[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24066-24073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11918]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PART 372

[OPPTS-400134A; FRL-6722-9]
RIN 2025-AA00


Chromite Ore from the Transvaal Region of South Africa; Toxic 
Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Know

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting a petition to delete both chromite ore mined 
in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore component 
of the chromite ore processing residue (COPR) from the reporting 
requirements under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community 
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution 
Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). These chemicals are currently reported as 
part of the category ``chromium compounds'' on the list of toxic 
chemicals in section 313(c) of EPCRA. The action is based on EPA's 
conclusion that this particular chromite ore from the Transvaal Region 
and the unreacted ore component of the COPR (in the case of this 
delisting decision, COPR includes the solid waste remaining after the 
aqueous extraction of oxidized chromite ore that has been combined with 
soda ash and kiln roasted at approximately 2,000  deg.F) meet the 
deletion criterion under EPCRA section 313(d)(3). By promulgating this 
rule, EPA is relieving facilities of their obligation to report 
releases of and other waste management information on chromite ore 
mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore 
component of the COPR that occurred during the 2000 reporting year, and 
for activities in the future.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective May 11, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Petitions 
Coordinator, (202) 260-3882, e-mail: [email protected], for 
specific information on this document, or for more information on EPCRA 
section 313, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave.,

[[Page 24067]]

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. Information 
concerning this notice is also available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/tri.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this notice if you kiln roast 
chromite ore in the production of chromium chemicals or if you process 
chromite ore (e.g., metal finishers, leather tanning, etc.). 
Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not 
limited to:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of Potentially Affected
             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 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in part 
372, subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If 
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the 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/. On the 
Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations'' 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 
action under docket control number OPPTS-400134. 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 of the Center is (202) 260-7099.

II. Introduction

A. What is the Statutory Authority for this Action?

    This action is being taken under EPCRA sections 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 (SARA) (Pub. L. 
99-499).

B. What is the General Background for this Action?

    Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain facilities manufacturing, 
processing, or otherwise using listed toxic chemicals in amounts above 
reporting threshold levels, to report their environmental releases of 
such chemicals annually. These facilities also must report pollution 
prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section 
6607 of PPA, 42 U.S.C. 13106. Section 313 of EPCRA established an 
initial list of toxic chemicals that was comprised of more than 300 
chemicals and 20 chemical categories. Chromium compounds (which include 
chromite ore) were included on the initial list. Section 313(d) 
authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from the list, and sets forth 
criteria for these actions. EPA has added and deleted chemicals from 
the original statutory list. Under section 313(e)(1), any person may 
petition EPA to add chemicals to or delete chemicals from the 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 is denied.
    EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that a chemical may be listed if any 
of the listing criteria are met. Therefore, in order to add a chemical, 
EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but does not 
need to examine whether all other criteria are also met. Conversely, in 
order to remove a chemical from the list, EPA must demonstrate that 
none of the criteria are met.
    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 a 
statement clarifying its interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) and 
(3) criteria for modifying the section 313 list of toxic chemicals (59 
FR 61432, November 30, 1994) (FRL-4922-2).

III. What Does this Petition and Related Past Petitions Request of 
the Agency?

A. What Does this Petition Request?

    On January 26, 1998, EPA received a petition from Elementis 
Chromium LP (ECLP) (formerly American Chrome & Chemicals, Inc.) 
requesting that EPA delete from the chromium compounds

[[Page 24068]]

category both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South 
Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR. COPR is the solid 
waste remaining after aqueous extraction of oxidized chromite ore that 
has been combined with soda ash and kiln roasted at approximately 2,000 
 deg.F. Elementis believes that the chemical and toxicological 
properties of chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South 
Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR do not meet the 
statutory listing criteria of EPCRA 313(d)(2) and therefore should be 
removed from the reporting requirements of EPCRA section 313 and PPA 
section 6607. The EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals includes a 
category listing for chromium compounds, thus, all chromium compounds 
are subject to the annual reporting requirements of EPCRA section 313 
and PPA section 6607. This petition decision is specific to chromite 
ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore 
component of the COPR from this particular process.

