Monday,

September
8,
2003
Part
II
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
355
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act;
Extremely
Hazardous
Substances
List;
Modification
of
Threshold
Planning
Quantity
for
Isophorone
Diisocyanate;
Final
Rule
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
11
Sep
05,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
08SER2.
SGM
08SER2
52978
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
173
/
Monday,
September
8,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
355
[
FRL
 
7554
 
9]

RIN
2050
 
AE43
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act;
Extremely
Hazardous
Substances
List;
Modification
of
Threshold
Planning
Quantity
for
Isophorone
Diisocyanate
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
rule
amends
the
list
of
extremely
hazardous
substances
(
EHS)
issued
under
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
(
EPCRA)
by
changing
the
threshold
planning
quantity
(
TPQ)
for
isophorone
diisocyanate
(
IPDI)
from
100
pounds
to
500
pounds.

DATES:
This
rule
is
effective
October
8,
2003.

ADDRESSES:
Copies
of
the
documents
relevant
to
this
action
(
Docket
No.
SFUND
 
2002
 
0009)
are
available
for
public
inspection
during
normal
business
hours
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
federal
holidays,
at
the
Superfund
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information,
contact
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Hotline
at
(
800)
424
 
9346
or
(
703)
412
 
9810,
TDD
(
800)
553
 
7672,
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
hotline/.
For
questions
on
the
applicability
of
provisions
contained
in
40
CFR
part
355
or
on
the
contents
of
this
document,
contact:
Sicy
Jacob,
Chemical
Emergency
Preparedness
and
Prevention
Office
(
5104A),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington
DC
20460,
Telephone:
202
 
564
 
8019;
Fax:
202
 
564
 
8233;
email:
jacob.
sicy@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

General
Information
A.
Affected
Entities
Entities
that
may
be
affected
by
this
action
are
those
facilities
subject
to
40
CFR
part
355,
Emergency
Planning
and
Release
Notification.
B.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?
1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
SFUND
 
2002
 
0009.
You
may
also
refer
to
Docket
ID
No.
300
 
PQ
 
R2
for
any
technical
documents
referenced
in
the
preamble
to
this
document.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
The
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
the
disclosure
of
which
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Superfund
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
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
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1742,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Superfund
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
0276.
2.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
Federal
Register
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.

Outline
I.
Introduction
and
Background
A.
Statutory
Authority
B.
Background
II.
EPA's
Methodology
for
Establishing
TPQs
for
Liquids
III.
Explanation
of
the
Error
in
the
October
1994
Proposed
Rule
IV.
Response
to
Comments
on
the
October
12,
1994
Proposed
Rule
V.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
K.
Congressional
Review
Act
I.
Introduction
and
Background
A.
Statutory
Authority
This
final
rule
is
issued
under
sections
302
and
328
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
of
1986
(
EPCRA).

B.
Background
On
October
17,
1986,
the
President
signed
into
law
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1986
(``
SARA'').
Public
Law
99
 
499
(
1986).
Title
III
of
SARA
established
a
program
designed
to
require
state
and
local
planning
and
preparedness
for
spills
or
releases
of
hazardous
substances
and
to
provide
the
public
and
local
governments
with
information
concerning
potential
chemical
hazards
in
their
communities.
This
program
is
codified
as
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
of
1986
(
EPCRA),
42
U.
S.
C.
11001
 
11050.
EPCRA
required
EPA
to
publish
a
list
of
Extremely
Hazardous
Substances
(
EHS)
and
to
establish
threshold
planning
quantities
for
each
of
these
EHSs.
Under
EPCRA
section
302,
a
facility
which
has
present
an
EHS
in
excess
of
its
threshold
planning
quantity
(
TPQ)
must
notify
the
State
emergency
response
commission
and
local
emergency
planning
committee
as
well
as
participate
in
local
emergency
planning
activities.
The
EHS
list
was
established
by
EPA
to
identify
chemical
substances
which
could
cause
serious
irreversible
health
effects
from
accidental
releases
(
51
FR
13378).
The
EHS
list
and
its
TPQs
are
intended
to
help
communities
focus
on
the
substances
and
facilities
of
the
most
immediate
concern
for
emergency
planning
and
response.
The
TPQs
are
not
absolute
levels
above
which
the
EHS
are
dangerous
and
below
which
they
pose
no
threat
at
all.
The
TPQs
provide
a
starting
point
for
identification
of
facilities
to
community
response
planners
so
that
they
can
determine
whether
or
not
these
facilities
pose
a
potential
problem
in
the
event
of
an
accidental
release.
EPA
encourages
communities
to
go
beyond
the
EHS
list
when
evaluating
the
hazards
of
facilities
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
11
Sep
05,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08SER2.
SGM
08SER2
52979
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
173
/
Monday,
September
8,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
in
their
community,
in
that
facilities
handling
chemicals
not
on
the
EHS
list
could
be
as
hazardous
as
those
handling
EHSs.

