[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 43 (Monday, March 7, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10919-10930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4339]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[TRI-2002-0001; FRL-6724-9]
RIN 2025-AA12


Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds; Toxic Equivalency Reporting; 
Community Right-To-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community 
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), EPA is proposing revisions to the reporting 
requirements for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. Toxic 
equivalents (TEQs) are a weighted quantity measure based on the 
toxicity of each member of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category relative to the most toxic members of the category, i.e., 
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin. Under EPCRA section 313, EPA currently requires that facilities 
report dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in units of total grams for the 
entire category, and provide a single distribution of the individual 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds at the facility. This distribution 
must represent either total releases, or releases to the media (air, 
land, water) for which the facility has the best information. The three 
options discussed in this proposed rule would require reporting (on a 
new TRI Form R-D) of available information on all relevant portions of 
the form (e.g., for each waste stream). One option would require the 
additional reporting of TEQs only. The two preferred options would 
require reporting of the mass quantity of each individual member of the 
category and differ primarily in whether the Agency or the facility 
would perform TEQ computations. Under each of these options, this new 
information would be in addition to the total grams data currently 
reported for the entire category and would replace the current 
reporting of a single distribution of the members of the category. EPA 
is proposing these revisions in response to requests from members of 
the public that EPA provide facilities with a method of reporting TEQ 
data. Comment is specifically sought on all options as well as EPA's 
preferences for implementing TEQ reporting.

DATES: Comments, identified by the Docket ID No. TRI-2002-0001, must be 
received by EPA on or before May 6, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. TRI-2002-
0001, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. TRI-2002-
0001. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk 
Officer for EPA, 725 17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20004, telephone: 
202-566-1744, Attention Docket ID No. TRI-2002-0001. Such deliveries 
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. TRI-2002-0001. 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. TRI-2002-0001. The public docket includes 
information considered by EPA in developing this proposed rule, 
including the documents listed below, which are electronically or 
physically located in the docket. In addition, interested parties 
should consult documents that are referenced in the documents that EPA 
has placed in the docket, regardless of whether these referenced 
documents are electronically or physically located in the docket. For 
assistance in locating documents that are referenced in documents that 
EPA has placed in the docket, but that are not electronically or 
physically located in the docket, please consult the person listed in 
the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the OEI 
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading

[[Page 10920]]

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading 
Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is 
202-566-1752.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Toxics Release 
Inventory Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access 
(2844T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0743; fax number: 202-
566-0741; 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, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-424-
9346, in Virginia and Alaska: 703-412-9810 or Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-
7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Proposed Rule Apply to Me?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Examples of potentially affected
               Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.............................  SIC major group codes 10 (except
                                        1011, 1081, and 1094); 12
                                        (except 1241); or 20 through 39;
                                        or industry codes 4911 (limited
                                        to facilities that combust coal
                                        and/or oil for the purpose of
                                        generating power for
                                        distribution in commerce); or
                                        4931 (limited to facilities that
                                        combust coal and/or oil for the
                                        purpose of generating power for
                                        distribution in commerce); or
                                        4939 (limited to facilities that
                                        combust coal and/or oil for the
                                        purpose of generating power for
                                        distribution in commerce); or
                                        4953 (limited to facilities
                                        regulated under the Resource
                                        Conservation and Recovery Act,
                                        subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. section
                                        6921 et seq.); or 5169; or 5171;
                                        or 7389 (limited to facilities
                                        primarily engaged in solvent
                                        recovery services on a contract
                                        or fee basis).
Federal Government...................  Federal facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. 
Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for consideration 
must clearly distinguish such information from other comments and 
clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary 
information directly to the following address only, and not to the 
public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: OEI Document Control 
Officer, Mail Code: 2822T, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. You may claim information that you submit to EPA 
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you 
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 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 CBI). The EPA will disclose information 
claimed as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth 
in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any 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 and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the 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(g), 313(h), and 328 
of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(g), 11023(h) and 11048, and section 6607 of 
the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13106.
    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. 42 U.S.C. 11023(a). 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.
    Section 313(g) describes the information that must be submitted 
annually to EPA, pursuant to EPCRA section 313. Specifically, section 
313(g) requires submission of the following information for each listed 
toxic chemical known to be present at the facility: ``(i) Whether the 
toxic chemical at the facility is manufactured, processed, or otherwise 
used, and the general category or categories of use of the chemical; 
(ii) An estimate of the maximum amounts (in ranges) of the toxic 
chemical present at the facility at any time during the preceding 
calendar year; (iii) For each wastestream, the waste treatment or 
disposal methods employed, and an estimate of the treatment efficiency 
typically achieved by such methods for that wastestream; and (iv) The 
annual quantity of the toxic chemical entering each environmental 
medium.'' 42 U.S.C. 11023(g)(1).
    Section 313(h) provides 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 long recognized that subsection (h) of section 313 
describes the purposes of EPCRA section 313, and has frequently

[[Page 10921]]

relied on this provision to guide its implementation. See, Conference 
Report at 299. ( [Subsection (h)] ``describes the intended uses of the 
toxic chemical release forms required to be submitted by this section 
and expresses the purposes of this section.''); 62 FR 23834; 23835-836 
(May 1, 1997); 64 FR 58666; 58667; 58687-692 (October 29, 1999).
    Section 6607(a) of the PPA requires all facilities that report 
under EPCRA section 313 to also submit ``a toxic chemical source 
reduction and recycling report for the preceding calendar year.'' 42 
U.S.C. 13106(a) Specifically, section 6607 (b) requires submission of 
the following information for each listed toxic chemical: (1) The 
quantity of the chemical entering any waste stream (or otherwise 
released into the environment) prior to recycling, treatment, or 
disposal during the calendar year, and the percentage change from the 
previous year, excluding any amount reported under paragraph 7; (2) the 
amount of the chemical recycled (at the facility or elsewhere) during 
the calendar year, the percentage change from the previous year, and 
the process of recycling used; (3) the source reduction practices used 
during the year; (4) the amount expected to be reported under 
paragraphs (1) and (2) for the 2 succeeding calendar years; (5) a ratio 
of production in the reporting year to production in the previous year; 
(6) the techniques used to identify source reduction opportunities; (7) 
the amount of any toxic chemical released into the environment by a 
catastrophic event, remedial action or other one-time event, and which 
is not associated with production processes during the reporting year; 
and (8) the amount of the chemical treated (at the facility or 
elsewhere) during the calendar year and the percentage change from the 
previous year.
    Congress granted EPA broad rulemaking authority. 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. What Are TEQs and Why Did EPA Develop This Proposal?

