Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Amendments to
Proposed Addition of a Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Category;
Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Notice of
Availability and Clarification of Proposed Rule
[Federal Register: February 23, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 35)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8766-8769]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23fe99-26]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[OPPTS-400132A; FRL-6061-7]
RIN 2070-AD09
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Amendments to
Proposed Addition of a Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Category;
Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Notice of
Availability and Clarification of Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability and clarification of proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On January 5, 1999, EPA issued a proposed rule to lower the
reporting thresholds for certain persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT)
chemicals that are subject to reporting under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and
section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). The
proposed rule also included the addition of certain PBT chemicals,
amendments to the proposed rule to add a dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds category, as well as other related reporting changes. The
purpose of this document is to inform interested parties of the
availability of an additional document concerning one of the reporting
threshold options discussed in the proposed rule. This document also
contains clarifications to the discussion concerning the reporting
limitation for certain metals when contained in alloys.
DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket control number OPPTS-
400132, must be received by EPA on or before March 8, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as
provided in Unit I of the ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section of this
document.
The document entitled ``Analysis of Potential Small Entity Impacts
Associated with Option 1 of the TRI PBT Proposal'' is now available
from the public docket. Refer to Unit I.B.2. of this document for the
location and hours of operation for the public docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Petitions
Coordinator, 202-260-3882, e-mail: bushman.daniel@epamail.epa.gov, for
specific information on the proposed rule, or for more information on
EPCRA section 313, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 401 M St.,
SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-535-0202, in Virginia and
Alaska: 703-412-9877 or Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-7672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
process, or otherwise use any of the chemicals listed under Table 1 in
Unit V.C.1. of the January 5, 1999 proposed rule (64 FR 688) (FRL-6032-
3). Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are
not limited to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Potentially Affected
Category Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Facilities that: incinerate or
otherwise treat, store or dispose
of hazardous waste or sewage
sludge; operate chlor-alkali
processes; manufacture chlorinated
organic compounds, pesticides,
other organic or inorganic
chemicals, tires, inner tubes,
other rubber products, plastics and
material resins, paints, Portland
cement, pulp and paper, asphalt
coatings, or electrical components;
operate cement kilns; operate
metallurgical processes such as
steel production, smelting, metal
recovery furnaces, blast furnaces,
coke ovens, metal casting and
stamping; operate petroleum bulk
terminals; operate petroleum
refineries; operate industrial
boilers that burn coal, wood,
petroleum products; and electric
utilities that combust coal and/or
oil for distribution of electricity
in commerce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government Federal facilities that: burn coal,
wood, petroleum products; burn
wastes; incinerate or otherwise
treat, store or dispose of
hazardous waste or sewage sludge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be
affected. To determine whether your
[[Page 8767]]
facility would be affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria in part 372, subpart B of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
B. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of this Document or
Other Support Documents?
1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this
document and the January 5, 1999 proposed rule from the EPA internet
Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select ``Laws and
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the
``Federal Register - Environmental Documents.'' You can also go
directly to the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/.
2. In person or by phone. If you have any questions or need
additional information about this action, please contact the person
identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section. In
addition, the official record for this document, including the public
version, has been established under docket control number OPPTS-400132,
(including the references in Unit III. of this preamble and comments
and data submitted electronically as described below). This record
includes not only the documents physically contained in the docket, but
all of the documents included as references in those documents. A
public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of any
electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI), is available for inspection
from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The public record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information
Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The TSCA
Nonconfidential Information Center telephone number is 202-260-7099.
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or
electronically. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket control
number (i.e., ``OPPTS-400132'') in your correspondence.
1. By mail. Submit written comments to: Document Control Office
(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
2. In person or by courier. Deliver written comments to: Document
Control Office in Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC, telephone: 202-260-7093.
3. Electronically. Submit your comments and/or data electronically
by e-mail to: ``oppt.ncic@epa.gov.'' Please note that you should not
submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use
of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data
will also be accepted on standard computer disks in WordPerfect 5.1/6.1
or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form must be
identified by the docket control number OPPTS-400132. Electronic
comments on this document may also be filed online at many Federal
Depository Libraries.
D. How Should I Handle CBI Information That I Want to Submit to the
Agency?
You may claim information that you submit in response to this
document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does
not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidential will be included in the public
docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI
or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with the person
identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
II. Additional Documentation and Clarification
A. What Document Is Being Made Available and What Does It Discuss?
In the January 5, 1999 proposed rule to lower the EPCRA section 313
reporting thresholds for certain PBT chemicals (64 FR 688), the
preferred option (i.e., Option 2), as presented in the regulatory text,
proposed the following EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds: 10
pounds for certain highly persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals; 100
pounds for certain persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals; and 0.1 gram
for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. The potential small entity
impacts of the preferred Option 2 are presented in the economic
analysis of the proposed rule (Ref. 1). EPA has prepared an additional
analysis of the potential small entity impacts of a regulatory option
with lower EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds than those contained
in Option 2. The document being made available today contains this
analysis and is entitled ``Analysis of Potential Small Entity Impacts
Associated with Option 1 of the TRI PBT Proposal'' (Ref. 2). This
document is now available in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Under Option 1, the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds would be 1
pound for certain highly persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals; 10
pounds for certain persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals; and 0.1 gram
for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. At these lower reporting
thresholds, more facilities would be affected by the rule and more
reports would be filed than at the Option 2 reporting thresholds. The
following is a brief overview of EPA's findings.
1. Overall methodology. For the purpose of its analysis, EPA
defined a small business using the small business size standards
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). EPA defined
small governments using the Regulatory Flexibility Act definition of
jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000. No small
organizations are expected to be affected.
