[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74379-74387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26022]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2022-0270; FRL-8741-03-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK97


Changes to Reporting Requirements for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 
Substances and to Supplier Notifications for Chemicals of Special 
Concern; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add 
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) subject to reporting under 
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the 
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) pursuant to the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) to the list of Lower 
Thresholds for Chemicals of Special Concern (chemicals of special 
concern). These PFAS already have a lower reporting threshold of 100 
pounds. The addition of these PFAS to the list of chemicals of special 
concern will cause such PFAS to be subject to the same reporting 
requirements as other chemicals of special concern (i.e., it would 
eliminate the use of the de minimis exemption and the option to use 
Form A and would limit the use of range reporting for PFAS). Removing 
the availability of these burden-reduction reporting options will 
result in a more complete picture of the releases and waste management 
quantities for these PFAS. In addition, EPA is proposing to remove the 
availability of the de minimis exemption for purposes of the Supplier 
Notification Requirements for all chemicals on the list of chemicals of 
special concern. This change will help ensure that purchasers of 
mixtures and trade name products containing such chemicals are informed 
of their presence in mixtures and products they purchase.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-TRI-2022-0270, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional 
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more 
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Daniel R. Ruedy, Data Gathering and Analysis Division (7406M), Office 
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 564-7974; email: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Hotline; telephone numbers: toll free at (800) 
424-9346 (select menu option 3) or (703) 348-5070 in the Washington, DC 
Area and International; or go to https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, 
process, or otherwise use listed PFAS or any chemicals listed under 40 
CFR 372.28. The following list of North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, 
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this 
action applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing 
codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 
20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 
325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 
211130*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 
511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512230*, 512250*, 519130*, 541713*, 
541715* or 811490*. *Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these 
NAICS codes.
     Facilities included in the following NAICS codes 
(corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 211130 
(corresponds to SIC code SIC 1321, Natural Gas Liquids and SIC 2819, 
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 212111, 
212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); 
or 212221, 212222, 212230, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal 
Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 
221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (limited to facilities that combust coal 
and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in 
commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric 
Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to facilities previously 
classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not 
Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, 
Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to facilities 
primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee 
basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, 
NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to facilities 
regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 
42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (corresponds to SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems).
     Federal facilities.
    A more detailed description of the types of facilities covered by 
the NAICS codes subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 can be 
found at: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/tri-covered-industry-sectors. 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. Federal facilities are required to report under Executive 
Order 14008 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-01/pdf/2021-02177.pdf), as explained in the Council on Environmental Quality's 
2021 memorandum to Chief Sustainability

[[Page 74380]]

Officers (http://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/final_ceq_memo_on_tri_april_2021.pdf). If you have questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing to add all PFAS included on the Toxics Release 
Inventory (TRI) pursuant to sections 7321(b) and 7321(c) of the 2020 
NDAA to the list of chemicals of special concern (40 CFR 372.28). (EPA 
maintains a list of PFAS added to the TRI list pursuant to the NDAA: 
https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/list-pfas-added-tri-ndaa.) The addition of these PFAS to the list of chemicals of 
special concern will align reporting requirements for these PFAS with 
other chemicals of special concern. This will likely result in 
additional Form R reports being filed for these PFAS due to the removal 
of the availability of the de minimis exemption and the option to use 
Form A. It will also limit the use of range reporting, which will 
capture more specific information for PFAS added pursuant to sections 
7321(b) and 7321(c) of the NDAA.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to remove the availability of the de 
minimis exemption under the Supplier Notification Requirements (40 CFR 
372.45) for facilities that manufacture or process any chemicals 
included on the list of chemicals of special concern.

C. What is the Agency's authority for this action?

    This action is issued under EPCRA sections 313, 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 
328, 42 U.S.C. 11048. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the 
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    EPA is taking this action to increase the data collected for PFAS. 
Removing the availability of certain burden-reduction reporting options 
will result in a more complete picture of the releases and waste 
management quantities for PFAS. This proposed change would increase the 
number of TRI reports on listed PFAS and the amount of information 
provided on such reports, resulting in more information on the waste 
management of these chemicals available to the Agency, as well as to 
the public. In addition, this action will increase data collected for 
all chemicals of special concern by eliminating the de minimis 
exemption for purposes of the Supplier Notification Requirements for 
all chemicals on the list of chemicals of special concern. The 
elimination of this exemption from Supplier Notification Requirements 
will ensure that purchasers of mixtures and trade name products 
containing such chemicals are informed of their presence in mixtures 
and products they purchase.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA prepared an economic analysis for this action entitled, 
``Economic Analysis for the Proposed Changes to Reporting Requirements 
for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and to Supplier Notifications 
Requirements for Chemicals of Special Concern; Community Right-to-Know 
Toxic Chemical Release Reporting,'' which presents an analysis of the 
costs of the proposed reporting changes for PFAS and other chemicals of 
special concern (Ref. 1). EPA estimates that this action would result 
in an additional 605 to 1,997 Form R reports being filed annually. EPA 
estimates that the costs of this action will be approximately 
$3,064,271 and $10,114,734 in the first year of reporting and 
approximately $1,459,215 and $4,816,518 in the subsequent years. In 
addition, EPA has determined that, of the 467 to 1,313 small businesses 
affected by this action, none are estimated to incur annualized cost 
impacts of more than 1% of revenues. Thus, this action is not expected 
to have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.