A. What Are TEQs and How Are They Calculated?

    TEQs are a weighted quantity measure based on the toxicity of each 
member of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category relative to the 
most toxic members of the category, i.e., 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (commonly referred to as dioxin) and 1,2,3,7,8-
pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. In order to calculate a TEQ, a toxic 
equivalent factor (TEF) is assigned to each member of the dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds category, TEFs that have been established through 
international agreements currently range from 1 to 0.0001. A TEQ is 
calculated by multiplying the actual grams weight of each dioxin and 
dioxin-like compound by its corresponding TEF and then summing the 
results. The number that results from this calculation is referred to 
as grams TEQ.

B. Why Did EPA Develop This Proposed Rule?

    In response to a petition, EPA added the dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds category to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals in 
October of 1999 (64 FR 58666 and 58695-58704 (October 29, 1999)). That 
rulemaking required reporting in grams of the total dioxin releases. 
The rationale for selection of that reporting format was articulated in 
the Federal Register (64 FR 58700-58704) and is not the subject of this 
rulemaking. However, in the 1999 rulemaking, EPA also agreed that ``* * 
* being able to determine TEQs from the reported data and being able to 
determine which of the individual chemicals are include (sic) in a 
facilities report would make the data more useful to the public.'' (64 
FR 58702--emphasis added).
    A significant factor in the belief that TEQ reporting could add 
value was that the TEFs upon which the TEQ computations are based are 
an internationally agreed upon standard for characterizing the relative 
toxicity of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and were a significant 
factor in specifying the listing of some of the dioxin congeners (64 FR 
58696). Therefore, EPA added a section to the Toxics Release Inventory 
(TRI) reporting Form R that required the reporting facility to provide 
a single distribution of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds for one 
of the total quantities that the facility is reporting to enable 
interested members of the public to compute a general (not waste stream 
specific) TEQ for the facility's releases. Reporting of complete 
distributions for all waste streams was not required primarily due to a 
concern about reporting burden.
    Under the current rule, if a facility has information on the 
distribution of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, it is required to 
report either the distribution that best represents the distribution of 
the total quantity of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds released to all 
media from the facility; or its one best media-specific distribution. 
As with all other reporting under EPCRA section 313, this information 
is only required if it is available from the data used to calculate 
thresholds, releases, and other waste management quantities, or if the 
facility has information that can be used to make a reasonable 
estimate. No additional testing or monitoring is required.
    Since promulgation of the final rule, EPA has continued to receive 
feedback from the regulated community on the question of how to report 
under EPCRA section 313 for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. For 
example, certain industry groups have recently requested that EPA 
require TEQ reporting for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category 
on an individual waste stream basis in addition to the current 
requirement to report total grams for the category. These groups 
believe the addition of information on TEQs for individual waste 
streams will enhance the value of dioxin release information without 
detracting from that already being provided. In addition, several 
industry trade associations including the American Chemistry Council, 
American Forest & Paper Association, American Portland Cement Alliance, 
Edison Electric Institute, and The Aluminum Association, have written 
to the Office of Management and Budget in support of the addition of 
TEQ reporting to the current EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements 
(Ref. 1). As was recognized at the time of the 1999 rulemaking, neither 
total mass nor TEQ reporting ``* * * provide all of the data that the 
commenters would like to have reported and that being able to determine 
TEQs would provide additional useful information.'' (64 FR 58702). 
Having so agreed, however, the Agency continues to have concerns about 
the burden which could be associated with waste stream specific 
reporting of dioxin releases and TEQ. In this proposed rule, EPA is 
soliciting comment on this burden for reporters if they were required 
to provide waste stream specific information on individual dioxins and 
dioxin-like compounds. The Agency is also seeking comment through this 
proposed rule on three potential approaches for implementing reporting 
changes which would make it feasible for the public to assess 
individual releases on both a gram and TEQ basis.
    The Agency sees merit in this dual reporting for all of the reasons 
articulated in the 1999 rulemaking. Not only will the addition of TEQ 
reporting allow further understanding of the releases and waste 
management quantities currently reported to the TRI for dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds, it will also make it easier to compare TRI data 
on dioxin and dioxin-like

[[Page 10922]]

compounds with other EPA activities which primarily present data for 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in terms of TEQs. Therefore, EPA has 
developed this proposed rule to solicit comments on potential 
approaches for ensuring the availability of TEQ based information in 
EPCRA section 313 reporting for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category.