Only those small entities that are expected to submit at least one
report are considered to be affected for the purpose of the small
entity analysis, although EPA recognizes that other small entities will
conduct compliance determinations under lower thresholds. The number of
affected entities will be smaller than the number of affected
facilities, because many entities operate more than one facility.
Impacts were calculated for both the first year of reporting and
subsequent years. First year costs are typically higher than continuing
costs because firms must familiarize themselves with the requirements.
Once firms have become familiar with how the reporting requirements
apply to their operations, costs fall. EPA believes that subsequent
year impacts present the best measure to judge the impact on small
entities because these continuing costs are more representative of the
compliance costs that firms face.
EPA analyzed the potential cost impact of Option 1 on small
businesses and governments for the manufacturing sector and in each of
the recently added industry sectors. EPA then aggregated the analyses
for the purpose of determining whether it would be able to certify that
Option 1 would not, if promulgated, have a ``significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' EPA believes that
the statutory test for certifying a
[[Page 8768]]
rule and the statutory consequences of not certifying a rule all
indicate that certification determinations may be based on an
aggregated analysis of the rule's impact on all of the small entities
subject to it.
2. Small businesses. EPA used annual compliance costs as a
percentage of annual company sales to assess the potential impacts on
small businesses of Option 1. EPA believes that this is a good measure
of a firm's ability to afford the costs attributable to a regulatory
requirement, because comparing compliance costs to revenues provides a
reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden
relative to a commonly available measure of a company's business
volume. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical
firm's revenue (for example, less than 1%, but not greater than 3%),
EPA believes that the financial impacts of the regulation may be
considered insignificant. As discussed above, EPA also believes that it
is appropriate to apply this measure to subsequent year impacts.
Based on its estimates of additional reporting as a result of the
proposed rule, the Agency estimates that 10,000 businesses would be
affected by Option 1, and that approximately 6,900 of these businesses
are classified as small based on the applicable SBA size standards. For
the first reporting year, EPA estimates that approximately 30 small
businesses would bear compliance costs between 1% and 3% of revenues,
and that no small businesses would bear costs greater than 3%. In
subsequent years, EPA estimates that approximately 7 small businesses
would bear compliance costs between 1% and 3% of revenues, and that no
small businesses would bear costs greater than 3%. As stated above, EPA
believes that subsequent-year impacts are the appropriate measure of
small business impacts.
3. Small governments. To assess the potential impacts of Option 1
on small governments, EPA used annual compliance costs as a percentage
of annual government revenues to measure potential impacts. Similar to
the methodology for small businesses, this measure was used because EPA
believes it provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the
regulatory burden relative to a government's ability to pay for the
costs, and is based on readily available data.
EPA estimates that 49 publicly owned electric utility facilities,
operated by a total of 39 municipalities, may be affected under Option
1. Of these municipalities, an estimated 18 are small governments
(i.e., those with populations under 50,000). It is estimated that 1 of
these small governments would bear annual costs between 1% and 3% of
annual government revenues in the first year. In subsequent years, EPA
estimates that no small governments would bear compliance costs above
1% of revenues.
4. All small entities. As stated above, EPA believes that
subsequent-year impacts are the appropriate measure of small entity
impacts. After the first year of reporting, approximately 7 small
businesses are expected to bear costs over 1% of revenues. This
represents less than 1% of all affected small businesses. None of the
affected small governments are estimated to bear costs greater than 1%
of revenues after the first year of reporting. No small organizations
are expected to be affected by the proposed rule. Thus, the total
number of small entities with impacts above 1% of annual revenues in
subsequent years does not change when the results are aggregated for
all small entities (i.e., small businesses, small governments, and
small organizations).
B. What Clarifications Are Being Made to the Proposed Rule?
In Unit X.B. of the January 5, 1999 proposed rule, EPA discussed a
limitation for the reporting of vanadium and cobalt when contained in
alloys. At the end of the first paragraph of Unit X.B. (second column,
page 717), it was stated that ``EPA is therefore proposing to limit the
reporting for vanadium and cobalt to exclude alloys that contain these
metals from the lower reporting thresholds.'' This statement is
incorrect, EPA did not propose to lower the EPCRA section 313 reporting
thresholds for vanadium. EPA only proposed to remove the fume or dust
qualifier from the current vanadium listing and replace it with a
qualifier that limits the reporting for vanadium by excluding the
reporting of alloys that contain vanadium.
III. What Are the References for this Action?
The references associated with this action are as follows:
1. USEPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Modify
Reporting of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals Under EPCRA
Section 313. December 1998.
2. USEPA, OPPT. Analysis of Potential Small Entity Impacts
Associated with Option 1 of the TRI PBT Proposal. January 1999.
IV. Do Any of the Regulatory Assessment Requirements Apply to this
Action?
No. As indicated previously, this action merely announces the
availability of additional data for public review, and provides minor
clarification to provisions in the proposed rule. This action does not
impose any new requirements. As such, this action does not require
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive
Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any
unfunded mandate, or impose any significant or unique impact on small
governments as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4). Nor does it require prior consultation with State,
local, and tribal government officials as specified by Executive Order
12875, entitled Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships (58 FR 58093,
October 28, 1993) and Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19,
1998), or special consideration of environmental justice related issues
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub.
L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). In addition, since this
action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and
Executive Orders for the underlying proposed rule, is discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule (see 64 FR 688, January 5, 1999).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.
[[Page 8769]]
Dated: February 12, 1999.
Susan H. Wayland,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
[FR Doc. 99-4323 Filed 2-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090511102555im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}