[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42222-42243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19729]



[[Page 42221]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 372



Lead and Lead Compounds; Lowering of Reporting Thresholds; Community 
Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 3, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 42222]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS-400140; FRL-6081-4]
RIN 2070-AD38


Lead and Lead Compounds; Lowering of Reporting Thresholds; 
Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to lower the reporting thresholds for lead 
and lead compounds which 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). EPA 
believes that lead and lead compounds are persistent, bioaccumulative 
toxic (PBT) chemicals that warrant lower reporting thresholds than 
those currently established under EPCRA section 313. Today's proposed 
action also includes a limitation on the reporting of lead when 
contained in certain alloys and proposed modifications to certain 
reporting exemptions and requirements for lead and lead compounds.

DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket control number OPPTS-
400140, must be received by EPA on or before September 17, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Petitions 
Coordinator, 202-260-3882, e-mail: [email protected], for 
specific information on this 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 Notice Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this notice if you manufacture, 
process, or otherwise use lead or lead compounds. Potentially affected 
categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Examples of Potentially
                 Category                        Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry                                   Facilities that: process
                                            copper ores, lead and zinc
                                            ores; operate pulp mills,
                                            petroleum refineries,
                                            primary copper smelters,
                                            primary and secondary
                                            nonferrous metal smelters,
                                            gray/ductile iron foundries,
                                            steel foundries, blast
                                            furnaces, steel mills,
                                            petroleum bulk stations and
                                            terminals, industrial
                                            boilers that burn coal,
                                            wood, petroleum products,
                                            and electric utilities that
                                            combust coal and/or oil for
                                            distribution of electricity
                                            in commerce; facilities that
                                            manufacture, process, or use
                                            inorganic pigments, small
                                            arms ammunition, asphalt
                                            paving mixtures and blocks,
                                            storage batteries, motor
                                            vehicles and motor vehicle
                                            equipment; manufacture
                                            electronic components and
                                            accessories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government                         Federal facilities that:
                                            manufacture, process, or use
                                            lead or lead compounds; burn
                                            coal or petroleum products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 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/homepage/fedrgstr/.
    2. In person. The Agency has established an official record for 
this action under docket control number OPPTS-400140. The official 
record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this 
action, any public comments received during an applicable comment 
period, and other information related to this action, including any 
information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This 
official record includes the documents that are physically located in 
the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those 
documents. The public version of the official record does not include 
any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official 
record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic 
comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available 
for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North 
East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. 
The Center is open from 12 noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the Center 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-400140'') in your correspondence.
    1. By mail. Submit written comments to: Document Control Office 
(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document 
Control Office (DCO) in East Tower Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M 
St., SW., Washington, DC. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
DCO is: 202-260-7093.
    3. Electronically. Submit your comments 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-400140. Electronic

[[Page 42223]]

comments on this proposal 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 technical 
person identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.

II. What is EPA's Statutory Authority for Taking These Actions?

    These actions are proposed under sections 313(f)(2) and 328 of 
EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2) and 11048.
    Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain facilities manufacturing, 
processing, or otherwise using a listed toxic chemical in amounts above 
reporting threshold levels, to report their environmental releases of 
each chemical annually. These reports must be filed by July 1 of each 
year for the previous calendar year. Facilities also must report 
pollution prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to 
section 6607 of PPA.

A. What is EPA's Statutory Authority to Lower EPCRA Reporting 
Thresholds?

    Section 313 contains default reporting thresholds, which are set 
forth in section 313(f)(1). Section 313(f)(2), however, provides that 
EPA ``may establish a threshold amount for a toxic chemical different 
from the amount established by paragraph (1).'' The amounts established 
by EPA may, at the Administrator's discretion, be based on classes of 
chemicals or categories of facilities.
    This provision provides EPA with broad authority to establish 
thresholds for particular chemicals, classes of chemicals, or 
categories of facilities, and commits to EPA's discretion the 
determination that a different threshold is warranted. Congress has 
also committed the determination of the levels at which to establish an 
alternate threshold to EPA's discretion, requiring only that any 
``revised threshold shall obtain reporting on a substantial majority of 
total releases of the chemical at all facilities subject to the 
requirements'' of section 313 (42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2)). For purposes of 
determining what constitutes a ``substantial majority of total 
releases,'' EPA interprets ``facilities subject to the requirements'' 
of section 313 as the facilities currently reporting, in part because 
section 313(b)(1)(A) provides that ``the requirements of [section 313] 
shall apply'' to facilities that meet all the reporting criteria and 
hence are required to file reports. Thus, in revising the reporting 
thresholds, EPA must ensure that under the new thresholds a substantial 
majority of releases currently being reported will continue to be 
reported. No further guidance for exercising this authority appears in 
the statute.
    While the ``substantial majority'' requirement of section 313(f)(2) 
applies whether EPA is raising or lowering thresholds, EPA believes 
that as a practical matter this standard can operate to constrain EPA's 
action only when the Agency is raising the thresholds and thereby 
reducing reporting. Under those circumstances, the releases reported 
under the new threshold would be lower than those being reported under 
the current threshold, and EPA would be required to determine that the 
reduction in reporting would not be so great as to fail the 
``substantial majority'' test. When EPA lowers thresholds, however, the 
substantial majority test is met as a matter of logical necessity, 
because the lower thresholds are almost always likely to result in 
increased, rather than decreased, reporting. The required findings 
therefore can be made without the need for quantitative support. Thus, 
EPA has found that the revised reporting thresholds contained in 
today's proposed action meet the ``substantial majority'' test in 
section 313(f)(2).
    Because Congress provided no prerequisites to the exercise of EPA's 
authority to lower the thresholds, and little explicit guidance, EPA 
looked to the purposes of section 313 to help guide the exercise of its 
discretion. EPCRA section 313(h) indicates that the data collected 
under EPCRA section 313 are intended:

    . . . to inform persons about the releases of toxic chemicals to 
the environment; to assist governmental agencies, researchers, and 
other persons in the conduct of research and data gathering; to aid 
in the development of appropriate regulations, guidelines and 
standards, and for other similar purposes. (42 U.S.C. 11023(h)).

EPA has identified several purposes of the EPCRA section 313 program, 
as envisioned by Congress, including: (1) Providing a complete profile 
of toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities; (2) 
compiling a broad-based national data base for determining the success 
of environmental regulations; and (3) ensuring that the public has easy 
access to these data on releases of toxic chemicals to the environment. 
(See 62 FR 23834, 23836, May 1, 1997). EPA considered these purposes in 
exercising its discretion to establish lower reporting thresholds under 
EPCRA section 313 for lead and lead compounds, which the Agency has 
determined are persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals.

B. What is EPA's Statutory Authority for Making Modifications to Other 
EPCRA Section 313 Reporting Requirements?

    Congress granted EPA extremely broad rulemaking authority to allow 
the Agency to fully implement the statute. EPCRA section 328 provides 
that the ``Administrator may prescribe such regulations as may be 
necessary to carry out this chapter'' (28 U.S.C. 11048).

III. How Did EPA Develop this Proposal and What is the Scope of the 
Comments Being Solicited?

A. Why Was Lead Not Addressed in the Recently Proposed PBT Rule?

    In EPA's recent proposed rule to lower the EPCRA section 313 
reporting thresholds for certain PBT chemicals (64 FR 688, January 5, 
1999) (FRL-6032-3), EPA reviewed the bioaccumulation data for two lead 
compounds: tetramethyl and tetraethyl lead. However, the analysis was 
limited to the data for the intact compounds and did not address the 
potential availability of lead from these compounds or other lead 
compounds or the potential for lead to bioaccumulate. In the January 5, 
1999 proposed rule for PBT chemicals, EPA made the following statements 
about lead and lead compounds:

    EPA is aware of additional available data that may indicate that 
lead and/or lead compounds meet the bioaccumulation criteria 
discussed in this proposed rule. EPA intends to review these 
additional data to determine if lead and/or lead compounds should be 
considered PBT chemicals and whether it would be appropriate to 
establish lower reporting thresholds for these chemicals. Any such 
determination will be made part of an additional rulemaking 
activity. (See 64 FR 717, column 1).

Since development of the January 5, 1999 proposed rule, EPA has 
received numerous comments requesting that the Agency include lead and 
lead compounds as PBT chemicals under EPCRA section 313 and set lower 
reporting thresholds (see the docket

[[Page 42224]]

support for the proposed rule (docket control number OPPTS-400132)). 
Many of these comments were received well into the comment period on 
the January 5, 1999 proposed rule. Rather than delay movement on the 
January 5, 1999 proposed rule until EPA was ready to proceed with lead 
and lead compounds, the Agency elected to address lower reporting 
thresholds for lead and lead compounds as a separate proposal. EPA 
believes that such an approach will allow both the Agency and those 
commenters especially interested in lead and lead compounds to focus on 
the issues specifically related to these substances. Accordingly, 
today's proposed rule is the result of EPA's review of the available 
information on lead and lead compounds, and is the Agency's response to 
the requests for lower reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds 
based on their persistence and bioaccumulation.

B. What is the Scope of Comments Being Solicited on this Proposed Rule?

    EPA recognizes that this proposal for lead and lead compounds may 
raise similar issues to those raised in the January 5, 1999 proposed 
rule. For the purposes of this proposal, however, EPA is only 
soliciting comments on how these proposed actions would affect EPCRA 
section 313 reporting on lead and lead compounds, the impacts these 
proposed changes would have on the burden of section 313 reporting for 
lead and lead compounds, and the benefits such reporting would provide 
the public. Comments of a more generic nature were solicited in the 
January 5, 1999 proposed rule, and should have been submitted during 
the comment period for that proposal, which closed April 7, 1999. EPA 
will respond to timely comments on these generic issues in the final 
PBT chemicals rule. The Agency will limit its consideration of and 
responses to comments submitted in the comment period for this proposal 
to those that relate to section 313 reporting of lead and lead 
compounds. To the extent that comments were submitted on the January 5, 
1999 proposed rule that a commenter believes are relevant to this 
proposal, the commenter must resubmit or reference those comments for 
inclusion in the docket for this proposal, along with an explanation of 
why the comments are relevant to lead and lead compounds.

C. What are the Issues on Which EPA is Interested in Receiving Comment?

    The Agency is particularly interested in receiving comments on the 
general policy issues, as they apply to lead and lead compounds, that 
were discussed and raised for comment in Unit IX. of the preamble to 
the PBT proposed rule (see 64 FR 688, at 717). It is important for EPA 
to clarify that this proposal does not introduce any new issues beyond 
those associated with lead and lead compounds (e.g., persistence data 
for lead, bioaccumulation data for lead, estimated number of reports). 
The Agency is therefore only seeking comments on the generic issues 
that relate specifically to the proposal to lower the reporting 
threshold for lead and lead compounds. The changes that EPA is 
proposing to make to the reporting requirements for lead and lead 
compounds are discussed in detail in Unit VI. of this preamble, 
including the applicability to lead and lead compounds of the general 
amendments to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements for PBT 
chemicals presented in the proposed PBT rule. Accordingly, comments on 
the following issues, which were previously identified and for which 
comment was sought in Unit IX. of the preamble to the proposed PBT rule 
(see 64 FR 688, at 717), are only requested on this proposal insofar as 
the comments relate particularly to lead and lead compounds: (1) 
Whether EPA should attempt to estimate the releases that would be 
reported at an ``average'' facility at each of the identified options 
for a lowered threshold, the appropriate methodology for estimating 
releases from all affected industry sectors, and whether EPA should 
then use those estimates to select the lowered threshold that would 
capture some overall percentage of releases, e.g., 75 - 80%; (2) 
whether EPA should consider lowering the reporting thresholds for lead 
and lead compounds based on either persistence or bioaccumulation 
(rather than both); (3) whether EPA should consider other mechanisms 
for further minimizing the potential impacts associated with lowering 
the reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds (i.e., it was 
suggested that EPA develop a modified Form A with thresholds more 
appropriate for lead and lead compounds, retain de minimis thresholds 
for lead and lead compounds (perhaps at a lower level), retain whole 
number reporting, the half-pound rule, and range reporting for lead and 
lead compounds, establish an activity qualifier restricting the lower 
reporting threshold to the manufacture of lead and lead compounds, 
retaining the higher current thresholds with respect to import, process 
or use activities, and that EPA modulate the frequency of reporting).