B. What Other Petitions for Chromium Compounds Have Been Filed?

    EPA has received two other petitions requesting the deletion of 
certain chromium compounds. On January 8, 1990, a petition to delist 
chromium antimony titanium buff rutile (CATBR) from the EPCRA section 
313 list of toxic chemicals was denied based on EPA's determination 
that CATBR is a potential carcinogen via inhalation (55 FR 650). Based 
on test data on chromium (III) oxide, EPA determined that CATBR, an 
insoluble crystalline chromium (III) compound, could be retained in the 
lung and taken up by cells. EPA denied this petition due to the 
determination that CATBR was a potential carcinogen, and that it could 
reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
    Since then, EPA published a statement of policy and guidance for 
petitions under EPCRA section 313 (56 FR 23703, May 23, 1991). In that 
notice, EPA set forth its policy concerning petitions to delist 
individual members of the metal compound categories. In response to 
concerns with respect to individual members of categories that do not 
meet the toxicity criteria of section 313, EPA has stated that it will 
``grant petitions on individual members providing that the petitioner 
establishes and EPA concludes that the intact species does not meet the 
criteria of section 313(d)(2), and that the metal ion will not become 
available at a level that can be expected to induce toxicity.''
    On November 22, 1991, a petition to delist Chromium (III) Oxide 
from the EPCRA section 313 list of chemicals was denied based on the 
evidence that chromium (III) oxide may be oxidized to carcinogenic 
chromium (VI) compounds in soil (56 FR 58859). The petition response 
also discussed the possibility that chromium (III) oxide is a potential 
carcinogen via inhalation.

IV. What is EPA's Summary of its Proposed Action?

    Following a review of the petition (Ref. 1), EPA granted the 
petition and issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register of February 
23, 1999 (64 FR 8774) (FRL-6030-6) proposing to delete both chromite 
ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore 
component of the COPR from reporting under the EPCRA section 313 
chromium compounds category. EPA's proposal was based on its 
preliminary conclusion that both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal 
Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR met 
the deletion criteria of EPCRA section 313(d)(3). With respect to 
deletions, EPCRA provides at section 313(d)(3) that ``[a] chemical may 
be deleted if the Administrator determines there is not sufficient 
evidence to establish any of the criteria described in paragraph 
[(d)(2)(A)-(C)].'' In the proposed rule, EPA preliminarily concluded 
that, while many concerns exist for the hazards associated with soluble 
Cr(III) compounds and all Cr(VI) compounds, these concerns do not 
appear to be pertinent to the chromite ore from the Transvaal Region of 
South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR. The available 
data indicate that this particular chromite ore does not leach chromium 
of any oxidation state nor does it oxidize to produce any Cr(VI) 
compounds under any biotic or abiotic processes. EPA preliminarily 
determined that there are no human health or environmental hazard 
concerns for this particular chromite ore that meet the toxicity 
criterion of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A), (B), or (C). A more detailed 
discussion of the technical information can be found in the proposed 
rule and the supporting EPA technical reports (Refs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 
7) and other references contained or cited in the docket.

V. What is EPA's Response to the Submitted Petition and Rationale?

A. What is EPA's Response to the Submitted Petition?

    EPA is granting the ECLP petition by delisting both chromite ore 
mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore 
component of the COPR from the reporting requirements under the EPCRA 
section 313 chromium compounds category. Note that this delisting does 
not include any of the Cr(III) or Cr(VI) compounds that are also part 
of the COPR. This delisting only applies to the unreacted ore component 
of the COPR.

