Document zz10Eq95Gbb3wp7KZR0qEker6

Si SPECIAL PROGRAMS Volume 3, No. 1 March 1986 EVERYTHING YOU (AND EPA) ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR CHEMICAL From birth to death . . . EPA has authority through the Toxic Sub stances Control Act to require recordkeeping and reporting on the commercial life cycle of chemicals. Manufacture, processing, distribu tion, use and disposal -- all fall under this information gathering watchful eye. What use is all this information? It forms the basis for regulatory considerations under TSCA, and soon may have a wider impact on other regulatory acts. It makes sense, then, to be aware of Section 8, the information col lection part of TSCA, and to under stand your company's responsibil ities for reporting. (The five subsections of Section 8 are sum marized in the box on the next page.) Just as important, you should stay alert to some new developments that may affect Section 8 and you. When EPA activated Section 8(b) in 1977, the goal was to compile a list of chemicals manufactured or pro cessed in the U.S. The Agency's first action was to issue a Section 8(a) rule, called The Preliminary Information Assessment Rule, de signed to gather basic information on plant sites and production volume. The outcome was the TSCA Inventory of Chemicals in Commerce. The Inventory was, and continues to be, important because it forms the basis lor determining whether a chemical is in commerce, and is considered an "existing chemi- " IN THIS ISSUE Everything You and EPA Always Wanted to Know About Your Chemical ... 1 Does Your Biocide Like California? .................... 4 SPOTLIGHT: Glycol Ethers. . 4 News Briefs................................. 6 New Programs................................10 People...............................................11 Recent Releases Federal Register Notices...................................12 Special Programs Comments ...................................... 12 Final Report........................... 13 Upcoming Events ......................... 13 cal." If a chemical is not listed in the Inventory, it is considered a "new chemical." A Premanufacture Notice is required before commercial production can begin. New chemicals are added to the Inventory after the PMN has been favorably reviewed by , ;----- EPA and the chemical is in manufac- ture. BOR 007583 EMIOAl MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 252 ` V yASMiNGTCN CC 20337 2O2'e07 1 1 GO f3 I_Tl *********************************************************************** ** * SUMMARY OF * * EPA INFORMATION GATHERING AUTHORITY * * UNDER * * TSCA SECTION 8 * ** ** * Subsection * Purpose * * * (a) * * * * * * to require maintenance and submission of records and reports on a chemical and its life cycle as EPA, "may reasonably require," Includes chemical Identity, uses or proposed uses, manufacturing and processing volume, number of individuals exposed and means of disposal; * * * * * * * * (b) * * to direct EPA to compile a list of chemicals manufactured or processed in the U.S.; * * * * (c) * * * * to require companies to keep records of allega tions of significant adverse reactions caused by chemicals to health and the environment, and upon request, to submit these records to EPA; * * * * * * (d) * * to require submission of unpublished health and safety studies; and, * * * * (e) * * * to require immediate notification of EPA when information on a chemical indicates a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. * * * * ** ** *********************************************************************** BOR 007584 A problem: Although the Inventory itself has continued to be impor tant, the original information gath ered in 1978 is less useful as it becomes more out of date. To provide current data on plant sites, production volume, and use of chemicals, EPA proposed an Inven tory Update Rule in March 1985. The Agency expects to issue the final rule this spring, with report ing due about six months after publication. Thus, most companies should prepare to submit production information in response to this rulemaking. Subsequent to initial reporting, the Inventory Update Rule will also require reporting every other year if a significant change in production volume or site-limited status of a chemical has occurred. In 1982, EPA issued