Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds; Toxic Equivalency Information; Community Right-To-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, 26544-26554 [E7-9015]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26544-26554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9015]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 372

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2002-0001; FRL-8311-6]
RIN 2025-AA12


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community 
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), EPA is finalizing revisions to the reporting 
requirements for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. The 
current EPCRA section 313 regulations require facilities to report 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in units of total grams for the entire 
category, and provide a single generic distribution of the individual 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds at the facility. The final rule 
requires that, in addition to reporting total gram quantities for the 
category, facilities are required to report the mass quantity of each 
individual member of the category. The mass quantity data for the 
individual members of the category will be used by EPA to perform toxic 
equivalency (TEQ) computations which will be made available to the 
public. 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. 
The final rule also eliminates the reporting of the single generic 
distribution for the members of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2002-0001. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Environmental 
Information (OEI) Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 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) 564-
2736.

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: bushman.daniel@epamail.epa.gov, for specific 
information on this final rule, or for more information on EPCRA 
section 313, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Information Center, 
toll free, 1-800-424-9346 or 703-412-9810 in Virginia and Alaska or 
toll free, TDD 1-800-553-7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. Does This Final Rule Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this final 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............................  Facilities included in the
                                       following NAICS manufacturing
                                       codes (corresponding to SIC codes
                                       20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*,
                                       314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*,
                                       324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332,
                                       333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*,
                                       111998*, 211112*, 212234*,
                                       212235*, 212393*, 212399*,
                                       488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130,
                                       511140*, 511191, 511199, 511220,
                                       512230*, 516110*, 541710*, or
                                       811490*. *Exceptions and/or
                                       limitations exist for these NAICS
                                       codes.
                                      Facilities included in the
                                       following NAICS codes
                                       (corresponding to SIC codes other
                                       than SIC codes 20 through 39):
                                       212111, 212112, 212113
                                       (correspond to SIC 12, Coal
                                       Mining (except 1241)); or 212221,
                                       212222, 212231, 212234, 212299
                                       (correspond to SIC 10, Metal
                                       Mining (except 1011, 1081, and
                                       1094)); or 221111, 221112,
                                       221113, 221119, 221121, 221122
                                       (Limited to facilities that
                                       combust coal and/or oil for the
                                       purpose of generating power for
                                       distribution in commerce)
                                       (correspond to SIC 4911, 4931,
                                       and 4939, Electric Utilities); or
                                       424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited
                                       to facilities previously
                                       classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals
                                       and Allied Products, Not
                                       Elsewhere Classified); or 424710
                                       (corresponds to SIC 5171,
                                       Petroleum Bulk Terminals and
                                       Plants); or 562112 (Limited to
                                       facilities primarily engaged in
                                       solvent recovery services on a
                                       contract or fee basis (previously
                                       classified under SIC 7389,
                                       Business Services, NEC)); or
                                       562211, 562212, 562213, 562219,
                                       562920 (Limited to facilities
                                       regulated under the Resource
                                       Conservation and Recovery Act,
                                       subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et
                                       seq.) (correspond to SIC 4953,
                                       Refuse Systems).
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. Some of the entities listed in the table have exemptions and/or 
limitations regarding coverage; 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.

[[Page 26545]]

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

    These actions are taken 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 
threshold reporting 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)(1)(C) 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. (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 relied 
on this provision to guide its implementation. See, H.R. Conf. Rep. 99-
962 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) (facility expansion); 64 FR 58666; 58667; 58687-692 
(October 29, 1999) (lowering the reporting thresholds for certain 
persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals).
    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 wastestream (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 Did EPA Include in the Proposed Rule?

    On March 7, 2005, EPA published a proposed rule to expand the 
reporting requirements for the EPCRA section 313 dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds category (70 FR 10919). The proposal presented three options 
that would allow for TEQ data to be made available to the public. TEQs 
are a weighted quantity value 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. 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 have been 
established through international agreements, and 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.

A. What Options Did EPA Propose for Making TEQ Data Available?

    EPA discussed three options for making TEQ data available to the 
public for the TRI dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. 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. 
Under Option 2, 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. Under Option 3, 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 Option 3, 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 provided to the public 
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.