B. What is EPA's Rationale for the Delisting?

    EPA has concluded that the assessment set out in the proposed rule 
should be affirmed. The available data indicate that the chromite ore 
from the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the insoluble Cr(III) 
unreacted ore component of the COPR do not leach ionic chromium of any 
oxidation state nor do they oxidize to produce Cr(VI) compounds under 
any biotic or abiotic processes. EPA has determined that there are no 
human health or environmental hazard concerns for this particular 
chromite ore that meet the toxicity criterion of EPCRA section 
313(d)(2)(A), (B), or (C). EPA believes that the deletion of this 
particular chromite ore and the unreacted ore component of the COPR is 
consistent with the Agency's published guidance on how it willreview 
petitions to delete members of EPCRA section 313 metal compound 
categories (56 FR 23703, May 23, 1991). Specifically, chromium is not 
available or bioavailable from this particular chromite ore or the 
unreacted ore component of the COPR through any biotic or abiotic 
processes and there is no evidence that the intact chromite ore or the 
unreacted ore component of the COPR causes any adverse effects that 
meet the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A), (B), or (C) toxicity criterion. 
EPA is therefore modifying the current chromium compounds listing to 
exclude both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa 
and the unreacted ore component of the COPR. However, EPA is not 
removing any other Cr(III) compounds or any Cr(VI) compounds from the 
chromium compounds category. As EPA has previously determined, if 
Cr(III) is available from a chromium compound, it can be converted to 
Cr(VI) compounds in the environment (56 FR 58859, November 22, 1991). 
While EPA is delisting this specific chromite ore and the unreacted ore 
component of COPR from reportingunder EPCRA section 313, all other 
chromium compounds contained in the COPR will continue to be 
reportable.

[[Page 24069]]

VI. What are EPA's Responses to the Public Comments?

A. What Comments Did EPA Request in the Proposed Rulemaking?

    EPA requested both general and specific comments in the proposal to 
delist both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa 
and the unreacted ore component of the COPR from the list of toxic 
chemicals subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313 
and PPA section 6607. EPA requested specific comments on three issues 
relating to chromium compounds, including: (1) Possible carcinogenicity 
of insoluble crystalline chromium (III) compounds via inhalation and 
uptake in the lung cell by phagocytosis; (2) possible indirect effects 
of chromium (III) competing with other cations in ligand sites in 
siderophore complexes; and (3) the availability of toxicity and fate 
information that would support excluding all chromite ores from 
reporting under EPCRA section 313.