final rules under Sections 8(a) and 8(d). This Section 8(a) rule required more detailed information than the earlier Inventory Rule, and re quested basic information on man ufacture, classes of uses, potential exposures and environmental re leases. The Rule has been used mostly to provide information on chemicals nominated for testing by the Interagency Testing Committee. The ITC is an inter-agency group established under TSCA Section 4 to identify commercial chemicals lacking sufficient test data for regulatory consideration. The Section 8(d) rule required manufacturers, processors, and distributors of chemicals to search their files and submit unpublished health and safety studies on chemi cals listed under the rule. Like the Section 8(a) rule, this rule has mostly been used for chemicals nominated by the ITC. Recently, however, EPA issued a Section 8(d) rule for chemicals under review in the Office of Solid Waste. We may see more intra-agency use of Sec tion 8(a) and 8(d) in the future. Because these rules give EPA important information for responses to the ITC, the Agency established a mechanism that triggers Sections 8(a) and 8(d) when the ITC recom mends or designates a chemical. You therefore should stay alert to ITC actions not only because of the testing implications under Section 4, but also because of the rapid reporting requirements under Section 8. A new development: EPA recently advanced a new concept for an information-gathering rule under Section 8(a) -- the Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (CAIR). (See this Newsletter, Recent Releases section). The objective is to establish a model rule containing a comprehensive set of questions on all phases of a chemical's life cycle. Once this model is established, EPA would simply indicate chemicals and perti nent questions for the issue at hand. The questions that EPA plans to include in the model are drawn from several EPA programs, and even from other agencies. CAIR is one of the most comprehen sive programs ever planned to collect information on chemicals. While industry has endorsed efforts to achieve more efficient chemical data collection, there is concern that for CAIR, EPA does not have appropriate mechanisms in place to coordinate data requests among its various offices and with other federal agencies. Without such coordination, industry may be subject to duplicate reporting requirements. CMA has stressed these concerns in comments and meetings with EPA. EPA plans to issue a proposed rule this spring. CMA and other associations are following the developments closely and interacting with EPA whenever possible. [Article contributed by R. Garrity Baker, Associate Director, Health, Safety & Chemical Regulations] BOR 0 0 7 5 8 5 DOES YOUR BIOCIDE LIKE CALIFORNIA? On January 31, the California Department of Food and Agricul- ture issued a Data Call-In Notice on over 700 biocidal chemicals registered in the state. The Notice requires that registrants submit data on chronic toxicity, oncogenicity, reproductive effects, teratogenicity, mutagen icity and neurotoxicity. This Data Call-In Notice was issued in accordance with the Birth De fects Prevention Act of 1984 (SB-950). CMA estimates that the cost to those companies producing biocides registered in the State of California, who do not have any of the requested data, could run about $1.5 to 2.0 million per chemical to develop such data. Faced with this enormous bur den , several representatives of biocide-producing companies met at CMA on March 18 to discuss the possibility of forming a Biocide Producers Group to develop a coordinated industry response. Approximately 25 companies were represented at the meeting. Representatives of the National Agricultural Chemicals Associ ation and American Wood Pre servers Institute also were present. It was generally agreed at the meeting that in order to be effective in the state of California, a coordinated industry response is essential. All companies present at the meeting indicated an interest in joining the group. Regulatory, legislative, and technical approaches, as well as litigation, will be explored by the group as means of reducing the impact of the Data Call-In Notices. CMA has retained services of a law firm, Steptoe and Johnson, to help in developing an industry strategy. The deadlines