D. What Other Comments Should the Public Submit?

    EPA believes that the additional information provided by lowering 
the TRI reporting thresholds for PBT chemicals, including lead and lead 
compounds, will be valuable to communities and will significantly 
enhance their knowledge about toxic chemical releases and other waste 
management activities that may be of concern to them. At the same time, 
EPA recognizes that today's proposal, along with its earlier proposal 
to lower reporting thresholds for various other PBT chemicals (64 FR 
688), will increase the burden imposed by the TRI program on facilities 
that must provide information. EPA is mindful of the importance of 
minimizing reporting burden, while continuing to provide communities 
with high quality right-to-know information. EPA is genuinely 
interested in reducing TRI reporting burden, while assuring that the 
goals and objectives of EPCRA section 313 continue to be met.
    EPA has already initiated a number of burden reducing activities in 
the TRI program. For example, EPA is currently reviewing the original 
list of EPCRA section 313 chemicals in response to suggestions that EPA 
evaluate those chemicals against the EPCRA section 313(d) criteria. EPA 
is also developing reporting guidance, including guidance specifically 
for small businesses, which will simplify and ease reporting burdens. 
These efforts include the development of intelligent reporting software 
with built-in error checking routines and calculation methodologies; 
the development of a single facility identification program for 
facilities that report to EPA; and the development of guidance to 
facilitate more consistent use of chemical nomenclature, reporting 
units, and time frames across different programs.
    As a means of identifying other potential areas for reducing TRI 
reporting burden, EPA initiated an intensive stakeholder process to 
comprehensively evaluate current TRI reporting. An important part of 
this stakeholder process was a review conducted by the Toxics Data 
Reporting (TDR) Committee of the National Advisory Council on 
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). EPA asked the TDR 
Committee to develop recommendations to improve the right-to-know 
information available to communities and to help streamline reporting 
to ease the paperwork burden for facilities affected by the 
requirements. Specifically, the Committee was asked to examine the

[[Page 42225]]

format of and nomenclature in the Form R, seek opportunities for burden 
reduction, and evaluate EPA's presentation of the data in public 
information documents. The TDR Committee met eight times between 
September 1997 and October 1998, and issued its final report in May 
1999. The TDR Committee report is available on the Internet at 
www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri, and a copy of the report is also available in 
the public version of the official record for this proposed rule.
    In their final report to the Agency, after noting that the TDR 
Committee did not reach final consensus on most issues, the TDR 
Committee presented the various suggestions raised during the 
discussions as ``ideas'' without any indication of the level of support 
for them. These ideas fall under the broad categories of burden 
reduction, the public data release (PDR), and the Form R. Some of the 
burden reduction ideas presented by the TDR Committee include the 
creation of an intelligent software program for reporters, the 
integration of reporting across programs, the provision of industry 
specific guidance, the expansion of the EPCRA section 313 exemptions, 
and options for increasing eligibility for the alternate threshold as 
certified by Form A. With regard to the Form R, most of the Committee's 
suggestions involved the addition of data elements intended to further 
clarify the information currently collected, particularly on the waste 
management data. The Committee also offered ideas for improving the 
PDR, including adding information to the PDR that would provide 
additional context for the TRI data.
    The TDR Committee report also mentions a more general approach for 
burden reduction that involves establishing, either through regulation 
or guidance, limitations on the level of effort and data accuracy 
required for TRI reports. For example, this approach might include 
greater use of default parameters and standardized estimation methods 
based on best engineering practices, and/or a percentage rule in which 
a facility would be required to collect information and report only 
some fixed percentage of releases (e.g., 90%). This latter approach 
could allow facilities to focus their reporting efforts on larger 
sources of releases and ignore some smaller sources, as long as they 
reported at least the specified percentage of total releases. The 
absolute quantity not reported would vary from toxic chemical to toxic 
chemical and from facility to facility. EPA requests comments on the 
substance of this approach, including mechanisms that would allow 
implementation consistent with EPCRA section 313. In particular, EPA is 
interested in comments regarding the potential impacts of this approach 
on the facility reporting burden and on the integrity of the TRI data 
and community right-to-know.
    In addition to the TDR Committee report, EPA has received other 
suggestions for burden reduction in the TRI program. Although EPA has 
already requested comment on the suggestion that EPA effectively modify 
the frequency of reporting for PBT chemicals (see 64 FR 688, at 718), 
and lead and lead compounds (see Unit III.C. of this preamble), it has 
been suggested that EPA consider changing the frequency of reporting 
under EPCRA section 313 in general, i.e., require biennial reporting. 
EPA is requesting comment on the utility of biennial reporting and 
whether that approach would provide for significant burden reduction 
for affected facilities. EPA welcomes comment on the availability of 
information that would allow the Agency to make the requisite findings 
under EPCRA section 313(i)(3)(B), especially how consideration of 
alternate reporting requirements should pertain to the facilities in 
the recently added industry sectors for which first reports have just 
recently been received, the lack of readily available information on 
EPCRA section 313 chemicals from existing sources, and what available 
information may exist to allow EPA to address the requirements of the 
law.
    EPA places great importance on reducing burden on the public and is 
currently considering the various suggestions it has received, 
including the ideas in the TDR Committee report, and others received 
from industry and other agencies. EPA welcomes additional suggestions, 
and specifically requests comment on the ideas presented in the TDR 
Committee report, particularly those that relate to burden reduction.

IV. Explanation for Lowering Reporting Thresholds

A. What is the General Background for this Rulemaking?

    In 1986, Congress passed EPCRA. This new law recognized the unique 
role that communities can play in assuring environmental protection at 
the local level. Just prior to the passage of EPCRA, fatal chemical 
releases from a chemical manufacturing facility in Bhopal, India 
highlighted the need for developing and sharing both emergency planning 
information and routine release information with the public. The 
identification of United States facilities, chemicals, and processes 
identical to the Bhopal situation brought home the potential for 
similar accidents in the United States as well as a recognition that 
routine releases of toxic chemicals associated with routine facility 
processes could pose significant risks to communities. These routine, 
annual releases, if assessed at all, were known only to the facilities 
themselves. Communities however, were unaware of the magnitude and 
potential consequences of such releases.
    Section 313 of EPCRA resulted in the creation of the Toxics Release 
Inventory (TRI). TRI is a publicly available data base that provides 
quantitative information on toxic chemical releases and other waste 
management activities. With the collection of this information for the 
first time in 1987, came the ability for the public, government, and 
the regulated community to understand the magnitude of chemical 
emissions in the United States; to compare chemical releases among 
facilities and transfers of chemical wastes among States, industries, 
and facilities; and perhaps most importantly, to assess the need to 
reduce and where possible, eliminate these releases and other waste 
management activities. TRI enables all parties interested in 
environmental progress to establish credible baselines, to set 
realistic goals, and to measure progress over time, in meeting those 
goals. The TRI system provides a neutral yardstick by which progress 
can be measured by all interested parties. TRI is an important tool in 
empowering the Federal government, State governments, industry, 
environmental groups, and the general public, to fully participate in 
an informed dialogue about the environmental and human health impacts 
of toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities.
    Prior to EPCRA, the kind of information contained in the TRI 
generally was nonexistent or unavailable to the Federal government, 
State governments, emergency preparedness teams or the general public, 
and often was not disclosed until after major impacts on human health 
and the environment were evident. This ``after the fact'' disclosure of 
information did little to help plan for or prevent such serious health 
and environmental impacts. While permit data are generally cited as a 
public source of environmental data, they are often difficult to 
obtain, are not multi-media, and present only a limited perspective on 
a facility's overall environmental performance. While other sources of 
data are sometimes cited as substitutes for TRI data, based on its own 
research, EPA is unaware of

[[Page 42226]]

any other publicly available, nationwide data base that provides multi-
media, facility-specific release and other waste management information 
to the public in a readily accessible form. With TRI, and the real 
gains in understanding it has produced, communities now know which 
industrial facilities in their area release or otherwise manage as 
waste listed toxic chemicals.
    Under EPCRA section 313, Congress set the initial parameters of 
TRI, but also gave EPA clear authority to modify TRI in various ways, 
including to change the toxic chemicals subject to reporting, the 
facilities required to report, and the threshold quantities that 
trigger reporting. By providing this authority, Congress recognized 
that the TRI program would need to evolve to meet the needs of a better 
informed public and to refine existing information. EPA has, therefore, 
undertaken a number of actions to expand and enhance TRI. These actions 
include expanding the number of reportable toxic chemicals by adding 
286 toxic chemicals and chemical categories to the EPCRA section 313 
list in 1994 (59 FR 61432, November 30, 1994) (FRL-4922-2). Further, a 
new category of facilities was added to EPCRA section 313 on August 3, 
1993, through Executive Order 12856 (58 FR 41981, August 6, 1993), 
which requires Federal facilities meeting threshold requirements to 
file annual TRI reports. In addition, in 1997 EPA expanded the number 
of private sector facilities that are required to report under EPCRA 
section 313 by adding seven new industrial groups to the list of 
covered facilities (62 FR 23834, May 1, 1997) (FRL-5578-3). At the same 
time, EPA has sought to reduce the burden of EPCRA section 313 
reporting by actions such as delisting chemicals that were determined 
not to meet the statutory listing criteria and establishing an 
alternate reporting threshold of 1 million pounds for facilities with 
500 pounds or less of production-related releases and other wastes. 
Facilities meeting the requirements of this alternate threshold may 
file a certification statement (Form A) instead of reporting on the 
standard TRI report, the Form R.
    In today's action, EPA is proposing enhanced reporting requirements 
for lead and lead compounds. Lead and lead compounds are toxic 
chemicals that persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. To date, 
with the exception of facilities subject to the alternate threshold 
exemption, EPA has not altered the statutory reporting threshold for 
all listed chemicals. However, as the TRI program has evolved over time 
and as communities identify areas of special concern, thresholds and 
other aspects of the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements may need 
to be modified to assure the collection and dissemination of relevant, 
topical information and data. Towards that end, EPA is proposing to 
increase the utility of TRI to the public by lowering the reporting 
thresholds for lead and lead compounds. Lead and lead compounds, being 
PBT chemicals, are of particular concern because they remain in the 
environment for significant periods of time and concentrate in the 
organisms exposed to them. EPA believes it is important that the public 
understand that these PBT chemicals can have serious human health and 
environmental effects resulting from low levels of release and 
exposure. Lowering the reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds 
would ensure that the public has important information on the 
quantities of these PBT chemicals released or otherwise managed as 
waste, that would not be reported under the current thresholds.

B. Why Should EPCRA Section 313 be Used to Focus on Chemicals that 
Persist and Bioaccumulate?

    As discussed in Unit VI.A. of this preamble, EPA is proposing to 
lower the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds for lead and lead 
compounds because these substances persist and bioaccumulate in the 
environment. A chemical's persistence refers to the length of time the 
chemical can exist in the environment before being destroyed by natural 
processes. Bioaccumulation is a general term that is used to describe 
the process by which organisms may accumulate certain chemicals in 
their bodies. The term refers to both uptake of chemicals from water 
(bioconcentration) and from ingested food and sediment residues. PBT 
chemicals, such as lead and lead compounds, are therefore toxic 
chemicals that partition to water, sediment, or soil and are not 
removed at rates adequate to prevent their bioaccumulation in aquatic 
or terrestrial species. Chemicals that persist and bioaccumulate have 
been found in shellfish, birds, human adipose tissue, and other 
mammals. See Unit V. of this preamble for a more detailed discussion of 
and definitions for the terms persistence and bioaccumulation and the 
data for lead and lead compounds.
    Review of existing data leads EPA to believe that, as a general 
matter, the release to the environment of toxic chemicals that persist 
and bioaccumulate is of greater concern than the release of toxic 
chemicals that do not persist or bioaccumulate. Since PBT chemicals can 
remain in the environment for a significant amount of time and can 
bioaccumulate in animal tissues, even relatively small releases of such 
chemicals from individual facilities have the potential to accumulate 
over time to higher levels and cause significant adverse impacts on 
human health and the environment. EPA believes that the availability of 
information on PBT chemicals, and specifically lead and lead compounds, 
is a critical component of a community's right-to-know. Therefore, it 
is particularly important to gather and disseminate to the public 
relevant information on the releases and other waste management 
activities of PBT chemicals.
    Thus, for PBT chemicals, releases and other waste management 
activities that occur at facilities that manufacture, process, or 
otherwise use such chemicals even in relatively small amounts are of 
concern. Under current reporting thresholds, a significant amount of 
the releases and other waste management activities involving lead and 
lead compounds are not being captured. The public, therefore, does not 
have the information needed to determine if lead and lead compounds are 
present in their communities at levels that may pose a significant 
risk. By lowering the section 313 reporting thresholds for lead and 
lead compounds, EPA would be providing communities across the United 
States with access to data that may help them in making this 
determination. This information could also be used by government 
agencies and others to identify potential problems, set priorities, and 
take appropriate steps to reduce any potential risks to human health 
and the environment.
    Several EPA offices have ongoing projects and programs that are 
dealing with issues concerning PBT chemicals, such as lead and lead 
compounds. EPA has established the PBT planning group which is a 
coordinating body consisting of representatives from various program 
offices throughout EPA that are dealing with PBT chemicals. This group 
has developed a strategy to reduce pollution from PBT chemicals through 
the application of regulatory and non-regulatory authorities, with a 
strong emphasis on pollution prevention. Under this initiative, the 
reporting of PBT chemicals at lower thresholds under EPCRA section 313 
would provide data on PBT chemicals to EPA, industry, and the public. 
The availability of that data can allow all parties to identify and 
track releases of PBT chemicals and monitor the progress

[[Page 42227]]

of the programs designed to reduce the amount of PBT chemicals entering 
the environment. The data would also allow EPA and others to design 
prevention strategies that are focused and effective.
    EPA is also participating in several international efforts to 
reduce or eliminate pollution from PBT chemicals. These efforts 
include: the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) Process for 
Identifying Candidate Substances for Regional Action Under the Sound 
Management of Chemicals Initiative, the United Nations Environment 
Programme Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Negotiations, and the 
Canada-United States Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of Persistent 
Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes Basin.
    The program between the United States and Canada focuses on 
pollution of the Great Lakes by PBT chemicals, which has been a matter 
of great concern for both countries. However, the Canada-United States 
Strategy for Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances in the 
Great Lakes Basin contains commitments that apply nationwide, including 
those for alkyl lead. EPA has established the Great Lakes National 
Program Office (GLNPO) to develop and implement programs to reduce 
pollution of the Great Lakes. GLNPO works in cooperation with 
counterpart organizations in Canada, most notably Environment Canada, 
to carry out its mission. The ``Final Water Quality Guidance for the 
Great Lakes System'' (60 FR 15366, March 23, 1995) (FRL-5173-7) 
identified ``Pollutants that are Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern 
(BCCs)'' among the ``Pollutants of Initial Focus in the Great Lakes 
Water Quality Initiative.'' Working with that list, Canada and the 
United States agreed on an initial list of chemicals identified as 
``Substances Targeted by the Canada-United States Strategy for the 
Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes 
Basin'' (Ref. 1). A subset of the targeted substances is often referred 
to as the ``Binational Level 1 List,'' and includes chemicals both 
countries have committed to ``virtually eliminate'' from the Great 
Lakes, through meeting a series of interim reduction goals, some of 
which are national in scope. Virtual elimination is to be attained by 
programs implemented voluntarily by each country. The Binational Level 
1 List includes alkyl lead, and the associated commitment reads: ``US 
Challenge: Confirm by 1998, that there is no longer use of alkyl lead 
in automotive gasoline. Support and encourage stakeholder efforts to 
reduce alkyl lead releases from other sources.'' The information that 
would be reported under this proposed rule regarding alkyl lead would 
directly contribute to the Agency's ability to ``support and encourage 
stakeholder efforts to reduce releases'' as agreed to in the Binational 
Strategy.
    EPA discussed the issue of reporting on PBT chemicals under section 
313 in its January 12, 1994 chemical expansion proposed rule (59 FR 
1788) (FRL-4645-6). In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA 
specifically requested comment on whether PBT chemicals should be added 
to the section 313 list. EPA also asked for comments on what 
modifications to reporting requirements, such as lowering reporting 
thresholds or modifying the de minimis exemption, would need to be made 
in order to ensure that release and transfer information would be 
collected for such chemicals. In response to EPA's request for comments 
on the reporting of PBT chemicals, 39 commenters responded, with 35 of 
these commenters fully supporting such reporting under section 313. In 
addition, of the over 620 comments EPA received on its 1997 proposal to 
add a dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, over 520 commenters 
supported lowering the reporting thresholds for the proposed category. 
Many commenters also suggested that EPA lower the reporting threshold 
for all toxic chemicals that persist and bioaccumulate. EPA will 
provide specific responses to these comments as part of any final rule 
developed to add the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category to the 
section 313 list and lower the reporting thresholds. EPA has recently 
addressed the issue of lower reporting thresholds for certain other PBT 
chemicals in a proposed rule that was published on January 5, 1999 (64 
FR 688) (FRL-6032-3).