B. What Comments Did EPA Receive in Support of the Proposed Rulemaking?

    EPA received comments from five organizations supporting EPA's 
proposal to delist both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of 
South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR from the list 
of toxic chemicals subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA 
section 313 and PPA section 6607. The five commenters are: Elementis 
Chromium; Exponent Environmental Group; Chemical Land Holdings Inc.; 
Collier, Shannon, Rill, and Scott (representing the Specialty Steel 
Industry of North America (SSINA)); and Occidental Chemical 
Corporation.
    1. Did EPA receive comments relating to EPA's finding that the 
carcinogenicity potential is insignificant for insoluble crystalline 
chromium (III) compounds that may enter lung cells via phagocytosis? 
Several commenters agreed with EPA that while insoluble crystalline 
Cr(III) may be taken up in cells via phagocytosis, there is no evidence 
of carcinogenicity. One commenter provided additional literature to 
support this point. Another commenter noted several studies that 
suggest a potential for biologically available Cr(III) to oxidize to 
Cr(VI) in the presence of peroxy or oxygen radicals. The commenter 
stated that oxidation under such conditions is unlikely, however, since 
Cr(III) readily forms a variety of inert complexes in vivo. Another 
commenter stated that bacterial genotoxicity studies have been found to 
be overwhelmingly negative, and that mammalian and avian studies have 
also been found to be negative, concurring that Cr(III) is not 
carcinogenic via inhalation based on available testing and sampling 
data.
    EPA agrees with the commenters and restates that the 
carcinogenicity data from the available studies of inhaled, insoluble, 
crystalline trivalent chromium compounds are inadequate to support 
listing this particular chemical under EPCRA Section 313 (Ref. 8).
    2. What comments did EPA receive relating to the possible indirect 
effects of Cr(III) on siderophore complexes and the availability of 
studies (in vivo) that address the competition of Cr(III) with other 
ions? Several commenters contend that, since in vivo biological effects 
of Cr(III) are unknown and unreported, the ability of Cr(III) to 
inhibit the ability of cells to uptake iron in vitro is not relevant. 
Another commenter responded to the possible indirect effects of Cr(III) 
on siderophore complexes by referring to the binding of DNA material to 
Cr(III). The commenter noted, however, that Cr(III) is impermeable to 
cell membranes and that Cr(VI) is transported into the cell then 
reduced to Cr(III) before any toxic effects are observed. Thecommenter 
concludes that this reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) should not be 
misinterpreted ``as evidence that Cr(III) is responsible for the 
adverse effects of Cr(VI) * * *.''
    EPA notes that the commenters focused on the potential cationic 
exchange as a possible mechanism for carcinogenicity. In requesting 
comments on the possible indirect effects of Cr(III) on siderophore 
complexes, EPA was not necessarily implying a concern for 
carcinogenicity. Rather, EPA's primary concern for siderophoric ion 
exchange relates to environmental exposures to heavy metal cations 
displaced from soils that are exposed to soluble chromium ions (64 FR 
8778). As was stated in the proposal, EPA has determined that there are 
inadequate data to determine the potential carcinogencity of Cr(III) 
(Ref. 8).
    In addition to the direct leaching as a function of water 
solubility, metal ions have been found to be transported via 
macromolecules and siderphoric complexes. The addition of certain metal 
ions to contaminated soil plots or experimental samples produce 
equilibrium effects on the ability of these materials to ``carry'' the 
heavy metal cations. In certain studies, metals ions (specifically zinc 
(II) and cadmium (II)) have been found to compete for sites and 
exchange ions ``even when only a few percentage of all surface sites 
were occupied'' (Ref. 9).
    EPA requested comment in the proposed rule to determine if releases 
of chromium, particularly from COPR sites, would exchange with the 
existing metal contaminants and thereby cause both a direct and 
indirect environmental release (e.g., elevated chromium levels) (Ref. 
10). EPA did not receive any comments on this topic. The Agency 
believes, however, that the chromium in this specific chromite ore and 
corresponding unreacted ore portion of the COPR is neither available 
nor soluble and therefore these issues will have no bearing on the 
delisting of these two chemical compounds based on the current 
available information (56 FR 23703).
    3. What comments did EPA receive relating to whether all chromite 
ore and COPR behaves similarly to the chromite ore from the Transvaal 
Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore portion of the COPR 
remaining from the process described in the proposed rule? EPA received 
comments that addressed four aspects of this topic including: 
conversion of Cr(III) to Cr(VI); biological activity of Cr(III); 
carcinogenic effects of Cr(III); and environmental fate of chromium 
compounds. In general, the commenters state specific known chemical 
characteristics for individual chemicals and apply them to the entire 
class. A broad structure-activity relationship (SAR) approach to 
justify delisting insoluble Cr(III) chemicals in general appears to be 
the overall goal of the approach submitted by commenters. The SAR 
approach examines the structure of a chemical to predict the chemical's 
toxicity.
    Although the Agency requested comments on the ``availability of 
toxicity and fate information that would support excluding all chromite 
ores from reporting under EPCRA section 313,'' EPA proposed to delist 
only the chromite ore mined in the Transvaal region of South Africa and 
the associated unreacted chromite ore component of the COPR. The Agency 
is delisting only these two chemicals. EPA's purpose for soliciting 
information regarding the broader class of chromite ore was to gather 
information to determine whether a future rulemaking including other 
chemicals would be appropriate.
    In response to the comments received, the Agency believes that test 
results for a variety of Cr(III) compounds (including toxicity, 
oxidation, and fate) are insufficient to support any broad 
determinations concerning chromium compounds. The chromium compounds 
category listing is based on the well established toxicity of chromium. 
As EPA stated in its EPCRA section 313

[[Page 24070]]