1.
Regulatory
Background
The
EHS
list
and
their
TPQs
are
codified
in
40
CFR
part
355,
appendices
A
&
B.
EPA's
explanation
for
the
methodologies
used
to
determine
whether
to
list
a
substance
as
an
EHS
and
for
deriving
the
TPQs
is
found
in
preambles
to
the
Federal
Register
notices
which
promulgated
these
rules
and
in
technical
support
documents
in
the
rulemaking
records.
The
relevant
notices
were
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
November
17,
1986
(
51
FR
41570)
and
April
22,
1987
(
52
FR
13378).
EPA
first
published
the
EHS
list
and
TPQs
along
with
the
methodology
for
determining
TPQ
in
the
November
17,
1986
interim
final
rule.
In
the
April
22,
1987
final
rule,
EPA
made
a
number
of
revisions.
Among
other
things,
the
April
1987
rule
republished
the
EHS
list,
with
the
addition
of
four
new
chemicals
and
revised
the
methodology
for
determining
some
TPQs.
EPA
has
since
received
several
petitions
to
amend
the
EHS
list.

2.
Summary
of
October
1994
Proposed
Rulemaking
In
the
October
12,
1994
(
59
FR
51816)
proposed
rulemaking,
EPA
responded
to
seven
petitions
requesting
action
on
substances
listed
as
EHSs.
Among
these
petitions,
Hu
¨
ls
America
Inc.
petitioned
EPA
to
delist
isophorone
diisocyanate
(
IPDI)
(
CAS
No.
4098
 
71
 
9).
EPA
denied
the
petition
to
delist
IPDI
because
it
meets
the
criteria
for
an
EHSs.
However,
in
considering
this
petition,
EPA
noted
that
the
TPQ
had
been
determined
based
on
a
mistaken
assumption
that
IPDI
is
a
reactive
solid
at
standard
temperature,
when
in
fact
it
is
a
liquid
and
not
highly
reactive.
Accordingly,
using
the
methodology
for
calculating
TPQs
for
liquids,
EPA
proposed
in
1994
to
raise
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
from
100
to
1,000
pounds,
even
though
Hu
¨
ls
America
did
not
request
this
change
in
their
petition.
As
a
result
of
EPA's
action,
Hu
¨
ls
America
filed
a
lawsuit
in
federal
court
challenging
EPA's
denial
of
the
delisting
petition
for
IPDI.
The
Agency's
decision
not
to
delist
IPDI
was
upheld
by
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
(
DC
Cir.)
in
Hu
¨
ls
America
v.
Browner,
83
F.
3d
445
(
1996).
Accordingly,
today's
rulemaking
does
not
address
any
issues
regarding
whether
IPDI
should
be
removed
from
the
EHS
list
under
EPCRA,
but
is
limited
solely
to
the
appropriateness
of
the
TPQ
for
IPDI.

