FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK PESTICIDE PROJECT
Return to FAN's Pesticide Homepage
Note from FAN:
In the January 12, 1994 Federal Register Notice, EPA proposed the following fluorine and organofluorine chemicals for addition to TRI. This Notice was exceedingly long and we present only excerpts.EPA's proposal for 313 chemicals as new additions to TRI is worth the read. It is available at: http://www.epa.gov/tri/frnotices/59fr1788.htm. EPA presents information on each chemical, or class of chemicals (eg, CFCs).
Pesticides
Acifluorfen sodium salt (62476-59-9)
Benfluralin (1861-40-1)
Bifenthrin (82657-04-3)
Boron trifluoride (7637-07-2)
Cyfluthrin (68359-37-5)
Cyhalothrin (68085-85-8)
Dichlorofluoromethane (HCFC-21) (75-43-4)
Diflubenzuron (35367-38-5)
Dithiopyr (97886-45-8)
Fluazifop butyl (69806- 50-4)
Flumetralin (62924-70-3)
Fluvalinate (69409-94- 5)
Fomesafen (72178-02-0)
Hydramethylnon (67485-29-4)
Lactofen (77501-63-4)
Norflurazon ( 27314-13-2)
Oxyfluorfen (42874-03-3)
Primisulfuron methyl (86209-51-0)
Sodium fluoroacetate (62-74-8)
Sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane) (2699-79-8)
Tefluthrin (79538-32-2)
Tributyltin fluoride (1983-10-4)Other
Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC-13) (75-72-9)
2-Chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-133a) (75- 88-7)
3-Chloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane (HCFC-253fb) (460-35-5)
Dichloropentafluoropropane (127564-92-5)
1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ea) (136013-79-1)
2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225aa) (128903-21-9)
1,1-Dichloro-1,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225eb) (111512-56-2)
1,1-Dichloro-1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cc) (13474-88-9)
1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb) (507-55-1)
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225da) (431-86-7)
3,3-Dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca) (422-56-0)
2,3-Dichloro-1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ba) (422-48-0)
1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225bb) (422-44-6
1,2-Dichloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-132b) (1649-08-7)
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine dihydrofluoride (o-Tolidine dihydrofluoride) (41766-75-0)
Fluorine (7782-41-4)
* 5-Fluorouracil (CAS No. 000051-21-8)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloro-2-fluoroethane (HCFC-121a) (354-11-0)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-121) (354-14- 3)* 5-Fluorouracil: major use is pharmaceutical. It was used as an insect chemosterilant.
http://www.epa.gov/tri/frnotices/59fr1788.htm [Federal Register: January 12, 1994] _______________________________________________________________________ Part IV Environmental Protection Agency _______________________________________________________________________ 40 CFR Part 372 Addition of Certain Chemicals; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Know; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 372 [OPPTS-400082; FRL-4645-6] RIN 2070-AC47 Addition of Certain Chemicals; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Know AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to add 313 chemicals and chemical categories to the list of toxic chemicals required to be reported on under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. The proposed addition of these chemicals and chemical categories is based on their acute human health effects, carcinogenicity or other chronic human health effects, and/or their environmental effects. EPA believes that these chemicals and chemical categories meet the EPCRA section 313(d)(2) criteria for addition to the list of toxic chemicals. DATES: Written comment on this proposed rule must be received on or before April 12, 1994. The public meeting will take place on March 2, 1994, at 1 p.m. and adjourn by 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to: OPPT Docket Clerk, TSCA Document Receipt Office (7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-G99, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments containing information claimed as confidential must be clearly marked as confidential business information (CBI). If CBI is claimed, three additional sanitized copies must also be submitted. Nonconfidential versions of comments on this proposed rule will be placed in the rulemaking record and will be available for public inspection. Comments should include the docket control number for this proposal, OPPTS-400082. Unit VI. of this preamble contains additional information on submitting comments containing information claimed as CBI. The public meeting will be held at the: Environmental Protection Agency, Auditorium, Education Center, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria J. Doa, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Information Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Stop 5101, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 800-535-0202 or Toll free TDD: 800-553-7672, Attention: Docket Number OPPTS-400082. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction A. Statutory Authority This proposed rule is issued under sections 313(d) and (e)(1) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11023. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. B. Background Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain facilities manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using listed toxic chemicals to report their environmental releases of such chemicals annually. Beginning with the 1991 reporting year, such facilities also must report pollution prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 13106. When enacted, section 313 established an initial list of toxic chemicals that was comprised of more than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical categories. Section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add chemicals to or delete chemicals from the list, and sets forth criteria for these actions. Under section 313(e), any person may petition EPA to add chemicals to or delete chemicals from the list. EPA has added to and deleted chemicals from the original statutory list. 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. EPA must respond to petitions within 180 days either by initiating a rulemaking or by publishing an explanation of why the petition is denied. 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 compound categories. II. Explanation for Expansion of the EPCRA Section 313 Chemical List A. General Rationale The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), through the public access provisions of EPCRA, has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in empowering the Federal government, State governments, industry, environmental groups, and the general public, to fully participate in an informed dialogue about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United States. A major section of EPCRA, which Congress passed in 1986, resulted in the creation of the Toxics Release Inventory. TRI is a publicly available data base that provides quantitative information on toxic chemical releases, transfers, recycling, and disposal. With the collection of this information for the first time in 1987, came the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand the magnitude of chemical emissions in the United States; to compare chemical releases and transfers of chemical wastes among States, industries, facilities, and environmental media; and perhaps most importantly, to assess the need to reduce and where possible, eliminate these releases and transfers. TRI enables all interested in environmental progress to establish credible baselines, to set realistic goals, and to measure progress over time, in meeting those goals. The TRI system has become a neutral yardstick by which progress can be measured by all interested parties. The original list of chemicals for which reporting was required consisted of 320 chemicals and chemical categories. The list was a combination of the Maryland Chemical Inventory Report List of Toxic or Hazardous Substances and the New Jersey Environmental Hazardous Substance List. The combination of these two lists provided a sound and logical starting point for the national TRI program. Recognizing however that the list would need to be a dynamic one, EPCRA specifically authorizes additions to and deletions from the list. To date, EPA has added 16 chemicals to the list and has deleted 12 chemicals from the list. With 5 years experience behind the program, EPA, other federal agencies, Congress, and the public have recognized the need to expand the TRI list beyond the original chemicals and chemical categories and beyond the relatively limited reporting universe. (Currently reporting is only required from facilities that fall within the manufacturing Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39 that meet certain thresholds). While the data on the chemicals that are covered have allowed the public and private sectors to be informed and involved in environmental decisionmaking as they never were before, it has become increasingly evident to those same constituents that they have access to information on a relatively small number of important chemicals. Congress has echoed this recognition in the Right-to-Know More bills that were put forward in the 102nd Congress. EPA and State regulatory agencies have integrated TRI information as a critical component in their environmental decisionmaking and in many cases are constrained by the lack of similar information on chemicals of concern not covered by the TRI. While the TRI has been successful in focusing attention on the initial list of chemicals and in many cases fostering emissions reductions and prevention activities, that same focus has highlighted the need to expand beyond that initial list and to include additional chemicals that exhibit similar toxicity characteristics. This proposal is one of the first in a series of actions that EPA plans to use to expand the coverage of the TRI. This first phase will focus on adding chemicals, followed by a second phase that will identify additional facilities for inclusion. EPA is considering a third phase, which would look at modification of the data elements currently required by TRI. In conjunction with these expansion activities EPA has been considering whether other adjustments are needed in the scope of the TRI program. EPA received petitions from the Small Business Administration and the American Feed Industry Association seeking an exemption for ``small sources'' (i.e, those facilities that file TRI forms with zero or small release estimates). EPA previously put those petitions out for public comment and, on review, believes there is substantial merit to the general concerns raised in the petitions. The Agency's plan for proceeding on the small source issue would include the following steps. EPA is examining four options for establishing a small release exemption from the TRI reporting obligation: Cutoffs at zero, 500 pounds, 1,000 pounds, and 5,000 pounds. EPA will provide the public with a report on these four options by the end of January. This analysis will consider what data might not be available at both the national and community level, and the cost savings to the government and to industry of the four exemption levels. EPA plans to hold a public meeting in February for discussion of the report. Based on this feedback, EPA will then design a regulatory strategy that will align the small source issue with final action on today's proposal. The Agency's objective will be to minimize unnecessary data collection and reporting by facilities, including for the chemicals identified in today's proposal. B. Development of the Chemical Addition Candidates As a starting point for screening candidates for addition to the toxic chemical list under EPCRA section 313, EPA chose to examine the lists of chemicals