V. Review of Persistence, Environmental Fate, and Bioaccumulation 
Data for Lead and Lead Compounds

A. What are Persistence and Environmental Fate and What Data are 
Available for Lead and Lead Compounds?

    A chemical's persistence refers to the length of time the chemical 
can exist in the environment before being destroyed (i.e., transformed) 
by natural processes. The environmental media for which persistence is 
measured or estimated include air, water, soil, and sediment; however, 
water is the medium for which persistence values are most frequently 
available. It is important to distinguish between persistence in a 
single medium (air, water, soil, or sediment) and overall environmental 
persistence. Persistence in an individual medium is controlled by 
transport of the chemical to other media, as well as transformation to 
other chemical species. Persistence in the environment as a whole is a 
distinct concept. It is based on the observations that the environment 
behaves as a set of interconnected media, and that a chemical substance 
released to the environment will become distributed in these media in 
accordance with the chemical's intrinsic (physical/chemical) properties 
and reactivity. For overall persistence, only irreversible 
transformation contributes to net loss of a chemical substance.
    Although metals and metal compounds, including lead and lead 
compounds, may be converted from the metal to a metal compound or from 
one metal compound to another in the environment, the metal cannot be 
destroyed. Thus, metals are obviously persistent in the environment in 
some form. The form of the metal that exists in the environment depends 
on its environmental fate. Environmental fate refers to the ultimate 
result of physical, chemical, and biological processes acting upon a 
metal or metal compound once released into the environment. The 
environmental fate determines whether the metal or the metal from a 
metal compound will be available for exposure to organisms once 
released into the environment. The environmental fate of a metal or 
metal compound varies depending on the environmental conditions and the 
physical/chemical properties of the metal in question.
    The information summarized below for the environmental fate of lead 
in each environmental medium represents the key elements influencing 
the transport, transformation, and bioavailability of lead in air, 
soil, water and sediments. Commenters should consult the support 
documents and review the studies contained and referenced therein for 
further information. The information summarized below as well as a more 
extensive review of the existing data on the environmental fate of lead 
is contained in The Environmental Fate of Lead and Lead Compounds (Ref. 
2) and in the references contained therein.
    Most lead released to air eventually settles back to ground level 
by dry deposition or washout by rain. Thus, airborne lead is either 
returned to soil surfaces by deposition or to surface water by 
deposition or surface runoff. However, while airborne, some lead 
compounds (e.g., lead halides) can

[[Page 42228]]

undergo reactions to produce lead sulfates and carbonates.
    After deposition in the soil environment, lead may bind strongly by 
mechanisms such as the formation of insoluble complexes with organic 
material, clay minerals, phosphate, and iron-manganese oxides common in 
many soils. These mechanisms can lower the levels of soluble lead in 
soils. However, some of the lead in the soil environment (0.2 to 1%) 
may be water soluble. The extent of sorption appears to increase with 
increasing pH. Under acidic conditions, levels of lead in soil water 
can increase significantly. The solubility of lead increases linearly 
in the pH range of 6 to 3. At a pH of 5 to 9, heavy metals such as lead 
may bind to the surface of clay minerals. Cation exchange capacity 
(CEC, related to soil clay content) and pH also influence the capacity 
of soil to immobilize lead. Generally, as the CEC and pH increase, the 
capacity of a soil to sorb lead increases. Conversely, soils with lower 
CEC and pH tend to have a lower capacity to sorb lead. Using organic 
chelation as a model, the total capacity of soil to immobilize lead can 
be predicted by the linear relationship developed by Zimdahl and 
Skogerboe (Ref. 3). Using this equation to predict saturation capacity 
from CEC and pH, it can be shown that a pH drop from 5.5 to 4.0 would 
reduce estimated soil absorption capacity 1.5 times, thereby increasing 
the concentration of available lead in soil water.
    A number of field studies demonstrate the effect of environmental 
conditions on the mobility of lead in soils. In all of these studies, 
variables including pH, soil organic matter content and the chemical 
species of lead present, had a significant influence on soil lead 
mobility. Data indicate that when the pH and soil organic matter 
content are low and conditions favor the formation of soluble forms of 
lead, the mobility of lead increases. Therefore, decreasing pH can lead 
to increasing concentrations of lead in soil water. Other studies 
demonstrate that when pH and soil organic matter are high, lead 
mobility in soils is decreased. Limited data indicate that organolead 
compounds may be converted into water-soluble lead compounds in some 
soil. Degradation products of tetramethyl and tetraethyl lead, the 
trialkyl lead oxides, are expected to be significantly more mobile in 
soils than the parent tetraalkyl lead compounds would be.
    The levels of soluble lead in surface waters depend on the pH of 
the water and the dissolved salt content. Equilibrium calculations show 
that at a pH greater than 5.4, the total solubility of lead is 
approximately 30 micrograms per liter (g/L) in hard water and 
approximately 500 g/L in soft water. In soft water, sulfate 
ions limit the lead concentration in solution through the formation of 
lead sulfate. The lead carbonates limit lead in solution at a pH 
greater than 5.4 (Ref. 4). Concentrations as high as 330 g/L 
could be stable in water at a pH near 6.5 and an alkalinity of about 25 
milligrams (mg) bicarbonate ion per liter. Water having these 
properties is common, for example, in runoff areas of New York State 
and New England. In other waters, where alkalinity and pH are higher, 
the relative concentrations of soluble lead may be lower.
    Lead also forms complexes with organic matter in water. The organic 
matter includes humic and fulvic acids that are the primary complexing 
agents in soils and widely distributed in surface waters. The presence 
of fulvic acid in water has been shown to increase the rate of solution 
of lead sulfide 10 to 60 times (Refs. 5 and 6). At pH levels near 
neutral (i.e., about 7.0), soluble lead-fulvic acid complexes are 
present in solution. As pH levels increase, the complexes are partially 
decomposed, and lead hydroxide and carbonate are precipitated, and may 
either remain suspended or fall to the sediment. Other studies have 
shown that humic acid in freshwater and marine sediments, and in the 
aqueous phases, are capable of complexing various amounts of metals. In 
some circumstances, this process could potentially reduce the levels of 
soluble lead present.
    At neutral pH, lead generally moves from the dissolved to the 
particulate form with ultimate deposition in sediments. There is 
evidence that in anaerobic sediments, lead can undergo biological or 
chemical methylation. This process could result in the remobilization 
and reintroduction of transformed lead into the water column where it 
could be available for uptake by biota, and volatilization to the 
atmosphere. However, tetramethyl lead may be degraded in aerobic water 
before reaching the atmosphere.
    In conclusion, EPA believes that processes commonly observed in the 
environment can result in the release of bioavailable (ionic) lead 
where it can be bioaccumulated by organisms. These processes may occur 
in soil and aquatic environments with low pH and low levels of clay and 
organic matter. Under these conditions, the solubility of lead is 
enhanced and if there are no sorbing surfaces and colloids, lead ion 
can remain in solution for a sufficient period to be taken up by biota. 
Lead sorption to soil organic matter has been shown to be pH dependent. 
Decreasing pH can lead to increasing concentrations of lead in soil 
water; while increasing pH can lead to decreasing concentrations of 
lead in soil water.
    The Agency's analysis of the environmental fate of lead and lead 
compounds, therefore, shows that under many environmental conditions 
lead is available to express its toxicity and to bioaccumulate. The 
bioavailability of metals such as lead has been raised as an issue at 
recent public meetings on EPA's January 5, 1999 proposed rule on PBT 
chemicals (64 FR 688). It has been suggested that metals will not be 
bioavailable from certain metal compounds that may be released into the 
environment and that therefore they should not be considered PBT 
chemicals. The issue of the bioavailability of metals from metal 
compounds is broader than just its implications for whether a chemical 
is a PBT. The issue of bioavailability has been addressed for EPCRA 
section 313 chemical assessments through EPA's policy and guidance 
concerning petitions to delist individual members of the metal compound 
categories listed under EPCRA section 313 (May 23, 1991, 56 FR 23703). 
This policy states that if the metal in a metal compound cannot become 
available as a result of biotic or abiotic processes then the metal 
will not be available to express its toxicity. If the intact metal 
compound is not toxic and the metal is not available from the metal 
compound then such a chemical is a potential candidate for delisting. 
EPA developed this petition process specifically to address such 
circumstances.
    EPA requests comment on its discussion of the scientific 
information concerning the fate, transport, and the availability of 
lead in the environment, and on how this information should be 
considered in classifying lead as a PBT chemical.

B. What is Bioaccumulation and What Aquatic Bioaccumulation Data are 
Available for Lead and Lead Compounds?

    Bioaccumulation is a general term that is used to describe the 
process by which organisms may accumulate chemical substances in their 
bodies. The discussions and data on bioaccumulation in this unit (i.e., 
Unit V.B.) deal strictly with aquatic organisms. This is not to imply 
that bioaccumulation cannot occur in non-aqueous environments and in 
fact Unit V.C. of this preamble discusses the bioaccumulation of lead 
in humans,

[[Page 42229]]

including bioaccumulation from non-aqueous media. The term 
bioaccumulation refers to uptake of chemicals by organisms both 
directly from water and through their diet (Ref. 7). EPA has defined 
bioaccumulation as the net accumulation of a substance by an organism 
as a result of uptake from all environmental sources (60 FR 15366). The 
nondietary accumulation of chemicals in aquatic organisms is referred 
to as bioconcentration, and may be described as the process through 
which a chemical is distributed between the organism and environment 
based on the chemical's properties, environmental conditions, and 
biological factors such as an organism's ability to metabolize the 
chemical (Ref. 8). EPA has defined bioconcentration as the net 
accumulation of a substance by an aquatic organism as a result of 
uptake directly from the ambient water through gill membranes or other 
external body surfaces (60 FR 15366). A chemical's potential to 
bioaccumulate can be quantified by measuring or predicting the 
chemical's bioaccumulation factor (BAF). EPA has defined the BAF as the 
ratio of a substance's concentration in tissue of an aquatic organism 
to its concentration in the ambient water, in situations where both the 
organism and its food are exposed and the ratio does not change 
substantially over time (60 FR 15366). A chemical's potential to 
bioaccumulate can also be quantified by measuring or predicting the 
chemical's bioconcentration factor (BCF). EPA has defined the BCF as 
the ratio of a substance's concentration in tissue of an aquatic 
organism to its concentration in the ambient water, in situations where 
the organism is exposed through water only and the ratio does not 
change substantially over time (60 FR 15366).
    A review of the ecotoxicological literature indicates that 
bioconcentration values of lead and lead compounds (lead salts) in 
aquatic plants and animals are often above a bioconcentration/
bioaccumulation factor of 1,000. Lead is bioaccumulated by aquatic 
organisms such as plants, bacteria, invertebrates, and fish. The 
principal form that is believed to be accumulated is divalent lead 
(i.e., lead in its plus 2 oxidation state (Pb+2)). It has 
been shown that fish held in water at a pH of 6.0 accumulate three 
times as much lead as fish held in water at a pH of 7.5 (Ref. 9), thus 
as pH decreases the availability of divalent lead increases. Older 
organisms usually have the highest body burdens, and lead accumulates 
in bony tissues to the greatest extent.
    Table 1 below summarizes some of the data reviewed concerning the 
extent (magnitude) of lead bioaccumulation found to occur in many 
aquatic plants and animals and the lead bioconcentration factors (BCF) 
determined or measured from laboratory studies conducted for certain 
durations using BCF test methods. Only some of the laboratory 
calculated values or monitored field values near or above a 
bioaccumulation factor of 1,000 are included in Table 1; additional 
data can be found in the bioaccumulation support document (Ref. 10). 
Concentrations of lead monitored in various organisms listed in Table 1 
were determined by comparing concentrations in the environment (water) 
with concentrations measured in the organisms.

[[Page 42230]]



        Table 1.--Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration Data for Lead and Lead Compounds in Aquatic Organisms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Chemical Tested/                              Field
          Test Species                 Monitored          BCF Value1         Concentration         Reference
                                    (concentration)                             Factor2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freshwater Species
 
Snail (Lymnaea palustris)         Lead nitrate (12    1,700; 3,100 (soft  NA                  Ref. 11
                                   g/L)       tissue); 2,500
                                                       (whole animal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phytoplankton, 13 species         Lead (0.4-2.5       NA                  10,000x or          Ref. 12
 (Melosira italica and             g/dm3                          greater(3)
 Asterionella formosa were
 dominants)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green alga (Selenastrum           Lead nitrate (5     10,000(3)           NA                  Ref. 13
 capricornutum)                    g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green alga (Selenastrum           Lead nitrate (50    2,900(3)            NA                  Ref. 13
 capricornutum)                    g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green alga (Cladophora sp.)       Lead                NA                  390x(3); 690x(3);   Ref. 14
                                                                           and 1,695x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pondweed (Pontamogeton sp.)       Lead                NA                  525x(3) and         Ref. 15
                                                                           1,695x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri)   Lead (3.5 g/L; 24 g/L)              (intestinal
                                                       lipids)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Species
 
Blue mussel (Mytius edulis)       Lead nitrate; Lead  2,570 and 2,800     NA                  Refs. 17 and 18
                                   (10 g/     (soft parts);
                                   L); Lead (500       2,427(3) (kidney)
                                   g/L)       and 306(3) (soft
                                                       parts); 4,985(3)
                                                       (soft parts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern oyster (Crassostrea       Lead (1, 3.3        1,320(3) and        NA                  Ref. 19
 virginica)                        g/L)       691(3) (soft
                                                       parts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brown alga (Fucus vesiculosus)    Lead (1-7.5 (3)      Ref. 20
                                   m>g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algae (Ulva sp.)                  Lead (1-7.5 (3)    Ref. 20
                                   m>g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algae (Enteromorpha linza)        Lead (1-7.5 (3)    Ref. 20
                                   m>g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algae (Blidingia minima)          Lead (1-7.5 (3)     Ref. 20
                                   m>g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Lobster (Homarus         Lead (50 g/L)              gland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1BCF values are calculated from laboratory studies.
2Field concentrations are estimated from water:organism sample comparisons.
3Value was converted from a dry weight value to a wet weight value using appropriate conversion factors.

