[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8766-8769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4323]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS-400132A; FRL-6061-7]
RIN 2070-AD09


Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Amendments to 
Proposed Addition of a Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Category; 
Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Notice of 
Availability and Clarification of Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and clarification of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On January 5, 1999, EPA issued a proposed rule to lower the 
reporting thresholds for certain persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) 
chemicals that are subject to reporting under section 313 of the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and 
section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). The 
proposed rule also included the addition of certain PBT chemicals, 
amendments to the proposed rule to add a dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds category, as well as other related reporting changes. The 
purpose of this document is to inform interested parties of the 
availability of an additional document concerning one of the reporting 
threshold options discussed in the proposed rule. This document also 
contains clarifications to the discussion concerning the reporting 
limitation for certain metals when contained in alloys.

DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket control number OPPTS-
400132, must be received by EPA on or before March 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in 
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as 
provided in Unit I of the ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section of this 
document.
    The document entitled ``Analysis of Potential Small Entity Impacts 
Associated with Option 1 of the TRI PBT Proposal'' is now available 
from the public docket. Refer to Unit I.B.2. of this document for the 
location and hours of operation for the public docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Petitions 
Coordinator, 202-260-3882, e-mail: [email protected], for 
specific information on the proposed rule, or for more information on 
EPCRA section 313, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401 M St., 
SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-535-0202, in Virginia and 
Alaska: 703-412-9877 or Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, 
process, or otherwise use any of the chemicals listed under Table 1 in 
Unit V.C.1. of the January 5, 1999 proposed rule (64 FR 688) (FRL-6032-
3). Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are 
not limited to:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of Potentially Affected
             Category                             Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                            Facilities that: incinerate or
                                     otherwise treat, store or dispose
                                     of hazardous waste or sewage
                                     sludge; operate chlor-alkali
                                     processes; manufacture chlorinated
                                     organic compounds, pesticides,
                                     other organic or inorganic
                                     chemicals, tires, inner tubes,
                                     other rubber products, plastics and
                                     material resins, paints, Portland
                                     cement, pulp and paper, asphalt
                                     coatings, or electrical components;
                                     operate cement kilns; operate
                                     metallurgical processes such as
                                     steel production, smelting, metal
                                     recovery furnaces, blast furnaces,
                                     coke ovens, metal casting and
                                     stamping; operate petroleum bulk
                                     terminals; operate petroleum
                                     refineries; operate industrial
                                     boilers that burn coal, wood,
                                     petroleum products; and electric
                                     utilities that combust coal and/or
                                     oil for distribution of electricity
                                     in commerce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government                  Federal facilities that: burn coal,
                                     wood, petroleum products; burn
                                     wastes; incinerate or otherwise
                                     treat, store or dispose of
                                     hazardous waste or sewage sludge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
affected. To determine whether your

[[Page 8767]]

facility would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine 
the applicability criteria in part 372, subpart B of Title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the preceding ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of this Document or 
Other Support Documents?

    1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this 
document and the January 5, 1999 proposed rule from the EPA internet 
Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select ``Laws and 
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the 
``Federal Register - Environmental Documents.'' You can also go 
directly to the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/.
    2. In person or by phone. If you have any questions or need 
additional information about this action, please contact the person 
identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section. In 
addition, the official record for this document, including the public 
version, has been established under docket control number OPPTS-400132, 
(including the references in Unit III. of this preamble and comments 
and data submitted electronically as described below). This record 
includes not only the documents physically contained in the docket, but 
all of the documents included as references in those documents. A 
public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of any 
electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI), is available for inspection 
from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 
The public record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information 
Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The TSCA 
Nonconfidential Information Center telephone number is 202-260-7099.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or 
electronically. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket control 
number (i.e., ``OPPTS-400132'') in your correspondence.
    1. By mail. Submit written comments to: Document Control Office 
(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    2. In person or by courier. Deliver written comments to: Document 
Control Office in Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC, telephone: 202-260-7093.
    3. Electronically. Submit your comments and/or data electronically 
by e-mail to: ``[email protected].'' Please note that you should not 
submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. 
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use 
of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data 
will also be accepted on standard computer disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1 
or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be 
identified by the docket control number OPPTS-400132. Electronic 
comments on this document may also be filed online at many Federal 
Depository Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI Information That I Want to Submit to the 
Agency?