IV. What Additional Data Is EPA Proposing To Collect and How Will It Be 
Collected?

    There are three ways to accomplish the addition of TEQ information 
on individual waste streams to that data which is currently available 
under the TRI. In addition to the current reporting of the total grams 
of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, one could also 
collect either TEQ data for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category as a whole, the total grams for the individual members of the 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, or both, for each individual 
waste stream for which such data are available. Individual grams of 
each member of the category, combined with published TEFs, can be used 
either by the reporting facility or by EPA to calculate and report TEQ 
data for individual waste streams.
    EPA is requesting comment on three options for collecting this 
information and providing it to the public. Under option 1, EPA would 
require that, in addition to reporting the total grams of the dioxin 
and dioxin-like compounds category, if a facility has information on 
the distribution of the quantities of the individual members of the 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, the facility must report the TEQ 
calculated from that distribution for the category. However, Option 1 
is not an EPA preferred option because it does not address a major 
concern with the collection of TEQ data in the absence of individual 
grams data for each member of the category. The concern is that if TEFs 
change, as they have in the past, EPA will not be able to track TEQs 
consistently over time, because it will not have the underlying data 
necessary to recalculate prior year TEQ data using the new TEF values, 
or to otherwise compare TEQ data generated using different TEF values. 
The retention of outdated TEQ data in the publicly available TRI 
database could also cause additional confusion for users of the data.
    Discussed below are the two preferred options (options 2 and 3) 
that EPA is considering for collecting this information. While EPA is 
considering all three options and specifically requests comments on 
which option would best meet the goal of providing useful TEQ data 
while limiting the additional reporting burden, EPA currently favors 
option 3 below, because it has the lowest burden and provides the most 
reliable information. (The regulatory text proposed in this notice, 
however, is based on option 2, because it incorporates both of the 
other two options, by requiring facilities to report individual grams 
data for each member of the category and to calculate and report TEQ 
values.)

A. Option 2: Facilities Report Both Grams Data and TEQ Data

    Under this option, EPA is proposing that, in addition to reporting 
the total grams of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, if a 
facility has information on the distribution of the quantities of the 
individual members of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, the 
facility must report (1) the total grams for each member of the 
category; and (2) the TEQ calculated from that distribution for the 
category. The TEQ data would be calculated using the most recent TEF 
values (see Unit V.). As with all other reporting under EPCRA section 
313, facilities should use readily available data collected pursuant to 
other provisions of law to calculate this information, or where such 
data are not readily available, must make reasonable estimates of the 
amounts involved. See 42 U.S.C. 11042 (g)(2). Facilities are not 
required to conduct any testing or monitoring in order to submit this 
information. See 42 U.S.C. 11042 (g)(2). As EPA has previously stated, 
when reporting for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, 
facilities should report their releases and other waste management 
quantities at a level of precision supported by the accuracy of the 
underlying data and the estimation techniques on which the estimate is 
based (64 FR 58734, October 29, 1999).
    Under any of the three options presented in this notice, the 
additional distribution data and TEQ data would be reported for the 
data elements in sections 5 (Quantity of the Toxic Chemical Entering 
Each Environmental Medium Onsite), 6 (Transfers of the Toxic Chemical 
in Wastes to Off-Site Locations), and 8 (Source Reduction and Recycling 
Activities; limited to the current year only data) of the current Form 
R. EPA intends to create a new form, called the Form R-D, that 
facilities will use instead of the Form R to report for the dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds category, regardless of whether they can provide 
any of the additional data described in this proposal. The new form 
would include all of the data currently collected on the existing Form 
R (except for the information described in Unit VI), and would provide 
for the collection of the additional data for each waste stream 
required by the final rule (i.e., mass distribution data for each 
member of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category under Option 3, 
the TEQs reported under Option 1, or both individual compound mass and 
TEQ data under Option 2). To help commenters understand precisely the 
additional information that EPA is proposing to collect, EPA has placed 
a draft copy of the Form R-D in the docket. However, the Agency is not 
proposing to codify this form, per se, and commenters will have the 
opportunity to comment on the form itself as part of OMB's Information 
Collection Request (ICR) clearance process (see Unit IX.B.).
    EPA considered providing a supplemental form for reporting the 
additional grams and TEQ data, but determined that having only one form 
for all facilities to report for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds would 
greatly reduce the confusion that would result if two separate forms 
were required to be filled out. EPA also intends to incorporate the new 
Form R-D into the EPA-provided TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME) electronic 
reporting software and to automate the calculation of the TEQ data so 
that facilities that report the gram quantities for the individual 
members of the category and use EPA's electronic reporting software 
will not have to calculate the TEQ value. Automation of the TEQ 
calculation is expected to both improve data quality and reduce 
reporting burden.

B. Option 3: Facilities Report Grams Data and EPA Calculates the TEQ 
Data

    This option is the same as option 2 except that the only additional 
data facilities would need to provide is the individual grams data for 
each member of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category; 
facilities would not have to calculate and report the TEQ data. Under 
this option, EPA would generate the corresponding TEQ data from the 
individual grams data reported by the facility and include that TEQ 
data in the TRI database along with all the grams data reported by the 
facility. The TEQ data would be presented along with the facility-
reported data and EPA would include TEQ data in all of EPA's 
publications that contain TRI data on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. 
EPA would also include a TEQ calculator in TRI-ME so that facilities 
would still be able to check the TEQ calculations.

[[Page 10923]]

    EPA believes that there are several benefits to this option. First, 
under this option facilities would not have the burden of tracking TEFs 
and calculating the TEQ data from the grams data; instead, this burden 
would be assumed by the Agency. Second, EPA would not have to 
incorporate the TEF values into the regulations, and therefore would 
not need to go through rulemaking in order to adopt any internationally 
accepted revisions (see Unit. V.). Third, if EPA does all the TEQ 
calculations electronically there should be fewer errors and improved 
data quality, both because there would be fewer opportunities for 
computational errors, and because there would be less potential for 
confusion about which were the applicable TEFs as these values change 
over time. Finally, if EPA calculates the TEQ data rather than having 
facilities report the data, EPA can recalculate the TEQ data for all of 
the reporting years once new TEF values are available. If facilities 
report the TEQ data themselves, EPA is concerned about its legal 
authority to alter these data if TEF values later change. Even though 
EPA and other users of the data could recalculate the TEQ data based on 
the individual grams data reported by the facilities, EPA might have to 
retain the original TEQ data reported by the facilities in the publicly 
available TRI database and this could cause additional confusion.
    Because of the benefits discussed above, EPA believes that this 
option may be preferable to option 2. However, under this option the 
TEQ data would not come directly from the reporting facilities and, 
although EPA has every intention of providing the TEQ data, there would 
be no requirement for EPA to continue to provide TEQ data in the 
future. EPA requests comment on both options.