    Additional information concerning lead's bioaccumulation potential 
is summarized in the bioaccumulation support document for this proposed 
rule (Ref. 10). In general, bioconcentration values for four freshwater 
invertebrate species ranged from 499 to 1,700 (Ref 22). BCFs for two 
species of freshwater fish were much lower, 42 and 45. However, certain 
fish tissues have much higher BCF values, e.g., the BCF value for the 
intestinal lipids in rainbow trout were as high as 17,300. Freshwater 
phytoplankton and both marine and freshwater algae accumulate or 
concentrate lead to very high levels (e.g., greater than 10,000x). BCF 
values for marine bivalve organisms were as high as 4,985 for blue 
mussels. Eastern oysters also have BCF values greater than 1,000. These 
data indicate that many of the BCF values and measured environmental 
concentration factors for lead are above 1,000 with several species 
having BCF or observed concentration factors above 5,000. The 
references cited for blue mussels include a range of values, the upper 
end of which is very close to 5,000 (i.e., 4,985). There are also a few 
fish tissues that have BCFs greater than 10,000, though most of the 
available fish data are below 5,000.
    EPA requests comment on its discussion of the scientific 
information concerning the bioaccumulation of lead in aquatic 
organisms, and on how this information should be evaluated in assessing 
the bioaccumulative potential of lead and lead compounds.

C. What Data are Available on the Human Bioaccumulation of Lead and 
Lead Compounds?

    There is a great deal of information available on the 
bioaccumulation of lead in humans and the effects that such

[[Page 42231]]

accumulation can have. Much of this information is summarized and cited 
in the following documents, The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry Toxicological Profile on Lead (Ref. 23), EPA's Risk Analysis 
to Support Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust, and Soil (Ref. 24), and 
EPA's Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Ref. 25). EPA's Office of 
International Affairs has also established an Internet site that 
provides information on lead including lists of various EPA documents 
on lead that are available as well as links to other EPA programs and 
agencies that have information on lead and its hazards (Ref. 26). This 
unit provides a summary of some of the information from these sources 
that relates to the ability of lead to accumulate in humans.
    The bioaccumulation and persistence of lead in humans is well 
documented. Although lead has no known biological function in humans, 
it is readily absorbed through the gut and can be absorbed by 
inhalation and, to some extent by dermal contact. Absorption of lead 
can occur as a result of exposure to air-borne forms of lead, as well 
as ingestion or contact with contaminated soil and dust. Children and 
developing fetuses are known to absorb lead more readily than adults 
and to excrete it at a lower total rate. These findings are especially 
significant since young children are most susceptible to the adverse 
effects associated with lead exposure. Lead absorption varies from very 
low levels (e.g., 5%) up to essentially 100%. Lead absorption appears 
to be linked to particle size, the chemical composition, and other 
factors (Refs. 27 and 28). Long-lasting impacts on intelligence, motor 
control, hearing, and neurobehavioral development of children have been 
documented at levels of lead that are not associated with clinical 
intoxication and were once thought to be safe. An analysis of human 
blood-lead level data collected from most recent National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Surveys (see Ref. 24), showed that approximately 
4.4% of the nation's children aged 1-5 years have blood-lead 
concentrations at or above 10 micrograms per deciliter (g/dL), 
which is the current action level established by the Centers for 
Disease Control. While this is a significant improvement over the 88% 
of children who had blood lead levels above this threshold in 1976, 
before the phase-out of lead in gasoline, it is still cause for concern 
because it leaves nearly 900,000 children aged 1-5 with unacceptably 
high blood-lead levels.
    Once lead is absorbed in the body, it is primarily distributed to 
the blood, soft tissues (kidney, bone marrow, liver, and brain) and to 
the mineralizing tissue (bones and teeth). In one study it was shown 
that in adults, following a single dose of lead, one-half of the lead 
absorbed from the original exposure remained in the blood for 
approximately 25 days after exposure, in soft tissues for about 40 
days, and in bone for more than 25 years (Ref. 29). Once in the bone, 
lead can re-enter the blood and soft tissues. Under certain 
circumstances, such as pregnancy and lactation, lead can more readily 
re-enter blood and soft tissues. Thus, accumulation of lead in bone can 
serve to maintain elevated blood lead levels years after exposure. The 
total amount of lead in long-term bone retention can approach 200 mg 
for adult males 60-70 years old (and even higher with occupational 
exposure). For adults, up to 94% of the total amount of lead in the 
body is contained in the bones and teeth but for children only about 
73% is stored in their bones. While the increase in bone lead level 
across childhood is modest, the total accumulation rate is actually 80-
fold when the 40-fold increase in skeletal mass that children undergo 
is taken into account. While lead absorption rates are influenced by 
several parameters, including route of exposure, chemical speciation, 
the physical/chemical characteristics of the lead and the exposure 
medium, as well as the age and physiological states of the exposed 
individual, there is substantial documentation that a significant 
amount of lead can be absorbed and accumulated in humans.
    EPA requests comments on its discussion of the scientific 
information concerning the bioaccumulation of lead in humans and on how 
this information should be considered in classifying lead and lead 
compounds as ``highly bioaccumulative.''

D. What are EPA's Conclusions from the Review of the Available Data on 
Lead and Lead Compounds?

    EPA's review of the available information on lead and lead 
compounds has led EPA to conclude that lead and lead compounds are 
highly persistent and highly bioaccumulative. The persistence of lead 
in the environment is not in question since, as a metal, lead cannot be 
destroyed in the environment. With respect to whether lead or lead 
compounds released to the environment will result in lead that is 
bioavailable, the data indicate that under many environmental 
conditions lead does become available. The conclusion that lead is 
bioavailable in the environment is confirmed by the data on the 
bioaccumulation of lead in aquatic organisms and in humans as a result 
of environmental exposures. As for lead's bioaccumulation potential, 
lead has been shown to bioaccumulate in laboratory studies and has been 
found to bioaccumulate in organisms observed in the environment. These 
data indicate that many of the BCF values and measured environmental 
concentration factors for lead are above 1,000 with several species 
having BCF or observed concentration factors above 5,000. The 
references cited for blue mussels include a range of values, the upper 
end of which is very close to 5,000 (i.e., 4,985). There are also a few 
fish tissues that have BCFs greater than 10,000, though most of the 
available fish data are below 5,000.
    A high concern for the bioaccumulation potential for chemicals with 
BCF values above 1,000 is consistent with the discussion of BCF values 
in the recent proposed rule on PBT chemicals (January 5, 1999, 64 FR 
688). In addition, there is considerable information on the 
accumulation of lead in humans, including children who are the most 
susceptible to the toxic effects of lead. The data on lead's 
persistence and availability in the environment, the observed high 
bioaccumulation values in aquatic organisms, and lead's ability to 
accumulate in humans, are the basis for EPA's conclusion that lead and 
lead compounds are highly persistent and highly bioaccumulative.

E. Are There Particular Issues on Which EPA is Interested in Receiving 
Comment?

    The Agency recognizes that there are several complex technical 
issues surrounding the availability and bioaccumulation of lead and 
lead compounds. For example, during the inter-agency review process it 
was suggested that the bioavailability of lead in the environment could 
be constrained by many abiotic factors such that lead is not available 
in certain environments. These abiotic factors include: Soils have a 
high capacity to immobilize lead and therefore limit its availability; 
high pH levels may reduce lead bioavailability; organic matter can 
decrease lead bioavailability; inorganic constituents can reduce lead 
availability in aqueous environments; and, increasing water hardness 
can also reduce lead availability. The Agency specifically requests 
comments on these issues.

[[Page 42232]]

VI. What Changes are EPA Proposing to Make to the Reporting 
Requirements for Lead and Lead Compounds?

A. What Changes are EPA Proposing for the Reporting Thresholds for Lead 
and Lead Compounds?

    EPA is proposing to lower the reporting thresholds for lead and 
lead compounds.
    1. What was considered in the selection of lower reporting 
thresholds? In selecting potential lower reporting thresholds for lead 
and lead compounds, EPA considered not only their persistence and 
bioaccumulation but also the potential burden that might be imposed on 
the regulated community by lower reporting thresholds. Each of these 
important considerations is discussed below.
    a. How was persistence and bioaccumulation considered in threshold 
selection? Because lead and lead compounds persist and bioaccumulate in 
the environment, they have the potential to pose human health and 
environmental risks over a longer period of time. Thus, even small 
amounts that enter the environment can lead to elevated concentrations 
in the environment and in organisms which can result in adverse effects 
on human health and the environment. The nature of lead and lead 
compounds indicates that small quantities of such chemicals are of 
concern, which provides strong support for setting lower reporting 
thresholds than the current section 313 thresholds of 25,000 and 10,000 
pounds.
    For determining how low reporting thresholds should be set for PBT 
chemicals, including lead and lead compounds, EPA has adopted a two-
tiered approach. Under this approach, EPA identifies PBT chemicals that 
should have a lower reporting threshold as those chemicals with half-
lives of at least 2 months and BAF/BCF values of at least 1,000. This 
approach also recognizes that toxic chemicals that have very high 
persistence and bioaccumulation potentials (e.g., chemicals with half-
lives of 6 months or more and BAF/BCF values of 5,000 or more), like 
those that have been widely recognized as PBT chemicals, are of 
greatest concern and should have an even lower reporting threshold. EPA 
believes that for toxic chemicals that are highly persistent and 
bioaccumulative, any release of the toxic chemical can result in 
elevated concentrations in the environment and organisms because of 
their very high persistence and bioaccumulation potentials. As a 
result, consideration of persistence and bioaccumulation alone would 
lead EPA to set a reporting threshold for the subset of highly 
persistent bioaccumulative chemicals that approaches zero in order to 
provide the most relevant data to communities. However, EPA believes 
that it is appropriate to set a low threshold for toxic chemicals that 
persist and bioaccumulate and to set a lower threshold for toxic 
chemicals that are highly persistent and bioaccumulative.
    Because lead cannot be destroyed in the environment and because 
lead is available in the environment, EPA believes that lead and lead 
compounds are highly persistent. The bioaccumulation data for lead and 
lead compounds includes many BCF or concentration values well above 
5,000, and there is additional data that show that lead bioaccumulates 
in humans. Given this data, EPA considers lead and lead compounds to be 
highly bioaccumulative. Thus, EPA believes that based solely on the 
degree of persistence and bioaccumulation, it would be appropriate to 
set section 313 manufacture, process, and otherwise use thresholds of 1 
pound for lead and lead compounds. This approach is consistent with the 
general approach that EPA has taken for setting reporting thresholds 
for PBT chemicals that are highly persistent and highly bioaccumulative 
as discussed in the recent proposed rule on PBT chemicals (64 FR 688).
    As EPA stated in the January 5, 1999 proposed rule, EPA believes 
that communities have a greater right-to-know about chemicals which can 
reasonably be anticipated to be present in the community at higher 
levels (64 FR 688). This is particularly the case for lead which, as a 
metal, cannot be destroyed in the environment. Releases of lead and 
lead compounds from facilities subject to section 313 reporting 
requirements, therefore, can increase the potential exposure to lead 
within communities relative to a chemical that can be destroyed.
    The increased exposure potential also applies to chemicals with 
different BCFs. The identical amount of two different chemicals, 
chemical A with a BCF of 1,000 to fish and chemical B with a fish BCF 
of 5,000, will result in different exposures to fish that consume other 
organisms lower in the food chain that have been exposed to these 
chemicals. For example, organisms that consume the fish exposed to 
chemical B will usually be exposed to greater quantities of the 
chemical than organisms that consume the fish exposed to chemical A, 
assuming identical feeding rates and other conditions. Due to concerns 
for its higher accumulation potential, a lower threshold would be set 
for Chemical B than for Chemical A.
    b. Was burden considered in threshold selection and what is the 
proposed threshold for lead and lead compounds? As discussed above, in 
determining the appropriate reporting thresholds to propose for lead 
and lead compounds, EPA started with the premise that very low 
reporting thresholds may be appropriate for lead and lead compounds 
based solely on their persistence and bioaccumulation potential. EPA 
then considered the burden that would be imposed by four sets of 
reporting thresholds. The thresholds considered were: (1) The 1 pound 
threshold discussed above; (2) 10 pounds; (3) 100 pounds; and (4) 1,000 
pounds. For each threshold, EPA estimated the number of additional 
reports that facilities might be required to file and the costs 
associated with the filing of those additional reports (see Tables 3 
and 4 in Unit VII.E.4. of this preamble). Based on the potential 
burdens, EPA believes it is appropriate to lower the reporting 
thresholds to a level that would capture significantly more information 
about lead and lead compounds than current thresholds but that would 
not be unduly burdensome on industry. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
lower the manufacture, process, and otherwise use thresholds to 10 
pounds for lead and lead compounds. This consideration of burden is 
consistent with the approach EPA used in the January 5, 1999 proposed 
rule (64 FR 688), in which the preferred thresholds were set an order 
of magnitude higher than EPA would have proposed based solely on the 
degree of persistence and bioaccumulation.
    EPA requests comment on its consideration of industry burden in 
establishing lower reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds, 
including comments on the extent to which burden should be considered 
in EPA's decision. EPA requests comment on whether the Agency should 
lower the reporting threshold to 1 pound for lead and lead compounds 
rather than the 10 pound reporting threshold proposed in this document. 
EPA requests comment on whether there are any policy reasons for 
selecting the 1 pound reporting threshold rather than the 10 pound 
reporting threshold. Such policy reasons could include the fact that 
the 10 pound reporting threshold for lead and lead compounds, which are 
highly persistent and bioaccumulative, may not capture all releases 
that are of concern to local communities. Alternatively, EPA also seeks 
comment on reasons for selecting reporting thresholds of 100 pounds and 
1,000 pounds.

