Redefinition of the Glycol Ethers Category Under Section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act and Section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63 and 302

[FRL-6216-8]

RIN 2060-AI08

Redefinition of the Glycol Ethers Category Under Section

112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act and Section 101 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed rule, upon promulgation, will amend the Clean Air

Act (CAA) list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in section 112(b)(1).

Under section 112(b)(3)(D), EPA may delete specific substances from

listed categories. This proposed rule modifies the definition of the

glycol ethers category in a manner to exclude each of the compounds

known as surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives (SAED).

This delisting action is being proposed by EPA in response to an

analysis of potential exposure and hazards of SAED that was prepared by

the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA) and submitted to EPA. Based on

this information, EPA has made an initial determination that there are

adequate data on the health and environmental effects of these

substances to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations,

bioaccumulation, or deposition of these substances may not reasonably

be anticipated to cause adverse human health or environmental effects.

By today's document, EPA is also proposing to make conforming changes

in the definition of glycol ethers with respect to designation of

hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

DATES: Written comments must be received by EPA on or before March 15,

1999. The EPA will hold a public hearing if EPA receives a written

request for such a hearing on or before February 11, 1999. If a hearing

is requested in a timely manner, EPA will publish an additional

document in the Federal Register advising interested persons of the

date, time, and location of the hearing. Moreover, if a hearing is

held, EPA will keep the record open for 30 days after such hearing to

receive rebuttal or supplementary information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments on both of the proposed actions discussed

in this notice should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to the

EPA's Air and Radiation and Information Docket (6101), Attention Docket

Number A-98-39, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Docket. Docket No. A-98-39, which

includes a copy of the submission by the SDA, and an EPA analysis of

that submission, will be available for inspection and copying between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the EPA's Air and Radiation

and Information Docket, Room M1500, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Roy L. Smith, Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-

15), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; (919) 541-5362.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Listing and Delisting of HAP

Section 112 of the CAA contains a mandate for EPA to evaluate and

control emissions of HAP. Section 112(b)(1) includes an initial list of

HAP that is composed of specific chemical compounds and groups of

compounds. This list is used to identify source categories for which

the EPA will subsequently promulgate emissions standards.

Section 112(b)(2) requires EPA to conduct periodic reviews of the

initial list of HAP set forth in section 112(b)(1) and outlines

criteria to be applied in deciding whether to add or delete particular

substances. Section 112(b)(2) identifies pollutants that should be

added to the list as:

* * * pollutants which present, or may present, through

inhalation or other routes of exposure, a threat of adverse human

health effects (including, but not limited to, substances which are

known to be, or may reasonably be anticipated to be, carcinogenic,

mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, which cause reproductive

dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse

environmental effects whether through ambient concentrations,

bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise * * *

Section 112(b)(3) establishes general requirements for petitioning

EPA to modify the HAP list by adding or deleting a substance. In

general, the burden is on a petitioner to include sufficient

information to support the requested addition or deletion under the

substantive criteria set forth in section 112(b)(3)(B) and (C). The

Administrator must either grant or deny a petition within 18 months of

receipt. If the Administrator decides to grant a petition, the Agency

publishes a written explanation of the Administrator's decision, along

with a proposed rule to add or delete the substance. If the

Administrator decides to deny the petition, the Agency publishes a

written explanation of the basis for denial. A decision to deny a

petition is final Agency action subject to review in the D.C. Circuit

Court of Appeals under section 307(b).

To promulgate a final rule deleting a substance from the HAP list,

section 112(b)(3)(C) provides that the Administrator must determine

that:

* * * there is adequate data on the health and environmental

effects of the substance to determine that emissions, ambient

concentrations, bioaccumulation, or deposition of the substance may

not reasonably be anticipated to cause any adverse effects to the

human health or adverse environmental effects.

The EPA will grant a petition to delete a substance and publish a

proposed rule to delete that substance if it makes an initial

determination that this criterion has been met. After affording an

opportunity for comment and for a hearing, EPA will make a final

determination whether the criterion has been met.