C. Electronic Reporting

    EPA is also proposing to require that all Form R-D reports be filed 
electronically using EPA's TRI-ME electronic reporting software or 
other approved software. In order to capture the individual grams data 
for each member of the category the Form R-D will include many more 
data elements which will increase the possibility for errors when EPA 
has to transfer data to the TRI database from hard copy reports. EPA 
believes that it is very important that the additional data submitted 
on the Form R-D be accurately captured in the EPA database. Requiring 
all Form R-Ds to be submitted electronically will result in less 
preparation error and less processing errors than are associated with 
paper submissions. In addition, as EPA stated in a recent letter to TRI 
reporting facilities (see: http://www.epa.gov/tri/TRI%20Re-Engineering%20Memo.pdf), EPA has an ongoing effort to modernize and 
streamline the TRI program. One goal of the modernization effort is to 
process all reporting forms via the Internet utilizing EPA's Central 
Data Exchange (CDX). Requiring that all Form R-D reports be submitted 
electronically, which includes CDX or diskette, would be one small step 
toward the ultimate goal of full Internet reporting. EPA's preferred 
method of reporting is the use of TRI-ME and submitting through the 
Internet via CDX. CDX allows for a paperless filing, electronic 
signature, significant reduction of data errors, and instant 
confirmation of a facility's submission. For facilities wishing to 
submit through CDX, they must use the TRI-ME reporting software. EPA's 
other method of electronic filing is the use of diskette. Facilities 
should use TRI-ME, or other approved software, when submitting via a 
diskette.
    EPA does not believe that there will be a significant increase in 
burden associated with requiring that all Form R-Ds be filed 
electronically (see Unit VII.). For example, in reporting year 2002 
only 123 of the 1,277 reports filed for dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds were submitted in hard copy thus over 90% of facilities that 
reported for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds filed electronically. Of 
the 123 hard copy submissions that were filed, 79 were prepared using 
EPA's TRI-ME electronic reporting software but were nevertheless 
submitted in hard copy. However, EPA requests comments on its proposal 
to have all Form R-D reports submitted electronically and whether EPA 
should create a waiver system that would allow facilities to file in 
hard copy. For example, EPA's Risk Management Plan program allows the 
submission of hard copies using a specific paper form and a paper 
submission cover form that explains why the facility is not filing 
electronically (see: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/RMPsubmission.htm).

V. What TEF Values Does EPA Propose Be Used To Calculate the TEQ?

    EPA is proposing to use the TEF scheme developed by the World 
Health Organization (WHO) in 1998 (Ref. 2) which is the most recent 
internationally agreed upon TEF scheme. The TEF values for the members 
of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category under the WHO 1998 
scheme are assigned as follows (presented in the order of Chemical 
Abstracts Service (CAS) Number, chemical name, and TEF value): 67562-
39-4, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran, 0.01; 55673-89-7, 
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran, 0.01; 35822-46-9, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 0.01; 70648-26-9, 1,2,3,4,7,8-
hexachlorodibenzofuran, 0.1; 57117-44-9, 1,2,3,6,7,8-
hexachlorodibenzofuran, 0.1; 72918-21-9, 1,2,3,7,8,9-
hexachlorodibenzofuran, 0.1; 60851-34-5, 2,3,4,6,7,8-
hexachlorodibenzofuran, 0.1; 39227-28-6, 1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin, 0.1; 57653-85-7, 1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 0.1; 
19408-74-3, 1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 0.1; 39001-02-0, 
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachlorodibenzofuran, 0.0001; 3268-87-9, 
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 0.0001; 57117-41-6, 
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran, 0.05; 57117-31-4, 2,3,4,7,8-
pentachlorodibenzofuran, 0.5; 40321-76-4, 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin, 1.0; 51207-31-9, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 0.1; 1746-
01-6, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1.0.
    EPA recognizes that over time, it may need to update the TEFs to 
reflect revisions adopted by the scientific community. For example, the 
WHO has initiated a project to review the current human and mammalian 
TEFs. The project will, as a first step, aim to update the database 
summarizing all published studies on the relative potency of dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds. In a second step, an expert consultation will be 
held in the summer of 2005 to evaluate the need to update the human and 
mammalian TEF values as published in 1998. More information on this 
effort is available at http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/tef_review/en/index.html. Should the WHO revise its recommended TEFs, the Agency 
anticipates that it would revise the TEFs listed above to reflect the 
most recent scientific consensus. The TEF values would only be included 
in the final regulatory text if EPA finalizes one of the options (1 or 
2) that requires industry to report TEQ data.
    One possible advantage of options that require facilities to 
calculate and report the TEQ values is that, by including the TEFs in 
the regulations themselves, they would ensure an open, transparent 
process (i.e., rulemaking) for changing the TEFs in response to new 
scientific information, including public notice and comment. However, 
even under the option where EPA calculates the TEQ values, the agency 
anticipates

[[Page 10924]]

that it would not change the TEFs used for TRI reporting without first 
explaining its rationale clearly to the public and providing 
opportunity for comment. EPA further anticipates that the TEFs used for 
TRI reporting would be kept consistent with those used across the 
agency for other programs, and that any change to the TEFs, whether 
through formal rule making or otherwise, would be done as part of a 
larger, agency-wide process.

VI. What Other Changes Is EPA Proposing To Make for the Reporting of 
Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds?

    Currently 40 CFR 372.85(b)(15)(ii) requires the reporting of a 
distribution of the chemicals included in the dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds category. EPA requires the reporting of this distribution if 
the information is available from the data used to calculate 
thresholds, releases, and other waste management quantities for the 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. However, since the new 
reporting form will provide for the reporting of the grams of the 
individual members of the category there would be no need to continue 
to collect the distribution data currently collected under section 1.4 
of the Form R. Therefore, EPA is proposing to remove this reporting 
requirement and eliminate section 1.4 from the Form R.