metals policy, the Agency will consider delisting a chemical or 
chemical compound if the intact metal compound is not toxic and the 
metal from that compound cannot become available through any abiotic or 
biotic process (56 FR 23703). In reviewing the four areas of concern 
described by commenters, including conversion of Cr(III) to Cr(VI); 
biological effects of Cr(III);carcinogenicity of Cr(III); and 
environmental fate of chromium compounds, the commenters did not submit 
sufficient evidence to support the delisting of all chromite ores or 
any other specific Cr(III) compound.
    For example, commenters submitted data for chromium trioxide. 
Chromium trioxide is insoluble and has chemical characteristics 
attributed to this class of insoluble chromium compounds. However, in 
1991, EPA denied a petition to delist this chemical (58 FR 58859, Nov. 
22, 1991) due to availability of the Cr(III), and the potential of 
Cr(III) to oxidize to Cr(VI). The four individual comments and 
corresponding EPA responses follow.
    a. What comments did EPA receive relating to the conversion of 
Cr(III) to Cr(VI)? One commenter contends that studies show that 
chromium oxide (the component of concern in chromite ore) does not 
oxidize to form hexavalent chromium under biological conditions. In 
addition, several commenters believe that the oxidation of Cr(III) to 
Cr(VI) requires relatively harsh conditions that do not occur naturally 
in biological systems (i.e., the presence of strong oxidants or low pH 
levels).
    EPA disagrees with the commenters. There are environmental 
conditions that will oxidize Cr(III) to Cr(VI) (e.g., those used by the 
petitioner in the leaching studies including soil having a high 
manganese oxide content and low pH). The commenters did not provide 
adequate evidence to conclude that the findings of the petitioner could 
be extended to any other chromium containing compound. This delisting 
decision applies only to the chromite ore and the unreacted chromite 
ore component of COPR that were tested by the petitioner. After 
reviewing the petitioner's studies, EPA concluded that the chromite ore 
and COPR tested were both insoluble and are not biologically available. 
Arguments that Cr(III) does not readily oxidize in the body unless 
under harsh conditions is not sufficient to claim that the chromium 
present from other sources will not oxidize or will not pose human 
health or environmental hazards.
    Commenters submitted no evidence to justify this conclusion for any 
other chromium containing compounds. There is only evidence for the 
specified ore and the unreacted ore portion of the COPR associated with 
that particular processing described previously. All other data 
comparisons are speculative and unsatisfactory for delisting. The 
Agency would, therefore, require data from similar testing (compared to 
that done in support of this delisting petition) on any other ore or 
COPR from another process in order to remove it from the EPCRA section 
313 list of toxic chemicals. The particular chromite ore and the 
unreacted ore component of COPR discussed in this action were studied 
in depth. Samples were subjected to a variety of tests that provided 
conclusive evidence that these materials would not produce hexavalent 
chromium via oxidation in the environment. There was no evidence that 
Cr(III) was available through either abiotic or biotic processes. The 
petitioner based their argument on the testing data provided in the 
original submission.
    b.What comments did EPA receive relating to the biological activity 
of Cr(III)? Several commenters suggest that the biological activity of 
Cr(III) compounds are not associated with adverse health effects due 
principally to the inability of Cr(III) to pass through cell membranes. 
The commenters cite the daily requirement of chromium as an essential 
element fornutritional health as evidence for the stability of Cr(III) 
in the body. The commenters reported that Cr(VI) intracellular 
reduction to form Cr(III), suggested to be the active toxicant in the 
proposed rule, would have to form via other chromium oxidation states 
(i.e., Cr(IV) and Cr(V)). The commenters contend that it is these 
highly reactive forms of chromium that are responsible for the adverse 
biological reactivity. Therefore, the commenters conclude that all 
Cr(III) compounds are biologically unreactive.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that insoluble Cr(III) in vivo is 
unlikely to pass through the cellular membrane. EPA also agrees that 
Cr(VI) readily passes through the cell membrane, and produces a variety 
of potentially hazardous products following reduction to an active 
species other than Cr(III). EPA stated in the proposed rule that 
Cr(III) is an essential mineral that has not been demonstrated to have 
carcinogenic, genotoxic, or adverse health effects under the conditions 
discussed. With regard to the biological reactivity of Cr(III) 
compounds with hydroxy or peroxy radicals, EPA agrees that the 
oxidative conditions described by the commenters maynot be present in 
biological systems. These facts do not support delisting all Cr(III) 
compounds. It simply reinforces the notion that Cr(III) once in the 
body may not pose a hazard to human health. As stated in the response 
in Unit VI.B.3.a., there are other concerns for Cr(III) compounds.
    c.What comments did EPA receive relating to the carcinogenic 
effects of Cr(III)? Several commenters contend that the presentation of 
the historical review of chromium compounds is misleading. To date, EPA 
has historically not ruled on the carcinogenicity of Cr(III) compounds 
and, as more data has become available, the Agency has determined that 
insoluble Cr(III) compounds (the chemical class as a whole) have not 
been found to becarcinogenic via inhalation. The commenters state that 
the overall scientific view reflects the conclusion that Cr(III) is not 
carcinogenic or genotoxic. They contend, however, that the presentation 
of the historical review on chromium compounds, while providing 
context, is misleading. The commenters imply that past references to 
potential carcinogenicity will be misinterpreted to imply some hidden 
potential concern for insoluble Cr(III) compounds.
    EPA disagrees that the presentation of the historical treatment and 
concerns for Cr(III) as part of the record for the chromium compounds 
category is misleading. In the past, EPA has stated that there was a 
potential human health concern for the carcinogenic effects of Cr(III). 
EPA has since made the determination that there is no evidence to 
support a concern for thecarcinogenicity of inhaled insoluble Cr(III) 
compounds. There are, however, other concerns for chromium (including 
certain forms of Cr(III)). This delisting will also be part of that 
historical record and will help inform the public of those remaining 
concerns for the human health and environmental hazards of chromium.
    In the review of the current scientific evidence, EPA has 
determined that there is no evidence to support a concern for 
carcinogenicity of inhaled insoluble Cr(III) compounds. Should new 
credible scientific evidence indicate that a hazard exists, the Agency 
would have to consider reversing this determination. If new data 
support the delisting of other forms of Cr(III),EPA would consider 
eliminating such chemicals from reporting. EPA considers the listing 
and delisting of chemicals a dynamic process that can change as new 
information is obtained. There is nothing misleading in educating the 
public about what had been believed and what new facts have caused a 
change in EPA's assessment.