The Administrator may also act to add or delete a substance on her

own initiative. In this instance, the EPA has been engaged in a

substantive dialogue with the SDA, a national trade association

representing manufacturers of cleaning products and ingredients,

concerning the toxicity of and exposure to SAED, a group of compounds

which is within the current definition of the glycol ethers category as

listed in section 112(b)(1). At the request of EPA, the SDA compiled

information on this class of compounds needed by EPA to apply the

statutory criteria for delisting under section 112(b)(3). The SDA

submitted the resulting report to EPA. Although the SDA has elected not

to formally petition EPA to delete SAED compounds from the HAP list,

EPA has made an initial determination based on the SDA report that the

statutory criteria for delisting SAED are satisfied, and is, therefore,

issuing this proposal.

EPA does not interpret section 112(b)(3)(C) to require absolute

certainty that a pollutant will not cause adverse effects on human

health or the environment before it may be deleted

[[Page 1781]]

from the list. The use of the terms ``adequate'' and ``reasonably''

indicate that the Agency must weigh the potential uncertainties and

their likely significance. Uncertainties concerning the risk of adverse

health or environmental effects may be mitigated if EPA can determine

that projected exposures are sufficiently low to provide reasonable

assurance that such adverse effects will not occur. Similarly,

uncertainties concerning the magnitude of projected exposures may be

mitigated if EPA can determine that the levels which might cause

adverse health or environmental effects are sufficiently high to

provide reasonable assurance that exposures will not reach harmful

levels.

II. EPA Analysis of the SDA Submission

The SDA contended that the present definition of glycol ethers

adopted by Congress in section 112(b)(1) was incorporated verbatim from

the definition of glycol ethers utilized in section 313 of the

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C.

11023. The SDA noted that EPA subsequently modified the definition of

glycol ethers under EPCRA to exclude SAED compounds (59 FR 34386, July

5, 1994), and requested that EPA make a conforming change in the CAA

list. EPA has responded that the substantive criteria for deleting

chemicals under EPCRA section 313(d) are materially different than the

criteria for deleting a hazardous pollutant under section 112(b)(3). It

is EPA's view that, whatever the origins of the glycol ethers

definition in section 112(b)(1), EPA cannot redefine the glycol ethers

category to exclude particular compounds without making a substantive

determination that such compounds meet the applicable criteria for HAP

delisting. Under section 112(3)(D), EPA may delete specific substances

included in certain listed categories without a Chemical Abstract

Service number, including the glycol ethers category.

Although the SDA does not necessarily agree with EPA that deletion

of individual compounds is the only manner in which EPA may adopt the

requested redefinition of the glycol ethers category, the SDA agreed to

assist EPA in this effort by collecting information concerning SAED

compounds that would enable EPA to make a substantive assessment of

potential risks under section 112(b)(3). On April 25, 1997, the SDA

submitted to EPA a report entitled ``Exposure Assessment Undertaken to

Support the Evaluation of the HAP Definition `Glycol Ethers'.''

Surfactant alcohol ethoxylates and their derivatives comprise a

group of compounds that, individually, satisfy the following

definition:

R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR'

Where:

n = 1, 2, or 3;

R = alkyl C8 or greater

R'= any group

Rather than asking the SDA to compile an exhaustive list of each

specified SAED compound, EPA requested that the SDA undertake a generic

analysis of the potential toxicity of, and potential exposure to, SAED

compounds as a group. EPA requested that the analysis be based to the

extent possible on worst-case assumptions which could be deemed to be

conservative with respect to each and every individual compound in the

SAED group. Such an approach to delisting would normally be

impracticable due to the likelihood that use of such extreme

assumptions would greatly exaggerate the magnitude of potential risks.

In this instance, such an approach was considered practical only

because of assertions by the SDA that SAED compounds present both very

low potential toxicity and very limited exposure potential.