VII. What Economic Considerations Are Associated With This Action?

    EPA has evaluated the additional burden hours, cost, and potential 
benefits associated with the use of Form R-D instead of Form R for 
EPCRA section 313 reporting on the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category. As part of this evaluation, EPA examined three options for 
obtaining more detailed information on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
on the Form R-D (Ref. 3). These options are (1) to require facilities 
to report the total grams TEQ of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds; (2) 
to require facilities to report the total grams TEQ of dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds, as well as to report the mass in grams of each 
of the 17 individual members of the category; and (3) to require 
facilities to report the mass in grams of each of the 17 individual 
members of the category without reporting total grams TEQ. All three 
options entail changes to sections 5, 6, and 8 (current year only) of 
the existing Form R to create the Form R-D. In addition, EPA has 
estimated the additional cost of required electronic reporting for 
filing the Form R-D. This additional cost only applies to 89 facilities 
which filed a Form R for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds by submitting 
a paper form and did not use TRI-ME software to generate it. The total 
annual cost estimated for each option is the sum of the incremental 
cost for that option as described below and the additional cost of 
required electronic reporting for affected facilities.
    In order to understand the incremental burden calculations below, 
it is important to first understand EPA's assumptions about the steps 
necessary to complete the current Form R for the dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds category. EPA assumes that most reporting facilities already 
have data on the individual compounds that make up this category, since 
analytical tests generally report results for each compound. Facilities 
that rely on published emissions factors or other similar information 
will also often have data on the individual compounds, though in some 
cases published emissions factors may provide only a single value for 
the dioxin and dioxin-like compound category as a whole. However, in 
either case, facilities are required to use only the readily available 
data. EPA thus assumes that facilities either already have and are 
currently tracking data on the individual compounds contained in their 
waste streams (if this is the format of the underlying data on which 
their reporting is based), or that such data is not readily available, 
and will still not be readily available following promulgation of this 
rule. (EPA also recognizes the possibility that facilities may have a 
mix of data, with data for some waste streams including individual 
compounds and data for others including only total grams for the 
category as a whole.) As a result, EPA does not assume any additional 
burden for data tracking or for calculation of physical quantities of 
dioxin in individual waste streams. EPA requests comment on these 
assumptions.
    Each option would entail some additional burden for each facility 
reporting for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. In 
addition to the activities already conducted as part of the reporting 
process for Form R, a facility filing the Form R-D under Option 1 would 
also need to obtain the TEFs from the TRI reporting package for each of 
the 17 chemicals that comprise the category. Then the facility would 
multiply the grams released and/or transferred of each of the 17 
chemicals in the category by the respective TEF to calculate that 
chemical's grams TEQ. Next the facility would sum the grams TEQ across 
the 17 chemicals to calculate the total grams TEQ released and/or 
transferred to be reported in sections 5, 6, and 8. For Option 2, the 
facility would also be required to report the mass in grams of each of 
the 17 chemicals that are subsequently multiplied by the TEFs in 
sections 5, 6, and 8 of Form R-D. Under Option 3, the facility would be 
required to report the mass in grams of each of the 17 chemicals in 
sections 5, 6, and 8 of Form R-D. The facility would not be required to 
obtain the TEF values or conduct additional multiplication and addition 
to calculate total grams TEQ. Under Option 3, it is envisioned that EPA 
would conduct the additional required calculations to derive total 
grams TEQ once the Form R-D is submitted.
    For reporting year 2001, there were 1,315 facilities that filed 
Form Rs for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category (Ref. 3). Of 
these facilities, 70 percent (920 facilities) completed section 1.4 of 
the Form R containing distribution information on the members of the 
category. Since these 920 facilities indicated through their completion 
of section 1.4 that they have information on the distribution of the 
quantities of the individual members of the dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds category, EPA expects that these facilities are most likely 
to incur additional burden and cost associated with form completion and 
record keeping for Form R-D in the first and subsequent reporting 
years. All 1,315 facilities are expected to experience additional 
burden and cost associated with rule familiarization in the first year 
of implementation.
    In previous Information Collection Requests, EPA has estimated 
that, after the first year of reporting, facilities filing Form R 
typically spend 4 hours on compliance determination, 47.1 hours on form 
completion, and 5 hours on record keeping and report submission (Ref. 
4). Because the Form R-D would create new reporting requirements beyond 
those for the Form R, EPA expects that affected facilities would 
experience additional burden and cost. EPA's estimates for the 
additional burden associated with rule familiarization, form 
completion, and record keeping for the three options are shown in the 
following table (Ref. 3).

[[Page 10925]]