F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to EPA through 
https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting 
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#tips

II. Background Information

A. What is EPCRA section 313?

    EPCRA section 313, 42 U.S.C. 11023 (also known as the Toxics 
Release Inventory (TRI)), requires certain facilities that manufacture, 
process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above 
reporting threshold levels to report their environmental releases and 
other waste management quantities of such chemicals annually. These 
facilities must also report pollution prevention and recycling data for 
such chemicals, pursuant to PPA section 6607, 42 U.S.C. 13106. Note 
that TRI does not cover all chemicals, facilities, or types of 
pollution (see https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/what-toxics-release-inventory for information on which 
chemicals and facilities are regulated under TRI).
    TRI provides information about releases of toxic chemicals from 
covered facilities throughout the United States; however, TRI data do 
not reveal whether or to what degree the public is exposed to listed 
chemicals. TRI data can, in conjunction with other information, be used 
as a starting point in evaluating such exposures and the risks posed by 
such exposures. The determination of potential risk to human health 
and/or the environment depends upon many factors, including the 
toxicity of the chemical, the fate of the chemical in the environment, 
and the amount and duration of human or other exposure to the chemical.
    For more information on TRI, visit the TRI website at www.epa.gov/tri. Additionally, via this website, EPA provides a Factors to Consider 
When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data document (https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-02/factorstoconsider_approved-by-opa_1.25.22-copy.pdf), which helps explain some of the uses, as well as 
limitations, of data TRI collects.

B. What are PFAS?

    PFAS are synthetic organic compounds that do not occur naturally in 
the environment. PFAS contain an alkyl carbon chain on which the 
hydrogen atoms have been partially or completely replaced by fluorine 
atoms. In general, the strong carbon-fluorine bonds of PFAS make them 
resistant to degradation and thus highly persistent in the environment 
(Refs. 2 and 3). Some of these chemicals have been used for decades in 
a wide variety of consumer and industrial products (Refs.

[[Page 74381]]

2 and 3). Some PFAS have been detected in wildlife indicating that at 
least some PFAS have the ability to bioaccumulate (Ref. 3). Because of 
the widespread use of PFAS in commerce and their tendency to persist in 
the environment, most people in the United States have been exposed to 
PFAS (Refs. 2, 4 and 5). Some PFAS can accumulate in humans and remain 
in the human body for long periods of time (e.g., months to years) 
(Refs. 2 and 3), as a result, several PFAS have been detected in human 
blood serum (Refs. 2, 3, 4, and 5).

C. What PFAS have been added to the TRI list?

    On December 20, 2019, the NDAA was signed into law (Pub. L. 116-92, 
https://www.congress.gov/public-laws/116th-congress). The NDAA included 
two provisions that automatically add PFAS to the TRI list. First, 
section 7321(b) of the NDAA added to the TRI list, effective January 1, 
2020, 14 chemicals by name and/or Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 
Number (CASRN) and additional PFAS that meet specific criteria. On June 
22, 2020 (85 FR 37354) (FRL-10008-09), EPA updated the TRI list in the 
CFR to reflect the 172 non-CBI PFAS added to TRI by section 7321(b).
    Additional PFAS are added to the TRI list on an annual basis by the 
NDAA. Specifically, PFAS that meet the criteria in section 7321(c) of 
the NDAA are deemed added to the TRI list on January 1 of the year 
after specific criteria are met. Through this provision, the NDAA will 
continue to add PFAS to the TRI list over time as additional PFAS meet 
the criteria outlined in 7321(c). The criteria of section 7321(c) 
require the addition to the TRI list of certain PFAS after any one of 
the following dates:
     Final Toxicity Value. The date on which the Administrator 
finalizes a toxicity value for the PFAS or class of PFAS;
     Significant New Use Rule. The date on which the 
Administrator makes a covered determination for the PFAS or class of 
PFAS;
     Addition to Existing Significant New Use Rule. The date on 
which the PFAS or class of PFAS is added to a list of substances 
covered by a covered determination;
     Addition as an Active Chemical Substance. The date on 
which the PFAS or class of PFAS to which a covered determination 
applies is:
    --Added to the list published under section 8(b)(1) of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) and designated 
as an active chemical substance under TSCA section 8(b)(5)(A); or
    --Designated as an active chemical substance under TSCA section 
8(b)(5)(B) on the list published under TSCA section 8(b)(1).
    EPA updates the TRI list in the CFR to reflect the PFAS added to 
TRI by section 7321(c) of the NDAA. The first update rule identifying 
PFAS that met the 7321(c) criteria during 2020 was published on June 3, 
2021 (86 FR 29698) (FRL-10022-25).
    To date, section 7321 of the NDAA has added a total of 180 PFAS to 
the TRI list (https://www.epa.gov/tri/PFAS). A complete list of the 
PFAS added to the TRI list can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/list-pfas-added-tri-ndaa. In addition, 
the NDAA established a manufacture, processing, or otherwise use 
reporting threshold of 100 pounds for each of the PFAS added to the TRI 
list by sections 7321(b) and 7321(c) of the NDAA. In the first year of 
reporting for the initial 172 listed PFAS, EPA only received 89 reports 
from 38 facilities covering 43 different PFAS.