for response to California are April 1, June 1, and August 1, 1986. Contact Dr. Has Shah at (202) 887-1192 if your company is impacted by this regulation and is interested in joining the CMA Biocide Producers group. H. Shah/R. Alvarado SPOTLIGHT: GLYCOL ETHERS This is the second of a series, highlighting the activities of various Special Programs. Six years ago, U.S. producers of ethylene glycol ethers -- a large group of chemicals used in such products as paints, coat ings, finishes, household clean ers, resins, and brake fluids -- formed the Glycol Ethers Pro gram under the CMA umbrella. The original goals of the group were to: develop an adequate toxicology data base; provide information to users and govern ment agencies on the safety of the compounds; and, promote scientifically sound regulatory action. The Panel has met these goals and continues to build on its accomplishments. One of the first tasks undertaken by the Panel was the identification and prioritization of research needs. The outcome was Panel sponsor ship of a series of developmental toxicity and 13-week subchronic studies on several members of the ethylene series 2-methoxyethanol (EM); 2-ethoxyethanol (EE) and its acetate; 2-butoxy ethanol (EB) and diethylene glycol monomethyl ether (DGME). BOR 007586 The subchronic studies examined the effects of glycol ethers on various biological endpoints. Developmental toxicity (terato logy) studies looked at the effects of the compounds on the maternal animal and developing fetus. Test animals included rats, rabbits and mice. Of particular interest in the subchronic studies was the fact that both EM and EE produced some testicular effects in male rabbits. It was also found that EM, EE, and EEA were all devel opmental toxins, although there was variation among test species and considerable differences in the dose levels at which the effects were observed. EM was the most potent teratogen, producing effects in rabbits at 50 ppm. EB and DGME caused embryotoxicity at relatively high dose levels but neither compound produced fetal malformations. All final research reports were made public and submitted to appropriate government agencies. Given the outcomes of the studies, producers alerted their customers to the effects associ ated with animal testing, ad vocated precautions to ensure safe handling of these materials, and lowered internal standards for workplace exposure. Review of the data by EPA resulted in the entry of EM, EE and their acetates into the Agency's Existing Chemicals Program and the publication of an ANPR in January 1984. In this notice, the EPA sought comment on use and benefits, exposure, substitutes, and toxicity. The Glycol Ethers Panel filed extensive comments in response to the notice. It was thought that EPA would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking last year, retaining regulatory authority over minor trade and consumer uses of the glycol ethers, and transferring regulation of major industrial uses to OSHA under Section 9 of TSCA. However, EPA recently decided to refer all trade and industrial uses to OSHA. The referral is expected to occur this summer. Meanwhile, EPA's Test Rules Development Branch has under consideration for testing under TSCA Section 4, diethylene glycol butyl ether (DGBE) and its acetate (DGBA), and three triethylene glycol butyl ethers (TGEs). EPA has publicly announced its intention to propose health effects testing on DGBE and extensive testing on the TGEs. (Data submitted by the Panel convinced the Agency that testing of DGBA was unneces sary, given the rapid conversion in biological systems of DGBA to the parent ether.) NPRs are expected within the next 3-4 months. Presently, the Panel is preparing to respond to both EPA NPRs. In order to better evaluate the need for testing all three TGEs, the Panel is sponsoring a series of studies which will compare the performance and toxicity of the compounds under certain test conditions. Included in the test program are: 1) an in vitro skin absorption study; 2) a develop mental toxicity screen; and, 3) a dermal limit test in rabbits. Consideration is also being given to further tests which may obviate the need for a final Test Rule or reduce considei*ably the BOR 007587 scope of EPA's testing require ments. Over the years, the focus of the Glycol