[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 137 (Monday, July 19, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42954-42956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-16335]
[[Page 42954]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[OAR-2004-0084; FRL-7788-8]
List of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Petition Process, Lesser
Quantity Designations, Source Category List; Petition To Delist Methyl
Isobutyl Ketone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of receipt of a complete petition to delist methyl
isobutyl ketone from the list of hazardous air pollutants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing the receipt of a complete petition from
the Ketones Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) (formerly the
Chemical Manufacturers Association) requesting EPA to remove the
chemical methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) (hexone) (Chemical Abstract
Service No. 108101) from the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
contained in section 112(b)(1) of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA). We have
determined that the ACC's original petition dated April 22, 1997, and
the addenda provided by the ACC through October 17, 2003, will support
an assessment of the human health impacts associated with people living
in the vicinity of facilities emitting MIBK. In addition, the data
submitted by the ACC will support an assessment of the environmental
impacts associated with emissions of MIBK to the ambient air and
deposited onto soil or water. Consequently, we have concluded that
ACC's petition is complete as of October 17, 2003, the date of the last
addendum, and is ready for public comment and the technical review
phase of our delisting procedure.
The EPA invites the public to comment on the petition and to
provide additional data, beyond that filed in the petition, on sources,
emissions, exposure, health effects and environmental impacts
associated with MIBK that may be relevant to our technical review.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2004-
0084, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Website: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
(Mail Code 6102T), Room B108, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (Mail Code 6102T), Room B102, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0084.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov websites are
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard
copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is
(202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Morris, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division (Mailcode C404-01),
U.S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number: (919) 541-5416; fax number: (919) 541-0840; e-mail
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
EDOCKET, regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
[[Page 42955]]
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
II. Petitions To Delist a Hazardous Air Pollutant
A. What Is the List of Hazardous Air Pollutants?
The list of HAP includes a wide variety of organic and inorganic
substances released from large and small industrial operations, fossil
fuel combustion, gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles, and many other
sources. The HAP have been associated with a wide variety of adverse
health effects, including cancer, neurological effects, reproductive
effects, and developmental effects. The health effects associated with
the various HAP may differ depending upon the toxicity of the
individual HAP and the particular circumstances of exposure, such as
the amount of chemical present, the length of time a person is exposed,
and the stage in life of the person when the exposure occurs. The list
of HAP, which includes MIBK, can be found in section 112(b)(1) of the
CAA. The HAP list provides the basis for research, regulation, and
other related EPA activities under the CAA.
B. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a formal request to EPA from an individual
or group to remove a specific HAP from the HAP list. The removal of a
HAP from the list eliminates it from consideration in EPA's program to
promulgate national, technology-based emissions control standards. This
technology-based standards program is commonly referred to as the
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) program.
Petitions to add or delete chemicals from the HAP list are allowed
under section 112(b)(3)(A) of the CAA. The CAA specifies that any
person may petition the Administrator to modify, by addition or
deletion, the list of HAP. The EPA Administrator is required under
section 112(b)(3)(A) of the CAA to either grant or deny a petition to
delist a specific HAP within 18 months of the receipt of a complete
petition.
To delete a substance from the HAP list, CAA section 112(b)(3)(C)
requires that the petitioner must provide adequate data on the health
and environmental effects of the substance to determine that emissions,
ambient concentrations, bio-accumulation or deposition of the substance
may not reasonably be anticipated to cause any adverse effects to human
health or adverse environmental effects.
C. How Does EPA Review a Petition To Delist a HAP?
The petition review process proceeds in two phases: A completeness
determination and a technical review. During the completeness
determination, we conduct a broad review of the petition to determine
whether all of the necessary subject areas are addressed. In addition,
we determine if adequate data, analyses, and evaluation are included
for each subject area. Once the petition is determined to be complete,
we place a notice of receipt of a complete petition in the Federal
Register. That notice announces a public comment period on the petition
and starts the technical review phase of our decision-making process.
The technical review determines whether the petition has satisfied the
necessary requirements and can support a decision to delist the HAP.
All comments and data submitted during the public comment period are
considered during the technical review.
D. How Is the Decision To Delist a HAP Made?
The decision to either grant or deny a petition is made after a
comprehensive technical review of both the petition and the information
received from the public to determine whether the petition satisfies
the requirements of section 112(b)(3)(C) of the CAA. If the
Administrator decides to grant a petition, a proposal will be published
in the Federal Register announcing that decision and the opportunity
for public comment. That notice would propose a modification of the HAP
list and present the reasoning for doing so. However, if the
Administrator decides to deny a petition, a notice setting forth an
explanation of the reasons for denial will be published instead. A
notice of denial constitutes final Agency action of nationwide scope
and applicability, and is subject to judicial review as provided in
section 307(b) of the CAA.