[[Page 24071]]

    d.What comments did EPA receive relating to environmental fate of 
chromium compounds? One commenter contends that it is inappropriate to 
compare the oxidation of soluble chromium compounds that occur 
naturally in the presence of manganese oxides under specified 
conditions with the environmental fate of chromite ore. The commenter 
maintains that the environmental conditions of such soils are equally 
likely to reduce Cr(VI) as they would oxidize Cr(III), and that this 
equilibrium favors Cr(III) formation (i.e., if Cr(III) ions were 
released by chromite ore or the processing residue, they would not pose 
an environmental or human health hazard under typical conditions). No 
references were provided by this commenter.
    Several commenters agree that chromite ore does not readily oxidize 
under natural conditions. These commenters further elaborate on the 
health impacts of residues from chromite ore processing in New Jersey 
stating that the New Jersey residues are characteristically different 
from that generated by the petitioner, yet no ``appreciable health 
effect that may be attributable to chromium'' has been identified. The 
commenters state that in addition to health risks, ecological risks 
associated with the residues from chromite ore processing in New Jersey 
were also evaluated. The commenters contend that from the data, it is 
clear that chromium ions migrate from areas high in process residue to 
contaminate adjacent areas, and while mobile, it appearsthat much of 
this migratory chromium is tightly bound to the soil. However, the 
commenters claim that there did not appear to be a correlation between 
levels of chromium in the soil samples and the ability of this tightly 
associated metal (soil:Cr complexation) to dissociate and bind to the 
available biota.
    Another commenter contends that residues from chromite ore 
processing differ substantially by noting that certain chromium 
remediation activities are still on-going due to the concern for the 
exposure to hexavalent chromium contamination from process residue fill 
sites. This commenter reiterates the idea suggested by the other 
commenters that these residues (and by inference that certain sources 
of chromite ore and other chromite ore process residues) are, in fact, 
different. The commenters state that the chromite ore and unreacted 
COPR discussed in the petition are not considered a risk to human 
health or the environment.
    EPA does not believe that the commenters have provided sufficient 
information to conclude that other chromite ore sources or other 
chromite ore processing residues share the same properties as the 
chromite ore and unreacted ore component of COPR that are the subject 
of this rulemaking. EPA believes that these comments support the 
Agency's position that all Cr(III)compounds are not identical. With 
regard to chromite ore processing residues, such as the COPR that is 
the subject of this rulemaking, EPA notes that it contains at least 
three components: (1) Unreacted chromite ore (the portion that will be 
delisted for ore originating from the Transvaal Region); (2) Cr(III) 
present as a result of reduction treatment of unleached Cr(VI) (still 
reportable under the chromium compounds category of EPCRA section 313); 
and (3) the unreduced Cr(VI) from oxidized Cr(III) (also still 
reportable under the chromium compounds category of EPCRA section 313). 
Other chromite ore processing residues are also likely to contain 
various amounts of chromium compounds other than the unreacted ore 
component and thus may be sources ofenvironmentally available chromium.
    EPA believes that the information discussed in the proposed rule 
concerning the observed oxidation of soluble Cr(III) to Cr(VI) by 
manganese rich soils is a concern and that such conversions can lead to 
environmentally available and bioavailable forms of chromium. The fact 
that under certain conditions this conversion may result in an 
equilibrium that favors the Cr(III) form does not change the fact the 
Cr(VI) can be produced. In addition, since the publication of the 
proposed rule, EPA has reviewed a study that has addressed the 
potential of a second pathway for the oxidation of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) in 
the presence of ferric salts which further supports EPA'sconcerns for 
the conversion of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) (Ref. 11). The Agency therefore 
reasserts its position that, under the appropriate conditions, Cr(III) 
can readily oxidize to form Cr(VI) in the environment.
    The Agency agrees with the commenters that the ability of Cr(III) 
to be oxidized in the environment to Cr(VI) is not relevant to the 
consideration of whether or not to delist chromite ore from the 
Transvaal region of South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the 
COPR. However, this oxidation is irrelevant only because the petitioner 
conclusively demonstrated that the chromium in these compounds is 
unavailable for chemical reaction and therefore does not produce Cr(VI) 
under the oxidizing conditions. In order to extend such a determination 
to other chromium compounds the unavailability of the chromium and lack 
of oxidation would have to be clearly demonstrated for these other 
chromium compounds.