II.
EPA's
Methodology
for
Establishing
TPQs
for
Liquids
The
TPQs
developed
for
EHSs
are
based
on
a
ranking
of
the
EHSs
according
to
their
potential
to
become
airborne
and
disperse
and
their
toxicological
properties,
with
adjustments
based
on
chemical
reactivity
and
other
factors.
The
Immediately
Dangerous
to
Life
and
Health
(
IDLH)
level
developed
by
the
National
Institute
of
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
(
NIOSH),
or
an
approximation
of
the
IDLH
based
on
animal
toxicity
data,
is
used
as
an
index
of
toxicity
while
the
physical
state
and
volatility
of
the
substance
are
used
to
derive
an
index
of
the
chemical's
potential
to
become
airborne
and
disperse.
These
two
indices
are
combined
to
produce
an
overall
risk
score
or
``
ranking
factor''
defined
as
IDLH/
V,
where
V
is
the
index
of
potential
to
become
airborne
and
disperse.
TPQs
are
then
assigned
to
groups
of
EHSs
according
to
their
relative
ranking.
The
lowest
rank
(
highest
concern)
is
assigned
low
quantities
and
the
highest
rank
(
lowest
concern)
is
assigned
high
quantities.
The
index
of
potential
to
become
airborne
and
disperse
(
V)
is
derived
using
the
physical
state
of
the
substance
and
a
measure
of
its
volatility.
For
EHSs
that
are
gases
at
ambient
conditions
and
powdered
solids
with
a
particle
size
less
than
100
micron,
V
is
assumed
to
have
a
value
of
1,
indicating
that
in
an
accidental
release,
the
chemical
could
easily
become
airborne
and
disperse.
Solids
in
non­
powdered
form
are
assigned
the
highest
TPQ
meaning
that
chemicals
in
this
physical
state
are
not
likely
to
become
airborne
and
disperse.
For
liquid
EHSs,
V
is
derived
from
the
rate
of
volatilization
expected
from
a
spill
of
the
liquid
at
its
boiling
point.
The
rate
of
volatilization
is
driven
by
the
molecular
weight
of
the
substance
and
its
boiling
point
temperature
as
in
the
following
equation:
V
=
1.6M0.67/(
T
+
273)
where
M
is
the
molecular
weight
of
the
substance
and
T
is
the
boiling
temperature
(
°
C).
Note
that
for
liquids
with
low
boiling
points
(
volatile
liquids),
V
will
approach
1
(
more
like
a
gas),
while
high
boiling
liquids
have
a
V
much
less
than
1.
The
Agency
could
have
evaluated
the
rate
of
volatilization
from
a
spill
of
the
liquid
at
ambient
conditions
rather
than
at
the
liquid's
boiling
point.
Typically,
to
calculate
the
rate
of
volatilization
of
a
liquid
at
ambient
conditions,
an
ambient
temperature
must
be
chosen
and
the
liquid's
vapor
pressure
at
that
ambient
temperature
must
be
known.
Chemical
reference
books
often
publish
the
vapor
pressure
for
many
common
substances
at
20
or
25
°
C.
However,
some
of
the
liquids
on
the
EHS
list
either
have
a
vapor
pressure
at
a
different
temperature
or
they
have
no
published
vapor
pressure.
The
Agency
could
have
estimated
or
calculated
vapor
pressures
for
these
substances
but
the
accuracy
of
such
estimates
or
calculations
could
be
questioned.
A
more
critical
question
is
the
choice
of
an
appropriate
ambient
temperature.
Ambient
temperatures
vary
widely
across
the
United
States
and
an
accidental
release
scenario
could
involve
heat
from,
for
example,
a
loss
of
reactor
cooling
or
from
a
fire.
The
choice
of
an
appropriate
ambient
temperature
would
be
influenced
by
site­
specific
or
release
scenario
specific
factors.
Since
the
Agency
needed
to
apply
a
methodology
uniformly
to
all
liquid
EHSs
rather
than
chemical­
bychemical
or
site­
by­
site,
the
Agency
therefore
chose
to
evaluate
the
rate
of
volatilization
using
the
substance's
boiling
point.
All
of
the
liquids
on
the
EHS
list
have
a
published
boiling
point.
As
noted
above,
once
V
is
determined,
the
``
ranking
factor''
is
calculated
from
IDLH/
V.
If
an
IDLH
value
is
not
available,
as
is
the
case
for
most
of
the
EHSs,
EPA
uses
an
IDLH
equivalent
value
estimated
from
acute
animal
toxicity
data.
Data
such
as
the
lowest
lethal
airborne
concentration
(
LCLO),
lethal
airborne
concentration
for
50%
of
the
test
animals
(
LC50),
lowest
lethal
dose
(
LDLO),
or
lethal
dose
for
50%
of
the
test
animals
(
LD50)
are
used.
NIOSH
has
indicated
that
the
IDLH
is
most
similar
to
the
LCLO;
the
other
toxicity
data
needs
to
be
adjusted
and
converted
to
an
airborne
dose
comparable
to
an
IDLH
as
follows:
(
1)
Estimated
IDLH
=
LC50
×
0.1;
(
2)
estimated
IDLH
=
LD50
×
0.01;
and
(
3)
estimated
IDLH
=
LDLO
×
0.1.
So,
for
each
liquid,
gas,
and
solid
on
the
EHS
list,
EPA
calculates
the
ranking
factor
as
described
above.
Once
all
the
chemicals
are
ranked,
they
are
grouped
by
orders
of
magnitude
of
ranking
factor
and
threshold
quantities
are
assigned
to
these
groups.
The
table
below
shows
the
ranking
factor
and
the
threshold
quantities
assigned
to
them.
(
Source:
Threshold
Planning
Quantities
Technical
Support
Document,
April
7,
1987).

VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
11
Sep
05,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08SER2.
SGM
08SER2
52980
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
173
/
Monday,
September
8,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
Ranking
factor
Threshold
quantity
(
lb)

<
1
×
10
¥
3
........................
1
 
10
¥
3
to
<
10
¥
2
................
10
 
10
¥
2
to
<
10
¥
1
................
100
 
10
¥
1
to
<
1
......................
500
 
1
to
<
10
..........................
1,000
a
 
10
....................................
10,000
Since
there
was
no
IDLH
value
available
for
IPDI
at
the
time
the
EHS
list
was
developed
(
and
there
still
is
not
one),
EPA
estimates
the
IDLH
equivalent
for
IPDI
by
multiplying
its
LC50
of
0.12
mg/
l
over
a
4­
hour
exposure
period
by
0.1.
This
results
in
an
IDLH
value
of
0.012
mg/
l.
To
calculate
V,
EPA
uses
the
boiling
point
for
IPDI
of
350
degrees
Centigrade
and
a
molecular
weight
of
222
g/
mole
in
the
above
equation
to
obtain
0.096.
Then
the
index
value
is
derived
by
dividing
the
level
of
concern
(
0.012)
by
the
V
factor
(
0.096)
to
obtain
0.13.
Using
the
ranking
factor
value
for
IPDI,
of
0.13,
and
the
table
above,
the
TPQ
value
should
be
500
pounds.