regulated or identified, as of concern, under various environmental statutes including: (1) Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990 (Hazardous Air Pollutants); (2) section 602(b) of the CAA (Class II ozone depleting substances); (3) section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Priority Pollutant List); (4) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Active Ingredients, including Special Review, Canceled/Denied or Suspended, and Restricted Use Pesticides; (5) section 302 of EPCRA (Extremely Hazardous Substances); (6) section 102 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); (7) section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and chemicals listed at 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f) and Appendix VIII; (8) section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended; (9) certain chemicals subject to the Toxics Substance Control Act (Existing Chemicals); and (10) the State of California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) (List of Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Reproductive Toxicity). In addition, EPA considered chemicals designated as possible, probable, or known carcinogens in the Monographs of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the 6th Annual Report on Carcinogens of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). From this initial group of substances, EPA excluded chemicals that are already listed on section 313 or are already reportable under one of the EPCRA section 313 categories. For example, ``cyanide, total'' is listed under section 307(a) of the CWA. This listing is considered to be a subset of the EPCRA section 313 cyanide compounds category and the hydrogen cyanide listing. EPA decided not to propose listing these types of chemicals separately because they are already reportable under one of the existing section 313 categories. To prioritize chemicals for possible addition to EPCRA section 313, EPA applied a human health and ecotoxicity screen and a production volume screen, which are described below. The results of the toxicity screen for a subset of these chemicals were presented at a public meeting on May 29, 1992 (Ref. 4). Other chemicals were also removed from consideration for this rulemaking because they are the subjects of two recently published EPCRA petition responses. On March 4, 1992, EPA received a petition from Governor Mario M. Cuomo of New York and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to add 80 chemicals and 2 chemical categories to the list of toxic chemicals under section 313 of EPCRA. All of these chemicals and chemical categories appear on the RCRA list of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.33(f) and as such are a subset of the chemicals screened by EPA. EPA responded to the petition in a proposed rulemaking on September 8, 1992 (57 FR 41020) and in a final rule adding 22 chemicals on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63500). On December 3, 1991, EPA received a petition from the NRDC, Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental Defense Fund to add hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) to the list of toxic chemicals under section 313 of EPCRA. The HCFCs are listed under section 602(b) of the CAA as Class II ozone depleting substances and as such are a subset of the chemicals screened by EPA. EPA responded to the petition in a proposed rulemaking on June 24, 1992 (57 FR 28159) and in a final rule adding 11 HCFCs on November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63496). An additional 16 HCFCs not added to the TRI list by the November 30, 1993 final rule are proposed for addition in this rulemaking (See Unit IV.B.135. of this preamble). 1. Toxicity screen. A toxicity screen is a limited review of readily available toxicity data (e.g., information in data bases and other secondary sources) that is used for a preliminary categorization of a chemical during the process of selecting candidates for possible listing under EPCRA section 313. The toxicity screen is used to identify chemicals for further consideration and does not reflect a final determination for listing a chemical under EPCRA section 313. Such a determination can only be made after a hazard assessment is conducted (See Unit II.B.3. of this preamble). The chemicals identified above were screened for four general effect categories: Acute human health effects, cancer, other chronic human health effects, and ecological effects. The screening criteria associated with each of the effect areas used in the toxicity screen are discussed in detail in the Revised Draft Hazard Assessment Guidelines for Listing Chemicals on the Toxic Release Inventory (Draft Hazard Assessment Guidelines), (Ref. 6). The numerical screening values reflected in the Draft Hazard Assessment Guidelines were developed to capture, in the ``sufficient for listing'' screening category, the majority of chemicals already listed on various CERCLA and EPCRA lists, and thus known or suspected to be toxic and/or hazardous. These Draft Hazard Assessment Guidelines contain guidance for both the screening and hazard assessments of chemicals and are available for review in the docket associated with this rulemaking. This draft document was distributed at a public meeting on May 29, 1992. A final version of these guidelines has not yet been developed. Requests for further information about these draft guidelines should be addressed to the person identified under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.'' Based on the results of this screen, the chemicals were preliminarily placed in one of three screening categories defined in the Draft Hazard Assessment Guidelines: ``sufficient;'' ``may be sufficient;'' or ``insufficient.'' EPA received comment in response to the Draft Hazard Assessment Guidelines that objected to the Agency's use of the terms ``sufficient,'' ``may be sufficient,'' and ``insufficient'' as titles for the toxicity screening categories. The commenter claimed that these terms are appropriate only for the results of a hazard assessment. The commenter stated that these terms should not be used for screening categories because the toxicity screen only identifies chemicals for further consideration. EPA agrees that the screening categories only reflect a preliminary determination on each chemical, and therefore, to avoid further confusion, will refer to the screening categories as ``high priority,'' ``medium priority,'' and ``low priority'' to reflect the difference between a toxicity screen and a hazard assessment. These terms will be used throughout this document in reference to the toxicity screening categories. Chemicals that were categorized as ``low priority'' during the screening process were not considered further as candidates for addition to the EPCRA section 313 list in this rulemaking. 2. Production volume screen. EPCRA section 313(f) establishes reporting thresholds related to the amount of a chemical that is manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. [The EPCRA section 313 manufacture (includes import) and processing thresholds are 25,000 pounds per facility per year. The otherwise use threshold is 10,000 pounds per facility per year]. EPA anticipates that the addition of chemicals manufactured, imported, processed, or used in quantities less than the EPCRA section 313 volume thresholds would not result in the submission of TRI reports. Thus, EPA elected to initially focus its attention on chemicals likely to yield reports. Accordingly, EPA also screened potential candidates for the likelihood of meeting the EPCRA section 313 volume thresholds. Chemicals for which there were no data to indicate that the chemical is likely to meet or exceed the EPCRA section 313 volume thresholds were not considered further as possible candidates for addition to the section 313 list at this time. Production volume data on each of the chemicals were gathered primarily from two sources: (1) The TSCA Chemical Update System (1990); and (2) the FIFRA Section 7 Tracking System. On June 12, 1986 (51 FR 21438), EPA promulgated a rule pursuant to section 8(a) of TSCA which required manufacturers and importers to report every 4 years, subject to certain threshold production quantities and other exclusions, the quantities of chemicals they produced (40 CFR part 710). Among the exceptions to the inventory update rule (IUR) reporting were polymers, biological products, inorganic substances, and chemicals produced at less than 10,000 pounds, all with certain limitations. Data from the IUR is maintained in EPA's TSCA Chemical Update System (CUS). Section 7 of FIFRA provides the Agency with annual production information on registered pesticides. EPA regulations implementing FIFRA section 7 (40 CFR part 167) require all manufacturers of pesticidal products (which includes formulated pesticides, active ingredients, and devices) to submit an annual report detailing the amount of each type of pesticidal product manufactured, sold and distributed during the past year, and estimated to be manufactured, imported, and processed during the current year (40 CFR 167.85). For industrial inorganic compounds not subject to FIFRA or available on CUS, information from the public literature was used, supplemented with information from companies. 3. Hazard evaluation. EPA conducted a hazard evaluation for each of the addition candidates that resulted from the above analyses and determined based on the weight-of-the evidence if there was sufficient evidence to establish that the candidate chemical met the statutory criteria for addition to EPCRA section 313. To make this determination, EPA senior scientists reviewed readily available toxicity information on each chemical for each of the following effect areas: acute human health effects; cancer; other chronic human effects; and environmental effects. In addition, EPA reviewed, where appropriate, information on the environmental fate of the chemical. The hazard assessment was conducted in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines for each adverse human health or environmental effect (e.g., the appropriate guidelines for hazard evaluation of chemical carcinogens and for the type of evidence required to substantiate a determination of carcinogenicity are the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Ref. 2)). The guidelines that were used for each effect are Agency guidelines that are identified in the Draft Hazard Assessment Guidelines (Ref. 6). 