III. What changes is EPA proposing to make to the TRI reporting 
requirements?

A. Designating PFAS Automatically Added to the TRI List by the 2020 
NDAA as Chemicals of Special Concern

    EPA is proposing to add all PFAS included on the TRI list pursuant 
to sections 7321(b) and 7321(c) of the NDAA (see 40 CFR 372.65(d) and 
(e)) to the list of chemicals of special concern at 40 CFR 372.28. EPA 
first created the list of chemicals of special concern to increase the 
utility of TRI data by ensuring that the data collected and shared 
through TRI are relevant and topical (64 FR 58666, 58668 October 29, 
1999 (FRL-6389-11)). EPA lowered the reporting thresholds for chemicals 
of special concern because even small quantities of releases of these 
chemicals can be of concern. The first chemicals that were added to the 
list of chemicals of special concern were those identified as 
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals which, except for 
the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, have reporting 
thresholds of either 10 or 100 pounds depending on their persistent and 
bioaccumulative properties (64 FR 58666, October 29, 1999 (FRL-6389-
11)). Chemicals of special concern are also excluded from the de 
minimis exemption, may not be reported on Form A (Alternate Threshold 
Certification Statement), and have limits on the use of range 
reporting.
    The de minimis exemption allows facilities to disregard small 
concentrations of TRI chemicals not classified as chemicals of special 
concern in mixtures or other trade name products when making threshold 
determinations and release and other waste management calculations. The 
de minimis exemption does not apply to the manufacture of a TRI 
chemical except if that chemical is manufactured as an impurity and 
remains in the product distributed in commerce, or if the chemical is 
imported below the appropriate de minimis level. The de minimis 
exemption does not apply to a byproduct manufactured coincidentally as 
a result of manufacturing, processing, otherwise use, or any waste 
management activities.
    The Form A provides facilities that otherwise meet TRI-reporting 
thresholds the option of certifying on a simplified reporting form 
provided that they do not exceed 500 pounds for the total annual 
reportable amount (subsequently in this document) for that chemical, 
and that their amounts manufactured, processed, or otherwise used do 
not exceed 1 million pounds. All chemicals of special concern (except 
certain instances of reporting lead in stainless steel, brass, or 
bronze alloys) are excluded from Form A eligibility. Form A does not 
include any information on releases or other waste management. Nor does 
it include source reduction information or any other chemical-specific 
information other than the identity of the chemical.
    For certain data elements (Part II, Sections 5, 6.1, and 6.2 of 
Form R), for chemicals not classified as chemicals of special concern, 
the reportable quantity may be reported either as an estimate or by 
using the range codes that have been developed. Currently, TRI 
reporting provides three reporting ranges: 1-10 pounds, 11-499 pounds, 
and 500-999 pounds.
    The availability of these burden reduction tools is inconsistent 
with a concern for small quantities of the chemicals and the expanded 
reporting that was sought for chemicals with lower reporting 
thresholds. In the preamble to the 1999 rule, EPA outlined the reasons 
for promulgating the de minimis exemption (e.g., that facilities had 
limited access to information and that low concentrations would not 
contribute to the activity threshold) and determined that those 
rationales did not apply to chemicals of special concern. Id. at 58670. 
Among the reasons provided, EPA explained that even minimal releases of 
persistent bioaccumulative chemicals may result in significant adverse 
effects and can reasonably be expected to significantly

[[Page 74382]]