III.
Explanation
of
the
Error
in
the
October
1994
Proposed
Rule
As
part
of
the
Agency's
review
of
the
petition
to
delist
IPDI
from
the
EHS
list,
EPA
discovered
that
IPDI
was
mistakenly
listed
as
a
reactive
solid,
as
opposed
to
a
liquid.
As
a
result,
EPA
recalculated
IPDI's
ranking
factor
using
the
equation
listed
in
the
previous
section
of
this
preamble
and
proposed
in
October
1994,
to
raise
the
TPQ
from
100
to
1,000
pounds.
During
the
process
of
finalizing
the
rule,
EPA
reviewed
all
documents
and
memos
related
to
the
October
1994
proposed
rule.
During
the
review,
EPA
discovered
that
an
error
was
made
in
reading
the
table
of
ranking
factors
and
the
corresponding
threshold
quantities.
To
be
certain,
EPA
again
reviewed
IPDI's
physical/
chemical
properties
and
re­
calculated
the
ranking
factor.
The
IDLH,
V
factor,
and
ranking
factor
were
calculated
correctly
in
the
1994
proposed
rule,
however,
the
Agency
incorrectly
identified
the
TPQ
for
IPDI;
the
proposal
should
have
stated
500
pounds
instead
of
1,000
pounds.
EPA
is
now
finalizing
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
to
the
correct
value
of
500
pounds.
On
February
27,
2002,
EPA
sent
a
letter
to
Degussa
Corporation
(
successor
to
``
Hu
¨
ls
America,
Inc.'')
informing
them
of
the
error
and
provided
them
an
additional
opportunity
to
submit
comments.
The
letter
explained
the
error
made
in
the
1994
proposal
and
discussed
the
correct
TPQ
value.
Degussa
stated
that
they
do
not
have
any
additional
comments
other
than
those
submitted
in
response
to
the
1994
proposal.
Accordingly,
below,
EPA
responds
to
those
comments
filed
by
Hu
¨
ls
America
in
1994.