Ethers Panel's activities has shifted from research to regulation and, at the moment, back to research needs. The overall objective remains to work together in providing a sound scientific basis for the safe handling and regulation of this very important class of chemi cals . C. Stack HEWS BRIEFS EPA PROPOSES NEW REPORTING OH DIOXINS/DIBENZOFURANS (Washington, December 19) EPA issued proposed testing and reporting requirements for chemicals that may be contam inated with dibenzodioxins and/or dibenzofurans. The proposal requires the submission of detailed production, process, use, exposure and disposal information by manufacturers of chemicals that have been tested and found to contain trace quantities of the contaminants. Similar information is required from manufacturers of chemicals made from a list of 12 designated precursor chemicals. The pre cursor chemicals are not believed themselves to be contaminated, but can during further proces sing, and under certain reaction conditions, lead to formation of dioxins and dibenzofurans as contaminants in other chemicals. The EPA proposal includes many firsts including a requirement to submit allegations of significant adverse reactions to any dioxins and furans. The processing information requested by EPA is very de tailed. The Dioxins/Furans Report Form developed by EPA requires a description of pro cessing conditions and process chemistry to determine whether there is a likelihood of contam ination. In establishing control regulations, EPA intends to evaluate processes and process conditions to ensure that a method is available to produce a "clean" chemical. The Dibenzofurans/Dibenzo dioxins Panel submitted comments in response to the proposed rule and Dr. Kenneth Burgess, the Panel Chairman, testified at the public hearing. The Panel's comments were principally fo cused on the test requirements rather than on reporting re quirements . PHTHALATE ESTERS PANEL BRIEFS NSF (Ann Arbor, December 10) The Phthalate Esters Panel met with the National Sanitation Founda tion to discuss the status of the NSF approval process. NSF is reevaluating whether to continue approving use of DEHP and other phthalates in food service equipment and rigid pipe. At the meeting. Dr. Eugene Barber of Eastman Kodak Com pany presented the toxicity data on phthalate esters, and Dr. James Mietire of Monsanto Com pany discussed factors to con sider in analyzing DEHP. Dr. Joseph Rodricks of Environ Corporation described the tox icity data on DEHP and present ed a risk assessment. He dis cussed "safe" doses of DEHP that could be used in NSF applications. NSF will develop standards for all chemicals, including BOR 007588 phthalates, that are us d in pipe. The Panel plans to con tinue interactions with NSF scientists to help the decisions on appropriate levels of phtha lates in pertinent applications. PRODUCERS RECEIVE CLEAN AIR ACT LETTERS (Washington, January 6) EPA has sent Clean Air Act, Section 114 letters to ethylene oxide, 1,3-butadiene, and ethylene dichloride producers. The Letters request "short-term" (intermittent) emissions informa tion. The Ethylene Oxide In dustry Council, Butadiene Panel and Ethylene Dichloride Panel are working with EPA in an attempt to quantify releases. EHA PANEL REEMPHASIZES NO EXPOSURE POSITION (Washington, January 17) The Ethylhexanoic Acid Panel filed supplemental comments on EPA's proposed test rule on EHA, (See this Newsletter, Recent Releases section.) The comments include results of a survey conducted by Temple, Barker and Sloane in which all users of EHA participated. The survey responses show that dermal contact (the basis for the pro posed rule) is practically non existent. The Panel feels that such contact therefore does not justify testing under Section 4 of TSCA. The supplemental comments also discuss the use of EPA's expo sure assessment guides in esti mating accidental exposure to EHA. A review of toxicity data and an expansion of the Panel's alternative proposals for pharma cokinetics testing are additionally included. The EPA should publish its decision regarding testing by September 1986. PHTHALATE ESTERS PANEL UPDATES EPA ON TESTING (Washington, January 22) The Phthalate Esters Panel met with the Test Rules Development Branch of EPA to discuss the Panel's health effects testing program. The