contribute to exceeding the proposed lower threshold. Id. EPA also 
determined that facilities reporting on chemicals of special concern 
could not avail themselves of Form A reporting because the information 
provided on Form As is ``insufficient for conducting analyses'' on 
chemicals of special concern and would be ``virtually useless for 
communities interested in assessing risk from releases and other waste 
management'' of such chemicals (i.e., the Form A does not include 
estimated release and other waste management quantities). Id. Lastly, 
EPA eliminated range reporting for chemicals of special concern because 
the use of ranges could misrepresent data accuracy for PBT chemicals 
because the low or the high-end range numbers may not really be that 
close to the estimated value. Id. For the full discussion, see 
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Lowering of Reporting 
Thresholds for Certain PBT Chemicals; Addition of Certain PBT 
Chemicals; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Reporting (Proposed 
rule January 5, 1999, 64 FR 688 (FRL-6032-3) and Final rule October 29, 
1999, 64 FR 58666, (FRL-6389-11)).
    EPA is proposing to determine that PFAS added to EPCRA section 313 
by sections 7321(b) and 7321(c) of the NDAA should be categorized as 
chemicals of special concern and added to the list in 40 CFR 372.28. 
The NDAA set a 100-pound reporting threshold for PFAS added by sections 
7321(b) and 7321(c), which indicates a concern for small quantities of 
such PFAS. EPA is therefore proposing to determine that the 
availability of certain burden reduction tools (i.e., de minimis 
levels, Form A, and range reporting) are not justified for these 
chemicals as the availability of these tools is inconsistent with a 
concern for small quantities.
    Further, due to the strength of the carbon-fluorine bonds, many 
PFAS can be very persistent in the environment (Refs. 2, 3, and 6). 
Persistence in the environment allows PFAS concentrations to build up 
over time; thus, even small releases can be of concern. As with PBT 
chemicals, permitting reporting facilities to continue to rely on the 
burden reduction tools (de minimis levels, Form A, and range reporting) 
would eliminate reporting on potentially significant quantities of the 
listed PFAS. As explained in more detail below, EPA's rationale for 
eliminating these burden reduction tools for PBT chemicals (January 5, 
1999, 64 FR 714-716) applies equally well to PFAS.
    The de minimis exemption allows facilities to disregard 
concentrations of TRI listed chemicals below 1% (0.1% for carcinogens) 
in mixtures or other trade name products they import, process, or 
otherwise use in making threshold calculations and release and other 
waste management determinations. Since the de minimis level is based on 
relative concentration rather than a specific amount, the application 
of this exemption to PFAS listed under sections 7321(b) and 7321(c) 
could allow significant quantities of such PFAS to be excluded from TRI 
reporting by facilities. For example, if a facility imports, processes, 
or otherwise uses 100,000 pounds of a mixture or trade name product 
that contains 0.5% of a listed PFAS, then 500 pounds (or five times the 
reporting threshold) would be disregarded. This exclusion is 
inconsistent with a concern for small quantities of PFAS. Many PFAS are 
used in products below the established de minimis levels (Refs. 4 and 
7), and the continued availability of the exemption for PFAS would 
permit facilities to discount those uses when determining whether an 
applicable threshold has been met to trigger reporting.
    The Form A provides certain covered facilities the option of 
submitting a substantially shorter form with a reduced reporting burden 
(Ref. 8). For example, the Form A does not require facilities to report 
any information on releases (e.g., releases through fugitive or non-
point air emissions, discharges to streams or water bodies) or waste 
management quantities. Facilities can qualify to file a Form A if the 
total annual reportable amount for the listed chemical does not exceed 
500 pounds, and the amounts manufactured, processed, or otherwise used 
do not exceed 1 million pounds. The reportable amounts include amounts 
released at the facility (including disposed of within the facility), 
treated at the facility (as represented by amounts destroyed or 
converted by treatment processes), recovered at the facility as a 
result of recycling operations, combusted for the purpose of energy 
recovery at the facility, and amounts transferred from the facility to 
off-site locations for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery, 
treatment, and/or disposal. This means that facilities that are 
required to report data on PFAS and also qualify to file a Form A will 
not be providing specific quantity data on up to 500 pounds of a listed 
PFAS (five times the reporting threshold). For reporting year 2020, 
approximately 10% of the reporting forms submitted for the listed PFAS 
were Form As (i.e., reporting for TRI reflects 93 active reporting 
forms of which 84 were Form Rs and 9 were Form As).
    While the Form A does provide some general information on the 
quantities of the chemical that the facility manages as waste, this 
information may be insufficient for conducting analyses on PFAS and may 
be less meaningful for communities interested in assessing risk from 
releases of PFAS. 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 
in Form A does not include all releases. Given that even small 
quantities of PFAS may result in elevated concentrations in the 
environment, EPA believes it would be inappropriate to allow a 
reporting option that would exclude information on some releases. Thus, 
removing the availability of the use of Form A for PFAS is consistent 
with a concern for understanding small quantities of PFAS.
    For TRI-listed chemicals, other than chemicals of special concern, 
releases and off-site transfers for further waste management of less 
than 1,000 pounds can be reported using ranges or as a whole number. 
The reporting ranges are: 1-10 pounds; 11-499 pounds; and 500-999 
pounds. For larger releases and offsite transfers for further waste 
management of the toxic chemical, the facility must report the whole 
number. Use of ranges could reduce data accuracy because the low or the 
high-end range numbers may not be that close to the estimated value, 
even taking into account inherent data errors (i.e., errors in 
measurements and developing estimates). For PFAS, it is important to 
have accurate data regarding the amount released even when the 
quantities are relatively small, since concern may be tied to even 
small quantities of a substance. This issue was apparent for PFAS for 
reporting year 2020 since much of the data reported was for less than 
1,000 pounds.
    EPA anticipates that the elimination of these burden reduction 
tools will increase the amount and quality of data collected for PFAS 
and is consistent with the concern for small quantities of PFAS (Ref. 
1).

B. Elimination of the Supplier Notification Requirement De Minimis 
Exemption for Chemicals of Special Concern

    EPA is also proposing to eliminate the use of the de minimis 
exemption under the Supplier Notification Requirements at 40 CFR 
372.45(d)(1) for all substances on the list of chemicals of special

[[Page 74383]]

concern. EPA extended the de minimis exemption to the supplier 
notification requirement in its initial TRI reporting rule (February 
16, 1988, 53 FR 4500) (FRL-3298-2). The revised text would read as 
follows:

    If a mixture or trade name product contains no toxic chemical in 
excess of the applicable de minimis concentration as specified in 40 
CFR 372.38(a) except for chemicals listed under 40 CFR 372.28 which 
are excluded from the de minimis exemption.