IV.
Response
to
Comments
on
the
October
12,
1994
Proposed
Rule
EPA
received
comments
only
from
Hu
¨
ls
America.
While
Hu
¨
ls
America
disagreed
with
EPA's
decision
to
deny
the
petition
to
delete
IPDI
from
the
EHS
list,
the
company
acknowledged
that
the
issue
would
be
addressed
in
the
litigation.
Since
the
listing
of
the
IPDI
has
been
upheld
by
the
court,
this
notice
will
not
deal
with
that
issue.
With
respect
to
the
TPQ
for
IPDI,
Hu
¨
ls
America
argues
that
the
highest
TPQ
category
of
10,000
pounds
should
be
assigned.
This
is
because
IPDI
is
nonvolatile
and
is
toxic
only
at
levels
well
above
its
saturated
vapor
concentration.
Because
EPA
has
not
considered
relative
vapor
pressure
in
calculating
TPQs
for
such
non­
volatile
compounds,
the
TPQs
bear
no
relationship
to
the
very
low
potential
for
compounds
to
disperse
beyond
a
facility
boundary.
Therefore,
IPDI,
which
has
a
very
low
vapor
pressure
is
unlikely
to
present
any
risk
at
the
fenceline
in
the
event
of
a
release.
The
commenter
also
disagreed
with
EPA's
TPQ
methodology,
particularly
with
respect
to
EPA's
assumption
that
dispersion
is
relatively
similar
from
chemical
to
chemical.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
aerosol
acute
toxicity
data
do
not
support
the
need
to
set
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
below
10,000
pounds.
In
fact,
Hu
¨
ls
argues
that
because
IPDI's
toxicity
was
determined
using
an
aerosol
form
of
the
chemical,
the
dispersability
of
IPDI
for
calculating
the
TPQ
should
be
based
on
the
aerosol
form
rather
than
on
liquid
volatility.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
IPDI
is
manufactured
and
processed
in
closed
vessels
which
are
not
under
pressure.
So,
there
is
less
likelihood
that
accidents
may
occur.
EPA
disagrees
with
Hu
¨
ls'
assertion
that
it
did
not
consider
relative
vapor
pressure
and
that
the
TPQs
for
nonvolatile
compounds
such
as
IPDI
bear
no
relationship
to
the
very
low
potential
for
these
compounds
to
disperse
beyond
a
facility
boundary
as
a
result
of
a
spill
or
release.
In
general,
non­
volatile
liquid
chemicals
have
relatively
low
vapor
pressure
and
relatively
high
boiling
points.
These
substances
are
not
as
likely
as
volatile
liquids
to
disperse
beyond
a
facility
boundary.
As
described
above,
EPA
uses
the
liquid
boiling
point
to
calculate
a
V
factor
which
is
used
as
a
relative
measure
of
the
ability
of
the
substance
to
become
airborne
and
disperse
downwind.
Nonvolatile
substances
with
high
boiling
points
will
give
a
small
V
factor
which
generates
a
larger
ranking
factor
than
volatile
substances
with
a
large
V
factor.
The
V
factor
is
likely
to
be
the
same
using
either
the
substance's
boiling
point
or
ambient
vapor
pressure.
The
larger
the
ranking
factor,
the
greater
the
TPQ.
Therefore,
a
large
TPQ
would
reflect
a
relative
inability
of
a
substance
to
travel
off­
site.
EPA
believes
that
boiling
point
is
a
reflection
of
relative
vapor
pressure
since
non­
volatile
liquids
have
a
low
vapor
pressure
and
a
correspondingly
high
boiling
point
while
volatile
liquids
have
a
high
vapor
pressure
and
a
correspondingly
low
boiling
point.
Of
the
183
liquid
chemicals
on
the
EHS
list,
only
18
chemicals
have
less
than
or
the
same
vapor
pressure
as
IPDI,
and
only
17
chemicals
have
higher
or
the
same
boiling
point
as
IPDI.
Therefore,
when
compared
to
the
other
chemicals
on
the
EHS
list,
the
ability
of
IPDI
to
disperse
is
relatively
the
same
when
considering
either
vapor
pressure
(
as
the
petitioner
requests)
or
boiling
point
(
as
the
methodology
now
considers).
For
this
reason,
changing
the
methodology
from
boiling
point
to
vapor
pressure
will
not
likely
have
a
significant
impact
on
IPDI's
rank
in
comparison
to
other
chemicals
and
consequently,
its
TPQ.
While
both
of
these
factors
demonstrate
that
IPDI
under
standard
temperatures
and
pressures
is
less
likely
to
disperse
(
relative
to
the
other
liquids
on
the
EHS
list),
its
TPQ
is
based
on
its
boiling
point
and
its
acute
toxicity
(
not
by
boiling
point
or
toxicity
alone)
like
other
listed
liquids.
EPA
also
disagrees
that
its
TPQ
methodology
is
improper,
particularly
with
respect
to
the
assumption
that
dispersion
is
relatively
similar
from
chemical
to
chemical.
EPA
recognizes
that
once
airborne,
fine
powders,
aerosols,
mists,
or
dense
or
lighter
than
air
vapor
clouds
or
gases
may
disperse
differently
from
one
another,
depending
on
the
density
and
concentration
of
the
substance
in
the
air,
the
air
temperature,
humidity,
and
other
chemical­
and
dispersion­
specific
factors.
A
rigorous
analysis
of
the
unique
dispersion
characteristics
could
be
conducted
for
each
listed
EHS
substance.
However,
such
an
analysis
is
highly
influenced
by
site­
specific
factors
such
as
meteorology,
terrain,
and
the
accidental
release
scenario.
Since
the
Agency
does
not
have
site­
specific
data
for
all
sites
potentially
handling
the
EHS
substances
and
a
methodology
for
determination
of
the
TPQ
needs
to
be
uniformly
applied,
the
Agency
assumed,
that
for
purposes
of
a
relative
ranking,
that
the
airborne
dispersion
of
particles
and
vapors
will
likely
be
similar
across
the
range
of
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
11
Sep
05,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08SER2.
SGM
08SER2
52981
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
173
/
Monday,
September
8,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
listed
gases,
liquids
and
solids
that
become
airborne.
EPA
also
notes
that
it
does
not
use
only
dispersion
potential
or
only
toxicity
to
determine
the
TPQ.
Instead,
the
method
that
EPA
chose
to
establish
TPQs
for
substances
on
the
EHS
list
uses
a
combination
of
the
toxicity
of
the
chemical
and
the
potential
for
these
compounds
to
disperse
beyond
the
facility
boundary.
Further,
EPA
did
not
assign
TPQs
based
on
any
particular
accident
scenario
or
any
specific
handling
situation.
Instead,
EPA
chose
to
rank
the
chemicals
against
each
other
to
get
a
relative
idea
of
the
potential
accidental
release
significance
or
hazard
associated
with
that
chemical;
a
chemical
with
a
``
low''
rank
is
more
hazardous
than
one
with
a
``
high''
rank
(``
hazard''
being
a
combination
of
toxicity
and
dispersion
potential).
EPA
chose
not
to
rank
only
by
toxicity
because
a
highly
toxic
chemical
such
as
IPDI
(
a
non­
volatile
substance)
would
be
assigned
a
very
low
TPQ
while
a
slightly
less
toxic
but
volatile
substance
would
be
assigned
a
greater
TPQ.
Hu
¨
ls
also
argues
that
because
IPDI's
toxicity
was
determined