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. Where a careful review of the scientific data for a particular chemical results in a high level of confidence that the chemical causes an adverse effect at relatively low dose levels, EPA believes that this evidence is sufficient for listing the chemical under section 313. On the other hand, where a review of the scientific data indicates that the chemical will cause various adverse effects at moderate dose levels, EPA believes, based on the total weight-of-the-evidence, that there is sufficient evidence for listing the chemical under EPCRA section 313. EPA also conducted an analysis of exposure for each chemical or chemical category proposed for listing under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A) (i.e., based on adverse acute human health effects), and, where appropriate, under section 313(d)(2)(C) (i.e., based on adverse ecological effects). For chemicals listed under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A), this analysis included estimated concentrations of the chemical at or beyond the facility site boundary through the use of estimated releases and modelling techniques. EPA requests comment on its approach in considering exposure as a part of its evaluation of these chemicals under sections 313(d)(2)(A) and (C). Based on this analysis for each of the chemicals proposed for listing, EPA determined that one or more of the statutory criteria were met. A discussion of EPA's interpretation of the EPCRA section 313 criteria is given in Unit III. of this preamble. A discussion of the evidence supporting EPA's proposal to add each of the chemicals to EPCRA section 313 is presented in Unit IV. of this preamble and in the record supporting this proposed rule. 4. Other considerations. EPA excluded certain chemicals and chemical categories from consideration for proposed listing under EPCRA section 313 in this rulemaking for a number of reasons. Some chemicals were identified only as environmental degradation products rather than chemicals that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used by a facility. These chemicals will only be present in the environment as a result of the release into the environment of precursor chemicals. If the degradation product meets the toxicity criteria of EPCRA section 313, the precursor chemical may be considered for listing on EPCRA section 313. The degradation product would not be considered for listing on EPCRA section 313 because a facility subject to EPCRA section 313 is only required to file a TRI report for a chemical that it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses, within the facility boundaries. Therefore, EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to consider listing such chemicals at this time. Some of the lists reviewed by EPA included listings that represented waste streams from particular processes. These waste streams, such as coke oven emissions, are not discrete chemicals or chemical categories, but contain a wide range of chemicals, many of which are currently listed individually on EPCRA section 313. The focus of this rulemaking is on the addition of specific chemicals and chemical categories and, as such, EPA believes that these waste streams are inappropriate for listing under EPCRA section 313 at this time. EPA also excluded chemicals whose only identified toxicity concern was a result of their status as a volatile organic compound (VOC). VOCs contribute to the formation of tropospheric ozone which causes a number of health-related and environmental problems. EPA continues to believe that VOCs meet the listing criteria of EPCRA section 313. However, EPA intends to address the issue of how VOCs should be listed on EPCRA section 313 separately. Therefore, chemicals whose only identified toxicity concern is due to their status as VOCs were excluded from consideration at this time. EPA also identified chemicals that are routinely manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at levels far below the reporting thresholds of EPCRA section 313. These chemicals are not expected to ever be manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities at or above these reporting thresholds. In this proposed rulemaking, EPA is attempting to add chemicals to EPCRA section 313 that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities greater than the EPCRA section 313 volume thresholds and thus would result in the submission of TRI reports. Consequently, chemicals that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in quantities less than the EPCRA section 313 volume thresholds were excluded from further consideration at this time, because no reports would be filed under EPCRA section 313 for such chemicals. Some of the chemicals that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used below the EPCRA section 313 activity thresholds, particularly those chemicals that are manufactured in trace amounts in waste streams, are highly toxic at very low dose levels and have physical, chemical, or biological properties that make the chemicals persist for extended periods in the environment, and bioaccumulate through the food chain. Persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, such as dioxins, are of particular concern in ecosystems such as the Great Lakes Basin due to the long retention time of the individual lakes and the cycling of the chemical from one component of the ecosystem to another. EPA may reconsider in the future the issue of listing such chemicals in a manner which would result in the submission of TRI reports. EPA requests comment on the following: Is it appropriate to list such chemicals on EPCRA section 313? If EPA were to add this type of chemical to EPCRA section 313, what modifications to EPCRA section 313, such as lowering the reporting thresholds and modifying the de minimis in mixture exemptions (40 CFR part 372.38), would be required to insure that release and transfer information would be collected? III. EPCRA Section 313 Statutory Criteria EPCRA section 313(d)(2) sets out criteria for adding chemicals to the list of chemicals subject to reporting under section 313(a). For a chemical (or category of chemicals) to be added to the EPCRA section 313(c) list of toxic chemicals, the Administrator must determine whether, in her judgement, there is sufficient evidence to establish any one of the following: (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 site 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 reasonably be 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 judgement of the Administrator, to warrant reporting under this section. To remove a chemical from the section 313(c) list, the Administrator must determine that there is not sufficient evidence to establish any of the criteria described above as required by EPCRA section 313(d)(3). Thus, the criteria for listing or delisting a chemical are identical. However, whereas EPA can add a chemical if only one of the criteria is met, it can only delete a chemical if none of the criteria are met. To ascertain whether there is sufficient or insufficient evidence to determine that the statutory criteria are met for listing a chemical, EPA conducts a hazard assessment on the chemical and determines based on the weight-of-the-evidence, whether the chemical can reasonably be anticipated to cause any of the adverse effects specified in EPCRA section 313(d)(2). The hazard analysis is described above in Unit II.B.3. of this preamble. EPA's interpretation of the specific statutory criteria follows. 1. Section 313(d)(2)(A) (acute human health effects). To determine whether the section 313(d)(2)(A) ``acute human health effects'' criterion is met, EPA must examine the adverse effects associated with the chemical, the ``concentration levels'' which would cause acute human health effects, and the likelihood of such levels existing ``beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases.'' Such a determination may include, among other factors, consideration of production processes, workplace procedures, pollution controls, and the volume and pattern of production, use, and release, as well as other chemical-specific factors. EPA believes that to make the section 313(d)(2)(A) determination it must demonstrate that a chemical can reasonably be anticipated to be released in quantities that result in concentration levels, or within a reasonable margin of exposure of the concentration levels, that would be expected to cause acute human health effects beyond the facility site boundary. The margin of exposure applied is dependent upon the type of hazard data (e.g., data in animals versus human) and the confidence in this hazard data base for acute effects (e.g., sufficiency of the hazard data). However, EPA is not required to make a facility-specific finding, nor is it necessary for EPA to demonstrate that these concentration levels or effects occur at or near any particular facility (Ref. 1). Furthermore, ``EPA may, but is not required to, conduct new studies or risk assessments or perform site- specific analyses to establish actual ambient concentrations or to document adverse effects at any particular location'' (Ref. 1). Nor is EPA limited to considering concentration levels and potential acute human health effects at the ``fenceline.'' Rather, the phrase ``beyond facility site boundaries'' reflects Congress' recognition that the ``highest concentration to which persons outside the site boundary may be exposed'' could occur at ``any point outside the boundaries of the site on which the facility is located,'' including, for example, where an air emissions plume cools and settles to the ground (Ref. 1). Therefore, EPA believes that to make a finding under EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A), the Agency may estimate concentrations at or beyond the facility site boundary through the use of estimated releases and modelling techniques. The term ``continuous or frequently recurring releases'' is included only to distinguish routine releases that are a normal consequence of the operation of a facility from the episodic and accidental releases that are subject to EPCRA section 304 (Ref. 1). As such, EPA believes that episodic and accidental releases are not pertinent in a determination that a chemical meets the section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion. 2. Section 313(d)(2)(B) (chronic human health effects). In contrast to the section 313(d)(2)(A) criterion, section 313(d)(2)(B) does not require consideration of either the nature and frequency of releases or concentration levels at facility site boundaries. Rather, section 313(d)(2)(B) is focused solely on whether the chemical is known or can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenicity, or other serious or irreversible chronic human health effects. Consequently, EPA believes that it is sufficient to consider only the toxicity of the subject chemical to make the section 313(d)(2)(B) determination. 3. Section 313(d)(2)(C) (environmental effects). The section 313(d)(2)(C) criterion requires EPA to consider a chemical's potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment. The statute directs EPA to base its determination on a consideration of the toxicity of the chemical, either alone or in combination with the persistence of the chemical or the potential for the chemical to bioaccumulate. Congress intended that EPA consider a broad range of environmental effects when making a determination under section 313(d)(2)(C). In determining what constitutes a significant adverse effect on the environment...the Administrator should consider the extent to which the toxic chemical causes or can reasonably be anticipated to cause any of the following adverse reactions, even if restricted to the immediate vicinity adjacent to the site: (1) Gradual or sudden changes in the composition of animal life or plant life, including fungal or microbial organisms in an area. (2) Abnormal number of deaths of organisms (e.g. fish kills). (3) Reduction of the reproductive success or the vigor of a species. (4) Reduction in agricultural productivity, whether crops or livestock. (5) Alterations in the behavior or distribution of a species. (6) Long lasting or irreversible contamination of components of the physical environment, especially in the case of groundwater, and surface water and soil resources that have limited self-cleansing capability (Ref. 1). EPA believes that the environmental effects criterion inherently contains a limited exposure component because of the statutory requirement for EPA to find a ``significant adverse effect on the environment of sufficient seriousness, in the judgment of the Administrator, to warrant reporting'' under EPCRA section 313. Unlike section 313(d)(2)(B), where EPA only has to determine whether certain kinds of effects are ``known or reasonably anticipated'' to occur, section 313(d)(2)(C) requires EPA to find the effect to be of sufficient seriousness to warrant reporting, which implies the possibility that under certain circumstances, a chemical that could theoretically cause a significant adverse effect on the environment is unlikely to cause one of a magnitude to warrant listing. The extent to which exposure is factored into EPA's determination depends upon the inherent toxicity of a chemical, and a variety of other chemical-specific characteristics. EPA believes that when a chemical is inherently extremely toxic, that is, it is toxic at very low dose levels, an exposure