    The de minimis exemption to the Supplier Notification Requirements 
allows suppliers to not provide notifications for mixtures or trade 
name products containing the listed toxic chemicals if the chemicals 
are present at concentrations below 1% of the mixture (0.1% for 
carcinogens). The de minimis exemption is not a small quantity 
exemption, it is a small concentration exemption. Therefore, it is 
possible that significant quantities of chemicals of special concern 
can be overlooked by reporting facilities if suppliers can use the de 
minimis exemption. For example, if a mixture or trade name product 
contains 0.9% of a listed PFAS and 100,000 pounds of the product is 
purchased, the supplier need not provide notification and the purchaser 
could be unaware of and not account for 900 pounds of PFAS. The impact 
of this exemption for the PBT chemicals with 10-pound reporting 
thresholds is even greater. Using the same 100,000-pound example, if 
mercury were present at 0.9% then that same 900 pounds would be 90 
times the mercury reporting threshold.
    It is also possible that quantities of chemicals of special concern 
would be included in supplier notifications by reporting facilities if 
suppliers cannot use the de minimis exemption. For example, if a 
mixture or trade name product contains 0.9% of a listed PFAS and 1,000 
pounds of the product is purchased, the supplier would need to provide 
notification for 9 pounds of PFAS. This would also impact PBT chemicals 
with 10-pound reporting thresholds. Using the same 1,000-pound example, 
if mercury was present at 0.9% then that same 9 pounds would be below 
the mercury reporting threshold. However, such quantities may become 
reportable, in aggregate, if a reporting entity receives multiple 
shipments (including from multiple suppliers) of a given product in a 
year and performs a threshold activity in excess of the TRI reporting 
threshold. Further, TRI supplier notification regulations do not 
require a person to consider the total quantity of the chemical being 
supplied but rather require the person to consider the concentration of 
the chemical in the product or mixture. Including a consideration of 
quantity rather than concentration shipped would complicate as well as 
reduce the ability of supplier notifications to inform downstream 
recipients of products and mixtures containing a TRI-listed chemical.
    EPA considered whether to include a small quantity exemption in 
lieu of a de minimis exemption for supplier notification. However, EPA 
is concerned that such an exemption would not provide adequate 
information to facilities receiving multiple shipments over the course 
of a year to address TRI reporting requirements that may apply to them, 
based on the total aggregated quantity received. Without such 
information on the TRI-listed chemical, the receiving facility may not 
have sufficient data to inform potential TRI reporting obligations.
    Many PFAS are used in products below the established de minimis 
levels (Refs. 4 and 7) which results in users of those products not 
knowing they are receiving a product that contains a TRI reportable 
PFAS. PFAS reports received for the TRI 2020 reporting year were mostly 
from manufacturers and waste disposal facilities which suggests that 
the de minimis exemption may have been used by most users and 
processors (https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/find-understand-and-use-tri). EPA has concluded that it is important 
and necessary to eliminate the supplier notification de minimis 
exemption for PFAS added to the TRI list pursuant to sections 7321(b) 
and 7321(c) of the NDAA because if that exemption were to remain in 
place the Agency may fail to collect information on amounts of PFAS 
that significantly exceed the reporting threshold.
    In addition, eliminating the use of the de minimis exemption for 
supplier notification purposes for all other chemicals of special 
concern will ensure that potentially significant quantities of such 
chemicals do not get overlooked by reporting facilities. The PBT 
chemicals and chemical categories that are classified as chemicals of 
special concern, and thus would also be impacted by this change, are as 
follows:
     Aldrin (CASRN: 309-00-2);
     Benzo[g,h,i]perylene (CASRN: 191-24-2);
     Chlordane (CASRN: 57-74-9);
     Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category (manufacturing; 
and the processing or otherwise use of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category if the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are present as 
contaminants in a chemical and if they were created during the 
manufacturing of that chemical) (TRI Category Code: N150);
     Heptachlor (CASRN: 76-44-8);
     Hexabromocyclododecane category (TRI Category Code: N270);
     Hexachlorobenzene (CASRN: 118-74-1);
     Isodrin (CASRN: 465-73-6);
     Lead (this lower threshold does not apply to lead when it 
is contained in stainless steel, brass or bronze alloy) (CASRN: 7439-
92-1);
     Lead compounds category (TRI Category Code: N420);
     Mercury (CASRN: 7439-97-6);
     Mercury compounds category (TRI Category Code: N458);
     Methoxychlor (CASRN: 72-43-5);
     Octachlorostyrene (CASRN: 29082-74-4);
     Pendimethalin (CASRN: 40487-42-1);
     Pentachlorobenzene (CASRN: 608-93-5);
     Polychlorinated biphenyls (CASRN: 1336-36-3);
     Polycyclic aromatic compounds category (PACs) (TRI 
Category Code: N590);
     Tetrabromobisphenol A (CASRN: 79-94-7);
     Toxaphene (CASRN: 8001-35-2); and
     Trifluralin (CASRN: 1582-09-8).
    When EPA established the chemical of special concern list, it 
decided to not remove the de minimis exemption eligibility from 
supplier notification requirements, indicating that the Agency believed 
that there was sufficient information available on PBT chemicals by 
suppliers. See 64 FR 688 (at 715), January 5, 1999 (FRL-6032-3) and 64 
FR 58666 (at 58732), October 29, 1999 (FRL-6389-11). However, EPA has 
determined that there are situations where this information is not 
available. For example, the agency has found that there is significant 
variability in the concentration of PACs in fuels, yet the presence and 
concentration of PACs in fuel oil is often not provided in supplier 
notifications or SDSs. Additionally, EPA is aware of metal mixtures and 
products containing low concentrations of lead (not contained in 
stainless steel, brass or bronze alloys) whose supplier notifications 
and SDSs do not state there is lead present in the mixture or product. 
Further, it is unclear whether downstream purchasers would be made 
aware of PBT chemicals contained in many products without notification 
of the presence of such chemicals.
    In situations where such information is already available, supplier 
notifications may already be addressed (e.g., if such information in 
already included on an SDS) or the anticipated