using
an
aerosol
form
of
the
chemical,
the
dispersion
factor
portion
of
the
TPQ
should
consider
the
aerosol
form
rather
than
liquid
volatilization
based
on
boiling
point.
The
Agency
disagrees
with
this
comment.
Substances
were
added
to
the
EHS
list
if
dermal,
oral,
or
inhalation
toxicity
test
results
meet
certain
toxicity
criteria.
While
it
is
likely
that
toxic
gases
are
listed
because
of
inhalation
toxicity,
liquids
and
solids
could
be
listed
not
only
because
of
inhalation
toxicity
but
also
dermal
or
oral
toxicity.
In
an
accidental
release
scenario,
hazardous
chemicals
could
be
dispersed
in
many
ways
generating
human
exposure,
potentially
via
all
three
pathways
(
e.
g.
via
inhalation,
oral
or
dermal
exposure).
Consequently,
for
purposes
of
determining
the
TPQ,
the
Agency
chose
to
focus
on
the
substance's
physical
state
to
determine
the
likely
route
of
exposure
that
might
result
from
an
accidental
release
rather
than
the
state
of
the
substance
used
for
toxicity
testing.
In
other
words,
gases
and
liquids
would
become
airborne
due
to
volatilization
while
solids
become
airborne
due
to
the
force
of
an
event
such
as
an
explosion.
Certainly,
liquids
could
become
airborne
as
a
result
of
an
explosion
generating
an
exposure
not
only
to
vapor
but
to
aerosols
that
would
be
generated
by
the
force
of
that
explosion.
If
the
Agency
had
used
this
approach
to
determine
dispersability,
all
liquid
substances
would
essentially
have
the
same
dispersion
potential
and
would
be
ranked
by
their
toxicity.
In
this
case,
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
would
end
up
being
very
low
due
to
its
high
acute
toxicity
level
in
comparison
to
other
liquids.
EPA
notes
that
Hu
¨
ls'
comment
does
not
suggest
a
way
to
determine
a
relative
ranking
using
an
aerosol
form,
but
simply
argues
that
there
is
no
basis
for
a
TPQ
of
anything
less
than
the
maximum
of
10,000
pounds.
In
fact,
there
is
no
basis
for
a
TPQ
of
10,000
pounds
while
there
is
ample
toxicity
data
to
suggest
a
much
lower
TPQ.
EPA
acknowledges
that
releases
of
IPDI,
and
any
other
chemical
on
the
EHS
list,
will
not
always
result
in
an
offsite
consequence.
However,
since
the
requirement
under
EPCRA
section
302
is
for
facilities
to
be
included
in
the
local
preparedness
efforts,
the
level
of
effort
necessary
for
the
facility
to
comply
with
section
302
is
up
to
local
planners.
It
is
not
possible
for
EPA
to
determine
how
all
of
the
chemicals
on
the
EHS
list
will
behave
during
all
potential
processing
and
accidental
release
scenarios
(
including
the
chemical
being
involved
in
a
building
fire
or
explosion).
EPA
agrees
that
test
data
may
be
obtained
by
exposing
the
chemical
to
extreme
conditions,
however,
these
results
would
demonstrate
that
IPDI
can
be
toxic
under
certain
circumstances
at
relatively
low
concentration
levels.
TPQs
including
that
for
IPDI,
are
set
based
on
toxicity
and
ability
to
disperse,
relative
to
the
other
chemicals
on
the
EHS
list.
While
EPA
takes
toxicity
and
the
chemical's
ability
to
be
dispersed
into
account
in
determining
the
TPQ,
EPA
believes
the
actual
threat
of
off­
site
consequences
posed
by
the
actual
processing
conditions
at
the
facility
is
best
determined
at
the
local
level.
If
it
is
extremely
unlikely
that
chemicals
at
a
specific
facility
could
cause
off­
site
impacts,
the
local
community
may
request
little
effort
from
the
facility.
Site
specific
factors
(
including
whether
the
chemical
is
processed
under
high
pressures
and
temperatures)
can
be
discussed
at
this
level.
The
petitioner
has
also
argued
that
since
IPDI
is
manufactured
and
processed
in
closed
vessels
which
are
not
under
pressure,
there
is
virtually
no
likelihood
that
it
would
disperse
beyond
the
site
of
release.
EPA
disagrees.
Even
if
Hu
¨
ls'
America
does
manufacture
or
process
in
closed
vessels
which
are
not
under
pressure,
there
may
be
some
end
users
of
this
chemical
that
may
use
it
for
other
manufacturing
processes
which
may
be
at
high
pressure
or
temperature
or
the
closed
vessels
could
be
exposed
to
fire.
EPA
is
not
saying
that
the
TPQ
that
is
now
being
set
for
IPDI
(
500
pounds)
or
any
quantity
for
that
matter,
will
definitely
travel
off­
site
and
cause
major
consequences.
As
EPA
stated
in
the
April
1987
final
rule
and
the
technical
support
documents
supporting
that
rule,
TPQs
are
for
reporting
purposes
only,
in
other
words,
to
provide
information
to
local
planning
committees
to
focus
their
emergency
planning
and
response
efforts.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
Agency
considered
other
methods
for
the
development
of
the
threshold
planning
quantities.
After
considerable
analysis
and
review
of
public
comments
on
the
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
chose
to
develop
the
TPQs
using
a
relative
ranking
method
that
considers
the
toxicity
and
the
chemical's
ability
to
become
airborne.
The
other
methods
had
more
limitations
than
this
approach.
The
first
method
considered
involved
predicting
a
specific
quantity
for
each
chemical
that,
if
accidentally
released,
would
result
in
significant
acute
health
effects
at
a
fixed
distance
from
the
release
site.
However,
this
approach
is
affected
greatly
by
sitespecific
factors,
such
as
the
potential
release
scenario,
weather
and
dispersion
conditions,
and
processing
conditions.
Therefore,
the
Agency
decided
not
to
adopt
this
approach.
Another
method
that
the
Agency
considered
was
to
assign
categories
of
threshold
planning
quantities
to
groups
of
chemicals
ranked
by
their
toxicity.
As
noted
above,
those
chemicals
that
are
highly
toxic
(
such
as
IPDI)
and
relatively
non­
volatile
could
be
assigned
a
very
low
TPQ
while
a
slightly
less
toxic
but
volatile
substance
would
be
assigned
a
greater
TPQ.
Since
this
does
not
seem
appropriate
from
an
emergency
planning
and
preparedness
perspective,
the
Agency
rejected
this
approach.
One
last
method
considered
was
to
assign
a
default
quantity
of
2
pounds
for
each
EHS.
If
the
Agency
did
not
take
any
action
to
assign
a
TPQ
for
an
EHS,
the
statutory
threshold
of
2
pounds
would
have
been
effective.
Of
these
four
methods,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
relative
ranking
method
using
the
toxicity
of
the
chemical,
its
molecular
weight
and
boiling
point
to
rank
and
assign
a
threshold
planning
quantity,
was
the
most
appropriate.
For
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
each
of
these
methods,
see
the
November
17,
1986
interim
final
rule,
the
April
22,
1987
final
rule,
and
the
technical
support
documents.