                         Estimated Additional Burden of Form R-D per Reporting Facility
                                                  [In minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Rule
                                                             familiari-      Form     Recordkeeping     Total
                                                               zation     completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             First Year of Reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1..................................................           75           65            25           165
Option 2..................................................           75           85            25           185
Option 3..................................................           75           20            25           120
-----------------------------------------------------------
                                          Subsequent Years of Reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1..................................................            0           65            25            90
Option 2..................................................            0           85            25           110
Option 3..................................................            0           20            25            45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under all options, facilities would expend additional time in the 
first year to become familiar with the new reporting requirements 
associated with the Form R-D. Under all options, a major difference 
between burden in first and subsequent years is attributable to rule 
familiarization. Rule familiarization occurs in the first year of 
implementation but not in subsequent years.
    All three Options require the same underlying level of 
recordkeeping. It is generally expected that facilities reporting any 
of the new information requested on Form R-D will be using information 
already in their possession. Form completion requirements differ 
between the three options, however. To understand the differences, it 
is important to know how TEQs are calculated for individual streams.
    The basic computational steps for TEQ calculation are to take 
information on the quantities of the various compounds in each waste 
stream and multiply them by the TEFs to generate a value in total grams 
TEQ. Technical staff may employ any one of a number of methods to 
calculate grams TEQ ranging from hand calculations to the use of 
spreadsheets. These incremental burden estimates reflect an average 
burden associated with these different approaches. It is expected that 
some respondents will exceed the average estimated time of 45 minutes 
to complete these calculations. The Agency requests comment on whether 
its 45 minute estimate of TEQ calculation time is appropriate. Option 1 
requires the facility to perform all calculations and provide the end 
result (i.e., TEQ) on the Form R-D. Option 2 is expected to take 
approximately twenty minutes longer per facility than Option 1 because, 
although the same computation must be made, the facility must also 
record the intermediate values for the individual congener 
concentrations on the Form R-D. This twenty minutes arises from the 
time needed to record the mass in grams for each of the 17 chemicals in 
the category in sections 5, 6, and 8 of the Form R-D. This estimate 
assumes that the average facility will fill in three subsections within 
section 5, 6, and 8 (Ref. 3). Option 3 would require approximately 45 
minutes less than Option 1 and 65 minutes less than Option 2 in both 
first and subsequent years because facilities would not be required to 
obtain the TEF values, or conduct any multiplication or addition to 
calculate total grams TEQ. Their only form completion effort will be 
the recording of the masses for the 17 chemicals on the Form R-D. EPA 
would perform the TEQ calculations and keep all records related to the 
TEFs. While an opportunity to comment on these time estimates will be 
provided with the proposal of the final ICR, EPA seeks comment on 
whether there are major gaps in these burden estimates.
    Based on the number of facilities that filed reports on dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds in 2001, the percentage that reported 
distribution information, and EPA's estimates of incremental burden, 
the total incremental burden of Option 1 would be 3,024 hours in the 
first reporting year and 1,380 hours in subsequent reporting years. The 
total incremental burden for Option 2 would be 3,327 hours in the first 
reporting year and 1,683 hours in subsequent reporting years. The total 
incremental burden for Option 3 would be 2,334 hours in the first 
reporting year and 690 hours in subsequent reporting years. Using these 
estimates and the average loaded hourly rates for managerial, 
technical, and clerical labor, the total incremental industry cost of 
Option 1 would be approximately $139,000 in the first reporting year 
and approximately $62,000 in subsequent reporting years. The total 
incremental industry cost for Option 2 would be approximately $154,000 
in the first reporting year and approximately $76,000 in subsequent 
reporting years. The total incremental industry cost for Option 3 would 
be approximately $106,000 in the first reporting year and approximately 
$29,000 in subsequent reporting years. More detailed information on the 
derivation of these burden hour and cost estimates is available in the 
public docket for this action (Ref. 3).
    Although Option 2 would create slightly more burden and cost for 
facilities that report on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, EPA 
believes that Option 2 would result in greater net benefits than Option 
1 by enhancing the utility of the data that are collected. The basic 
difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is that facilities must record 
the mass in grams values for each of the 17 chemicals in the reporting 
category on the Form R-D under Option 2. Provision of these mass in 
grams data will provide important information on which specific 
chemicals in the category are contributing most to the total toxicity 
as expressed in grams TEQ. Without these data, the user would be unable 
to determine to what extent the grams TEQ are related to dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds of higher or lower relative toxicity as expressed 
by TEFs. These data will also allow the creation of valid time-series 
if TEFs are ever modified in the future as scientific understanding of 
the relative toxicity of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds changes. 
In addition, provision of the mass in grams values will permit error 
checking of calculations for total grams TEQ that will enhance data 
quality. With Option 2, these goals would be attained at a total 
additional cost of approximately $14,000 to $15,000 per year. This cost 
may decline as more facilities use the automated routines in the TRI-ME 
reporting software. Although EPA has not quantified or

[[Page 10926]]

monetized the value of the net benefits, based on the reasoning 
described above EPA believes that the net benefits of Option 2 would be 
greater than the net benefits of Option 1. Option 3 would provide most 
or all of the same benefits as Option 2, but at a lower estimated 
burden to the reporting facilities. However, it should be noted that 
industry groups have specifically requested to report in terms of grams 
TEQ. Under Option 3, facilities would still be reporting in terms of 
mass for the members of the dioxin category, but in a format that will 
allow subsequent calculation of grams TEQ.
    EPA expects to incur one-time costs for implementing reporting on 
the Form R-D. These costs are associated with production of guidance 
documents and training materials, modification of databases, and re-
programming of automated reporting software. EPA's estimate of these 
one-time costs to allow reporting of individual gram quantities for 
each member of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category and for 
reporting in toxic equivalents is approximately $1.15 million. These 
costs are not expected to vary significantly across the three options 
(Ref. 5).
    In addition to the incremental costs for each option, EPA has 
estimated the annual cost of required electronic reporting for 
submitting the Form R-D. Only 89 of 1,315 facilities that reported the 
Form R for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are affected by this 
requirement. These 89 facilities submitted the Form R by paper and did 
not use either TRI-ME software or other approved software to generate 
their Form R. To meet the requirement that all Form R-D's be filed 
electronically, EPA modeled that potentially affected paper filers 
would need to purchase a computer. The annual computer cost annualized 
over a five year life is $183 (Ref. 3). The total annual computer cost 
for the 89 affected facilities is $16,280. Thus, the total annual first 
year and subsequent year cost for both the incremental burden of filing 
out Form R-D and required electronic reporting for each option is 
summarized in the following table (Ref 3).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Subsequent year
            Activity               First year  cost          cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Option 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Incremental Total.....            $139,315             $61,677
Computer Cost...................              16,280              16,280
                                 ---------------------
    Annual Total................             155,595              77,957
---------------------------------
                                Option 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Incremental Total.....             153,750              76,112
Computer Cost...................              16,280              16,280
                                 ---------------------
    Annual Total................             170,030              92,392
---------------------------------
                                Option 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Incremental Total.....             106,407              28,769
Computer Cost...................              16,280              16,280
                                 ---------------------
    Annual Total................             122,687              45,049
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA requests comments on its assessment of the costs of the 
addition of TEQ and individual grams reporting for the dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds category. EPA is particularly interested in any 
options for reducing the burden that these new TEQ reporting 
requirements may have on small businesses. Of the estimated 481 
affected parent companies which own reporting facilities, approximately 
19 percent, or 92 companies, are small businesses as defined by the 
Small Business Administration.