assessment is not necessary because even minimal releases of such a chemical may reasonably be anticipated to result in significant adverse environmental effects. In such cases, EPA could rely on toxicity alone under section 313(d)(2)(C)(i) as a basis for listing. However, for chemicals that exhibit adverse effects upon the environment solely based on toxicity at moderately low doses, EPA believes that consideration of potential exposure is warranted because minimal releases may not result in significant adverse effects upon the environment. These exposure considerations may include, among other factors, pollution controls, the volume and pattern of production, use, and release, environmental fate, as well as other chemical-specific factors, and the use of estimated releases and modelling techniques. EPCRA sections 313(d)(2)(C)(ii) and (iii) allow EPA to consider the impacts of other characteristics of a chemical. Where a chemical exhibits significant adverse effects in the environment based on toxicity and persistence or toxicity and bioaccumulation at very low to moderately low dose levels, EPA believes that exposure considerations are not required in addition to those considerations implicit in evaluation of the chemical's potential for persistence and bioaccumulation. This is because even minimal releases of the chemical may result in elevated concentrations in the environment or in an organism that can reasonably be anticipated to result in significant adverse effects. This reflects the increased likelihood that there will be exposure to a chemical that persists due to its longer residence time in the environment. Repeated minimal releases of a persistent chemical may result in elevated concentrations in the environment. For a chemical that bioaccumulates, even low levels of the chemical in the environment may result in increased concentrations in an organism. Therefore, evaluation of a chemical's persistence or bioaccumulation potential may be considered the functional equivalent of an exposure analysis. In addition, for chemicals which induce well-established adverse effects, e.g. chlorofluorocarbons, which cause stratospheric ozone depletion, EPA believes that an exposure assessment is unnecessary. EPA believes that these chemicals typically do not affect solely one or two species but rather affect changes across a whole ecosystem. EPA believes that these effects are of sufficient seriousness that additional exposure considerations are not warranted because of the scope of their impact and the well-documented evidence supporting the adverse effects. EPA requests comment on its approach for considering exposure as a part of its evaluation for listing of these chemicals under section 313(d)(2)(C). In Unit IV.B. of this preamble, EPA identifies each of the chemicals proposed for addition to EPCRA section 313 and the specific statutory criteria upon which the proposed addition is based. IV. EPA's Technical Review A. Introduction Data on the chemicals and chemical categories were reviewed for evidence indicating adverse acute and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental and reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, and environmental effects. Information on the environmental fate was also reviewed. For each chemical proposed for addition to EPCRA section 313 in this rulemaking, EPA conducted an extensive hazard assessment, and, where appropriate, an analysis of exposure, to determine whether the chemical met one or more of the EPCRA section 313(d)(2) listing criteria. This hazard assessment is discussed in detail in Unit II.B.3 of this preamble. Only after this careful review was a final determination made as to whether one of the EPCRA section 313(d)(2) listing criteria was met for each individual chemical or chemical category proposed for listing below. EPA need only show that one of the listing criteria is met in order to list a chemical or chemical category under EPCRA section 313. The information summarized below for each chemical or chemical category represents the key data elements that lead EPA to believe that there is sufficient evidence to establish that one of the section 313(d)(2) listing criteria is met. A more extensive review of the existing data base for each chemical or chemical category proposed for listing, which reflects the entire weight-of-the-evidence considered by EPA, is contained in following support documents: Support Document for the Addition of Chemicals from Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Active Ingredients to EPCRA Section 313 (Ref 3); Physical Properties and Environmental Fate of Some TRI Expansion Chemicals (Ref. 5); Support Document for the Addition of Chemicals from Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act Amendments and Chlorinated Paraffins to EPCRA Section 313 (Ref. 7); and Support Document for the Health and Ecological Toxicity Review of TRI Expansion Chemicals (Ref. 8). These support documents contain a complete list of the references (which can be found in the public record for this proposed rulemaking) that were used in support of these proposed additions. A list of the 313 chemicals and chemical categories and their Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, where appropriate, follows. A limited discussion of the health and environmental effects associated with each of the 313 chemicals and chemical categories is provided below in Unit IV.B. of this preamble. Each chemical is identified by chemical name, CAS No., and the list(s) from which the chemical originated. These lists are designated as follows: CAA HAP: Clean Air Act section 112(b) ``Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' CAA OD: Clean Air Act section 602(b) Class II ozone depleters. CAL: State of California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) ``List of Chemicals Known to the State to Cause Reproductive Toxicity.'' CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act section 102. CWA PPL: Clean Water Act section 307(a) ``Priority Pollutant List.'' EPCRA EHS: EPCRA section 302 ``Extremely Hazardous Substances.'' FIFRA AI: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) ``Active Ingredients.'' FIFRA SR: FIFRA ``Special Review, Canceled/Denied or Suspended, and Restricted Use Pesticides.'' IARC: Monographs of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. NTP: The 6th Annual Report on Carcinogens of the National Toxicology Program. RCRA APP8: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Chemicals listed at 40 CFR part 261 Appendix VIII. RCRA P: RCRA Chemicals listed at 40 CFR part 261.33(e). SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act section 1412. TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act ``Existing Chemicals.'' EPA requests comment on the sufficiency of the evidence for each of the chemicals proposed for addition. In addition, EPA requests comment on any issues that may be specific to any of the individual chemicals or chemical categories. For example, should chemicals be listed on EPCRA section 313 that meet the EPCRA section 313 criteria but whose only use is as a drug product. B. Chemicals Proposed for Addition to EPCRA Section 313 3. Acifluorfen sodium salt (5-(2-chloro-4- (triflouromethyl)phenoxy)-2-nitro-benzoic acid, sodium salt) (CAS No. 062476-59-9) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Acifluorfen is classified as a Group B2 compound, i.e., the chemical is a probable human carcinogen. Acifluorfen produced an increased incidence of combined malignant and benign liver tumors in two different strains of mice. The compound also displayed positive mutagenic activity in several non-mammalian test systems, and is structurally similar to four other diphenyl ether herbicide compounds which caused increased incidences of liver tumors in two different strains of mice. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing acifluorfen sodium salt on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available carcinogenicity data. 14. Benfluralin (N-butyl-N-ethyl-2,6-dinitro-4(trifluoromethyl) benzenamine) (CAS No. 001861-40-1) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Increased relative liver weights, decreased red blood cell counts and decreased hematocrit and hemoglobin levels were observed in dogs orally administered benfluralin at a dose of 125 mg/kg/day for 2 years. The NOAEL was 25 mg/kg/day. Based on the NOAEL, EPA has established an oral RfD of 0.003 mg/kg/day. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing benfluralin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available hematological toxicity data for this chemical. 17. Bifenthrin (CAS No. 082657-04-3) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Tremors or head and forelimb twitching were noted in dogs, rats and rabbits exposed to various doses. NOEL values based on the appearance of tremors (often transient) ranged from 1 to 2.67 mg/kg/day. The oral RfD for bifenthrin was based on a 1year beagle dog feeding study, in which the LOEL, based on tremors observed during weeks 15 to 29, was 3.0 mg/ kg/day and the NOEL was 1.5 mg/kg/day. The RfD based on this NOEL was 0.015 mg/kg/day. In a rat teratology study, an increased incidence of hydroureter (without hydronephrosis) was noted in fetuses at 2 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 1 mg/kg/day. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing bifenthrin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available neurological and developmental toxicity data. Aquatic acute toxicity values for bifenthrin include a bluegill 96- hour LC<INF>50 of 0.35 ppb, a rainbow trout 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 0.15 ppb, a sheepshead minnow LC<INF>50 of 17.5 ppb, and a daphnid 48-hour EC<INF>50 of 1.6 ppb. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing bifenthrin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available environmental toxicity data. 20. Boron trifluoride (CAS No. 007637-07-2) (EPCRA EHS) (Ref. 8). Boron trifluoride is a colorless gas that is corrosive to tissues due to its rapid hydrolysis to hydrofluoric acid and boric acid. The principal acute effect in animals is irritation of the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract and eyes; post mortem examination also revealed pneumonia and degenerative changes in renal tubules. The kidneys are most severely affected because boric acid concentrates in this organ. Exposure of six animal species to 0.28 mg/L of boron trifluoride for 4 to 7 hours a day, 5 days a week killed all animals within 30 days. Rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs were exposed to boron trifluoride via inhalation. Guinea pigs died of respiratory failure after being exposed to 0.036 mg/L for 19 days; rats experienced fluorosis of the teeth at this concentration. All three species were minimally affected at 0.004 mg/L. In a 2-week rat inhalation study, all animals died after 6 daily exposures to 0.18 mg/L. Rats exposed to 0.024 mg/L showed signs of respiratory irritation, increased lung weights, and depressed liver weights. Rats exposed to 0.17 mg/L of boron trifluoride 6 hours/day, 5 days a week for 13 weeks developed necrosis of the proximal tubular epithelium of the kidneys. Guinea pigs exposed to 0.035 mg/L, 7 hours/day, 5 days a week for 3 months developed severe pneumonitis and pulmonary changes indicating chemical irritation. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing boron trifluoride on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to section 313(d)(2)(B) based