    You may claim information that you submit in response to this 
document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does 
not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. 
Information not marked confidential will be included in the public 
docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI 
or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with the person 
identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.

II. Additional Documentation and Clarification

A. What Document Is Being Made Available and What Does It Discuss?

    In the January 5, 1999 proposed rule to lower the EPCRA section 313 
reporting thresholds for certain PBT chemicals (64 FR 688), the 
preferred option (i.e., Option 2), as presented in the regulatory text, 
proposed the following EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds: 10 
pounds for certain highly persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals; 100 
pounds for certain persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals; and 0.1 gram 
for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The potential small entity 
impacts of the preferred Option 2 are presented in the economic 
analysis of the proposed rule (Ref. 1). EPA has prepared an additional 
analysis of the potential small entity impacts of a regulatory option 
with lower EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds than those contained 
in Option 2. The document being made available today contains this 
analysis and is entitled ``Analysis of Potential Small Entity Impacts 
Associated with Option 1 of the TRI PBT Proposal'' (Ref. 2). This 
document is now available in the public docket for this rulemaking. 
Under Option 1, the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds would be 1 
pound for certain highly persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals; 10 
pounds for certain persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals; and 0.1 gram 
for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. At these lower reporting 
thresholds, more facilities would be affected by the rule and more 
reports would be filed than at the Option 2 reporting thresholds. The 
following is a brief overview of EPA's findings.
    1. Overall methodology. For the purpose of its analysis, EPA 
defined a small business using the small business size standards 
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). EPA defined 
small governments using the Regulatory Flexibility Act definition of 
jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. No small 
organizations are expected to be affected.
    Only those small entities that are expected to submit at least one 
report are considered to be affected for the purpose of the small 
entity analysis, although EPA recognizes that other small entities will 
conduct compliance determinations under lower thresholds. The number of 
affected entities will be smaller than the number of affected 
facilities, because many entities operate more than one facility. 
Impacts were calculated for both the first year of reporting and 
subsequent years. First year costs are typically higher than continuing 
costs because firms must familiarize themselves with the requirements. 
Once firms have become familiar with how the reporting requirements 
apply to their operations, costs fall. EPA believes that subsequent 
year impacts present the best measure to judge the impact on small 
entities because these continuing costs are more representative of the 
compliance costs that firms face.
    EPA analyzed the potential cost impact of Option 1 on small 
businesses and governments for the manufacturing sector and in each of 
the recently added industry sectors. EPA then aggregated the analyses 
for the purpose of determining whether it would be able to certify that 
Option 1 would not, if promulgated, have a ``significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' EPA believes that 
the statutory test for certifying a

[[Page 8768]]