B. What Was EPA's Preferred Option?

    EPA stated in the March 7, 2005 notice that Option 3 was the 
Agency's preferred option for several reasons. First, 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. Third, if EPA 
does all the TEQ calculations electronically there should be fewer 
errors and improved

[[Page 26546]]

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.

C. What TEF Values Did EPA Propose To Use To Calculate TEQ Data?

    EPA proposed to use the TEF scheme developed by the World Health 
Organization (WHO) in 1998 (Ref. 1). At the time the proposed rule was 
published, the WHO 1998 scheme was 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 listed 
below (presented in the order of Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) 
Registry Number, chemical name, and TEF value). Since publication of 
the proposed rule the WHO revised the TEF values in 2005 (Ref. 2). The 
new WHO 2005 TEF values include four changes to the WHO 1998 values. 
The changes are listed below in parentheses. In computing TEQs, the 
agency will use the WHO 2005 TEF values.

01746-01-6, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1.0;
40321-76-4, 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1.0;
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;
35822-46-9, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 0.01;
03268-87-9, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 0.0001 
(0.0003);
51207-31-9, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 0.1;
57117-41-6, 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran, 0.05 (0.03);
57117-31-4, 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran, 0.5 (0.3);
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;
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;
39001-02-0, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-octachlorodibenzofuran, 0.0001 (0.0003).

D. What Other Changes Did EPA Propose?

    EPA proposed to collect the additional data for the dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds category on a new Form R-D reporting form 
designed specifically for reporting for this category. The new form 
would include all the data reported on a Form R plus the additional 
data EPA proposed to collect under either Options 1, 2, or 3. EPA also 
proposed to require that all reports for the dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds category be filed electronically either through the EPA's 
Central Data Exchange (CDX) or on diskette. The only other change EPA 
proposed was to eliminate Section 1.4 from the Form R. Section 1.4 
requires reporting a generic distribution of the chemicals included in 
the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, which would no longer be 
needed under any of the options discussed in the proposed rule.

IV. What Reporting Requirements Has EPA Included in the Final Rule?

    This final rule is based upon the reporting requirements of Option 
3 from the proposed rule. The final rule requires the reporting of the 
mass quantities for each individual member of the dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds category for each reportable release or waste management 
activity. Facilities are not required to report any TEQ data. Rather 
than using a new Form R-D, the final rule requires the reporting of 
this information on a new four page Form R Schedule 1 (Ref. 3) that is 
to be submitted as an adjunct to the existing Form R to report for the 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. Facilities that have any of 
the information required by this final rule must submit a Form R 
Schedule 1 in addition to the Form R. EPA is also modifying the Form R 
by eliminating the generic distribution data reported for the dioxin 
and dioxin-like compounds category under Section 1.4. EPA is strongly 
encouraging, but not requiring, that reports for the dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds category be filed electronically.

V. For Which Reporting Year Do the Requirements of This Final Rule 
Apply?

    The reporting requirements of this final rule apply to the 
reporting year beginning January 1, 2008 (for which reports are due 
July 1, 2009), and to subsequent reporting years. EPA has delayed the 
implementation of the reporting requirements of this final rule in 
order to provide sufficient time and resources to make required changes 
to the TRI database and the TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME) reporting software. 
In addition, delaying the implementation will allow more time for the 
regulated community to become fully aware of the new reporting 
requirements. The additional time to prepare for the reporting changes 
should also promote more accurate and consistent reporting.

VI. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed Rule and What Are 
EPA's Responses to Those Comments?

    EPA received twenty-three comments on the proposed rule. The 
comments were split into two basic groups; those that generally agreed 
with one or more of EPA's proposed options and those that disagreed 
with EPA's proposed options. Of the twenty-three comments received, 
eighteen were from specific companies or industry groups, three were 
from environmental organizations, one was from a State agency, and one 
was from a private citizen. Fifteen of the comments received supported 
one or more of EPA's proposed options (either Option 2 or 3) while the 
other eight comments either supported some option that EPA did not 
propose or did not support any changes to the reporting requirements 
for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. The following 
sections of this unit summarize and respond to significant comments. 
The complete comments and responses can be found in EPA's response to 
comments document (Ref. 4).