on the available chronic toxicity data for this chemical. 50. Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC-13) (CAS No. 000075-72-9) (CAA OD) (Ref. 8). Chlorofluorocarbons, including chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC- 13) are known to release chlorine radicals into the stratosphere. Chlorine radicals act as catalysts to reduce the net amount of stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone shields the earth from ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation (i.e., 290 to 320 nanometers). Decreases in total column ozone will increase the percentage of UV-B radiation, especially at its most harmful wavelengths, reaching the earth's surface. Exposure to UV-B radiation has been implicated by laboratory and epidemiologic studies as a cause of two types of nonmelanoma skin cancers: squamous cell cancer and basal cell cancer. Studies predict that for every 1 percent increase in UV-B radiation, nonmelanoma skin cancer cases would increase by about 1 to 3 percent. Recent epidemiological studies, including large case control studies, suggest that UV-B radiation plays an important role in causing malignant melanoma skin cancer. Recent studies predict that for each 1 percent change in UV-B intensity, the incidence of melanoma could increase from 0.5 to 1 percent. Studies have demonstrated that UV-B radiation can suppress the immune response system in animals, and, possibly, in humans. Increases in exposure to UV-B radiation are likely to increase the incidence of cataracts and could adversely affect the retina. Aquatic organisms, particularly phytoplankton, zooplankton, and the larvae of many fishes, appear to be susceptible to harm from increased exposure to UV-B radiation because they spend at least part of their time at or near the surface of waters they inhabit. Increased UV-B penetration has been shown to result in adverse impacts on plants. Field studies on soybeans suggest that yield reductions could occur in some cultivars of soybeans, while evidence from laboratory studies suggest that two out of three cultivars are sensitive to UV-B. Because this increased UV-B radiation can be reasonably anticipated to lead to cancer and other chronic human health 58. Cyfluthrin (3-(2,2-Dichloroethenyl)-2,2- dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid, cyano(4-fluoro-3- phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester) (CAS No. 068359-37-5) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). In a 14-day rat study, oral administration of 60 mg/kg/day produced tremors, uncoordinated gait, salivation, slight brain hemorrhages, necrosis of the skeletal muscle fibers, and death. The NOEL was not defined. In another study, salivation, straddled gait, axonal degeneration of sciatic nerve, microtubular dilation, and mitochondria degeneration in the sciatic and femoral nerves were observed in rats administered 80 mg/kg/day orally for 5 days and 40 mg/kg/day for the following 9 days. No NOEL was established. Liver and adrenal weight increases were observed in rats orally administered 40 to 80 mg/kg/day for 28 days. The highest dose of 80 mg/ kg/day was reduced to 40 mg/kg/day. The NOEL was 20 mg/kg/day. Liver weight changes and urobilinogen and ketone bodies in the urine were observed in rats fed 15 mg/kg/day for 28 days. No NOEL was established. In a 28-day mouse feeding study, increased liver weight was observed at 50 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 15 mg/kg/day. Inflammatory foci in the kidneys of females were observed at 7.5 mg/kg/day in a 2-year rat feeding study. The NOEL was 2.5 mg/kg/day. Based on the NOEL of the study, an oral RfD of 0.025 mg/kg/day was determined. Increased alkaline phosphatase activity was observed in males at 7.5 mg/kg/day in a 23-month mouse feeding study. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing cyfluthrin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available neurological, hepatic, and renal toxicity data. Aquatic acute toxicity values for cyfluthrin include a rainbow trout 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 0.68 ppb, a bluegill 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 1.5 ppb, and a daphnid 48-hour EC<INF>50 of 0.14 ppb. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing cyfluthrin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available environmental toxicity data. 59. Cyhalothrin (3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2- dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester) (CAS No. 068085-85-8) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Cyhalothrin administered orally (in capsules) to dogs at 10 mg/kg/day for 26 weeks produced occasional disturbances of the nervous system (unsteadiness and/or muscular trembling). The NOEL for these effects was not defined. In a 1-year dog study, ataxia, muscle tremors, and convulsions were observed following oral administration at 3.5 mg/kg/day. Abnormal gait and convulsions were observed at 0.5 mg/kg/day. The LOEL of the study was 0.5 mg/kg/day and the NOEL was 0.1 mg/kg/day. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing cyhalothrin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available neurological toxicity data. 83. Diflubenzuron (CAS No. 035367-38-5) (FIFRA SR) (Ref. 8). In a 2-year study in which beagle dogs received diflubenzuron daily in gelatin capsules, the LOAEL for increases in sulfhemoglobin and methemoglobin was 10 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL was 2 mg/kg/day. EPA has derived an oral RfD of 0.02 mg/kg/day for this chemical from this study. Similar effects were noted in two separate 2-year rat feeding studies (the LOAEL was 7.8 to 8 mg/kg/day; the NOAEL was 2 mg/kg/day), and in a lifetime oral study in mice (the LOAEL was 12 mg/kg/day; the NOAEL was 2.4 mg/kg/day). EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing diflubenzuron on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available hematological toxicity data. Measured aquatic acute toxicity data for diflubenzuron include a 48-hour LC<INF>50 of 4.55 ppb for daphnids. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing diflubenzuron on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the environmental toxicity data for this chemical. 92. 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine dihydrofluoride (o-Tolidine dihydrofluoride) (CAS No. 041766-75-0) (TSCA) (Ref. 8). Neither IARC or EPA has classified 3,3'-dimethylbenzidine dihydrofluoride with respect to carcinogenicity. In a bioassay conducted by NTP, however, 3,3'- dimethylbenzidine dihydrochloride was found to be carcinogenic in both mice and rats. Male and female mice exposed to concentrations of 5 to 140 ppm (0.952 to 6.6 mg/kg/day) in drinking water for 112 weeks developed lung alveolar cell adenoma and adenocarcinoma. Male and female F344 rats exposed to concentrations of 30 to 150 ppm (4.2 to 21 mg/kg/day) in drinking water for 60 to 61 weeks developed tumors in the gastrointestinal tract, liver, lung, and oral cavity. Tumors in the skin, Zymbal's gland, preputial gland in males, clitoral gland and mammary gland in females, and leukemia in females were also noted in this study. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing 3,3'-dimethylbenzidine dihydrofluoride on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on its potential to cause cancer in humans and on the carcinogenicity data for 3,3'-dimethylbenzidine dihydrochloride. 106. Dithiopyr (2-(difluoromethyl)-4-(2-methylpropyl)-6- (trifluoromethyl)-3,5-pyridinedicarbothioic acid S,S-dimethyl ester) (CAS No. 097886-45-8) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). In a 2-generation rat reproduction study, decreased body weight, diffuse hepatocellular swelling, and ``white spots'' on the livers were observed in the offspring of rats administered greater than or equal to 16.4 mg/kg/day. The NOEL values were 1.7 mg/kg/day. In a 13-week rat feeding study, the LOEL of 6.62 mg/kg/day produced diffuse hepatocellular swelling. The NOEL was 0.662 mg/kg/day. In a 13-week dog feeding study, increased alkaline phosphatase, discolored livers, and cholestasis was observed at 10 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 1 mg/kg/day. In addition, at 30 mg/kg/day, increased serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase and serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, increased liver and kidney weights, and decreased cholesterol and albumin were observed. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing dithiopyr on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available hepatic and renal toxicity data. 124. Fluazifop butyl (2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]- phenoxy]propanoic acid, butyl ester) (CAS No. 069806-50-4) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). A 3-month rat feeding study demonstrated hepatocyte hypertrophy in males (the LOEL was 5 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was 0.5 mg/kg/ day). In a 1-year feeding study, dogs had changes in serum alkaline phosphatase and alanine aminotransferase and/or alanine sulfatransferase (the LOEL was 25 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was 5 mg/kg/day). Similar changes were also reported in dogs following 3 months exposure in their diet (the LOEL was 125 mg/kg/day). In a carcinogenicity study, male mice fed 20 ppm (2.6 mg/kg/day, the LOEL) had an increased incidence of hepatocyte hypertrophy. The NOEL was 5 ppm or 0.65 mg/kg/ day. Male and female mice exposed to a higher dose of 80 ppm (10.4 mg/ kg/day) had increased liver weight (relative and absolute) and hypertrophy of periacinal hepatocytes. Males in this dose group also had increased pigmentation in hepatocytes and Kupffer cells. In a teratogenicity study in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed via oral gavage, delayed ossification and an increased incidence of hydroureter were observed in fetuses (the fetotoxic LOEL was 5 mg/kg/day; the NOEL 1 mg/kg/day) and a teratogenic LOEL of 200 mg/kg/day (the NOEL was 10 mg/kg/day) was determined based on the incidence of diaphragmatic hernia. Maternal toxicity was observed in this study at doses higher than those causing fetotoxicity and included reduced body weight gain and decreased gravid uterus (the maternal LOEL was 200 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was 10 mg/kg/day). In a 2-generation reproductive toxicity dietary study in Wistar rats, the reproductive LOEL of 250 ppm (12.5 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was 80 ppm or 4 mg/kg/day) was based on reduced litter sizes, reduced viability, reduced testis and epididymis weights and tubular atrophy in offspring. Fetotoxicity (delayed ossification and eye opacities) was also demonstrated in New Zealand White rabbits (the LOEL was 30 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was 10 mg/kg/day). EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing fluazifop butyl on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available hepatic and developmental toxicity data for this chemical. 125. Flumetralin (2-chloro-N-(2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)- phenyl)-N-ethyl-6-fluorobenzenemethanamine) (CAS No. 062924-70-3) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Aquatic acute toxicity values for flumetralin include a daphnid 48-hour EC<INF>50 of greater than 2.8 ppb, a bluegill sunfish 96-hour LC<INF>50 of greater than 3.2 ppb, and a rainbow trout 96-hour LC<INF>50 of greater than 3.2 ppb. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing flumetralin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available environmental toxicity data for this chemical. 126. Fluorine (CAS No. 007782-41-4) (CERCLA; EPCRA EHS; RCRA APP8; RCRA P) (Ref. 8). Inhalation of fluorine causes initial coughing, choking and chills, which is followed 1 or 2 days later with pulmonary edema. Fluorine has a strong caustic action on mucous membranes, eyes and skin. In human volunteers exposed to 100 ppm (0.16 mg/L) for 30 seconds, much irritation to the nose and eyes was reported. In acute inhalation studies in animals, lethality occurs at a fairly uniform level and is the result of pulmonary edema. Following 1 hour exposures in mice, rats or guinea pigs, the inhalation LC<INF>50 values ranged from 150 to 185 ppm (0.23 to 0.29 mg/L). The LC<INF>50 for rabbits following a 30-minute exposure was 270 ppm (0.42 mg/L). EPA's exposure analysis indicates that fluorine concentrations are likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries, as a result of continuous, or frequently recurring releases, at levels that can reasonably be anticipated to cause significant adverse acute human health effects. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing fluorine on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A) based on the available acute toxicity and exposure data for this chemical. 127. Fluorouracil (5-Fluorouracil) (CAS No. 000051-21-8) (CAL; EPCRA EHS) (Ref. 8). A major use of fluorouracil is in the palliative treatment of carcinoma of the colon, rectum, breast, stomach, and pancreas that is not amenable to surgery or irradiation. The major toxic effects of fluorouracil are on the normal, rapidly proliferating tissues particularly of the bone marrow and lining of the gastrointestinal tract. Leukopenia, predominantly of the granulocytopenic type, thrombocytopenia, and anemia occur commonly with intravenous fluorouracil therapy at doses ranging from 6 to 12 mg/kg. Pancytopenia and agranulocytosis also have occurred. Developmental abnormalities or other effects on newborns were reported in offspring of women receiving 150 or 240 mg/kg fluorouracil intravenously during weeks 11 to 14 or 20 to 31 of pregnancy. In addition, maternal toxicity to the reproductive organs, toxicity to the fetus, and developmental abnormalities have been reported in mice, rats, and hamsters receiving oral, intraperitoneal, or intramuscular doses of fluorouracil ranging from 10 to 700 mg/kg. Chronic neurotoxic effects were noted in dogs fed fluorouracil at a dietary dose of 2 mg/kg/day for 6 months. In this study, animals were examined at the end of 3 months and 6 months. At the end of the experiment, or at death, the brain was removed and examined (only one dog survived the entire 6-month period). Histological sections of the brain showed the presence large multiple monolocular vacuoles in the wall of the fornix of the third ventricle. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing fluorouracil on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the toxicity of this substance to bone marrow, and on the developmental and chronic neurotoxicity data for this chemical. 128. Fluvalinate (N-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]DL- valine(+)- cyano (3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester) (CAS No. 069409-94-5) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Delayed ossification and decreased weight and length of fetuses were observed in offspring of rats orally administered 50 mg/kg/day (LOEL) on days 6 to 15 of gestation. The NOEL was 10 mg/kg/day. These effects were observed at doses that produced maternal toxicity. Curved tibia and fibula were observed in the offspring of rabbits orally administered 125 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 25 mg/kg/day. In a 2-generation reproduction study, a decrease in pup weight and growth were observed in offspring of rats orally administered 5 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 1 mg/kg/day. Significantly decreased weight and survival were observed in offspring of rats orally administered 25 mg/kg/day. In a range finding study, dietary administration of 50 mg/kg/day for 30 days produced skin lesions in rats. The NOEL was not determined. A 2-year rat feeding study was terminated at 64 weeks due to dermal lesions produced in animals at 15 mg/kg/day. The NOEL was 2 mg/kg/day. Dietary administration of 10 mg/kg/day (LOEL for effect) to mice for 2 years produced scabbing and dermal abrasion. No NOEL for these effects was established. An increase in plantar ulcers was observed in rats fed 2.5 mg/kg/day (LOEL) for 2 years. The NOEL was 1 mg/kg/day. Decreases in body weight gain were also observed in this study. Based on the NOEL of the study, an oral RfD of 0.01 mg/kg/day was derived. In a 2- generation rat reproduction study, dietary administration of 5 mg/kg/ day produced decreased body weight gain and skin lesions in parents and offspring. Dietary administration of 2.5 mg/kg/day to rats for 13 weeks produced anemia in blood parameters (decreased hematocrit, hemaglobin, and red blood cells). The NOEL was 1.0 mg/kg/day. Dietary administration of 30 mg/kg/day (LOEL) to rats for 3 months produced decreased hemoglobin, hematocrit, and red blood cell count in rats. The NOEL was 3 mg/kg/day. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing fluvinate on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available developmental, dermal, and hematological toxicity data for this chemical. Aquatic acute toxicity values for fluvalinate include a daphnid 48- hour EC<INF>50 of 0.40 ppb, a bluegill sunfish 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 0.9 ppb, a rainbow trout 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 2.9 ppb, and a sheepshead minnow 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 10.8 ppb. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing fluvinate on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available environmental toxicity data for this chemical. 130. Fomesafen (5-(2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-N methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide) (CAS No. 072178-02-0) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Decreased plasma cholesterol and triglycerides and increased liver weights (reversible at 7 days post-treatment) were observed at 50 mg/kg/day (only dose tested) when administered in the diet of rats for 4 weeks. In a 90-day rat study, dietary administration of 5 mg/kg/day (LOEL) produced alterations in lipid metabolism and increases in liver weight. The NOEL was 0.25 mg/kg/day. In a 26-week dog study, dietary administration of 25 mg/kg/day (LOEL) produced alterations in lipid metabolism and liver changes (changes not defined). The NOEL was 1 mg/ kg/day. Liver toxicity (increased liver masses, discolored hepatocytes, and pigmented Kupffer cells) was observed in a 2-year rat feeding study at 50 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 5 mg/kg/day. Metabolism studies have shown that fomesafen accumulates in the liver. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing fomesafen on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available hepatic toxicity data for this chemical. 135. Hydramethylnon (tetrahydro-5,5-dimethyl-2(1H)-pyrimidinone[3- [4- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-1-[2-[4(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethenyl]- 2-propenylidene]hydrazone) (CAS No. 067485-29-4) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). In a 90-day dog feeding study, testicular atrophy was observed at 6 mg/ kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 3 mg/kg/day. In a 90-day rat study, dietary administration of 5 mg/kg/day (LOEL) produced testicular atrophy. The NOEL was 2.5 mg/kg/day. Dietary administration of 6.5 mg/kg/day for 18 months produced testicular lesions in mice. The NOEL was 2.75 mg/kg/ day. In a 2-year rat study, dietary administration of 5 mg/kg/day produced decreased testicular weight and testicular atrophy. The NOEL was 2.5 mg/kg/day. In a 3-generation rat reproduction study, oral administration of 5 mg/kg/day produced male infertility. The NOEL was 2.5 mg/kg/day. Decreased fetal weight was observed in the offspring of rats administered 30 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 10 mg/kg/day. Increased post implantation loss and decreased fetal viability were observed in the offspring of rabbits administered 15 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 5 mg/kg/day. Vertebral anomalies were seen in the offspring of rabbits administered 10 mg/kg/day (LOEL). The NOEL was 5 mg/kg/day. Dietary administration of 1 mg/kg/day (LOEL) for 6 months to dogs produced increased absolute and relative liver weights. The NOEL was 0.33 mg/kg/day. Based on the NOEL of the study, an oral RfD of 0.0003 mg/kg/day was derived. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing hydramethylnon on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available reproductive, developmental, and hepatic toxicity data for this chemical. The 96-hour LC<INF>50 in the Chanel Catfish was 90 ppb. Bioaccumulation factors in bluegill sunfish are 1300 for the whole fish, 780 for the fillet, and 1900 for viscera. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing hydramethylon on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available environmental toxicity data and the potential for bioaccumulation. 136. Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (CAA OD) (Ref. 8). Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are known to release chlorine radicals into the stratosphere. Chlorine radicals act as catalysts to reduce the net amount of stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone shields the earth from ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation (i.e., 290 to 320 nanometers). Decreases in total column ozone will increase the percentage of UV-B radiation, especially at its most harmful wavelengths, reaching the earth's surface. Exposure to UV-B radiation has been implicated by laboratory and epidemiologic studies as a cause of two types of nonmelanoma skin cancers: squamous cell cancer and basal cell cancer. Studies predict that for every 1 percent increase in UV-B radiation, nonmelanoma skin cancer cases would increase by about 1 to 3 percent. Recent epidemiological studies, including large case control studies, suggest that UV-B radiation plays an important role in causing malignant melanoma skin cancer. Recent studies predict that for each 1 percent change in UV-B intensity, the incidence of melanoma could increase from 0.5 to 1 percent. Studies have demonstrated that UV-B radiation can suppress the immune response system in animals, and, possibly, in humans. Increases in exposure to UV-B radiation are likely to increase the incidence of cataracts and could adversely affect the retina. Aquatic organisms, particularly phytoplankton, zooplankton, and the larvae of many fishes, appear to be susceptible to harm from increased exposure to UV-B radiation because they spend at least part of their time at or near the surface of waters they inhabit. Increased UV-B penetration has been shown to result in adverse impacts on plants. Field studies on soybeans suggest that yield reductions could occur in some cultivars of soybeans, while evidence from laboratory studies suggest that two out of three cultivars are sensitive to UV-B. Because this increased UV-B radiation can be reasonably anticipated to lead to cancer and other chronic human health effects and significant adverse environmental effects, EPA believes there is sufficient evidence for listing the following HCFCs that are commercially viable on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA sections 313(d)(2)(B) and (C). EPA is proposing that the following HCFCs be added individually to EPCRA section 313: Dichloropentafluoropropane (CAS No. 127564-92-5) 1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ea) (CAS No. 136013-79-1) 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225aa) (CAS No. 128903-21-9) 1,1-Dichloro-1,2,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225eb) (CAS No. 111512-56-2) 1,1-Dichloro-1,2,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cc) (CAS No. 13474-88-9) 1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb) (CAS No. 000507-55-1) 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,3,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225da) (CAS No. 000431-86-7) 3,3-Dichloro-1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca) (CAS No. 000422-56-0) 2,3-Dichloro-1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ba) (CAS No. 000422-48-0) 1,2-Dichloro-1,1,2,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225bb) (CAS No. 000422-44-6) Dichlorofluoromethane (HCFC-21) (CAS No. 000075-43-4) 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloro-2-fluoroethane (HCFC-121a) (CAS No. 000354-11- 0) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-121) (CAS No. 000354-14-3) 1,2-Dichloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-132b) (CAS No. 001649-08-7) 2-Chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-133a) (CAS No. 000075-88-7) 3-Chloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane (HCFC-253fb) (CAS No. 000460-35-5). 