rule and the statutory consequences of not certifying a rule all 
indicate that certification determinations may be based on an 
aggregated analysis of the rule's impact on all of the small entities 
subject to it.
    2. Small businesses. EPA used annual compliance costs as a 
percentage of annual company sales to assess the potential impacts on 
small businesses of Option 1. EPA believes that this is a good measure 
of a firm's ability to afford the costs attributable to a regulatory 
requirement, because comparing compliance costs to revenues provides a 
reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden 
relative to a commonly available measure of a company's business 
volume. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical 
firm's revenue (for example, less than 1%, but not greater than 3%), 
EPA believes that the financial impacts of the regulation may be 
considered insignificant. As discussed above, EPA also believes that it 
is appropriate to apply this measure to subsequent year impacts.
    Based on its estimates of additional reporting as a result of the 
proposed rule, the Agency estimates that 10,000 businesses would be 
affected by Option 1, and that approximately 6,900 of these businesses 
are classified as small based on the applicable SBA size standards. For 
the first reporting year, EPA estimates that approximately 30 small 
businesses would bear compliance costs between 1% and 3% of revenues, 
and that no small businesses would bear costs greater than 3%. In 
subsequent years, EPA estimates that approximately 7 small businesses 
would bear compliance costs between 1% and 3% of revenues, and that no 
small businesses would bear costs greater than 3%. As stated above, EPA 
believes that subsequent-year impacts are the appropriate measure of 
small business impacts.
    3. Small governments. To assess the potential impacts of Option 1 
on small governments, EPA used annual compliance costs as a percentage 
of annual government revenues to measure potential impacts. Similar to 
the methodology for small businesses, this measure was used because EPA 
believes it provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the 
regulatory burden relative to a government's ability to pay for the 
costs, and is based on readily available data.
    EPA estimates that 49 publicly owned electric utility facilities, 
operated by a total of 39 municipalities, may be affected under Option 
1. Of these municipalities, an estimated 18 are small governments 
(i.e., those with populations under 50,000). It is estimated that 1 of 
these small governments would bear annual costs between 1% and 3% of 
annual government revenues in the first year. In subsequent years, EPA 
estimates that no small governments would bear compliance costs above 
1% of revenues.
    4. All small entities. As stated above, EPA believes that 
subsequent-year impacts are the appropriate measure of small entity 
impacts. After the first year of reporting, approximately 7 small 
businesses are expected to bear costs over 1% of revenues. This 
represents less than 1% of all affected small businesses. None of the 
affected small governments are estimated to bear costs greater than 1% 
of revenues after the first year of reporting. No small organizations 
are expected to be affected by the proposed rule. Thus, the total 
number of small entities with impacts above 1% of annual revenues in 
subsequent years does not change when the results are aggregated for 
all small entities (i.e., small businesses, small governments, and 
small organizations).

B. What Clarifications Are Being Made to the Proposed Rule?

    In Unit X.B. of the January 5, 1999 proposed rule, EPA discussed a 
limitation for the reporting of vanadium and cobalt when contained in 
alloys. At the end of the first paragraph of Unit X.B. (second column, 
page 717), it was stated that ``EPA is therefore proposing to limit the 
reporting for vanadium and cobalt to exclude alloys that contain these 
metals from the lower reporting thresholds.'' This statement is 
incorrect, EPA did not propose to lower the EPCRA section 313 reporting 
thresholds for vanadium. EPA only proposed to remove the fume or dust 
qualifier from the current vanadium listing and replace it with a 
qualifier that limits the reporting for vanadium by excluding the 
reporting of alloys that contain vanadium.

III. What Are the References for this Action?

    The references associated with this action are as follows:
    1. USEPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Modify 
Reporting of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals Under EPCRA 
Section 313. December 1998.
    2. USEPA, OPPT. Analysis of Potential Small Entity Impacts 
Associated with Option 1 of the TRI PBT Proposal. January 1999.

IV. Do Any of the Regulatory Assessment Requirements Apply to this 
Action?

    No. As indicated previously, this action merely announces the 
availability of additional data for public review, and provides minor 
clarification to provisions in the proposed rule. This action does not 
impose any new requirements. As such, this action does not require 
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive 
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997). This action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any 
unfunded mandate, or impose any significant or unique impact on small 
governments as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4). Nor does it require prior consultation with State, 
local, and tribal government officials as specified by Executive Order 
12875, entitled Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships (58 FR 58093, 
October 28, 1993) and Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 
1998), or special consideration of environmental justice related issues 
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not 
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration 
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to 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). In addition, since this 
action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the 
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to 
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and 
Executive Orders for the underlying proposed rule, is discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (see 64 FR 688, January 5, 1999).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.


[[Page 8769]]


    Dated: February 12, 1999.
Susan H. Wayland,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances.
[FR Doc. 99-4323 Filed 2-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F