[[Page 42233]]

    c. What is the relationship of the EPCRA section 313 reporting 
thresholds to other statutory thresholds? For purposes of establishing 
EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds, Congress has expressed a clear 
intent to obtain reporting on a substantial majority of total releases 
of the chemical at all facilities subject to the requirements of the 
section, and to assure that this information is reported to EPA and the 
states and provided to the user community. In this action, by proposing 
to lower the reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds, EPA is 
working to assure that communities are provided with data on these 
toxic chemicals, which are frequently manufactured, processed, or 
otherwise used in quantities well below the existing reporting 
thresholds of 25,000 pounds and 10,000 pounds and consequently are not 
reported to EPA and the states. In choosing the proposed EPCRA section 
313 thresholds for lead and lead compounds, EPA took into consideration 
a number of factors including small business impacts, overall reporting 
burden, and report generation in addition to utility of the 
information. It has been EPA's goal, under the EPCRA section 313 
program, to maintain a balance between community right-to-know and 
overall reporting burden for the affected industry.
    EPCRA section 313 provides one of several authorities through which 
EPA collects data. Each of these authorities has different criteria and 
different purposes. Many are aimed at supporting environmental 
decisionmaking and standard setting with community involvement in these 
processes. The thresholds established under EPCRA section 313 are 
designed to meet the statutory requirements of the Act as well as the 
overarching goal of informing the public about chemical releases and 
other waste management practices in their communities. Other EPA 
statutes such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) also have information 
collection provisions, whose criteria, coverage, scope and purpose may 
be different from that of EPCRA section 313. The thresholds proposed 
here, for purposes of EPCRA section 313, should not be construed to 
limit or expand the data collection goals or authorities of other EPA 
programs.

B. What is the de minimis Exemption and What Changes is EPA Proposing 
to Make to the Use of the de minimis Exemption for Lead and Lead 
Compounds?

    As part of the final rule implementing the reporting provisions of 
EPCRA section 313 (53 FR 4500, February 16, 1988), EPA adopted a 
limited de minimis exemption for listed toxic chemicals in mixtures. 
The de minimis exemption allows facilities to disregard certain 
concentrations of chemicals in mixtures or other trade name products 
they import, process, or otherwise use in making threshold calculations 
and release and other waste management determinations for section 313 
reporting. This exemption does not apply to the manufacture of a toxic 
chemical unless the toxic chemical is manufactured as an impurity or is 
imported.
    EPA adopted this exemption in response to comments requesting some 
type of concentration limitation for listed toxic chemicals in mixtures 
or other trade name products as a burden reducing measure. Commenters 
contended that it would be extremely burdensome for suppliers, 
processors, and other users of mixtures or trade name products to have 
to account for quantities below a de minimis level. Most of these 
commenters requested that EPA adopt a de minimis concentration 
limitation consistent with the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requirement. 
The HCS provides that a supplier does not have to list a ``hazardous 
chemical'' component in a mixture if that chemical comprises less than 
1.0% of the mixture or 0.1% where the chemical is a carcinogen as 
defined in 29 CFR 1910.1200(d)(4). OSHA chose the 1% and 0.1% limits 
because the agency believed that they generally appeared to be 
protective of workers and were considered reasonable by a number of 
commenters (48 FR 53280, November 25, 1983).
    EPA adopted the de minimis exemption primarily as a means of 
reducing burden associated with the new (at the time) EPCRA section 313 
reporting requirements. The Agency chose the HCS levels because: (1) 
They were consistent with the existing OSHA requirements for developing 
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) information and with other 
requirements under EPCRA sections 311 and 312; (2) suppliers of 
products were familiar with these levels; (3) for the first 2 years of 
reporting, users of these mixtures were only likely to be able to rely 
on the product MSDS for information about the content and percentage 
composition of covered toxic chemicals in these products; and (4) EPA 
did not expect that the processing and otherwise use of toxic chemicals 
at less than the de minimis concentration in mixtures would, in most 
instances, contribute significantly to the threshold determinations or 
releases of listed toxic chemicals from any given facility.
    When determining whether the de minimis exemption applies to a 
listed toxic chemical, the facility must consider only the 
concentration of the toxic chemical in mixtures and trade name products 
in process streams in which the toxic chemical is involved in a 
reportable activity. If the toxic chemical in a process stream is 
manufactured as an impurity, imported, processed, or otherwise used and 
is below the appropriate de minimis concentration level, then the 
quantity of the toxic chemical in that process stream does not have to 
be applied to threshold determinations nor included in release or other 
waste management determinations. If a toxic chemical in a process 
stream is below the appropriate de minimis level, all releases and 
other waste management activities associated with the toxic chemical in 
that stream are exempt from EPCRA section 313 reporting. It is possible 
to meet an activity (e.g., processing) threshold for a toxic chemical 
on a facility-wide basis, but not be required to calculate releases or 
other waste management quantities associated with a particular process 
because that process involves only mixtures or trade name products 
containing the toxic chemical below the de minimis level.
    As stated above, the intent of the de minimis exemption was 
primarily burden reduction. The de minimis exemption was not intended 
to be a general small quantity exemption, but rather an exemption based 
on the limited information likely to be readily available to facilities 
newly affected by EPCRA section 313. EPA did not expect in 1988 that 
``the processing and [otherwise] use of mixtures containing less than 
the de minimis concentration would, in most instances, contribute 
significantly to the threshold determinations or releases of listed 
toxic chemicals from any given facility'' (53 FR 4509). However, given 
10 years of experience with the program, EPA believes that there are 
many instances where a PBT chemical, including lead or a lead compound, 
may exist in a mixture at a concentration below the 1% (or 0.1% for 
OSHA carcinogens) de minimis level, but where the manufacture, process, 
or otherwise use

[[Page 42234]]

of the PBT chemical in that mixture would otherwise contribute 
significantly to, or exceed, the lower reporting threshold proposed in 
this document.
    For example, a raw material is processed that contains less than 
the de minimis level of lead. The quantity of raw material processed 
results in significantly more than the threshold quantity of lead being 
processed. Also, during the processing of lead, its concentration in 
the process stream remains below the de minimis level. However, the 
concentration of lead in the wastestream that results from that 
processing activity is above the de minimis concentration level for 
lead and the wastestream containing lead is released to the land. In 
this example, because the concentration of lead in the process stream 
is below the de minimis concentration, the de minimis exemption can be 
taken. As a result, (1) The quantities processed do not have to be 
applied to the processing threshold for lead at the facility, and (2) 
quantities of lead that are released or otherwise managed as waste as a 
result of this specific processing activity are exempt from release and 
other waste management determinations. The exemption applies even 
though lead is concentrated above the de minimis level in the 
wastestream. This information would not be included in that facility's 
Form R.
    In addition, EPA believes that the information available to the 
typical EPCRA section 313 reporter is generally greater than it was 10 
years ago. Since 1987, the Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP-42) 
guidance document has been repeatedly updated and expanded. For 
example, several new sections were added in 1996, including a section 
specific to electroplating. In the early 1990s, the Factor Information 
Retrieval data base (FIRE) was developed. EPA has developed several 
additional guidance documents and software programs, including Air 
CHIEF CD-ROM, to aid facilities in estimating releases. Facilities also 
have access to guidance from trade associations.
    EPA believes that there may be significant releases of lead and 
lead compounds in mixtures when these chemicals exist below the de 
minimis limit and that even minimal releases of persistent 
bioaccumulative chemicals may result in elevated concentrations in the 
environment or in an organism that reasonably can be anticipated to 
result in significant adverse effects. Therefore, EPA believes that 
allowing facilities to continue to take the de minimis exemption for 
lead and lead compounds, would deprive communities of important 
information. While these chemicals may exist in mixtures below the de 
minimis levels they will concentrate in the environment and in 
organisms. Further, lead and lead compounds have been shown to cause 
adverse effects at concentrations far less than the de minimis levels. 
For example, EPA has stated that it appears that some of the health 
effects of lead, particularly changes in the levels of certain blood 
enzymes and in aspects of children's neurobehavioral development, may 
occur at blood lead levels so low as to be essentially without a 
threshold (Ref. 30). Thus, because lead and lead compounds can cause 
adverse effects at concentrations well below de minimis levels, EPA 
believes that the de minimis principle may no longer apply. See 
Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 82 F.3d 451, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1996); 
Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F. 2d 323, 360 (D.C. Cir 1979). In 
addition, for the reasons articulated above, EPA is concerned about 
whether other similar regulatory exemptions continue to be supportable 
for lead and lead compounds. See e.g., 40 CFR 372.38(c).
    Further, EPA believes that lowering the reporting thresholds for 
lead and lead compounds, while leaving the de minimis exemption in 
place may result in very limited reporting and undermine the very 
purpose of this action. Without a concomitant change in the de minimis 
exemption, lowering the reporting thresholds would not increase 
reporting for lead and lead compounds from some industry sectors due to 
the low concentrations in mixtures or other trade name products that 
are processed or otherwise used. A facility may exceed the reporting 
threshold based on some processes that involve lead or lead compounds 
in a mixture where the lead or lead compound is above the de minimis 
level or on activities for which the de minimis exemption is not 
applicable. However, EPA expects there will be significant numbers of 
activities that occur for which the de minimis exemption could 
otherwise be taken. All releases and other waste management activities 
associated with these activities would therefore be exempt.
    Given that use of the de minimis exemption could significantly 
limit the amount of reporting on lead and lead compounds under the 
lower reporting threshold being proposed in today's action, EPA is 
proposing to eliminate the de minimis exemption for lead and lead 
compounds.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 372.38(a) to add the 
following sentence to the end thereof:

    This exemption does not apply to toxic chemicals listed in 
Sec. 372.28 (i.e., the chemicals for which thresholds have been 
lowered), except for purposes of Sec. 372.45(d)(1).

As indicated in the proposed regulatory text, EPA is proposing to list 
lead and lead compounds in Sec. 372.28.
    EPA is not proposing to extend this modification to 40 CFR 
372.45(d)(1) because the Agency believes that there is sufficient 
information available on lead and lead compounds. Requirement of 
additional information in this case would result in redundancies.
    In past expansion actions, EPA has tried to retain burden reducing 
options wherever feasible. However, as the TRI program evolves to meet 
emerging community needs, EPA will need to reassess these exemptions 
and modify them as appropriate. EPA notes that the increase in burden 
resulting from eliminating the de minimis exemption for lead and lead 
compounds would be limited to facilities that import, process, 
otherwise use or manufacture as impurities lead and lead compounds. 
Many facilities may engage in activities that result in the 
manufacturing of lead and lead compounds as byproducts. In the preamble 
to the 1988 final rule implementing the reporting provisions of EPCRA 
section 313 (53 FR 4500), EPA explained, that the ``de minimis 
limitation does not apply to the byproducts produced coincidentally as 
a result of manufacturing, processing, use, waste treatment, or 
disposal'' (see 53 FR 4501, column 1). EPA further explains on page 
4504, column 3, its decision about the application of the de minimis 
exemption to impurities and byproducts:

    EPA has distinguished between toxic chemicals which are 
impurities that remain with another chemical that is processed, 
distributed, or used, from toxic chemicals that are byproducts 
either sent to disposal or processed, distributed, or used in their 
own right. EPA also considers that it would be reasonable to apply a 
de minimis concentration limitation to toxic chemicals that are 
impurities in another chemical or mixture. . . .Because the covered 
toxic chemical as an impurity ends up in a product, most producers 
of the product will frequently know whether the chemical is present 
in concentrations that exceed the de minimis level, and, thus may be 
listed on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for that product 
under the OSHA HCS.
    This final rule does not adopt a de minimis concentration 
limitation in connection with the production of a byproduct. EPA 
believes that the facility should be able to quantify the annual 
aggregate pounds of production of a byproduct which is not an 
impurity because the substance is separated from the production 
stream and used, sold, or

[[Page 42235]]

disposed of, unlike an impurity which remains in the product. (53 FR 
4500).

    Because many facilities may engage in activities that manufacture 
lead or lead compounds as byproducts and since the de minimis exemption 
does not apply to such activities, eliminating it would have no effect 
on the reporting of lead and lead compounds from those facilities.
    For lead and lead compounds in mixtures that are imported, 
processed, or otherwise used, the increase in burden resulting from the 
elimination of the de minimis exemption would be limited because EPCRA 
does not require additional monitoring or sampling in order to comply 
with the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313. EPCRA section 
313(g)(2) states:

    In order to provide the information required under this section, 
the owner or operator of a facility may use readily available data 
(including monitoring data) collected pursuant to other provisions 
of law, or, where such data are not readily available, reasonable 
estimates of the amounts involved. Nothing in this section requires 
the monitoring or measurement of the quantities, concentration, or 
frequency of any toxic chemical released in the environment beyond 
the monitoring and measurement required under other provisions of 
law or regulation.

    Information used should be based on production records, monitoring, 
or analytical data, guidance documents provided by EPA and trade 
associations, and reasonable judgement on the part of the facility's 
management. No further monitoring or analysis of production, process, 
or use is required.
    EPA requests comment on its proposed modification of the de minimis 
exemption for lead and lead compounds. EPA also requests comments on 
whether the Agency should modify the exemptions at 40 CFR 372.38(c) 
(e.g., the otherwise use exemptions, including the structural component 
exemption, the routine janitorial or facility grounds maintenance 
exemption; the personal use exemption, the motor vehicle maintenance 
exemption, and the intake air and water exemption) such that they will 
not apply to lead or lead compounds. The legal authority for these 
exemptions is also the de minimis principle, and as noted above, EPA is 
concerned that this doctrine may not be applicable to PBT chemicals, 
such as lead and lead compounds.