V.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
the
Agency
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
11
Sep
05,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08SER2.
SGM
08SER2
52982
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
173
/
Monday,
September
8,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
It
has
been
determined
that
this
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
review.
This
action
affects
only
one
chemical
and
in
fact,
reduces
the
burden
on
those
facilities
that
handle
IPDI
in
small
quantities.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
This
action
does
not
impose
any
new
information
collection
burden.
This
final
rule
will
relieve
burden
for
some
facilities
that
handle
IPDI
in
small
quantities.
Currently,
the
threshold
planning
quantity
for
IPDI
is
100
pounds.
It
is
now
being
raised
to
500
pounds.
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
this
action
does
not
impose
any
new
information
collection
burden,
rather,
it
will
relieve
some
burden.
This
rule
will
not
provide
a
significant
amount
of
burden
reduction,
however,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
previously
approved
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
the
existing
regulations
40
CFR
Part
355
under
the
provisions
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
and
has
assigned
OMB
control
number
2050
 
0092,
(
EPA
ICR
No.
1395.05).
Copies
of
the
ICR
document(
s)
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby,
by
mail
at
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
Mail
Code
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
 
0001,
by
email
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http:/
/
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
Include
the
ICR
and
/
or
OMB
number
in
any
correspondence.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et.
seq,
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
rule
on
small
entities,
a
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
that
is
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
by
category
of
business
using
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
and
codified
at
13
CFR
121.201;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
forprofit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
action
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
This
action
will
relieve
some
small
entities
handling
IDPI
in
small
quantities.
In
determining
whether
a
rule
has
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
the
impact
of
concern
is
any
significant
adverse
economic
impact
on
small
entities,
since
the
primary
purpose
of
the
regulatory
flexibility
analyses
is
to
identify
and
address
regulatory
alternatives
``
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities.''
5
U.
S.
C.
603
and
604.
Thus,
an
agency
may
certify
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
if
the
rule
relieves
regulatory
burden,
or
otherwise
has
a
positive
economic
effect
on
all
of
the
small
entities
subject
to
the
rule.
The
revised
threshold
for
IDPI,
which
will
raise
it
from
100
pounds
to
500
pounds,
may
relieve
many
small
entities
that
handle
this
chemical
in
small
amounts
from
the
reporting
requirement.
We
have
therefore
concluded
that
this
rule
will
relieve
regulatory
burden
for
affected
small
entities.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
11
Sep
05,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08SER2.
SGM
08SER2
52983
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
173
/
Monday,
September
8,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
This
rule
will
provide
burden
relief,
and
doesn't
impose
additional
costs
to
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments,
or
to
the
private
sector.
Thus,
today's
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
EPA
also
has
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
The
rule
will
provide
burden
relief
to
regulated
entities.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
``
Federalism''
(
64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
state
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.''
This
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
states,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
states,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
This
rule
does
not
impose
a
substantial
economic
burden
on
state
and
local
governments,
nor
would
it
restrict
state
and
local
governments
from
establishing
other
more
stringent,
regulations.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
The
purpose
of
this
rule
is
to
correct
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
based
on
EPA's
existing
methodology.
This
rule
relieves
some
burden
on
the
local
governments
in
preparing
emergency
response
plans
since
fewer
facilities
may
be
now
subject
to
reporting
this
chemical.
This
action
does
not
prevent
any
state
governments
from
enforcing
more
stringent
standards
for
this
chemical.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
``
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.''
This
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effect
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
rule.
The
purpose
of
this
rule
is
to
correct
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
based
on
EPA's
existing
methodology.
This
rule
relieves
some
burden
on
tribal
governments
in
preparing
emergency
response
plans
since
fewer
facilities
may
be
now
subject
to
reporting
this
chemical.
This
action
does
not
prevent
tribal
governments
from
enforcing
more
stringent
standards
for
this
chemical.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
The
Executive
Order
13045,
entitled
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997),
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
Agency
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children;
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
(
a)
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
regulatory
action
as
defined
by
Executive
Order
12866
and
(
b)
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
do
not
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
EPA
is
not
modifying
its
methodology
for
establishing
threshold
planning
quantities.
The
Agency
is
correcting
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
based
on
its
existing
methodology.
Therefore,
this
action
does
not
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
As
previously
described,
the
TPQ
drives
a
reporting
requirement;
such
reporting
provides
chemical
hazard
information
for
emergency
preparedness
and
planning.
Raising
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
may
result
in
less
overall
reporting
information
for
IPDI.
However,
in
the
context
of
all
information
collected,
IPDI
information
will
be
properly
scaled
to
other
hazards
that
may
be
present
in
a
community
allowing
a
community
to
properly
focus
its
emergency
preparedness
and
planning
efforts
as
needed.
Therefore,
this
action
does
not
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.