purpose of the meeting was to update EPA on the status of the program and to begin a dialogue to determine whether additional testing is needed. The program, which involves testing eight phthalate esters representing the fourteen commercially significant phtha lates, was part of a Negotiated Testing Agreement accepted by EPA in 1982. Under the agree ment, the esters were tested for genotoxicity in a battery of tests, and in a 21-day feeding study which focused on liver effects. The goal was to deter mine whether these phthalate esters are likely to cause effects similar to di-2-ethylhexyl phtha late (DEHP) which causes liver tumors in rodents at high dose levels. At the meeting, Dr. Eugene Barber of Eastman Kodak Com pany presented genotoxicity data which show that DEHP, its major metabolites, and the eight phtha late esters are not genotoxic. Dr. Robert Short of Monsanto Company discussed speci s differences in the metabolism of DEHP. Rodents and primates differ significantly in the produc tion of two metabolites which may be involved in peroxisome produc tion or metabolism. (Peroxisomes are organelles in liver cells which metabolize long chain fatty acids.) DEHP causes an in crease in the number of peroxi somes which, in turn, may be responsible for the tumor re sponse in the rodent lifetime studies. Mr. Art Lington of Exxon Corporation then reviewed bor 007589 the peroxisome literature for EPA. Following the scientific presen tations, Dr. Haines Lockhart of Eastman Kodak Company, Chair man of the Toxicology Research Task Group, discussed the overall status of the studies. He indicated that the testing should be completed and data sent to EPA by the end of February. The TRTG and EPA will then evaluate the data and conclude whether further testing is necessary. If additional testing is warranted, the Panel and EPA will explore use of the consent order mechanism. CPSC PURSUES VOLUNTARY STANDARD FOR DEHP (Washington, January 29) The Phthalate Esters Panel attended a meeting between the Toy Man ufacturers of America and the Consumer Product Safety Com mission to consider future uses of DEHP in children's products. The Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel, an independent peer review group appointed by the Commission, had released a report which evaluated the safety of DEHP in these products (see December Newsletter). Following release of the report, the Commission staff recom mended that the Commissioners explore the feasibility of a voluntary standard for DEHP. The TMA informed CPSC that most manufacturers have discon tinued using DEHP in pacifiers. Nevertheless, TMA indicated its willingness to develop a volun tary standard which will limit more formally the use of DEHP in pacifiers. The January 29 meeting was held to discuss with TMA and other interested parties the feasibility of a standard. Currently, it appears that this standard will be an addendum to the ASTM Toy Standard. TMA will present a full proposal to the Commission by the end of March. The Panel will continue to monitor the TMA/CPSC activities. KETONES PANEL ADDRESSES MESITYL OXIDE RULE (Washington, February 3) EPA's Final Test Rule on Mesityl Oxide was published, thereby impacting producers of MO who are mem bers of the Ketones Panel. (See this Newsletter, Recent Releases section.) The Rule applies to all manufacturers and processors of the chemical including formulators of pesticides containing MO as an inert ingredient. Concurrent with the appearance of the Rule was a Notice of Proposed Test Standards applica ble to the testing requirements. (See this Newsletter, Recent Releases section.) The Panel submitted comments on the proposed standards to EPA on February 28. Testing will not begin until EPA finalizes the test standards in 4-5 months. In the interim, the Panel will seek judicial review of the Rule, challenging the applicability to companies that only manufacture MO as a non-isolated intermediate and disputing EPA's finding that exposure to MO may present an unreasonable health risk. The Panel is also exploring other means to facilitate withdrawal of the Test Rule. LUBRICANT ADDITIVES PANEL BEGINS INTERNATIONAL EFFORT (Washington, February 10) The Lubricant Additives Panel has initiated aquatic testing of 26 additives representing the many classes of this diverse group of