145. Lactofen (5-(2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-2-nitro-2- ethoxy-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl ester) (CAS No. 077501-63-4) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Lactofen meets the criteria of an EPA Group B2 compound, i.e., a probable human carcinogen. This conclusion was based on an increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas in males and combined incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in both sexes of CD-1 mice following dietary administration of lactofen. In CD rats, there was increased incidence of liver neoplastic nodules in both sexes. Four structurally similar chemicals, acifluorfen, nitrofen, oxyfluorfen, and fomesafen, all produced hepatocellular tumors in rodents. Results of several subchronic and chronic studies indicated the liver and kidney as target organs for lactofen. Increased absolute and relative liver weight and hepatocytomegaly (the LOEL was 1.5 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was not determined) were observed in male mice fed lactofen for 78 weeks. At 37.5 mg/kg/day, there was also an increased incidence of cataracts and renal pigmentation. Based on the LOEL, an oral RfD of 0.002 mg/kg/day was derived. Renal dysfunction and decreased hemoglobin and hematocrit levels and red blood cell counts (the LOEL was 25/75 mg/ kg/day; the NOEL was 5 mg/kg/day) were observed in a 1-year feeding study in dogs. Increased renal and hepatic pigmentation (the LOEL was 50 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was 25 mg/kg/day) were noted in a 2-year feeding study in rats. In a 90-day mouse study, increased alkaline phosphatase, serum glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase (SGOT), and serum gleutanic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT) activities, increased liver weight, hepatic necrosis, biliary hyperplasia, decreased hematocrit and hemoglobin levels and red blood cell counts, extramedullary hematopoiesis, and kidney nephrosis and fibrosis (the LOEL was 26 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was not determined) were seen. Decreased hemoglobin and hematocrit levels, decreased red blood cell counts, and brown pigment in the kidney and liver (the LOEL was 50 mg/kg/day) were noted in a 90-day feeding study in rats. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing lactofen on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available carcinogenicity data and hepatic, renal, and hematological toxicity data for this chemical. 180. Norflurazon (4-Chloro-5-(methylamino)-2- [3(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-3(2H)-pyridazinone) (CAS No. 027314-13-2) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Congestion of the liver, hepatocyte swelling and increased liver weights, and increase in colloid vacuole in the thyroid were observed in dogs fed 450 ppm (10.25 mg/kg/day) norflurazon for 6 months. The NOEL was 150 ppm (3.75 mg/kg/day). An oral RfD of 0.04 mg/ kg/day has been determined. Increased relative liver weight and hypertrophy of the thyroid with depletion of colloid were seen in rats fed 2,500 ppm (125 mg/kg/day) norflurazon for 90 days. The NOEL was 500 ppm (25 mg/kg/day). Hepatic hyperplasia and hypertrophy and increased relative liver weight were noted in a 28-day feeding study in rats. The LOEL was 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day) and the NOEL was 500 ppm (25 mg/kg/ day). Increased relative liver weight and diffuse and smooth granular livers were seen in a 28-day feeding study in mice. The LOEL was 2,520 ppm (328 mg/kg/day) and the NOEL was 420 ppm (55 mg/kg/day). EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing norflurazon on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available hepatic and thyroid toxicity data. 184. Oxyfluorfen (CAS No. 042874-03-3) (FIFRA SR) (Ref. 8). Oxyfluorfen is a phenoxyphenyl-type herbicide. Several chronic oral toxicity studies suggest that oxyfluorfen may be hepatotoxic. Hepatic effects (e.g. increased absolute liver weight, necrosis, regeneration, and hyperplastic nodules) were observed in mice fed diets containing greater than 3 mg/kg/day oxyfluorfen for 20 months (the NOEL was 0.3 mg/kg/day). Based on these findings, an oral RfD value of 0.003 mg/kg/ day was derived. This study was supported by other chronic feeding studies that demonstrated increases in liver weight, alkaline phosphatase activity, and bile pigmented hepatocytes (the LOEL was 15 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was 2.5 mg/kg/day) in dogs, and minimal hypertrophy of centrilobular hepatocytes (the LOEL was 40 mg/kg/day; the NOEL was 2 mg/kg/day) in rats. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing oxyfluorfen on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the hepatotoxic effects of this chemical. The estimated chronic MATC values for fish and daphnids are 9 ppb and 20 ppb oxyfluorfen, respectively. The estimated log K<INF>ow is 6.1. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing oxyfluorfen on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the environmental toxicity data and potential for bioaccumulation for this chemical 211. Primisulfuron (methyl 2-[[[[[4,6-bis(difluoromethoxy)2- pyrimidinyl]-amino] carbonyl] amino]sulfonyl] benzoate) (CAS No. 086209-51-0) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). In a 90-day dog feeding study, reduced thyroid weights accompanied by colloid depletion and parafollicular hyperplasia and anemia were observed at the LOEL of 25 mg/kg/day. The NOEL was 0.625 mg/kg/day. In a 1-year dog study, dietary administration of 250/125 mg/kg/day (LOEL: the dose was changed after week 10 in the study) produced thyroid hyperplasia, anemia, increased platelet levels, vacuolar changes, and increased absolute and relative liver weights. The NOEL was 25 mg/kg/day. In an 18-month study in mice, dietary administration of 1.7 mg/kg/day produced increased absolute and relative liver weights in females. No NOEL was established. Based on this study, an oral RfD of 0.006 mg/kg/day was derived. In a 2-year mouse study, increases in absolute and relative liver weights were observed at 408 mg/kg/day in males and 1.7 mg/kg/day in females. The systemic LOEL and NOEL in males was 408 mg/kg/day and 40.2 mg/kg/day, respectively. The systemic LOEL in females was 1.7 mg/kg/day and a NOEL could not be established. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing primisulfuron on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available thyroid and liver toxicity data for this chemical. Plant toxicity values include a duckweed 14-day EC<INF>50 of 0.27 ppb and an algae 7-day EC<INF>50 of 24 ppb. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing primisulfuron on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available environmental toxicity data for this chemical. 228. Sodium fluoroacetate (CAS. No. 000062-74-8) (CERCLA; EPCRA EHS; FIFRA SR; RCRA APP8; RCRA P) (Ref. 8). In a 13-week oral study in rats, gavage administration of sodium fluoroacetate (0.02 mg/kg/day) resulted in decreased testis weight and altered spermatogenesis in males (the NOAEL was 0.05 mg/kg/day). In addition, increased heart weight was noted in females and males administered 0.20 mg/kg/day of sodium fluoroacetate. The increase in heart weight, however, was only accompanied by subacute, minimal inflammation (not dose-related). Also, fluorocitrate levels were significantly increased after 4 weeks in males administered 0.50 mg/kg/day and after 13 weeks in both male and female rats administered 0.20 or 0.50 mg/kg/day. The testicular and cardiac effects were reported to be consistent with those noted in the literature. A case study reported a deliberate ingestion of an unspecified dose of sodium fluroacetate by a healthy female. The woman experienced nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain 30 minutes after ingestion, with subsequent seizures occurring 60 minutes after the initial onset of symptoms. Neurological examination after 2 weeks revealed severe cerebellar dysfunction. By 18 months, memory disturbances and depressive behavior persisted. Inhalation exposure to unspecified levels of sodium fluoroacetate caused salivation, loss of speech, violent convulsions, and coma in a male worker. The patient ultimately recovered. Neurological effects have also been reported in rats in a 13-week oral study. Four of 20 female rats treated with 0.50 mg/kg/day (the highest dose tested) exhibited convulsions at day 79, with no recurrences for the remainder of the study. An estimated lethal dose of sodium fluoroacetate in humans ranges from 5 to 10 mg/kg. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing sodium fluoroacetate on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the neurologic, reproductive, and myocardial toxicity data for this chemical. Measured oral LD<INF>50 values of fluoroacetate in the house sparrow, redwinged blackbird, starling and golden eagle are 3.0, 4.22, 2.37, and 1.25 to 5 mg/kg, respectively. In addition, measured acute toxicity data for mammalian wildlife include an oral LD<INF>50 of 0.22 to 0.44 mg/kg for mule deer, an oral LD<INF>50 of 1.41 mg/kg for male ferrets, and an oral LD<INF>50 of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/kg for bears. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing sodium fluoroacetate on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the environmental toxicity data for this chemical. 237. Sulfuryl fluoride (Vikane) (CAS No. 002699-79-8) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). The primary effects of sulfuryl fluoride in humans are respiratory irritation and central nervous system depression, followed by excitation and possibly convulsions. Rabbits exposed via inhalation (6 hours/day, 5 days/week, for 2 weeks) to sulfuryl fluoride showed hyperactivity, convulsions and vacuolation of the cerebrum at 600 ppm (2.5 mg/L). Renal lesions were present in all rats exposed by inhalation (6 hours/day, 5 days/week, for 2 weeks) to 600 ppm (2.5 mg/ L) sulfuryl fluoride. Minimal renal changes were noted in rats exposed to 300 ppm (1252 mg/L), whereas no effects occurred at 100 ppm (4.2 mg/ L). Convulsions at near lethal concentrations were reported in rabbits, mice, and rats. In a 30-day inhalation study, loss of control, tremors of the hind quarters, and histopathological changes in the lung, liver, and kidney were reported in rabbits exposed to 400 ppm (1.6 mg/L) for 7 hours/day, 5 days/week for 5 weeks. The NOEL was 200 ppm (0.83 mg/L). Cerebral vacuolation and/or malacia and inflammation of nasal tissues were observed in rabbits exposed by inhalation to 100 or 300 ppm (0.4 or 1.25 mg/L) for 13 weeks. The NOEL was 30 ppm (0.125 mg/L). Rats exposed by inhalation to 100 to 600 ppm (0.4 to 0.25 mg/L) sulfuryl fluoride for 13 weeks developed mottled teeth (indicative of fluoride toxicity), renal and respiratory effects, and cerebral vacuolation. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing sulfuryl fluoride on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available neurological, renal, and respiratory toxicity data for this chemical. . 