VIII. References

    1. American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper 
Association, American Portland Cement Alliance, Edison Electric 
Institute, and The Aluminum Association letter to John D. Graham, 
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, Subject: Change to TRI Reporting of 
Dioxin, February 11, 2002.
    2. Van den Berg, M.; Birnbaum, L.; Bosveld, A.T.C.; Brunstrom, 
B.; Cook, P.; Feeley, M.; Giesy, J.P.; Hanberg, A.; Hasegawa, R.; 
Kennedy, S.W.; Kubiak, T.; Larsen, J.C.; van Leeuwen, F.X.R.; Liem, 
A.K.D.; Nolt, C.; Peterson, R.E.; Poellinger, L.; Safe, S.; Schren, 
D.; Tillitt, D.; Tysklind, M.; Younes, M.; Warn, F.; Zacharewski, T. 
(1998) Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for 
humans and wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives. 106:775-792.
    3. USEPA/OEI. Analysis of the Estimated Burden and Cost of the 
Form R-D for Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds; Toxic Equivalency 
Reporting; Community Right to Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, 
October 26, 2004.
    4. USEPA/OEI. Estimates of Burden Hours for Economic Analyses of 
the Toxics Release Inventory, June 10, 2002.
    5. USEPA/OEI. Memorandum Regarding TEQ Rulemaking Cost to the 
TRI Program from Daniel R. Bushman, Toxic Release Inventory 
Regulatory Development Branch, Toxic Release Inventory Program 
Division to Cody Rice, Analytical Support Branch, Environmental 
Analysis Division, October 16, 2002.
    6. Memorandum Regarding Small Entity Impacts Associated with the 
Form R-D from Susan Day, et al. of Abt Associates Inc. to Cody Rice 
of USEPA/OEI, October 23, 2003.

IX. What Are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Associated With 
This Action?

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a 
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise

[[Page 10927]]

interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) 
materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user 
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order. Based on EPA's cost estimates for this action, it 
has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not 
subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA 
(ICR No. 2086.01). The information requirements are not effective until 
OMB approves them.
    EPCRA section 313 (42 U.S.C. 11023) requires owners or operators of 
certain facilities manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using any of 
over 600 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories in excess of 
the applicable threshold quantities, and meeting certain requirements 
(i.e., at least 10 Full Time Employees or the equivalent), to report 
certain release and other waste management activities for such 
chemicals annually. Under PPA section 6607 (42 U.S.C. 13106), 
facilities must also provide information on recycling and other waste 
management data and source reduction activities. The regulations 
codifying the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements appear at 40 CFR 
part 372. Under the rule, all facilities reporting to TRI on dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds would have to use the EPA Toxic Chemical Release 
Inventory Form R-D (tentative EPA Form No. 9350-3).
    For Form R-D, EPA estimates the industry reporting burden for 
collecting this information (including recordkeeping) at 55.2 hours 
($2,566) per response in the first reporting year and 53.9 hours 
($2,507) in subsequent years for facilities with distribution data for 
the members of the category. For facilities without distribution data, 
the Form R-D is estimated to average 53.4 hours ($2,483) per response 
in the first reporting year and 52.1 hours ($2,424) in subsequent 
years. Note that these are total per facility burden and cost estimates 
for the Form R-D based on Option 2. (If a different option is selected, 
the total industry reporting burden will be more or less.) These per 
facility burdens and costs will be offset by burden and cost savings 
associated with no longer filing a Form R for the dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds category. These estimates include the time needed to 
review instructions; search existing data sources and complete any 
necessary calculations; 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. 
The annual computer cost per facility associated with required 
electronic reporting annualized over a five year life is $183. The 
total annual computer cost for the 89 affected facilities is $16,280.
    This rule is estimated to cause 1,315 facilities to file a Form R-D 
rather than a Form R. Based on Option 2, Form R-D reporting is 
associated with a total burden of approximately 72,000 hours in the 
first year, and 70,000 hours in subsequent years, at a total estimated 
industry cost of $3.34 million in the first year and $3.26 million in 
subsequent years. (If a different option is selected, the total 
industry reporting burden will be less.) Note that these are total 
burden and cost estimates for the Form R-D, and that these estimates 
will be offset by the burden and cost reduction associated with no 
longer filing a Form R for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category. The existing Form R ICR (EPA ICR No. 1363.12) will be amended 
to delete burden hours and costs associated with 1,315 Form Rs. The net 
increase in burden hours and cost is reflected in the discussion of 
economic considerations in Unit VII.
    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 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.
    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 EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID 
No. TRI-2002-0001, which is available for public viewing at the Office 
of Environmental Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, 
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA 
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 
for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for 
the Office of Environmental Information Docket is (202) 566-1752. An 
electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA 
Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
    Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated 
collection techniques to Docket ID No. TRI-2002-0001 and to the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for 
EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 2086.01 in any correspondence. Since 
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 
days after March 7, 2005, a comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it by April 6, 2005. The final rule 
will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 
collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A business that is classified 
as a ``small business'' by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a