[[Page 74384]]

burden of a supplier to provide such information would be minimal 
(i.e., if the information is redundant then the burden to provide such 
known information should be trivial). However, as noted above, the 
quantity information EPA proposes to require for de minimis 
concentrations below the concentration threshold may not be provided in 
SDSs. OSHA maintains a 1 percent concentration threshold for reporting 
the presence and concentration of most hazardous chemicals on SDSs. (29 
CFR part 1910, subpart Z.) For chronic hazards (with Carcinogenicity, 
Germ Cell Mutagenicity, and Reproductive Toxicity), OSHA has 
established a 0.1 percent concentration threshold for reporting the 
presence and concentration of chemicals on SDSs (29 CFR part 1910, 
subpart Z.) EPA notes that there may be other reasons for a chemical's 
exclusion from an SDS, including that a chemical's hazard may not be 
covered by OSHA, or a chemical may be in an article that is not covered 
by SDS requirements. EPA believes that any potential increase in new 
supplier reporting is minimal, particularly regarding non-PFAS 
chemicals of special concern, but seeks comments on whether new 
supplier notifications will need to be developed under this proposal, 
and on any associated impacts.
    In the 1999 proposal to establish a chemical of special concern 
list, EPA also reasoned that entities subject to TRI supplier 
notification requirements could retain use of the de minimis exemption 
for PBTs because ``[m]any of the chemicals identified as persistent and 
bioaccumulative in today's action are not imported, processed, or 
otherwise used but are manufactured as byproducts.'' (64 FR 715; 
January 5, 1999). However, the Agency has since learned that several 
PBT chemicals are not manufactured as byproducts, and those chemicals 
are known to be processed for distribution to customers. For example, 
in Reporting Year 2021, the Agency received 55 Form Rs for 
tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA). None of those forms indicated that TBBPA 
had been manufactured as a byproduct. However, some forms indicated the 
TBBPA is processed, including as an article component. Similarly, for 
Reporting Year 2021, the Agency received 76 Form Rs on polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs); 64 of those forms did not indicate those PCBs had 
been manufactured as byproducts, though some forms indicated the PCBs 
had been processed, including as an article component. Because many PBT 
chemicals are not manufactured as byproducts and may exist in 
relatively lower concentrations within products or mixtures, the 
Agency's initial rationale to allow suppliers to exempt concentrations 
of PBT chemicals below de minimis from supplier notification 
requirements warrants reconsideration. Therefore, EPA is reassessing 
this exemption and modifying it appropriately to provide TRI facilities 
with additional information related to quantities of chemicals of 
special concern that may contribute to their reporting thresholds. EPA 
has concluded that it is important and necessary to eliminate the 
supplier notification de minimis exemption for all chemicals of special 
concern because if that exemption were to remain in place the Agency 
may fail to collect information on amounts of such chemicals that 
significantly exceed the reporting threshold.
    This proposed action reflects EPA's current understanding of 
chemical activities involving all chemicals of special concern (i.e., 
both PBTs and PFAS).)
    Further, as explained above, EPA's understanding is that downstream 
purchasers of products may lack information on the presence of PFAS in 
such products. EPA considered limiting the de minimis exception to just 
PFAS, but creating a patchwork reporting scheme where the de minimis 
exemption is available for supplier notification purposes for certain 
chemicals of special concern but not other chemicals of special 
concern, or pursuant to some other unique TRI reporting designation, 
would create an unnecessary patchwork of reporting requirements that 
would unnecessarily complicate supplier notification and TRI reporting 
requirements. EPA requests comment on the proposal to remove the de 
minimis eligibility from the supplier notification for all chemicals of 
special concern and seeks specific information related to the burden 
and benefits of this proposed change.

C. Impact of the Proposed Listing of Certain PFAS to the Chemical of 
Special Concern List

    The proposed regulatory text would add PFAS currently on TRI 
pursuant to 7321(b) and 7321(c) of the NDAA to the list of chemicals of 
special concern. Additionally, the proposed regulatory text would 
provide that all PFAS added to TRI pursuant to sections 7321(b) and 
7321(c), regardless of the date of their addition, will be included on 
the chemicals of special concern list. Thus, as PFAS continue to be 
added to TRI pursuant to sections 7321(b) and 7321(c), they will also 
be added to the list of chemicals of special concern as of the date 
they are added to the TRI. This includes substances that meet the 
criteria pursuant to 7321(b) and 7321(c) but are claimed confidential, 
and the Agency must follow the process outlined in section 7321(e) of 
the NDAA to address the claim of confidentiality.
    As with PFAS currently on the TRI list, future PFAS added to the 
TRI list under 7321(b) and 7321(c) will have a 100-pound reporting 
threshold, per sections 7321(b)(2)(A) and 7321(c)(2)(B). Congress' use 
of this low reporting threshold demonstrates a concern for even 
relatively small quantities of these PFAS. Therefore, EPA has concluded 
that it is appropriate for all PFAS added to the TRI list under these 
provisions to be added to the chemicals of special concern list upon 
listing. If these PFAS were not added to the chemicals of special 
concern list at the time of their addition to the TRI list, there would 
be a delay in the reporting requirements while EPA conducts a 
rulemaking simply to add them to the chemicals of special concern list. 
This would result in differences in how previously listed PFAS and 
newly listed PFAS are treated even though they were automatically 
listed with the same reporting thresholds. EPA is proposing regulatory 
text that would add those PFAS added pursuant to 7321(b) and 7321(c) to 
the chemicals of special concern list upon their addition to the TRI 
list. EPA requests comment on whether the addition of these PFAS to the 
chemicals of special concern list should occur upon addition to the TRI 
list and on the proposed regulatory text.
    EPA is not proposing a definition of PFAS as part of this 
rulemaking. This rulemaking only concerns chemical substances added to 
the TRI by sections 7321(b) and 7321(c) of the NDAA, neither of which 
require EPA to provide a definition of PFAS. Section 7321(b) added by 
name and/or CASRN specific PFAS to the TRI list and sections 7321(b) 
and (c) identify EPA activities involving PFAS that would cause a PFAS 
to be added to the TRI list. The activities described by sections 
7321(b) and (c) indicate whether they pertain to a PFAS, and thus a 
separate determination of whether or not the covered activity involves 
a PFAS is not necessary. EPA is therefore not proposing a definition of 
PFAS for purposes of this rulemaking, and issues relating to the 
definition of PFAS are outside the scope of this rulemaking. EPA 
requests comment on EPA's interpretation that a definition is 
unnecessary to this rulemaking. EPA will consider the need for a PFAS

