCRA section 313(g)(2) states 
that ``In order to provide the information required under this section, 
the owner or operator of a facility may use readily available data 
(including monitoring data) collected pursuant to other provisions of 
law, or, where such data are not readily available, reasonable 
estimates of the amounts involved. Nothing in this section requires the 
monitoring or measurement of the quantities, concentration, or 
frequency of any toxic chemical released into the environment beyond 
that monitoring and measurement required under other provisions of law 
or regulation.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Community right-to-know, 
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: August 25, 2000.
Elaine G. Stanley,
Director, Office of Information Analysis and Access.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 372 would continue to read as 
follows:
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11013 and 11028.
    2. In Sec. 372.65 by adding alphabetically one chemical category to 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


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

    *      *      *      *      *
    (c) *    *    *

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category name                        Effective date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
     *        *        *        *        *        *        *
Diisononyl Phthalates (DINP): Includes all   1/1/01
 branched alkyl di-esters of 1,2
 benzenedicarboxylic acid in which alkyl
 ester moieties contain a total of nine
 carbons.
 
     *        *        *        *        *        *        *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-22656 File 9-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-09-F