BOR 007590 chemicals. Static renewal tests (96 hr.) are being conducted in the sheepshead minnow. The Panel will use the data to sup port international marine ship ping classifications of lubricant additives under MARPOL 73/78. The Panel has been invited to present its findings at the May meeting of the Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP). Also of interest to the Panel is the classification of Annex I/II mixtures, i.e., those which contain oil and chemical compo nents. The Panel has worked with the OCIMF and CEFXC in drafting a position paper to be presented before the interna tional Bulk Chemical Handling Committee in April. A CEFIC representative will make the presentation. FLUOROCARBON PANEL REPS REACH WIDE AUDIENCE (Washington, February 11) Dr. S. Robert Orfeo of Allied, newly elected Chairman of the Fluoro carbon Panel (see this News letter, People section), was interviewed by the Cable News Network on the science of the CFC issue. The program aired on CNN several times during the following week. Subsequently, Drs. Gordon Diprose of ICI, and Mack McFarland and Aaron Owens of DuPont represented the Panel at a meeting of the United Nations Environment Programme's Coor dinating Committee on the Ozone Layer (CCOL) on February 24-28, in Nairobi, Kenya. At the meeting, CCOL reviewed the latest "Assessment" of atmo spheric science. Still later, Dr. Igor Sobolev of Kaiser accepted an EPA invi tation to describe the Panel's Research Program as part of a workshop on "Demand and Control Technologies," on March 6-7, in Washington, D.C. EOIC, BUTADIENE, AND EDC PANELS RECOMMEND CMA INTERVENTION (Washington, February 24) The Ethylene Oxide Industry Council, Butadiene Panel, and Ethylene Dichloride Panel have recom mended to the Environmental Management Committee that CMA intervene in the NRDC/EPA "intent to list" law suit. The suit addresses EPA's intention to list these substances plus five others as potential hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. NRDC is challenging the use of this "intent" category. The panels are concerned that their inter ests may not be represented in the absence of CMA intervention. EMC has agreed to accept the panel's recommendation, and will intervene. RUBBER ADDITIVES PANEL TACKLES MBT TESTING ISSUES (Washington, February 28) The Rubber Additives Panel sub mitted comments to EPA on the Proposed Test Rule on 2-mer- captobenzothiazole (MBT). (See this Newsletter, Recent Releases section.) Citing minimal expo sure to MBT in the environment, the Panel opposed EPA's pro posed requirements for chemical fate and aquatic toxicity studies. In the health effects area, the Panel concurred with EPA's proposal to conduct a dominant lethal assay and developmental toxicity study. The Panel suggested that EPA reserve judgment on the need for neuro toxicity and reproductive effects testing until results from the NTP bioassay on MBT are BOR 007591 available and fully evaluated. Proposed pharmacokinetics test ing requirements are being addressed by the Panel in a voluntary testing program which will commence at the end of March. A series of five compar ative absorption and distribution studies will be conducted using radio-labelled MBT and its disulfide derivative, MBTS. The studies will be completed in the fall. In its comments, the Panel urged the Agency to refrain from issuing a test rule proposal on MBTS until these studies are done and the in vivo kinetics of the two compounds are deter mined. BUTADIENE PANEL TO DEVELOP RISK ASSESSMENT (Washington, March 3) The Butadiene Panel has recently entered into a contract with Dr. Joseph Rodricks of Environ Corporation. Dr. R.odricks will provide numerical risk estimates from animal data and a full-scale risk assessment, including an evaluation of the relative merits of the various risk estimates. This information will assist the Panel in further discussions with OSHA and EPA. FLUOROCARBON PANEL COSPONSORS WORKSHOP (Boulder, Colorado, March 5) The Fluorocarbon Panel co-spon sored an Early Detection Work shop with the National Aeronau tics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmos pheric Administration, and the World Meteorological Organisa tion. This three-day interna tional meeting attracted leading atmospheric scientists. The goal was to identify the stations and instrumentation necessary to monitor long term trends in the atmosphere, and to detect and diagnose the causes of any measured changes. BENZENE PANEL RESPONDS TO OSHA PROPOSAL (Washington, March 6) The Benzene Panel submitted com ments to OSHA on the proposed standard for occupational expo sure to benzene. (See this Newsletter, Recent Releases section.) If adopted, the new standard would lower the work place permissible exposure limit (PEL) from the current 10 ppm TWA,, to 1 ppm. An action level of 0.