The report submitted by the SDA presented estimates of both the

potential exposure to, and potential toxicity of, SAED compounds. The

principal emissions estimate in the report was based on a hypothetical

facility using 600 million pounds per year of SAED, a figure coinciding

with the total annual domestic production of Shell Chemical Company,

the largest SAED manufacturer. The report then conservatively estimated

emissions for this hypothetical facility associated with the storage

and transmission, processing, and fugitive releases of the SAED

compounds.

Emissions of SAED from raw materials during storage and handling

were estimated by assuming emissions of a total volume of air, fully

saturated with SAED, equal to the total volume of liquid SAED. This

estimate was based, in turn, on the vapor pressure of the lowest

molecular weight compound in the SAED category, although typical SAED

compounds have greater molecular weight and substantially lower

volatility. Additional SAED emissions from manufacture of SAED

compounds and formulation of other products containing SAED were

estimated by making assumptions concerning the effect on emissions of

increased temperatures and ventilation rates and reduced SAED

concentrations in the finished products. Finally, an estimate of

fugitive emissions was calculated from the estimated point source

emissions by applying a proportionality factor derived from reported

emissions for all glycol ethers in the EPA Toxics Release Inventory

database, although it is likely that the proportion of total emissions

attributable to fugitive releases would be much less for SAED compounds

than for the lower molecular weight glycol ethers. This analysis

produced an aggregate emissions rate for the hypothetical facility of

105 pounds of SAED per year.

Exposures at the fence line for the hypothetical facility were then

estimated using the SCREEN3 dispersion model and the calculated

aggregate emissions rate, based on a variety of assumptions concerning

terrain, stack height and configuration, and distance to the fence

line. The predicted annual average SAED concentration associated with

an emissions rate of 105 pounds/year was 0.03 micrograms of SAED per

cubic meter of air for a ``representative'' facility and 97.3

micrograms per cubic meter for a ``hypothetical worst-case'' facility.

The SDA submission also summarized the available toxicity data on

SAED compounds. There have been few acute and no subchronic inhalation

studies utilizing SAED compounds. Available animal study data do not

indicate any adverse effects at air concentrations up to those produced

by full saturation with SAED vapors. Acute toxicity has been

demonstrated only when animals inhaled undiluted SAED in the form of a

respirable aerosol. In one 10-day repeated inhalation study, test

animals exhibited local respiratory irritation. Long-term animal

studies of SAED administered by the oral or dermal routes have not

reported any significant effects such as skin sensitization,

reproductive or developmental toxicity, genetic mutations, or cancer.

Evidence on the toxic potential of glycol ethers as a group strongly

suggests that toxic potency decreases as molecular weight increases.

Therefore, SAED (which have high molecular weight) are likely to be

substantially less toxic than lighter glycol ether compounds for which

more complete toxicity data are available.

There is no verified or proposed reference concentration (RfC) for

any SAED compound. The SDA developed a proposed ``key exposure index''

for chronic exposure to SAED compounds based on the subchronic RfC for

2-methoxy-1-propanol (MP), a structurally similar compound which also

has no demonstrated systemic toxicity by

[[Page 1782]]

inhalation. Two-methoxy-1-propanol has a lower molecular weight (90

grams per mole) than the lightest SAED compound (ethylene glycol octyl

ether, 174 grams per mole). Therefore, MP is expected to be more toxic

than any SAED compound, and its use as a surrogate should be

conservative.

The SDA's analysis began with the subchronic RfC for MP, then

reduced it by a factor of 10 to account for the differences between

subchronic effects and chronic effects, and by an additional factor of

between 1 and 10 to account for the use of data for a structurally

related compound. This resulted in a proposed concentration range of

0.2 to 2.0 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) at which no

adverse effects would be expected in human populations, including

sensitive individuals. The SDA's proposed concentration range is

approximately 1,000 to 10,000 times lower than the acutely toxic level

for inhalation in rats. It is also approximately 1,000 to 10,000 times

greater than the exposure estimated by the SDA for a ``representative''

facility and 2 to 20 times greater than the estimated exposure for a

``hypothetical worst-case'' facility.