240. Tefluthrin (CAS No. 079538-32-2) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Delayed ossification was seen in the offspring of rats administered 5 mg/kg/day (LOEL) orally on days 7 through 16 of gestation. The NOEL was 3 mg/kg/ day. In a 3-month rat study, dietary administration of 10 mg/kg/day produced plasma, red blood cell, and brain cholinesterase inhibition. The NOEL was 5 mg/kg/day. In a 6-month dog study, dietary administration of 10 mg/kg/day (LOEL) produced plasma cholinesterase inhibition. The NOEL was 1 mg/kg/day. In a 21-day rat dietary study, administration of 20 mg/kg/day (LOEL for females) produced decreased platelet counts, increased white blood cell, lymphocyte, and neutrophil counts in males and females. The NOEL for females was 5 mg/kg/day. Increased absolute and relative liver weights were observed at 5 mg/kg/day in males, thus no NOEL could be established for males. Dietary administration of 10 mg/kg/day (LOEL) for 3 months to rats produced increased absolute liver weights, decreased bilirubin levels, and hepatocellular hypertrophy. The NOEL was 5 mg/kg/day. In a 6-month dog study, dietary administration of 10 mg/kg/day (LOEL) produced hepatotoxicity (effects not reported). The NOEL was 1 mg/kg/day. In a 2-year mouse study, dietary administration of 13.5 mg/kg/day produced liver necrosis. The NOEL was 3.4 mg/kg/day. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing tefluthrin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) based on the available developmental, neurological, hepatic, and hematological toxicity data for this chemical. Aquatic acute toxicity values for tefluthrin include a rainbow trout 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 0.06 ppb, a bluegill 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 0.13 ppb, a sheepshead minnow 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 0.13 ppb, a daphnid 48-hour EC<INF>50 of 0.07 ppb, and a mysid 96-hour EC<INF>50 of 0.053 ppb. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing teflurin on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available environmental toxicity data for this chemical. 256. Tributyltin fluoride (CAS No. 001983-10-4) (FIFRA AI) (Ref. 3). Aquatic acute toxicity values for tributyltin fluoride include a bleak fish 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 2.3 ppb, an algae 72-hour EC<INF>50 of 9.3 ppb, and a Harpacticoid copepod 96-hour LC<INF>50 of 0.8 ppb. EPA believes that there is sufficient evidence for listing tributyltin fluoride on EPCRA section 313 pursuant to EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) based on the available environmental toxicity data. IX. References (1) U.S. Congress, House of Representatives. ``Conference Report No. 962,'' 99th Cong., 2nd Session. 294 (1986). (2) USEPA/OHEA. Risk Assessment Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. (1987). (3) USEPA/OPP. Support Document for the Addition of Chemicals from Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Active Ingredients to EPCRA Section 313. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1993). (4) USEPA/OPPT. Issue Paper Prepared for the Public Meeting on Expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1993). (5) USEPA/OPPT. Physical Properties and Environmental Fate of Some TRI Expansion Chemicals. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1993). (6) USEPA/OPPT. Revised Draft Hazard Assessment Guidelines for Listing Chemicals on the Toxic Release Inventory. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1992). (7) USEPA/OPPT. Support Document for the Addition of Chemicals from Section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act Amendments and Chlorinated Paraffins to EPCRA Section 313. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (1993). (8) USEPA/OPPT. Support Document for the Health and Ecological Toxicity Review of TRI Expansion Chemicals. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1993). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals Dated: January 6, 1994. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. Therefore it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended to read as follows: Part 372--[AMENDED] 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 chemicals to paragraph (a) alphabetically, to paragraph (b) by CAS no. sequence, and to paragraph (c) by alphabetically adding four categories to read as follows: Sec. 372.65 Chemicals and chemical categories to which the part applies. * * * * * (a) * * * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Effective Chemical Name CAS No. Date ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ******* Acifluorfen, sodium salt [5-(2-Chloro- 62476-59-9 1/1/95 4-(triflouromethyl)phenoxy)-2-nitro- benzoic acid, sodium salt] ******* Benfluralin (N-Butyl-N-ethyl-2,6- 1861-40-1 1/1/95 dinitro-4- (trifluoromethyl)benzenamine) ******* Bifenthrin 82657-04-3 1/1/95 Boron trifluoride 7637-07-2 1/1/95 p-Chloroaniline 106-47-8 1/1/95 2-Chloro-1,1,1-trifluoro-ethane (HCFC- 75-88-7 1/1/95 133a) Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC-13) 75-72-9 1/1/95 3-Chloro-1,1,1-trifluoro-propane 460-35-5 1/1/95 (HCFC-253fb) Cyfluthrin [3-(2,2-Dichloroethenyl)- 68359-37-5 1/1/95 2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid, cyano(4-fluoro-3- phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester] Cyhalothrin [3-(2-Chloro-3,3,3- 68085-85-8 1/1/95 trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2- dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester] 1,2-Dichloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC- 1649-08-7 1/1/95 132b) Dichlorofluoromethane (HCFC-21) 75-43-4 1/1/95 Dichloropentafluoropropane 127564-92-5 1/1/95 1,1-dichloro-1,2,2,3,3- 13474-88-9 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cc) 1,1-dichloro-1,2,3,3,3- 111512-56-2 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225eb) 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,3,3- 422-44-6 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225bb) 1,2-dichloro-1,1,3,3,3- 431-86-7 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225da) 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3- 507-55-1 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb) 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,3,3- 136013-79-1 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ea) 2,2-dichloro-1,1,1,3,3- 128903-21-9 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225aa) 2,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,3- 422-48-0 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ba) 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2- 422-56-0 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca) Diflubenzuron 35367-38-5 1/1/95 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine 41766-75-0 1/1/95 dihydrofluoride (o-Tolidine dihydrofluoride) Dithiopyr [2-(Difluoromethyl)-4-(2- 97886-45-8 1/1/95 methylpropyl)-6-(trifluoromethyl)- 3,5-pyridinedicarbothioic acid S,S- dimethyl ester] Fluazifop-butyl [2-[4-[[5- 69806-50-4 1/1/95 (Trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]- phenoxy]propanoic acid, butyl ester] Flumetralin [2-Chloro-N-(2,6-dinitro- 62924-70-3 1/1/95 4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)-N-ethyl-6- fluorobenzenemethanamine] Fluorine 7782-41-4 1/1/95 Fluorouracil (5-Fluorouracil) 51-21-8 1/1/95 Fluvalinate [N-[2-Chloro-4- 69409-94-5 1/1/95 (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-DL- valine(+)-cyano (3- phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester] Fomesafen [5-(2-Chloro-4- 72178-02-0 1/1/95 (trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-N- methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide] Hydramethylnon [Tetrahydro-5,5- 67485-29-4 1/1/95 dimethyl-2(1H)-pyrimidinone[3-[4- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-1-[2-[4- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethenyl]-2- propenylidene]hydrazone] Lactofen [5-(2-Chloro-4- 77501-63-4 1/1/95 (trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-2-nitro-2- ethoxy-1- methyl-2-oxoethyl ester] Norflurazon [4-Chloro-5-(methylamino)- 27314-13-2 1/1/95 2-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-3(2H)- pyridazinone] Oxyfluorfen 42874-03-3 1/1/95 Primisulfuron [Methyl 2-[[[[[4,6- 86209-51-0 1/1/95 bis(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]- amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoa te] Sodium fluoroacetate 62-74-8 1/1/95 Sulfuryl fluoride [Vikane] 2699-79-8 1/1/95 Tefluthrin 79538-32-2 1/1/95 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloro-2-fluoroethane 354-11-0 1/1/95 (HCFC-121a) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-1-fluoroethane 354-14-3 1/1/95 (HCFC-121) Tributyltin fluoride 1983-10-4 1/1/95 51-21-8 Fluorouracil (5-Fluorouracil) 1/1/95 62-74-8 Sodium fluoroacetate 1/1/95 75-43-4 Dichlorofluoromethane (HCFC-21) 1/1/95 75-72-9 Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC-13) 1/1/95 75-88-7 2-Chloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC- 1/1/95 133a) 354-11-0 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloro-2-fluoroethane 1/1/95 (HCFC-121a) 354-14-3 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro-1-fluoroethane 1/1/95 (HCFC-121) 3 422-44-6 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,3,3- 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225bb) 422-48-0 2,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,3- 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ba) 422-56-0 3,3-dichloro-1,1,1,2,2- 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ca) 431-86-7 1,2-dichloro-1,1,3,3,3- 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225da) 460-35-5 3-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane (HCFC- 1/1/95 253fb) 507-55-1 1,3-dichloro-1,1,2,2,3- 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225cb) 1861-40-1 Benfluralin(N-Butyl-N-ethyl-2,6- 1/1/95 dinitro-4- (trifluoromethyl)benzenamine) 1983-10-4 Tributyltin fluoride 1/1/95 2699-79-8 Sulfuryl Fluoride [Vikane] 1/1/95 7637-07-2 Boron trifluoride 1/1/95 7782-41-4 Fluorine 1/1/95 27314-13-2 Norflurazon [4-Chloro-5-(methylamino)- 1/1/95 2-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]- 3(2H)- pyridazinone] 35367-38-5 Diflubenzuron 1/1/95 42874-03-3 Oxyfluorfen 1/1/95 62476-59-9 Acifluorfen, sodium salt [5-(2-Chloro- 1/1/95 4-(triflouromethyl)phenoxy)-2-nitro- benzoic acid, sodium salt] 62924-70-3 Flumetralin [2-Chloro-N-(2,6-dinitro- 1/1/95 4-(trifluoromethyl)-phenyl)-N-ethyl- 6-fluorobenzenemethanamine] 67485-29-4 Hydramethylnon [Tetrahydro-5,5- 1/1/95 dimethyl-2(1H)-pyrimidinone[3-[4- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-1-[2-[4- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethenyl]-2- propenylidene]hydrazone] 68085-85-8 Cyhalothrin [3-(2-Chloro-3,3,3- 1/1/95 trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2- dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester] 68359-37-5 Cyfluthrin [3-(2,2-Dichloro-ethenyl)- 1/1/95 2,2-dimethylcyclo-propanecarboxylic acid, cyano(4-fluoro-3- phenoxyphenyl)methyl ester] 69409-94-5 Fluvalinate [N-[2-Chloro-4- 1/1/95 (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-DL- valine(+)-cyano(3- phenoxyphenyl)methylester] 69806-50-4 Fluazifop-butyl [2-[4-[[5- 1/1/95 (Trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl]oxy]- phenoxy]propanoic acid, butyl ester] 72178-02-0 Fomesafen [5-(2-Chloro-4- 1/1/95 (trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-N- methylsulfonyl)-2- nitrobenzamide] 77501-63-4 Lactofen [5-(2-Chloro-4- 1/1/95 (trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-2-nitro-2- ethoxy-1-methyl-2-oxoethyl ester] 79538-32-2 Tefluthrin 82657-04-3 Bifenthrin 1/1/95 86209-51-0 Primisulfuron [Methyl 2-[[[[[4,6- 1/1/95 bis(difluoromethoxy)-2-pyrimidinyl]- amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoa te] 97886-45-8 Dithiopyr [2-(Difluoromethyl)-4-(2- 1/1/95 methylpropyl)-6-(trifluoro-methyl)- 3,5-pyridinedicarbothioic acid S,S- dimethyl ester] 111512-56-2 1,1-dichloro-1,2,3,3,3- 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225eb) 127564-92-5 Dichloropentafluoropropane 1/1/95 128903-21-9 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1,3,3- 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225aa) 136013-79-1 1,3-Dichloro-1,1,2,3,3- 1/1/95 pentafluoropropane (HCFC-225ea) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [FR Doc. 94-753 Filed 1-11-94; 3:34 pm] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F