B. What Comments Did EPA Receive That Did Not Support this Proposal to 
Delist?

    EPA did not receive any comments that were critical of its proposal 
to delist both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South 
Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR from the list of 
toxic chemicals subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA 
section 313 and PPA section 6607.

VII. What is the Effective Date of this Final Rule?

    This action becomes effective May 11, 2001. Thus, the last year in 
which facilities had to file a Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) report 
for both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and 
the unreacted ore component of the COPR was 2000, covering releases and 
other activities that occurred in 1999.
    EPCRA section 313(d)(4) provides that ``[a]ny revision'' to the 
section 313 list of toxic chemicals shall take effect on a delayed 
basis. EPA interprets this delayed effective date provision to apply 
only to actions that add chemicals to the section 313 list. For 
deletions, EPA may, in its discretion, make such actions immediately 
effective. An immediate effective date is authorized, in these 
circumstances, under 5 U.S.C. section 553(d)(1) because a deletion from 
the section 313 list relieves a regulatory restriction.
    EPA believes that where the Agency had determined, as it has with 
this chemical, that a chemical does not satisfy any of the criteria of 
section 313(d)(2)(A)-(C), no purpose is served by requiring facilities 
to collect data or file TRI reports for that chemical, or, therefore, 
by leaving that chemical on the section 313 list for any additional 
period of time. This construction of section 313(d)(4) is consistent 
with previous rules deleting chemicals from the section 313 list. For 
further discussion of the rationale for immediate effective dates for 
EPCRA section 313 delistings, see 59 FR 33205 (June 28, 1994).