The proposed chronic no-effect concentration range for SAED of 0.2

to 2.0 mg/m3 is also consistent with chronic RfCs available

from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) for lower-

molecular weight, non-SAED glycol ethers (i.e., 0.2 mg/m3

for 2-ethoxyethanol and 0.09 mg/m3 for 2-methoxyethanol

acetate). A third IRIS assessment will shortly be proposed for 2-

butoxyethanol, in which EPA expects to include an RfC in the range of

10 to 70 mg/m3. The SDA's analysis has, therefore, treated

SAED as if they were as toxic as much lighter glycol ether compounds,

which EPA considers to be unlikely.

Although the SDA document does not include a discussion of levels

of SAED that would be protective of non-human species, the toxicity

data used to support the health impact assessment were obtained from

animal studies. The derivation of human no-effect levels from these

animal data, appropriately adjusted for uncertainty, should be

protective of non-human animal species as well. Overall, there is no

evidence to suggest that any species or any ecosystem would be harmed

by any exposure below the SAED no-effect level proposed for humans.

Based on the SDA submission as a whole, EPA believes that the

available data on potential exposure to, and toxicity of, SAED

compounds are considerably more limited than would normally be

necessary to support the findings required by section 112(b)(3) before

EPA may delete a substance from the HAP list. However, there is a

sufficiently large discrepancy between the maximum predicted exposure

level for these compounds based on plausible worst-case assumptions and

the lowest concentration likely to present any potential risk of

adverse effects to compensate for the paucity of the data. The

conservative techniques used by the SDA in its submission, which tend

to overestimate both exposure to and toxicity of SAED, are appropriate

in the context of the limited data which are available on SAED

compounds.

Unlike the SDA, EPA does not believe that the process by which

Congress adopted the current definition of glycol ethers in section

112(b)(1) can be construed as relieving EPA of the obligation to apply

the statutory criteria before deleting any substance included in the

present definition. Nevertheless, it is important to observe that there

is no evidence suggesting that the current broader definition of glycol

ethers was adopted because of any actual concerns regarding the

potential hazards of SAED compounds. EPA believes that the absence of

any discernable affirmative rationale for the initial inclusion of SAED

compounds in the statutory HAP list, while not dispositive in itself,

lends additional support to the Agency's conclusion that the available

evidence supports deletion of these compounds.

Based on the available information, EPA has made an initial

determination, with respect to each and every individual substance

which satisfies the definition of SAED compounds set forth above, that

there is adequate data on the health and environmental effects of those

substances to determine that emissions, ambient concentrations,

bioaccumulation or deposition of the substances may not reasonably be

anticipated to cause adverse human health or environmental effects. As

such, EPA is proposing to effectuate this determination by redefining

the entire glycol ethers category in a manner which excludes each of

the deleted substances.

III. Proposed Revision of CERCLA Designation

When a HAP is listed under section 112 of the CAA, it is also

defined as a hazardous substance under section 101(14) of CERCLA, 42

U.S.C. 9601(14). In an April 4, 1985 final rule, under its authority in

section 102(a) of CERCLA, EPA designated and listed, in the table at 40

CFR 302.4, all the elements and compounds and hazardous wastes

incorporated as hazardous substances by reference to other

environmental statutes under section 101(14)(see 50 FR 13456). In a

June 12, 1995 final rule, EPA revised Table 302.4 to add, among other

HAP newly listed by the 1990 CAA Amendments, the broad generic category

of glycol ethers (see 60 FR 30926). The EPA designated the broad

generic category of glycol ethers as hazardous under CERCLA based

solely on its inclusion in the CAA HAP list. The Agency has no

independent basis upon which to retain the current definition of the

glycol ethers category in order to include the SAED compounds as CERCLA

hazardous substances. Therefore, should the definition of glycol ethers

in the HAP list in the CAA be amended as proposed in today's

rulemaking, the Agency is also proposing to make a corresponding change

to the list of CERCLA hazardous substances at 40 CFR Part 302, Table

302.4.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Today's proposed actions do not meet the definition of

``significant regulatory action'' as set forth in Executive Order

(E.O.) 12866 and are, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). The E.O. 12886 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 E.O.