III. Completeness Determination and Request for Public Comment
On April 22, 1997, we received a petition from the ACC's Ketones
Panel to remove MIBK from the HAP list. Because of incomplete
toxicological information on MIBK, discussions between EPA and the
petitioner after the submittal led to a mutual agreement to suspend
review of the petition to allow time for a two-generation reproductive
study. That study was completed in 2000 and was reviewed as part of
EPA's ``Toxicological Review of Methyl Isobutyl Ketone'' which was
completed in March 2003 (EPA-635/R-03-002). After the publication of
that document, the petitioner submitted an addendum on October 17,
2003, requesting that we evaluate the petition for completeness and
grant the petition.
After reviewing the original petition and the two addenda, we have
determined that all of the necessary subject areas for a human health
and environmental risk assessment have been addressed. Therefore, the
petition is complete and ready for technical review. The ACC's last
addendum of October 17, 2003, marked the start of the 18-month
technical review and decision period. Today's notice initiates our
comprehensive technical review of the petition and invites public
comment on the substance of the petition as described above.
IV. Description of Petition
The original petition and addenda provided by the ACC contain the
following information:
Identification and location of facilities producing or
using MIBK.
Background data on MIBK, including chemical and physical
properties data and production and use data.
Toxicological data on human health and environmental
effects of MIBK.
Estimated emissions of MIBK derived from the 2001 Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI is an emissions inventory database
developed under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986.
Tiered air dispersion modeling that provides estimates of
the ambient concentration of MIBK adjacent to those facilities that
produce or use it. Tiered modeling involves the use of successive
modeling techniques to move from conservative ``worst case'' estimates
of the ambient concentrations of a substance emitted from a source
toward more realistic site-specific estimates of the ambient
concentrations.
Characterization of the exposures and risks from MIBK to
human health and the environment.
Documentation of a literature search on MIBK conducted
immediately prior to the filing of the petition. This includes an
identification of the data bases searched, the search strategy, and
printed results.
Copies of relevant human, animal, in vitro, or other
toxicity studies cited in the literature search.
Environmental effects data characterizing the fate of MIBK
emitted
[[Page 42956]]
to the atmosphere. This includes atmospheric residence time,
solubility, phase distribution, vapor pressure, octanol/water partition
coefficients, particle size, adsorption coefficients, information on
atmospheric transformations, potential degradation or transformation
products, and bio-accumulation potential.
Other relevant considerations, such as ACC's petition to
delist MIBK under EPCRA section 313.
List of all support documents in the petition.
The petition lists three companies (Eastman Chemical, Shell
Chemical, and Union Carbide) that produced 220 million pounds
domestically in 1995. The petition describes MIBK as being both a
solvent and chemical intermediate. When used as a solvent, it is highly
efficient for dissolving a wide variety of resins. Therefore, it is
widely used in surface coatings, adhesives, inks, and traffic marking
paints. The MIBK is also used as a solvent in cleaning fluids and
dewaxing agents, and in the extraction of fats, oils, waxes, and
resins. It is used in the formulation of high-solids coatings which are
being used to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from
many types of coatings. The MIBK is reported to occur naturally in
plants and animals, and has been identified as a natural component of
several foods.
According to the petition, based on the chemical and physical
properties of MIBK, inhalation is the only significant route of human
exposure to MIBK emissions. Using the most recent TRI data and some
site-specific data as input in a tiered air dispersion modeling
approach, the petition develops estimates of the maximum annual and 24-
hour concentrations anticipated to occur at the boundaries of
facilities known to emit MIBK. The petition compares modeling output to
available health data to conclude that, given the low concentrations
anticipated to occur at facility boundaries, MIBK cannot reasonably be
anticipated to cause either acute or chronic adverse health effects to
people living near these facilities.
The petition discusses the results of fugacity modeling that was
performed to evaluate the fate of MIBK in air, water, soil and
sediment. The results of the modeling indicate that the concentrations
of MIBK in water, soil, and sediment are well below levels expected to
pose hazards to human health or the environment.
Dated: July 12, 2004.
Robert D. Brenner,
Principal Deputy Assistant, Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 04-16335 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P