[[Page 10928]]

city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    This rule is expected to affect the 481 parent companies that own 
the 1,315 facilities that report on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. 
Of the affected parent companies, approximately 19 percent, or 92 
companies, are small businesses as defined by the Small Business 
Administration. Of the 92 small businesses affected by this rule, 
approximately 8 would be subject to both incremental burden costs from 
filling out the Form R-D and computer costs from required electronic 
reporting. No small governments or small organizations are expected to 
be affected by this action. Based on the option with the highest burden 
to reporting facilities (Option 2), each affected facility is expected 
to expend approximately 3.1 hours in the first year and 1.8 hours in 
subsequent years to comply with the additional reporting requirements. 
Based on the incremental cost estimates for these burden hours, the 
number of facilities owned by each small businesses, and the annual 
revenues of the affected small businesses, all 92 affected small 
businesses are expected to experience incremental cost impacts of less 
than one percent of annual revenues (Ref. 3 and Ref. 6).
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue 
to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any one year. Based on EPA's cost estimate for this action, 
it has been determined that this rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. 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, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action relates to toxic 
chemical reporting under EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects 
private sector facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply 
to this rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local 
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this rule from State 
and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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 rule. In the spirit of Executive 
Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications 
between EPA and Indian Tribal Governments, EPA specifically solicits 
additional comment on this rule from tribal officials.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it 
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health 
or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

[[Page 10929]]

    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the 
Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or 
safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk 
to children. This action relates to toxic chemical reporting under 
EPCRA section 313, which primarily affects private sector facilities.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary 
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would 
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, etc.) that are 
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, 
the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable 
voluntary consensus standards. However, EPA identified no such 
standards. Consequently, EPA proposes to use the TEFs established by 
the WHO in 1998 (Ref. 2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

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

    Dated: February 28, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Acting Administrator.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended as 
follows:

PART 372--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart B--[Amended]

    2. In Sec.  372.30, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  372.30  Reporting requirements and schedule for reporting.

    (a) For each toxic chemical known by the owner or operator to be 
manufactured (including imported), processed, or otherwise used in 
excess of an applicable threshold quantity in Sec.  372.25, Sec.  
372.27, or Sec.  372.28 at its covered facility described in Sec.  
372.22 for a calendar year, the owner or operator must submit to EPA 
and to the State in which the facility is located a completed EPA Form 
R (EPA Form 9350-1) or, for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category, EPA Form R-D (EPA Form 9350-3) in accordance with the 
instructions referred to in subpart E of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart E--[Amended]

    3. In Sec.  372.85, revise paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, 
and (b)(15)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  372.85  Toxic chemical release reporting form and instructions.

    (a) Availability of reporting form and instructions and reporting 
method. Information on how to obtain the most current version of EPA 
Form R (EPA Form 9350-1 and subsequent revisions), the EPA Form R-D 
(EPA Form 9350-3 and subsequent revisions), and the instructions for 
completing these forms can be found on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/tri. EPA encourages facilities subject to this part to 
submit the required information to EPA electronically via the Internet 
or by using magnetic media in lieu of hard copies of the Form R. 
Facilities that submit the Form R-D are required to file electronically 
using EPA's Toxics Release Inventory-Made Easy (TRI-ME) electronic 
reporting software or other approved software. Electronic reporting 
software and instructions for submitting via the Internet or on 
magnetic media may be obtained from the Web site provided in this 
paragraph.
    (b) Form elements. Information elements reportable on EPA Form R, 
Form R-D, or equivalent magnetic media format include the following:
* * * * *
    (15) * * *
    (ii) Reporting for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. 
All of the following must be reported and must be reported on the Form 
R-D:
    (A) Report the total quantity of the category as a whole, in units 
of grams per year;
    (B) Report the quantity of each member of the dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds category in units of grams per year;
    (C) Report toxic equivalency (TEQ) for the category, in units of 
grams TEQ per year. TEQs shall be calculated using the following toxic 
equivalent factors:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Toxic  equivalent
            CAS No.                 Chemical name       factor  (TEF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
01746-01-6.....................  2,3,7,8-                         1.0
                                  Tetrachlorodibenz
                                  o-p-dioxin.
03268-87-9.....................  1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-                 0.0001
                                  Octachlorodibenzo-
                                  p-dioxin.
19408-74-3.....................  1,2,3,7,8,9-                     0.1
                                  Hexachlorodibenzo-
                                  p-dioxin.
35822-46-9.....................  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-                   0.01
                                  Heptachlorodibenz
                                  o-p-dioxin.
39001-02-0.....................  1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-                 0.0001
                                  Octachlorodibenzo
                                  furan.
39227-28-6.....................  1,2,3,4,7,8-                     0.1
                                  Hexachlorodibenzo-
                                  p-dioxin.
40321-76-4.....................  1,2,3,7,8-                       1.0
                                  Pentachlorodibenz
                                  o-p-dioxin.
51207-31-9.....................  2,3,7,8-                         0.1
                                  Tetrachlorodibenz
                                  ofuran.
55673-89-7.....................  1,2,3,4,7,8,9-                   0.01
                                  Heptachlorodibenz
                                  ofuran.
57117-31-4.....................  2,3,4,7,8-                       0.5
                                  Pentachlorodibenz
                                  ofuran.
57117-41-6.....................  1,2,3,7,8-                       0.05
                                  Pentachlorodibenz
                                  ofuran.
57117-44-9.....................  1,2,3,6,7,8-                     0.1
                                  Hexachlorodibenzo
                                  furan.
57653-85-7.....................  1,2,3,6,7,8-                     0.1
                                  Hexachlorodibenzo-
                                  p-dioxin.
60851-34-5.....................  2,3,4,6,7,8-                     0.1
                                  Hexachlorodibenzo
                                  furan.
67562-39-4.....................  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-                   0.01
                                  Heptachlorodibenz
                                  ofuran.
70648-26-9.....................  1,2,3,4,7,8-                     0.1
                                  Hexachlorodibenzo
                                  furan.
72918-21-9.....................  1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexach               0.1
                                  lorodibenzofuran.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 10930]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-4339 Filed 3-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P