C. What is the Alternative Threshold and Form A, and is EPA Proposing 
Any Changes to the Use of the Alternate Threshold and Form A?

    On November 30, 1994, EPA published a final rule (59 FR 61488) that 
provides that facilities that have 500 pounds or less of production-
related waste (the sum of sections 8.1 through 8.7 of Form R) may apply 
an alternate manufacture, process, and otherwise use reporting 
threshold of 1 million pounds. Facilities that have less than 500 
pounds of production-related waste of a listed toxic chemical and that 
do not manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 1 million 
pounds of that listed toxic chemical may file a Form A certification 
statement certifying that they do not exceed either of these quantities 
for the toxic chemical. This certification statement includes facility 
identification information and chemical identification information. EPA 
adopted the alternate threshold and the Form A as a means of reducing 
the burden associated with EPCRA section 313.
    EPA believes that use of the existing alternate threshold and 
reportable quantity for Form A would be inconsistent with the intent of 
expanded reporting for PBT chemicals such as proposed for lead and lead 
compounds in this proposed rule. While the Form A does provide some 
general information on the quantities of the chemical that the facility 
manages as waste, this information is insufficient for conducting 
analyses on PBT chemicals, such as lead and lead compounds and would be 
virtually useless for communities interested in assessing risk from 
releases of lead and lead compounds. First, the threshold category for 
amounts managed as waste does not include quantities released to the 
environment as a result of remedial actions or catastrophic events not 
associated with production processes (section 8.8 of Form R). Thus, the 
waste threshold category will not include all releases. Given that even 
small quantities of lead or lead compounds may result in elevated 
concentrations in the environment or in an organism, that reasonably 
can be anticipated to result in significant adverse effects, EPA 
believes it would be inappropriate to allow an option that would 
exclude information on some releases. Second, the 500 pound waste 
threshold category could be interpreted by some users, as a worst-case, 
to mean that greater than 500 pounds of the lead and lead compounds has 
been released into the environment (i.e., 500 pounds of production-
related waste as release and some quantity of catastrophic release). 
Other users may assume that the facility had no catastrophic releases 
and all of the lead or lead compounds in waste was managed in a manner 
other than as release, e.g., the lead and lead compounds in waste were 
recycled. For those chemicals, such as lead and lead compounds, where 
any release is a concern, an uncertainty level of 500 pounds will 
result in data that are virtually unusable. As a result, EPA is 
proposing to exclude lead and lead compounds from the alternate 
threshold of 1 million pounds. Therefore, EPA proposes to modify 40 CFR 
372.27 to add a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:

    (e) The provisions of this section do not apply to any toxic 
chemicals listed in Sec. 372.28. As indicated above, EPA is 
proposing to list lead and lead compounds in Sec. 372.28.

EPA requests comment on this limitation to the use of the Form A 
certification statement.

D. What is Range Reporting and What Changes is EPA Proposing to Make to 
the Use of Range Reporting?

    For releases and off-site transfers for further waste management of 
less than 1,000 pounds of the toxic chemical, EPA allows facilities to 
report the amount either as a whole number or by using range codes. The 
reporting ranges are: 1-10 pounds; 11-499 pounds; and 500-999 pounds. 
For larger releases and off-site transfers for further waste management 
of the toxic chemical, the facility may report only the whole number. 
While EPA provided range reporting primarily as a burden reducing 
measure focused on small businesses, the Agency notes a number of 
drawbacks. Use of ranges could misrepresent data accuracy because the 
low or the high end range numbers may not really be that close to the 
estimated value, even taking into account its inherent error (i.e., 
errors in measurements and developing estimates). The user of the data 
must make a determination on whether to use the low end of the range, 
the mid-point, or the upper end. For example, a release of 501 pounds 
could be misinterpreted as 999 pounds if reported as a range of 500 to 
999. This represents a 100% error. This uncertainty severely limits the 
utility of release information where the majority of a facility's 
releases are within the amounts eligible for range reporting. Given 
that the large uncertainty that would be part of these data would 
severely limit their utility, EPA believes that facilities should 
report numerical values, not ranges, for lead and lead compounds. EPA, 
therefore, proposes to modify 40 CFR 372.85(b)(16)(i) to read as 
follows:

    An estimate of the total releases in pounds per year (releases 
of toxic chemicals of less than 1,000 pounds per year may be 
indicated in ranges, except for toxic chemicals set forth in 
Sec. 372.28) from the facility plus an indication of the basis of 
estimate:


[[Page 42236]]


    EPA also proposes to modify 40 CFR 372.85(b)(16)(ii)(B) to read as 
follows:

    An estimate of the amount of the chemical in waste transferred 
in pounds per year (transfers of toxic chemicals of less than 1,000 
pounds per year may be indicated in ranges, except for toxic 
chemicals set forth in Sec. 372.28) to each off-site location, and 
an indication of the basis for the estimate and an indication of the 
type of treatment or disposal used.

    EPA requests comment on its proposal to discontinue the use of 
range reporting in Form Rs for lead and lead compounds.

E. What is the Half-Pound Rule and Whole Numbers and What Change is EPA 
Proposing to Make to the Use of the Half-Pound Rule and Whole Numbers?

    EPA requires that facilities report numerical quantities in 
sections 5, 6, and 8 of Form R as whole numbers and does not require 
more than two significant digits (except where the Agency allows range 
reporting; see Unit VI.D. of this preamble). EPA currently allows 
facilities to round releases of 0.5 pounds or less to zero (see Toxic 
Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions: Revised 
1997 Version (EPA 745-K-98-001), p. 27). The combination of requiring 
the reporting of whole numbers and allowing rounding to zero would 
result in a significant number of facilities reporting their releases 
of lead and lead compounds as zero. EPA, therefore, is proposing that 
all releases or other waste management quantities greater than a tenth 
of a pound of lead or lead compounds be reported, provided that the 
appropriate activity threshold has been exceeded. Releases and other 
waste management activities would continue to be reported to two 
significant digits. For quantities of 10 pounds or greater, only whole 
numbers would be required to be reported. For quantities less than 10 
pounds, fractional quantities, e.g., 6.2 pounds, rather than whole 
numbers would be required. Remember, EPCRA only requires reporting to 
be based on the best readily available information or reasonable 
estimates.
    EPA requests comment on the proposed requirement that all non-zero 
releases of lead and lead compounds greater than one tenth of a pound 
be reported. EPA also requests comment on using fractional quantities 
for reports under 10 pounds.

F. What Limitation is EPA Proposing for the Reporting of Lead in 
Certain Alloys?

    Lead can be found in various types of alloys and is subject to 
reporting under section 313 when contained in these alloys. In response 
to several petitions that EPA has received, the Agency has been 
reviewing the issue of how metals contained in alloys, specifically 
stainless steel, brass, and bronze alloys, should be reported under 
section 313. Because this issue is currently being reviewed and no 
final decisions concerning the reporting of lead or other metals in 
alloys have been made, EPA does not believe that, at this time, it 
would be appropriate to increase reporting for those facilities that 
must submit reports for lead when contained in these alloys. Thus, EPA 
is not proposing to make any changes, including lowering thresholds, to 
the current reporting requirements for lead when contained in stainless 
steel, brass, and bronze alloys. EPA is therefore proposing to exclude 
lead contained in stainless steel, brass, and bronze alloys from the 
lower reporting threshold and retain the current reporting thresholds 
for lead when contained in stainless steel, brass, and bronze alloys. 
This would result in no changes to the reporting requirements for lead 
contained in stainless steel, brass, and bronze alloys until EPA makes 
a final determination on whether there should be any changes to the 
reporting requirements for lead and other metals contained in stainless 
steel, brass, and bronze alloys. Lead contained in stainless steel, 
brass, and bronze alloys would still be reportable, but only under the 
current reporting thresholds. EPA would make this distinction at 40 CFR 
372.28, which is the new section of the CFR that will set forth the 
lower section 313 reporting threshold being proposed in this action. 
This section would indicate that only lead not contained in a stainless 
steel, brass, or bronze alloy would be subject to the lower reporting 
threshold. EPA would also make this distinction clear in the section 
313 Form R and Form A reporting instructions and other documents.
    Under this proposed limitation for lead in stainless steel, brass, 
and bronze alloys, reporting facilities that use lead to make stainless 
steel, brass, and bronze alloys would report for lead under the lower 
reporting threshold since lead is being used to manufacture an alloy. 
However, once incorporated into the stainless steel, brass, and bronze 
alloy, lead would not be subject to the lower reporting threshold. For 
purposes of section 313 reporting, EPA considers metal compounds that 
are used to make alloys to exist as the parent metal in the alloys. 
Thus, the limitation on stainless steel, brass, and bronze alloy 
reporting for lead would apply to lead compounds once they are 
incorporated into an alloy. The cutting, grinding, shaving, etc. of a 
stainless steel, brass, or bronze alloy does not negate the reporting 
limitations for stainless steel, brass, and bronze alloys containing 
lead.

VII. What are the results of EPA's Economic Analysis?

    EPA has prepared an economic analysis of the impact of this 
proposed action, which is contained in a document entitled Economic 
Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Modify Reporting of Lead and Lead 
Compounds under EPCRA Section 313 (Ref. 31). This document is available 
in the public docket for this rulemaking. The analysis assesses the 
costs, benefits, and associated impacts of the proposed rule, including 
potential effects on small entities. The major findings of the analysis 
are briefly summarized here.

A. What is the Need for the Rule?

    This proposed rule is intended to address the market failures 
arising from private choices about lead and lead compounds that have 
societal costs, and the market failures created by the limited 
information available to the public about the release and other waste 
management activities involving lead and lead compounds. Through the 
collection and distribution of facility-specific data on toxic 
chemicals, TRI overcomes firms' lack of incentive to provide certain 
information, and thereby serves to inform the public of releases and 
other waste management of lead and lead compounds. This information 
enables individuals to make choices that enhance their overall well-
being. Choices made by a more informed public, including consumers, 
corporate lenders, and communities, may lead firms to internalize into 
their business decisions at least some of the costs to society relating 
to their releases and other waste management activities involving lead 
and lead compounds. In addition, by helping to identify areas of 
concern, set priorities and monitor trends, TRI data can also be used 
to make more informed decisions regarding the design of more efficient 
regulations and voluntary programs, which also moves society towards an 
optimal allocation of resources.
    Certain facilities currently report TRI data on lead and lead 
compounds under the existing 10,000 and 25,000 pound reporting 
thresholds. In 1996, EPA received TRI data on the release and other 
waste management of over a billion pounds of lead and lead compounds 
from approximately 1,600 facilities. The industry groups reporting the 
largest amounts of release or other

[[Page 42237]]

waste management of lead and lead compounds in 1996 were: Electronic 
and Other Electrical Equipment and Components (SIC 36); Primary Metal 
Industries (SIC 33); Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products (SIC 
30); Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products (SIC 32); and Fabricated 
Metal Products (SIC 34) (Ref. 31). EPA believes that there are 
additional facilities in these and other industry groups that do not 
currently report lead and lead compounds to TRI because they do not 
exceed current reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds, and/or 
because the lead-containing materials they handle are currently covered 
by the de minimis exemption. EPA is not able to quantify the total 
multi-media releases or other waste management from these additional 
facilities without TRI reporting. Since even small releases of lead and 
lead compounds are of concern, EPA believes that there is a need for 
reporting from these additional facilities.
    If EPA were not to take this proposed action to lower the reporting 
thresholds, the market failure (and the associated social costs) 
resulting from the limited information on the release and disposition 
of lead and lead compounds would continue. EPA believes that today's 
action will improve the scope of multi-media data on releases and other 
waste management of lead and lead compounds. This, in turn, will 
provide information to the public, empower communities to play a 
meaningful role in environmental decision-making, and improve the 
quality of environmental decision-making by government officials. In 
addition, this action will serve to generate information that reporting 
facilities themselves may find useful in such areas as highlighting 
opportunities to reduce chemical use or release and thereby lower costs 
of production and/or waste management. EPA believes that these are 
sound rationales for lowering reporting thresholds for lead and lead 
compounds.

B. What Regulatory Options Were Considered?

    EPA evaluated four regulatory options for lower reporting 
thresholds in the development of this proposed rule. The options were 
created by varying the reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds 
from their current levels of 25,000 pounds for manufacture and 
processing, and 10,000 pounds for otherwise use of EPCRA section 313 
chemicals. The options in Table 2 below summarize the scope of EPA's 
analysis.

                 Table 2.--Summary of Options Considered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Description of Reporting
           Regulatory Option               Threshold for Lead and Lead
                                                    Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1                                 1 pound manufactured,
                                          processed, or otherwise used
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2                                 10 pounds manufactured,
                                          processed, or otherwise used
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 3                                 100 pounds manufactured,
                                          processed, or otherwise used
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 4                                 1,000 pounds manufactured,
                                          processed, or otherwise used
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reporting under all four options is affected by other proposed 
changes in reporting requirements for lead and lead compounds. These 
proposed changes include the elimination of the de minimis exemption 
for lead and lead compounds, and a requirement for all facilities to 
report on lead and lead compounds using the Form R. The effect of these 
other proposed changes on reporting is addressed in the economic 
analysis of the proposed rule (Ref. 31).
    Table 3 following section E.4. of this unit displays, for each 
option, the estimated number of additional reports for lead and lead 
compounds expected from various industry groups under EPCRA section 
313. This table is not exhaustive. While EPA believes that it has 
addressed the industry groups most likely to submit additional reports 
in economic analysis of the proposed rule (Ref. 31), other industry 
groups may also file additional reports on lead and lead compounds. EPA 
requests that commenters provide any available information on other 
categories of facilities that may be affected by this proposal, as well 
as any data on the number of facilities in the category that would be 
affected, and the quantity of lead and lead compounds manufactured, 
processed, or otherwise used by facilities in the category.
    In proposing this rule, EPA has sought to balance the public's 
right to know about toxic chemical releases and other waste management 
practices in their neighborhoods and the benefits provided by this 
expanded knowledge with the costs the rule will likely impose on 
industry, including the impact on small entities.