[[Page 74385]]

definition for a purpose other than the NDAA section 7321(b) and (c) 
listings, should the need for such a definition arise.

D. Alternative Mechanisms for PFAS To Be Added to the Chemicals of 
Special Concern List

    PFAS may be added to TRI via methods other than NDAA sections 
7321(b) and (c) and this proposal does not address whether PFAS added 
through such alternative methods should be listed as chemicals of 
special concern. For example, any PFAS added via section 7321(d)(3) of 
the NDAA would not be impacted by the regulatory text proposed here. 
Unlike sections 7321(b) and 7321(c) of the NDAA, Congress did not 
establish a reporting threshold of 100 pounds for substances added via 
section 7321(d)(3) of the NDAA. EPA will consider whether it is 
appropriate to identify these substances as chemicals of special 
concern when it takes action to add such substances under section 
7321(d)(3) of the NDAA.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and 
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are 
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even 
if the referenced document is not itself physically located in the 
docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please 
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. USEPA. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Changes to TRI 
Reporting for PFAS. Prepared by Abt Associates for: Data Collection 
Branch, Data Gathering and Analysis Division, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention. November 2022.
2. USEPA. Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and 
Environmental Risks of PFAS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas.
3. ATSDR. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 
Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls. May 2021. Available from: 
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf.
4. ATSDR. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Per- and 
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) and Your Health. PFAS in the U.S. 
Population. Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.html.
5. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to 
Environmental Chemicals, Updated Tables. Pages 318-353. February 
2015. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/pdf/fourthreport_updatedtables_feb2015.pdf.
6. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Available from 
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm.
7. Kotthoff, et al. 2015. Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl 
substances in consumer products. Environmental Science and Pollution 
Research 22:14546-14559.
8. USEPA. Toxics Release Inventory Form A. Available at: https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/guideme_ext/guideme_ext/guideme/file/ry_2021_form_a.pdf.
9. USEPA. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection Request 
(ICR).

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); Rule-Related Amendment; 
Changes to Reporting Requirements for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl 
Substances; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release 
Reporting, Proposed Rule (RIN 2070-AK97). EPA ICR No.2724.01; OMB 
Control No. 2070-[new]. November 2022.

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders#influence.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive 
Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 
January 21, 2011). Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 
have been documented in the docket. EPA prepared an economic analysis 
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This 
analysis (Ref. 1) is available in the docket and summarized in Unit 
I.E.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The new information collection activities in this proposed rule 
have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq. The information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA 
prepared is assigned EPA ICR No. 2724.01 (Ref. 9). You can find a copy 
of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized 
here.
    Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements 
under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 may use either EPA Toxic 
Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or EPA Toxic 
Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350- 2). The Form R 
must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise 
uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain 
other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative 
threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed 
toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate reporting 
thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of 
the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of 
an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 
million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain 
conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In 
addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a 
substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 (42 U.S.C. 
11042) and 40 CFR part 350. OMB has approved the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements related to Forms A and R, supplier 
notification, and petitions under OMB Control number 2070-0212 (EPA ICR 
No. 2613.04) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB 
Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428). As such, this ICR is intended to 
amend the existing ICR to include the following additional details:
     Respondents/affected entities: Facilities covered under 
EPCRA section 313 that manufacture, process or otherwise use listed 
PFAS (See Unit I.A.).
     Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (EPCRA 
section 313).
     Estimated number of respondents: 605 to 1,997.
     Frequency of response: Annual.
     Total estimated burden: 45,363 and 149,737 burden hours in 
the first year and approximately 21,602 and 71,303 burden hours in the 
steady state. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
     Total estimated cost: Approximately $3,064,271 and 
$10,114,734 in the first year of reporting and approximately $1,459,215 
and $4,816,518 in the steady state.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods