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

    1. Elementis Chromium LP. Petition to Delist Chromite Ore from SARA 
313.Elementis Chromium LP (January 5, 1998).
    2. USEPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Deletion of Chromite 
Ore from the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic

[[Page 24072]]

Chemicals. OPPT/EETD/EPAB (February 1998).
    3. USEPA. Preliminary Release Report Proposed Deletion of Chromite 
Ore from the EPCRA Section 313 Toxic Release Inventory. OPPT/EETD/CEB 
(March 1998).
    4. USEPA. Chemistry Analysis of the Proposed Deletion of Chromite 
Ore from the EPCRA Section 313 Toxic Release Inventory. OPPT/EETD/ICB 
(February 1998).
    5. USEPA. Chromite Ore Delisting Assessment of Health Hazard 
Concern.OPPT/RAD/SSB (May 1998).
    6. USEPA. Petition to Delist Chromite Ore (Chromium Compounds 
Category): Ecological Hazard Assessment. OPPT/RAD/ECAB (April 1998).
    7. USEPA. Environmental Fate Summary of Chromium (Cr) in 
Soils.OPPT/EETD/EAB (March 1998).
    8. IRIS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk 
Information System file pertaining to chromium (III), insoluble salts.
    9. Engineering Bulletin: Technology Alternatives for the 
Remediation of Soils Contaminated with As, Cd, Cr, Hg, and Pb. EPA 540-
S97-500.
    10. Jin, X., Bailey, G.W., Yu, Y.S., and Lynch, A.T. ``Kinetics of 
Single and Multiple Metal Ion Sorption Processes on Humic Substances.'' 
Soil Science v. 161 (1996), pp. 509-519.
    11. Zhang, H. and Bartlett, R. ``Light Induced Oxidation of Aqueous 
Chromium(III) in the Presence of Iron(III).'' Environmental Science & 
Technology, v. 33, 1999, pp. 588-594.

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

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action, which exempts both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal 
Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR from 
the list of chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 and 
PPA section 6607, eliminates an existing requirement to report and does 
not contain any new or modified requirements. As such, this action does 
not require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), because OMB hasdetermined that the complete 
elimination of an existing requirement is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' subject to review by OMB under E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this final 
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. This determination is based on the fact that the 
elimination of the existing requirement will also eliminate the 
corresponding burden and costs associated with that requirement. This 
action will not, therefore, result in any adverse economic impacts on 
the facilities subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313, regardless 
of the size of the facility.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The delisting of both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of 
South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR from the EPCRA 
section 313 list of toxic chemicals will reduce the overall reporting 
and recordkeeping burden estimate provided for the TRI program, but 
this action does not require any review or approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA will 
determine the total TRI burden associated with this delisting, and will 
complete the required Information Collection Worksheet to adjust the 
total TRI burden estimate approved by OMB.
    The reporting and recordkeeping burdens associated with TRI are 
approved by OMB under OMB No. 2070 0093 (Form R, EPA ICR No. 1363) and 
under OMB No. 2070 0143 (Form A, EPA ICR No. 1704). The current public 
reporting burden for TRI is estimated to average 52.1 hours for a Form 
R submitter and 34.6 hours for a Form A submitter. These estimates 
include the time needed for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
and reviewing the collection of information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this 
information collection appears above. In addition, the OMB control 
number for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the final rule, 
are displayed on the collection instruments and are also listed in 40 
CFR part 9.

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

    Since this action involves the elimination of an existing 
requirement, it does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any 
unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any affect on small governments as 
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-4). For 
the same reason, 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 will 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).

E. Executive Order 12898

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency must consider 
environmental justice related issues with regard to the potential 
impacts of this action on environmental and health conditions in low-
income populations and minority populations. The Agency has determined 
that this delisting, which would eliminate the availability of the TRI 
information on this chemical that is made available to communities 
through the TRI Community Right-to-Know program, will not result in 
environmental justice related issues.

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 is not 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, sampling procedures, etc.) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The

[[Page 24073]]

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.''

X. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and the Comptroller General of the United 
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.

    Dated: February 28, 2001.
Elaine G. Stanley,
Director, Office of Information Analysis and Access.

    Therefore, 40 CFR Part 372 is amended as follows:

PART 372--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11013 and 11028.


Sec. 372.65  [Amended]

    2. Section 372.65(c) is amended by adding the following 
parenthetical to the chromium compounds listing ``(except for chromite 
ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore 
component of the chromite ore processing residue (COPR). COPR is the 
solid waste remaining after aqueous extraction of oxidized chromite ore 
that has been combined withsoda ash and kiln roasted at approximately 
2,000  deg.F.).''

[FR Doc. 01-11918 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F