C. What are the Potential Costs of this Proposal?

    The proposed rule would result in the expenditure of resources 
that, in the absence of the regulation, could be used for other 
purposes. The cost of the proposed rule is the value of these resources 
in their best alternative use. Most of the costs of the proposed rule 
would result from requirements on industry. Table 4 following section 
E.4. of this unit displays the industry costs for each option based on 
the estimated number of facilities affected by this proposal. Under the 
option presented in the regulatory text (Option 2), approximately 
15,000 facilities would submit additional Form R reports annually. As 
shown, aggregate industry costs in the first year for the proposed 
alternative are estimated to be $116 million; in subsequent years they 
are estimated to be $60 million per year. Industry costs are lower 
after the first year because facilities will be familiar with the 
reporting requirements, and many will be able to update or modify 
information from the previous year's report.
    Some of the facilities potentially affected by this proposed rule 
may also be affected by the proposed PBT rule (64 FR 688). If these 
rules are finalized as proposed, certain facilities may file additional 
reports on lead or lead compounds, as well as on one or more of the PBT 
chemicals from the earlier proposal. The ultimate outcome of these 
separate proposals is, however, uncertain at present. Therefore, 
certain facility-specific reporting costs have been included in the 
economic analysis for this proposal and in the economic analysis of the 
PBT proposal even though these costs would be incurred only once per 
facility. Upon finalization, the aggregate cost of the two proposals 
may be less than the sum of the industry costs shown in the economic 
analyses of these proposals due to this potential double-counting of 
reporting costs. Under the preferred options presented in the 
regulatory text of this and the previous proposal, the potential 
double-counting of industry costs amounts to approximately $4 million 
in the first year of reporting. EPA plans to estimate the cost of the 
final rules for these proposals using the regulatory framework that 
exists at the time of finalization as a baseline. Further information 
on the extent of potential double-counting of costs in the analyses of 
the two proposals is presented in the economic analysis of this 
proposal (Ref. 31).
    EPA is expected to expend $1.6 million in the first year, and $1.2 
million in subsequent years for programmatic, compliance assistance, 
and enforcement activities as a result of the proposed rule.

[[Page 42238]]

D. What are the Potential Benefits of this Proposal?

    In enacting EPCRA and PPA, Congress recognized the significant 
benefits of providing the public with information on toxic chemical 
releases and other waste management practices. TRI has empowered the 
Federal government, State governments, industry, environmental groups 
and the general public to participate in a fully informed dialogue 
about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United 
States. TRI's publicly available data base provides quantitative 
information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management 
practices. Since TRI's inception in 1987, the public, government, and 
the regulated community have had the ability to understand the 
magnitude of chemical releases in the United States and to assess the 
need to reduce the uses and releases of toxic chemicals. TRI enables 
all interested parties to establish credible baselines, to set 
realistic goals for environmental progress over time, and to measure 
progress in meeting these goals over time. The TRI system is a neutral 
yardstick by which progress can be measured by all stakeholders.
    The information reported to TRI increases knowledge of the amount 
of toxic chemicals released to the environment and the potential 
pathways of exposure, improving scientific understanding of the health 
and environmental risks of toxic chemicals; allows the public to make 
informed decisions on where to work and live; enhances the ability of 
corporate leaders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility's 
potential environmental liabilities; provides reporting facilities with 
information that can be used to save money as well as reduce emissions; 
and assists Federal, State, and local authorities in making better 
decisions on acceptable levels of toxic chemicals in the environment.
    There are two types of benefits associated with TRI reporting: 
those resulting from the actions required by the rule (such as 
reporting and recordkeeping), and those derived from follow-on 
activities that are not required by the rule. Benefits of activities 
required by the rule include the value of improved knowledge about the 
release and waste management of toxic chemicals, which leads to 
improvements in understanding, awareness and decision-making. It is 
expected that this rulemaking will generate such benefits by providing 
readily accessible information that otherwise would not be available to 
the public. The proposed rule will benefit ongoing research efforts to 
understand the risks posed by lead and lead compounds and to evaluate 
policy strategies that address the risks.
    The second type of benefits derive from changes in behavior that 
may result from the information reported to EPCRA section 313. These 
changes in behavior, including reductions in releases of and changes in 
the waste management practices for toxic chemicals may yield health and 
environmental benefits. These changes in behavior come at some cost, 
and the net benefits of the follow-on activities are the difference 
between the benefits of decreased chemical releases and transfers and 
the costs of the actions needed to achieve the decreases.
    Because the state of knowledge of the economics of information is 
not highly developed, EPA has not attempted to quantify the benefits of 
changing reporting thresholds for lead and lead compounds. Furthermore, 
because of the inherent uncertainty in the subsequent chain of events, 
EPA has also not attempted to predict the changes in behavior that 
result from the information, or the resultant net benefits, (i.e., the 
difference between benefits and costs of follow-on activities). EPA 
does not believe that there are adequate methodologies to make 
reasonable monetary estimates of either the benefits of the activities 
required by the proposed rule, or the follow-on activities. The 
economic analysis of the proposed rule, however, provides illustrative 
examples of how the proposed rule will improve the availability of 
information on the release and other waste management of lead and lead 
compounds (Ref. 31).

E. What are the Potential Impacts on Small Entities of this Proposal?

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the 
Agency's longstanding policy of always considering whether there may be 
a potential for adverse impacts on small entities, the Agency has also 
evaluated the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small 
entities. The Agency's analysis of potentially adverse economic impacts 
is included in the economic analysis for this proposed rule (Ref. 31). 
The following is a brief overview of EPA's findings.
    1. What was the overall methodology for assessing potential small 
entity impacts? This proposed rule may affect both small businesses and 
small governments. For the purpose of its analysis for the proposed 
rule, EPA defined a small business using the small business size 
standards established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). For 
example, the SBA size standard is 500 employees for approximately 75% 
of the manufacturing industries, and either 750, 1,000 or 1,500 for the 
remaining manufacturing industries, which would mean that more than 
98.5% of all manufacturing firms are classified as small businesses 
(Ref. 32 ). EPA defined small governments using the RFA definition of 
jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. No small 
organizations are expected to be affected by the proposed rule.
    Potential small entity impacts were calculated for both the first 
year of reporting and subsequent years under Option 2 (the option 
presented in the proposed regulatory text). 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. 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 are the best measure of the 
impact on small entities because these continuing costs are more 
representative of the costs firms face to comply with the proposed 
rule.
    EPA analyzed the potential cost impact of the proposed rule on 
small businesses and governments for the manufacturing sector and in 
each of the recently added industry sectors separately in order to 
obtain the most accurate assessment for each. EPA then aggregated the 
analyses for the purpose of determining whether it could certify that 
the proposed rule will not, if promulgated, have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' RFA 
section 605(b) provides an exemption from the requirement to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule where an agency makes and 
supports the certification statement quoted above. EPA believes that 
the statutory test for certifying a 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. What are the potential impacts on small businesses? EPA used 
annual compliance costs as a percentage of

[[Page 42239]]

annual company sales to assess the potential impacts on small 
businesses of this proposed rule. 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%, or not greater than 3%), EPA 
believes that the financial impacts of the regulation may be considered 
not significant.
    Based on its estimates for Option 2 of the proposed rule, the 
Agency estimates that approximately 8,100 businesses will be affected 
by the proposed rule, and that approximately 5,600 of these businesses 
are classified as small based on the applicable SBA size standards. EPA 
estimates that no small businesses will bear costs greater than 1% of 
revenues in the first or subsequent reporting years.
    3. What are the potential impacts on small governments? To assess 
the potential impacts 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 36 publicly owned electric utility facilities, 
operated by a total of 34 municipalities, may be affected under Option 
2 of the proposed rule. Of these, an estimated 18 are operated by small 
governments (i.e., those with populations under 50,000). It is 
estimated that none of these small governments will bear annual costs 
greater than 1% of annual government revenues in the first or 
subsequent reporting years.
    4. What are the potential impacts for all small entities? As 
discussed above, no small businesses are expected to bear annual costs 
over 1% of annual revenues. None of the affected small governments are 
estimated to bear annual costs greater than 1% of annual revenues. No 
small organizations are expected to be affected by the proposed rule. 
Thus, the total number of small entities with impacts above 1% of 
revenues does not change when the results are aggregated for all small 
entities (i.e., small businesses, small governments, and small 
organizations).

                             Table 3.--Summary of Reporting Under Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Estimated Number of Additional Reports (Annual)
                  SIC Code - Industry Group                  ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                Option 1     Option 2     Option 3     Option 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 - Coal mining                                                      321          321          321          321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 - Petroleum refining and related industries                      1,033          117           91           90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3241 - Cement, hydraulic                                              123          123          123          123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33 - Primary metal industries                                       1,130        1,130        1,109          842
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
367 - Electronic components and accessories                         4,033        4,033        3,109          405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
371 - Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment                    2,862        2,862        1,485          201
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4911/4931/4939 - Electric services                                    414          378          319          248
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4953 - Refuse systems (RCRA subtitle C only)                           80           74           64           36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5171 - Petroleum bulk stations and terminals                        2,459          980          621           55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7389 - Solvent recovery services                                       26           24           22           14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-39 - Other manufacturing; industrial combustion                 10,142        5,001        1,498          570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                              22,623       15,043        8,762        2,905
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     Table 4.--Summary of Reporting and Industry Cost of Regulatory Options
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Estimated Industry Costs ($ million
                                                          Annual Number of                per year)
     Regulatory Options for Lead and Lead Compounds           Reports      -------------------------------------
                                                                                First Year      Subsequent Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opion 1--Reporting threshold of 1 lb                                22,623               $174                $91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2--Reporting threshold of 10 lb                              15,043               $116                $60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 3--Reporting threshold of 100 lb                              8,762                $67                $35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 4--Reporting threshold of 1,000 lb                            2,905                $22                $12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 42240]]

VIII. What are the References Cited in this Proposed Rule?

    1. The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, Canada -- United 
States Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic 
Substances in the Great Lakes, signed by Carol Browner, Administrator 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Sergio Marchi, Minister of the 
Environment Government of Canada. 1997.
    2. Syracuse Research Corporation. The Environmental Fate of Lead 
and Lead Compounds. Prepared for David G. Lynch, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, under contract number SRC 68-D5-0012, March 1999.
    3. Zimdahl, R.L., Skogerboe, R.K. 1977. Behavior of Lead in Soil. 
Environ. Sci Technol. 11:1202-1207.
    4. USEPA/ORD. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Research Triangle 
Park, NC. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and 
Environmental Assessment. 1986. EPA600/8-83-028bF
    5. Bondarenko, G.P. 1968. An experimental study of the solubility 
of galena in the presence of fulvic acids. Geochem. Int. 5: 525-531.
    6. Lovering, T.G. ed. 1976. Lead in the Environment. Washington, 
DC: US Department of the Interior, Geological Survey; Geological Survey 
professional paper no. 957. S/N 024-001-02911-1
    7. Rand, G.M., Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, 2nd. Ed. Taylor 
Francis, Washington, DC, (1995), 1125 pp.
    8. Meylan, W.M., Howard, P.H., and Boethling, R.S. 1999. ``Improved 
Method for Estimating Bioconcentration Factor from Octanol/Water 
Partition Coefficient.'' Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18:664-672.
    9. Merlini, M. and A. Pozzi. 1977. Lead and freshwater fishes. Part 
1. Lead accumulation and water pH. Environ. Pollut. 12:167-172.
    10. USEPA/OPPT. Bioaccumulation/Bioconcentration Assessment For 
Lead and Lead Compounds. Jerry Smrchek, Ph.D., Biologist, Existing 
Chemicals Assessment Branch, Risk Assessment Division, March 31, 1999.
    11. Borgmann, U., Kramer, O. and C. Loveridge. 1978. Rates of 
mortality, growth, and biomass production of Lymnaea palustris during 
chronic exposure to lead. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada. 35:1109-1115.
    12. Denny, P. and R.P. Welsh. 1979. Lead accumulation in plankton 
blooms from Ullswater, the English Lake District. Environ. Pollut. 
18:1-9.
    13. Vighi, M. 1981. Lead uptake and release in a experimental 
trophic chain. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety. 5:177-193.
    14. Eisler, R. 1988. Lead hazards to fish, wildlife, and 
invertebrates: a synoptic review. Biological Report 85(1.14), 
Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 14, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Laurel, MD, 134 pp.
    15. USEPA. Jenkins, D.W. 1980. Biological monitoring of trace 
metals. Vol. 2. Toxic trace metals in plants and animals of the world. 
Part II. EPA 600/3-80-091, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC, pp. 619-778.
    16. Wong, P.T.S., Chau, Y.K., Kramer, O. and G.A. Bengert. 1981. 
Accumulation and depuration of tetramethyllead by rainbow trout. Water 
Res. 15:621-625.
    17. Schulz-Baldes, M. 1972. Toxicity and accumulation of lead in 
the common mussel Mytilus edulis in laboratory experiment. Mar. Biol. 
16:226-229.
    18. Schulz-Baldes, M. 1974. Lead uptake from sea water and food, 
and lead loss in the common mussel, Mytilus edulis. Mar. Biol. 25:177-
193.
    19. Zaroogian, G.E., Morrison, G. and J.F. Heltshe. 1979. 
Crassostrea virginica as an indicator of lead pollution. Mar. Biol. 
52:189-196.
    20. Seeliger, U. and P. Edwards. 1977. Correlation coefficients and 
concentration factors of copper and lead in seawater and benthic algae. 
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 8:16-19.
    21. Gould, E. And R.A. Greig. 1983. Short-term low-salinity 
response in lead-exposed lobsters, Homarus americanus (Milne Edwards). 
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 69:283-295.
    22. USEPA. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Lead. 1984. EPA 440/
5-84-027, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC, 1985, 81 pp.
    23. ATSDR. Draft Toxicological Profile for Lead. U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry. August 1997.
    24. USEPA/OPPT. Risk Analysis to Support Standards for Lead in 
Paint, Dust, and Soil - Volume 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington DC, EPA 747-R-97-
006, June 1998.
    25. USEPA/ECAO. Air Quality Criteria for Lead - Volume 1 of IV. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Criteria and 
Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-600/8-83/028aF, June 
1986.
    26. USEPA/OIA. Technical Information Package for Lead. Internet 
site: http://www.epa.gov/oiamount/tips/lead2.htm. Maintained by the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of International Affairs. 
Downloaded March 1999.
    27. Davis A., Ruby M., and Bergstrom P. Factors controlling lead 
bioavailability in the Butte mining district, Montana, USA 
Environmental Geochemistry and Health 1994; 16(3/4):147-157
    28. Davis A., Drexler J., Ruby M., and Nicholson A. Micromineralogy 
of Mine Wastes in Relation to Lead Bioavailability, Butte, Montana 
Environ Sci Technology 1993 Mar 16; 27(7):1415-1425
    29. Rabinowitz, M.B., et. al., Kinetic Analysis of Lead Metabolism 
in Healthy Humans. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1976. 58:260-270.
    30. IRIS 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated 
Risk Information System Profile pertaining to lead and lead compounds.
    31. USEPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Modify 
the Reporting Requirements for Lead and Lead Compounds under EPCRA 
Section 313, (1999).
    32. USSBA. Office of Advocacy - Statistics - Major Industry, Firms, 
Establishment, Employment, Payroll and Receipts, 1995. Information from 
the Small Business Administration on the Internet. http://www.sba.gov/
advo/stats/us_ind95.html. Downloaded on December 10, 1998.
    33. USEPA, OPPT. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) Statement for 
the Proposed Rule to Modify the Reporting Requirements for Lead and 
Lead Compounds under EPCRA Section 313, April 1999.

IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

A. What is the Determination Under Executive Order 12866?

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and 
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that this 
is an economically ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because it is likely to 
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. This 
action was therefore submitted to OMB for review, and any substantive 
comments or changes made during that review have been documented in the 
public record.
    In addition, EPA has prepared an economic analysis of the impact of 
this action, which is contained in a document entitled Economic 
Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Modify Reporting of Lead and Lead 
Compounds under EPCRA Section 313 (Ref. 31). This

[[Page 42241]]

document is available as part of the public record for this action, and 
is briefly summarized in Unit VII. of this preamble.

B. What is the Determination Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

    For the reasons explained in Unit VII. of this preamble, pursuant 
to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 
et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that this proposed rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. In brief, the factual basis of this determination is as 
follows: none of the approximately 5,600 small businesses potentially 
affected by the proposed rule will experience annual compliance costs 
above 1% of annual sales. In addition, EPA estimates that there are 18 
small governments that may be affected by the proposed rule (i.e., will 
have to file reports under the proposed rule), none of which will bear 
annual costs greater than 1% of annual government revenues. Given these 
relatively small estimated impacts, for purposes of the RFA, EPA 
believes that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA's estimates are 
based on the economic analysis (Ref. 31), and are also discussed in 
Unit VII. of this preamble. This determination is for the entire 
population of small entities potentially affected by this proposed 
rule, since the test for certification is whether the rule as a whole 
has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    Notwithstanding the Agency's certification of this proposed rule 
under section 605(b) of the RFA, EPA remains committed to minimizing 
real impacts on small entities where this does not unacceptably 
compromise the informational benefits of the rule. The Agency is always 
interested in any comments regarding the economic impacts that this 
regulatory action would impose on small entities, particularly 
suggestions for minimizing that impact. Such comments may be submitted 
to the Agency at any time, to the address listed in Unit I.C. of this 
preamble. To ensure consideration during the development of the final 
rule, comments must be received by the date indicated in the ``DATES'' 
section.
    Information relating to this determination has been provided to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and is 
included in the docket for this rulemaking.

C. What is the Determination Under the Paperwork Reduction Act?

    The information collection requirements contained in this proposed 
rule have been submitted to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and in accordance with the procedures at 
5 CFR 1320.11. An amended Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (EPA ICR No. 1363) and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer, OP Regulatory Information Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 
20460, by calling (202) 260-2740, or electronically by sending an e-
mail message to ``[email protected].'' The information requirements 
contained in this proposal are not effective until OMB approves them. 
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to a collection of information subject to OMB approval under 
the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The 
OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial publication in 
the Federal Register, are maintained in a list at 40 CFR part 9.
    Provision of this information is mandatory, upon promulgation of a 
final rule, pursuant to EPCRA section 313 (42 U.S.C. 11023) and PPA 
section 6607 (42 U.S.C. 13106). EPCRA section 313 requires owners or 
operators of certain facilities manufacturing, processing, or otherwise 
using any of over 600 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories 
(hereinafter toxic chemicals) in excess of the applicable threshold 
quantities, and meeting certain requirements (i.e., at least 10 FTEs or 
the equivalent), to report environmental releases and transfers of and 
waste management activities for such chemicals annually. Under section 
6607 of the PPA, facilities must also provide information on the 
quantities of the toxic chemicals in waste streams and the efforts made 
to manage those waste quantities. The regulations codifying the EPCRA 
section 313 reporting requirements appear at 40 CFR part 372. 
Respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance 
as a trade secret, pursuant to EPCRA section 322 (42 U.S.C. 11042). 
Regulations codifying the trade secret provisions can be found at 40 
CFR part 350.
    Under the proposed rule, all facilities reporting to TRI on lead 
and lead compounds would have to use the EPA Toxic Chemical Release 
Inventory Form R (EPA Form No. 9350-1). OMB has approved the existing 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to Form R, supplier 
notification, and petitions under OMB Control No. 2070-0093 (EPA ICR 
No. 1363).
    For Form R, EPA estimates the industry reporting burden for 
collecting this information (including recordkeeping) to average 74 
hours per report in the first year, at an estimated cost of $5,079 per 
Form R. In subsequent years, the burden is estimated to average 52.1 
hours per report, at an estimated cost of $3,557 per Form R. These 
estimates include the time needed to review instructions; search 
existing data sources; gather and maintain the data needed; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information. The actual burden on any specific facility 
may be different from this estimate depending on the complexity of the 
facility's operations and the profile of the releases at the facility.
    This proposed rule is estimated to result in additional reports 
from approximately 15,000 respondents. Of these, approximately 5,100 
facilities are estimated to be reporting to TRI for the first time as a 
result of the rule, while approximately 9,900 are currently reporting 
facilities that will be submitting additional reports. These 15,000 
facilities will submit an estimated additional 15,000 Form Rs. This 
proposed rule therefore results in an estimated total burden of 1.7 
million hours in the first year, and 0.9 million hours in subsequent 
years, at a total estimated industry cost of $116 million in the first 
year and $60 million in subsequent years.
    Under PRA, ``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, where applicable, 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. EPA's burden estimates for the rule take into 
account all of the above elements, considering that under section 313, 
no additional measurement or monitoring may be imposed for purposes of 
reporting.

[[Page 42242]]

    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to EPA at the 
address provided above, with a copy to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' 
Please remember to include the ICR number in any correspondence. The 
final rule will respond to any comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in this proposal.

D. What are the Determinations Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
and Executive Orders 12875 and 13084?

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4), EPA has determined that this action contains a 
``Federal mandate'' that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more for the private sector in any 1 year, but that it will not result 
in such expenditures for State, local, and tribal governments in the 
aggregate. Accordingly, EPA has prepared a written statement for this 
proposed rule as required by section 202 of UMRA, and that statement is 
available in the public docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 33). The costs 
associated with this action are estimated in the economic analysis 
prepared for this proposed rule (Ref. 31), which is included in the 
public docket and summarized in Unit VII. of this preamble. The 
following is a brief summary of the UMRA statement for the proposed 
rule.
    This proposed rule is being promulgated pursuant to sections 
313(f)(2) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. section 11023(f)(2), and section 6607 of 
the Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. section 13106. The economic 
analysis estimates that the total industry costs of the proposed rule 
will be $116 million in the first year and $60 million per year 
thereafter, and concludes that the benefits will be significant but 
cannot be assigned a dollar value due to the lack of adequate 
methodologies. This information is also summarized above in Unit VII. 
of this preamble. EPA believes that the benefits provided by the 
information to be reported under this proposed rule will outweigh the 
costs imposed by today's action. The benefits of the information will 
in turn have positive effects on health, safety, and the natural 
environment through the behavioral changes that may result from that 
information.
    EPA has not identified any Federal financial resources that are 
available to cover the costs of this proposed rule. As set forth in the 
economic analysis, EPA has estimated the future industry compliance 
costs (after the first year) of this proposed rule to be $60 million 
annually. Of those entities affected by today's action, EPA has not 
identified any disproportionate budgetary impact on any particular 
region, government, or community, or on any segment of the private 
sector. Based on the economic analysis, EPA has concluded that it is 
highly unlikely that this proposed rule will have an appreciable effect 
on the national economy.
    EPA has determined that the proposed rule will not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments and does not contain a significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandate, so no action is needed under section 
203 or 204 of UMRA.
    Finally, EPA believes this proposed rule complies with section 
205(a) of UMRA. The objective of this proposed rule is to expand the 
public benefits of the TRI program by exercising EPA's discretionary 
authority to add chemicals to the program and to lower reporting 
thresholds, thereby increasing the amount of information available to 
the public regarding the use, management, and disposition of listed 
toxic chemicals. In making additional information available through 
TRI, the Agency increases the utility of TRI data as an effective tool 
for empowering local communities, the public sector, industry, other 
agencies, and State and local governments to better evaluate risks to 
public health and the environment, particularly at the local level.
    As described in Unit VI. of this preamble, EPA considered burden in 
the threshold selection. The proposed rule also contains reporting 
requirements that will limit burden (e.g., reporting limitations for 
lead and lead compounds in certain alloys). In addition, existing 
burden-reducing measures (e.g., the laboratory exemption, and the 
otherwise use exemptions, which include the routine janitorial or 
facility grounds maintenance exemption, motor vehicle maintenance 
exemption, structural component exemption, intake air and water 
exemption and the personal use exemption) will apply to the facilities 
that file new reports as a result of this proposed rule. EPA also will 
be assisting small entities subject to the proposed rule, by such means 
as providing meetings, training, and compliance guides in the future, 
which also will ease the burdens of compliance.
    Many steps have been and will be taken to further reduce the burden 
associated with this proposed rule, and to EPA's knowledge there is no 
available alternative to the proposed rule that would obtain the 
equivalent information in a less burdensome manner. For all of these 
reasons, EPA believes the rule complies with UMRA section 205(a).
    In addition, today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local 
or tribal governments, nor does it significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), and 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 
1998), do not apply to this proposed rule.

E. What are the Determinations Under Executive Orders 12898 and 13045

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to 
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency has considered 
environmental justice related issues with regard to the potential 
impacts of this action on environmental and health conditions in low-
income populations and minority populations. Since this is an 
economically significant action (i.e., it is expected to have an annual 
adverse impact of $100 million or more), additional OMB review is 
required under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997). The Agency has, to the extent permitted by law and 
consistent with the agency's mission, identified and assessed the 
environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately 
affect children.
    By lowering the section 313 reporting thresholds for lead and lead 
compounds, EPA is providing communities across the United States 
(including low-income populations and minority populations) with access 
to data that may assist them in lowering exposures and consequently 
reducing chemical risks for themselves and their children. This 
information can also be used by government agencies and others to 
identify potential problems, set priorities, and take appropriate steps 
to reduce any potential risks to human health and the environment. 
Therefore,

[[Page 42243]]

the informational benefits of the proposed rule will have a positive 
impact on the human health and environmental impacts of minority 
populations, low-income populations, and children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Community right-to-know, 
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund.

    Dated: July 23, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended as 
follows:

PART 372--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 372 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

Sec. 372.22  [Amended]

    2. In Sec. 372.22(c), by removing the phrase ``Sec. 372.25 or 
Sec. 372.27'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 372.25, Sec. 372.27, or 
Sec. 372.28''.


Sec. 372.25  [Amended]

    3. In the introductory text of Sec. 372.25, by removing the first 
clause ``Except as provided in Sec. 372.27,'' and adding in its place 
``Except as provided in Secs. 372.27 and 372.28,''.
    4. In Sec. 372.27, by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 372.27   Alternate threshold and certification.

    *    *    *    *    *
    (e) The provisions of this section do not apply to any chemicals 
listed in Sec. 372.28.
    5. By adding a new Sec. 372.28 to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec. 372.28   Lower thresholds for chemicals of special concern.

    (a) Notwithstanding Sec. 372.25 or Sec. 372.27, for the toxic 
chemicals set forth in this section, the threshold amounts for 
manufacturing (including importing), processing, and otherwise using 
such toxic chemicals are as set forth in this section.
    (1) Chemical listing in alphabetic order:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reporting
          Chemical name                 CAS no.            threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead (this lower threshold does   7439-92-1           10
 not apply to lead when
 contained in a stainless steel,
 brass or bronze alloy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Chemical categories in alphabetic order:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category name                     Reporting threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Compounds                              10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) The threshold determination provisions at Sec. 372.25(c) 
through (h) and the exemptions at Sec. 372.38(b) through (h) are 
applicable to the toxic chemicals listed in paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec. 372.30  [Amended]

    6. In Sec. 372.30(a), by removing the phrase ``in Sec. 372.25 at'' 
and adding in its place ``in Sec. 372.25, Sec. 372.27, or Sec. 372.28 
at''.
    7. In Sec. 372.38(a), by adding the following sentence at the end 
of the paragraph to read as follows:


Sec. 372.38   Exemptions.

    (a) *  *  * This exemption does not apply to toxic chemicals listed 
in Sec. 372.28, except for purposes of Sec. 372.45(d)(1).
    *    *    *    *    *


Sec. 372.85   [Amended]

    8. Amend Sec. 372.85 as follows:
    i. By removing in paragraphs (b)(15)(i) introductory text and 
(b)(16)(ii)(B) the phrase ``may be indicated in ranges'' and adding in 
its place ``may be indicated in ranges, except for chemicals set forth 
in Sec. 372.28''.
    ii. By removing in paragraph (b)(16)(i)(B) the phrase ``may be 
indicated as a range'' and adding in its place ``may be indicated as a 
range, except for chemicals set forth in Sec. 372.28''.

[FR Doc. 99-19729 Filed 8-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F