[[Page 74386]]

for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified 
at the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-
related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
using the interface at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find 
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 
and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than 
January 4, 2023. EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the 
final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of 
this action are primarily classified within the manufacturing and waste 
management industry sectors. The Agency has determined that of the 605 
to 1,997 entities estimated to be impacted by this action, 467 to 1,313 
are small businesses; no small governments or small organizations are 
expected to be affected by this action. The average cost per small firm 
is $2,714 (at a 3% discount rate) or $2,765 (at a 7% discount rate). 
The total cost for small entities is $1,267,363-$3,563,272 (at a 3% 
discount rate) or $1,291,213-$3,630,327 (at a 7% discount rate). All 
small businesses affected by this action are estimated to incur 
annualized cost impacts of less than 1%. Even under a worst-case 
scenario comparing compliance costs to average revenue of firms with 
between 10 (smallest number required to report) and 14 employees 
instead of comparing compliance costs to the weighted average revenue 
of small firms, there are still no costs that exceed the 1% impact 
threshold. Thus, this action is not expected to have a significant 
adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A 
more detailed analysis of the impacts on small entities is provided in 
EPA's economic analysis (Ref. 1).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action is not 
subject to the requirements of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. EPA did not identify any small governments that would be 
impacted by this action. EPA's economic analysis indicates that the 
total cost of this action is estimated to be from $3,064,271 and 
$10,114,734 in the first year of reporting and from $1,459,215 and 
$4,816,518 in subsequent reporting years (Ref. 1).

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action 
relates to toxic chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which 
primarily affects private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental 
health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may 
disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered 
regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not 
concern any environmental health risks or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as specified in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution 
or use of energy and has not otherwise been designated by the 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 
significant energy action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. As such, 
NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs 
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by 
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations (people of color) and low-income 
populations.
    The EPA believes that this type of action does not directly concern 
human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be 
evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse 
effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous 
peoples. This regulatory action makes changes to the reporting 
requirements for PFAS that will result in more information being 
collected and provided to the public; it does not have any direct 
impact on human health or the environment. This action does not address 
any human health or environmental risks and does not affect the level 
of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action 
makes changes to the reporting requirements for PFAS which will provide 
more information on releases and waste management of PFAS. By requiring 
reporting of this additional information, EPA would be providing 
communities across the U.S. (including minority populations and low-
income populations) with access to data which they may use to seek 
lower exposures and consequently reductions in 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, the informational benefits 
of the action will have a positive impact on the human health and 
environmental impacts of minority populations, low-income populations, 
and indigenous peoples.

[[Page 74387]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

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

    Dated: November 22, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.
    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, it is proposed 
that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows:

PART 372--TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING: COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW

0
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows:

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


Sec.  372.22  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  372.22, amend paragraph (c) by revising the text ``Sec.  
372.25, Sec.  372.27, Sec.  372.28, or Sec.  372.29'' to read 
``Sec. Sec.  372.25, 372.27, or 372.28''.


Sec.  372.25  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  372.25 by:
0
a. Revising in the introductory text paragraph, the text ``Except as 
provided in Sec.  372.27, Sec.  372.28, and Sec.  372.29'' to read 
``Except as provided in Sec. Sec.  372.27 and 372.28''; and
0
b. Revising in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h), the text ``Sec.  372.27, 
Sec.  372.28, or Sec.  372.29'' to read ``Sec. Sec.  372.27 or 
372.28''.
0
4. Amending in Sec.  372.28, the table in paragraph (a)(1) by:
0
a. Revising the column heading ``Reporting threshold'' to read 
``Reporting threshold (in pounds)''; and
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order an entry for ``Per- and polyfluoroalkyl 
substances.''
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  372.28  Lower thresholds for chemicals of special concern.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Reporting
           Chemical name                   CAS No.         threshold (in
                                                              pounds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl            see Sec.   372.65(d)             100
 substances (Individually listed     and (e).
 per- and polyfluoroalkyl
 substances added by 15 U.S.C.
 8921(b)(1) and (c)(1). (EPA
 periodically updates the lists of
 covered chemicals at Sec.
 372.65(d) and (e) to reflect
 chemicals that have been added by
 15 U.S.C. 8921).
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  372.29  [Removed]

0
5. Remove Sec.  372.29.


Sec.  372.30  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  372.30 by:
0
a. Revising in paragraph (a) the text ``in Sec.  372.25, Sec.  372.27, 
Sec.  372.28, or Sec.  372.29 at'' to read ``in Sec. Sec.  372.25, 
372.27, or 372.28 at''.
0
b. Revising in paragraphs (b)(1), the introductory text of (b)(3), and 
in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (b)(3)(iv), revise the reference ``Sec.  
372.25, Sec.  372.27, Sec.  372.28, or Sec.  372.29'' to read 
``Sec. Sec.  372.25, 372.27, or 372.28''.


Sec.  372.38  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  372.38 by:
0
a. Removing in paragraph (a)(2), the text ``except for purposes of 
Sec.  372.45(d)(1)''; and
0
b. Revising in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (f), (g) and (h), the text 
``Sec.  372.25, Sec.  372.27, Sec.  372.28, or Sec.  372.29'' to read 
``Sec. Sec.  372.25, 372.27, or 372.28''.
0
8. In Sec.  372.45 revise paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  372.45  Notification about toxic chemicals.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * (1) If a mixture or trade name product contains no toxic 
chemical in excess of the applicable de minimis concentration as 
specified in Sec.  372.38(a), except for chemicals listed in Sec.  
372.28(a) that are excluded from the de minimis exemption.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-26022 Filed 12-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P