Although EPA is not aware of any adverse effects associated with

the present inclusion of SAED compounds on the CAA HAP and the CERCLA

hazardous substance lists, the effect of the proposed rules will be to

reduce potential regulatory obligations. There are no identifiable

adverse effects associated with either of the proposed rules. Neither

of the proposed rules meets any of the criteria enumerated above, and

EPA, therefore, has determined that neither of these actions

[[Page 1783]]

constitutes a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of E.O.

12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., OMB must clear any reporting and recordkeeping requirements that

qualify as an ``information collection request'' under PRA. Neither of

the proposed rules in this notice contain any new information

collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires that a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis be performed for proposed rules that potentially

have ``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.''

Small entities are small businesses, organizations, and governmental

jurisdictions.

Present Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines indicate that an

economic impact should be considered significant if it meets one of the

following criteria: (1) Compliance increases annual production costs by

more than 5 percent, assuming costs are passed on to consumers; (2)

compliance costs as a percentage of sales for small entities are at

least 10 percent more than compliance costs as a percentage of sales

for large entities; (3) capital costs of compliance represent a

``significant'' portion of capital available to small entities,

considering internal cash flow plus external financial capabilities; or

(4) regulatory requirements are likely to result in closure of small

entities.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify

that neither of the proposed rules, if promulgated, will have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.

L. 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. Neither of the proposed rules in

this document contain any Federal mandate (under the regulatory

provisions of title II of UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments

or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13045

The E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997) requires EPA rulemaking that involves decisions on environmental

health risks or safety risks to consider whether such risks may

disproportionately affect children. Toxicological data used to support

this proposed rule were obtained from animal studies. Estimated human

no-effect levels were derived by applying an intraspecies uncertainty

factor designed to protect children and other sensitive members of

human populations. EPA anticipates that, in the absence of studies of

exposed children, that this uncertainty factor will adequately protect

the entire human population, including children.

F. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local

or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments because it will result in no

increase either in air pollution or reporting requirements.

Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 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, and business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA

to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus

standards.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

Air pollution control, Chemicals, Glycol ethers.

40 CFR Part 302

Hazardous substances, Chemicals, Glycol ethers.

Dated: December 30, 1998.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that title

40, chapter I, parts 63 and 302 of the Code of Federal Regulations be

amended as follows:

[[Page 1784]]

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. Part 63, subpart C is amended by adding Sec. 63.61 to read as

follows:

Sec. 63.61 Redefinition of glycol ethers listed as hazardous air

pollutants.

The definition of the glycol ethers category of hazardous air

pollutants, as established by 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(1) includes mono- and

di-ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and triethylene glycol

R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR'

Where:

n= 1, 2, or 3

R= alkyl C7 or less, or phenyl or alkyl substituted phenyl

R'= H, or alkyl C7 or less, or carboxylic acid ester,

sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, or sulfonate.

PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION

1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and

1361.

Sec. 302.4 [Amended]

2. In Sec. 302.4, footnote d to Table 302.4 is revised to read as

follows:

* * * * *

d Includes mono- and di-ethers of ethylene glycol,

diethylene glycol, and triethylene glycol R-

(OCH2CH2)n-OR'

where:

n= 1, 2, or 3

R= alkyl C7 or less, or phenyl or alkyl substituted

phenyl

R'= H, or alkyl C7 or less, or carboxylic acid ester,

sulfate, phosphate, nitrate, or sulfonate.

[FR Doc. 99-323 Filed 1-11-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P