*b ppm is also included. The Panel's comments focus on health effects issues, risk as sessments, feasibility, medical surveillance requirements and respirator use. Although the significance of several health studies which OSHA cites to support lowering the standard is challenged, the Panel is not opposed to a reduction in the present PEL. Feasibility con cerns and support for the posi tion that no significant health risks would exist with a I ppm standard dominate the Panel's comments. The Panel favors a 2 ppm never-to-be exceeded PEL or a 1 ppm standard considered as an average of several TWAg determinations. NEW PROGRAMS CYCLOHEXANE Manufacturers of cyclohexane met at CMA on January 23, and requested formation of a Special Program. The Interagency Testing Committee, on Novem ber 19, 1985, announced its Intent to Designate cyclohexane as a priority chemical for tox icity testing under Section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The Cyclohexane Panel plans to work with EPA to bor 007592 a develop a scientifically justifiable response to the ITC action. PEOPLE FLUOROCARBON PANEL ELECTS NEW CHAIRMAN Dr. S. Robert Orfeo of AlliedSignal was elected as the new Chairman of the Fluorocarbon Panel in January. He replaces Dr. Richard B, Ward who has been reassigned within DuPont. Dr. Gordon Diprose of ICI was re-elected Vice Chairman. Both new terms continue through May 1987. Thank you to Dick Ward for his devoted leadership of the Panel and best wishes to Bob Orfeo and Gordon Diprose as they begin their new tenure. PliTUALATE ESTERS PANEL TASK CROUP LEADERSHIP CHANGES Dr. James Mieure of Monsanto Company has left the Phthalate Esters Panel after a long and successful tenure in many key leadership positions. Mieure chaired the Panel from 1982 through 1984. After resigning the chairmanship, he remained active and influential. In 1985, Mieure chaired the Environmental Research Task Group, the Exposure Work Group, and the Water Regulations Task Group. We extend our thanks to Jim Mieure for his many accom plishments and contributions to the Panel. Chairman James Quance of Exxon Chemical Americas has appointed several new leaders. Dr. Eugene Skiest of Borden, Inc. was appointed Chairman of the Exposure Work Group. Quance also appointed Jeffrey Felder of Monsanto Company as interim Chairman of the Environmental Research Task Group and Panel Liaison to the CMA Environmental Management Committee. Congratulations and continued success to Gene Skiest and Jeff Felder. BUT PANEL CHAIRMAN RESIGNS Dr. Don McGraw of Koppers Company resigned as Chairman of the Butylated Hydroxytoluene Panel because Koppers has sold its BHT production facilities to Neville Chemical Company. During his tenure, McGraw made strong contributions to the BHT Panel, including playing a key role in the delisting of BHT as a carcinogen from the Massachu setts Substance List. Congratu lations to Don McGraw on an excellent job. McGraw continues as Chairman of the Arsenic Panel. FENSTERHEIM LEAVES CMA Robert Fensterheim of the Spe cial Programs Division accepted a position as Senior Regulatory Analyst with the American Petro leum Institute effective February 24. Fensterheim joined the Special Programs staff in June of 1981. Just prior to departure he managed nine panels includ ing: Dibenzofurans/Dibenzo- dioxins, Hydroquinone/Quinone; Methylenedianiline *, Octylphenol; Phosgene; Phosphorous; Poly chlorinated Biphenyls; Rubber Additives; and Toluenediamines. Bob Fensterheim played an important role in developing and guiding these programs. He will be missed by Panel members as well as by his colleagues and friends in the Special Programs Division and the rest of CMA. We all offer congratulations and best wishes for continued suc cess in his new position. NOTE: During the interim period between Bob