H.
Executive
Order
13211
(
Energy
Effects)

This
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(
66
FR
28355
(
May
22,
2001))
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(
NTTAA),
Public
Law
104
 
113,
section
12(
d)
(
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note),
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices,
etc.)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
requires
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
This
final
rule
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
EPA
is
establishing
the
correct
TPQ
for
IPDI
using
existing
methodologies.
Therefore,
EPA
is
not
considering
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
11
Sep
05,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08SER2.
SGM
08SER2
52984
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
173
/
Monday,
September
8,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
J.
Executive
Order
12898:
Federal
Actions
To
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations
Executive
Order
12898
requires
that
each
Federal
agency
make
achieving
environmental
justice
part
of
its
mission
by
identifying
and
addressing,
as
appropriate,
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
or
environmental
effects
of
its
programs,
policies,
and
activities
on
minorities
and
low­
income
populations.
In
today's
action,
the
Agency
is
correcting
the
TPQ
for
IPDI
based
on
its
existing
methodology,
thereby
providing
burden
relief
to
those
facilities
that
handle
IPDI
in
small
quantities.
EPA
is
not
changing
its
methodology
for
establishing
threshold
planning
quantities.
Any
local
effects
must
be
considered
on
a
case­
bycase
basis
at
local
communities.
State
and
local
officials
will
continue
to
get
information
on
this
chemical
from
facilities,
but
can
better
focus
on
chemicals
that
are
more
hazardous.
Therefore,
this
particular
action
will
not
have
any
impact
on
any
minority
or
low­
income
populations.

K.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
Major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).
This
rule
will
be
effective
October
8,
2003.
List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
355
Environmental
Protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Chemicals,
Hazardous
substances,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
Superfund.

Dated:
September
2,
2003.
Marianne
Lamont
Horinko,
Acting
Administrator.


For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
part
355
of
title
40
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
355
 
EMERGENCY
PLANNING
AND
NOTIFICATION

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
355
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
11002,
11004,
and
11048.

Appendix
A
 
[
Amended]


2.
In
Appendix
A
the
table
is
amended
by
revising
the
entry
for
CAS
No.
``
4098
 
71
 
9''
(
chemical
name
 
Isophorone
Diisocyanate)
to
read
as
follows:

APPENDIX
A
TO
PART
355
 
THE
LIST
OF
EXTREMELY
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
AND
THEIR
THRESHOLD
PLANNING
QUANTITIES
[
Alphabetical
Order]

CAS
No.
Chemical
name
Notes
Reportable
quantity*
(
pounds)
Threshold
planning
quantity
(
pounds)

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4098
 
71
 
9
.........................................
Isophorone
Diisocyanate.
...............................................
.........
100
500
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


3.
In
Appendix
B
the
table
is
amended
by
revising
the
entry
for
CAS
No.
``
4098
 
71
 
9''
(
chemical
name
 
isophorone
diisocyanate)
to
read
as
follows:

APPENDIX
B
TO
PART
355
 
THE
LIST
OF
EXTREMELY
HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES
AND
THEIR
THRESHOLD
PLANNING
QUANTITIES
[
CAS
No.
Order]

CAS
No.
Chemical
name
Notes
Reportable
quantity*
(
pounds)
Threshold
planning
quantity
(
pounds)

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4098
 
71
 
9
.........................................
Isophorone
Diisocyanate.
...............................................
.........
100
500
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
22770
Filed
9
 
5
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
U
VerDate
jul<
14>
2003
15:
11
Sep
05,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
08SER2.
SGM
08SER2