Fenster- heim's departure and the arrival of a replacement, program respon sibilities have been assumed by BOR 007593 the remaining Division staff. Dr. Elizabeth Moran has respon sibilities for the Dibenzofurans/- Dibenzodioxins, Methylene- dianiline and Toluenediamines Programs. The Phosgene and Phosphorous Programs are the responsibility of Dr. Robert Romano. Dr. Has Shah has the Hydroquinone/Quinone and Octylphenol Program while Dr. Carol Stack is responsible for the Rubber Additives Program. Dr. Langley Spurlock, Division Director, has become Division Director/Program Manager, by assuming direct responsibility for the Polychlorinated Biphenyls Program. RECENT RELEASES FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES MESITYL OXIDE FINAL TEST RULE AND PROPOSED TEST STANDARDS (40 FR 51857-51894, December 20, 198T" STRATEGY AND TIMETABLE FOR EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLE TION (51 FR 1257-1261, Janu ary 10, 198&T~ COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT INFORMATION RULE; NOTICE OF CAIR FORM PRETEST (51 FR 3251-3252, January 24, 1986) SPECIAL PROGRAMS COMMENTS Comments to EPA on the Con sumer Product Safety Com mission's CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE DEHP CHRONIC HAZARD ADVISORY PANEL (filed by the Phthalate Esters Panel, December 13, 1985) Comments to EPA on the PRO POSED TEST RULE FOR EH A (filed by the Ethylhexanoic Acid Panel, January 17, 1986) Comments to OSHA on the RE QUEST FOR COMMENTS ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO 1,3-BUTADIENE (filed by the Butadiene Panel, January 27, 1986) Comments to UNEP Co-ordinating Committee on the Ozone Layer on RECENT RESEARCH RESULTS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS (filed by the Fluorocarbon Panel, February 6, 1986) Comments to EPA on the NOTICE OF INTENT TO LIST 1,3-BUTADIENE UNDER SECTION 112 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT (filed by the Butadiene Panel, Febru ary 13, 1986) Comments to EPA on HYDROQUINONE; PROPOSED TESTING STANDARDS (filed by the Hydroquinone Panel, February 13, 1986) Comments to EPA on the DRAFT HEALTH ASSESSMENT DOCU MENT FOR NICKEL (filed by the Metal Catalysts Producers Panel, February 14, 1986) Comments to EPA on the PRO POSED TEST RULE FOR CUMENE (filed by the Cumene Panel, February 28, 1986) Comments to EPA on the PRO POSED TEST STANDARDS FOR MESITYL OXIDE (filed by the Ketones Panel, February 28, 1986) Comments to EPA on the PRO POSED TEST RULE FOR 2-MERCAPTOBENZOTHIAZOLE (filed by the Rubber Additives Panel, February 28, 1986) Comments to OSHA on the PRO POSED RULE AND NOTICE OF HEARING; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO BENZENE (filed by the Benzene Panel, March 6, 1986) BOR 007594 FINAL REPORTS 1. A 21-day Feeding Study of Butyl Benzyl Phthalate to Rats: Effects on the Liver and Liver Lipids (Phthalate Esters Panel) 2. A 21-day Feeding Study of 711 Phthalate to Rats: Effects on the Liver and Liver Lipids (Phthalate Esters Panel) 3. A 21-day Feeding Study of Di-(2-ethylhexyl) Adipate to Rats: Effects on the Liver and Liver Lipids (Phthalate Esters Panel) 4. A 21-day Feeding Study of Di-isononyl Phthalate to Rats: Effects on the Liver and Liver Lipids (Phthalate Esters Panel) 5. A 21-day Feeding Study of Di-isodecyl Phthalate to Rats: Effects on the Liver and Liver Lipids (Phthalate Esters Panel) 6. Determination of Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient of TOTM, A Supplementary Study (Trimellitates Panel) 7. Evaluation of Chemical Permeation of 2-EthoxyethanoI, 2-Ethoxyethyl Acetate, and 2-Butoxyethanol Through Neoprene Gloves (Glycol Ethers Panel) UPCOMING EVENTS 1986 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPILLS CONFERENCE The Chemical Manufacturers Association, the Association of American Railroads, the United States Coast Guard, and the Environmental Protection Agency will sponsor the 1986 Hazardous Material Spills Conference on May 5-8, 1986, at the Adam's Mark Hotel in St. Louis, Missouri. For additional information, call 202/639-4366. CMA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE CMA's Environmental Management Committee will hold its annual Update on May 19-20 at the New Orleans Sheraton in New Orleans. For additional informa tion on the Update call Judy Curvan at 202/887-1185. BOR 007595