A. What Comments Did EPA Receive Concerning the Proposed Options?

    None of the commenters supported proposed Option 1, which would 
have added TEQ data to the reporting requirements for the dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds. The inability to recalculate the TEQ values when 
TEF values change was a primary reason cited by commenters for why 
Option 1 was not supported. Eight commenters did not support any of 
EPA's proposed options, although one of these commenters supported 
Option 2 if the reporting were voluntary. These commenters either did 
not support the collection of any TEQ data or suggested alternative 
ideas for making TEQ data available. A majority of the commenters (15 
out of 23) supported either proposed Option 2 or Option 3. EPA believes 
that Option 3 provides the same level of data as Option 2 at a lower 
cost to industry while providing the flexibility needed to perform new 
TEQ calculations if TEF values change in the future. Many of the

[[Page 26547]]

commenters that favored Option 2 over Option 3 cited the ability of the 
facility to check the TEQ values and/or having the TEQ values available 
with the first public release of the TRI data as reasons they preferred 
Option 2 over Option 3. As resources allow, EPA intends to address both 
of these concerns by taking the following actions: (1) providing a TEQ 
calculator within the Agency's TRI-ME TRI reporting software, so that 
facilities will be able to see the TEQ values that EPA will calculate 
from the facility's reported grams data; and (2) making the TEQ values 
available to the public starting with the first public release of the 
data (which is currently the electronic Facility Data Release). EPA 
believes that these actions address most of the issues raised by those 
commenters that favored Option 2 over Option 3. Some commenters were 
also concerned about the TEF values not being included in the 
regulatory text and felt they should be included so that there would be 
a formal process before EPA could change the TEF values. EPA has not 
included the TEF values in the regulatory text since facilities are not 
required to report TEQ data under this final rule; the TEF values thus 
do not affect TRI reporting obligations. While the TEF values are not 
part of the final rule, EPA plans to give public notice of any changes 
to the TEF values. There has been a strong consensus from the 
commenters that the TEF values developed by the WHO are the best values 
to use. The most recent WHO TEF values were developed in 2005 and are 
the values that EPA plans to use in calculating TEQ values (Ref. 2). 
EPA does not anticipate changing those values unless there is strong 
international consensus to do so.

B. What Other Options Were Suggested in the Comments Received?

    1. TEQ only reporting. Four commenters stated that EPA should not 
collect any grams data at all, but rather should collect only TEQ 
values.
    Agency response: Reporting only TEQ values would not address the 
issue of what happens to the TEQ data once the TEF values change. With 
TEQ only reporting, once the TEFs change, the previously reported TEQ 
values would no longer be valid, and no comparisons could be made. In 
addition, 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. The collection of the individual mass data for each 
member of the category, rather than just TEQ values, also allows data 
users to understand which chemicals are contributing most to the TEQ 
value.
    The October 29, 1999, rulemaking that finalized the addition of the 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category (64 FR 58666) 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).
    2. Reporting TEQ values based on Section 1.4 data. Three commenters 
proposed alternative options for reporting TEQ values that involved 
various methods of utilizing or modifying the generic single 
distribution data reported under Section 1.4 of the Form R to calculate 
TEQ values. The alternative options proposed by these commenters 
included: (1) using the current generic Section 1.4 data to calculate 
and report TEQ values in addition to the current total grams data; (2) 
using the Section 1.4 data to calculate and report TEQ values rather 
than any grams data; and (3) using Section 1.4 to report grams for the 
individual members of the category based on the distribution most 
representative at the facility (rather than reporting a percentage as 
currently required) and then using those data to calculate a total TEQ 
value for the facility.
    Agency response: EPA does not believe that any of these suggested 
alternative options constitute an improvement over the methodology that 
EPA is finalizing today. Regarding the use of the current Section 1.4 
data, EPA's current method of reporting a generic distribution in 
Section 1.4 can already be applied to all the reported release and 
waste management data elements to calculate TEQ values for all releases 
and waste management quantities. However, many industry groups have 
complained that the single generic distribution data from Section 1.4 
does not provide an accurate method of calculating or reporting TEQ 
values, since the distributions of the individual category compounds 
can vary significantly for different types of releases and waste 
management activities. That is the reason that EPA has not used the 
Section 1.4 data to calculate TEQ values and provide them to the public 
and one of the reasons some industry groups requested a change in the 
reporting requirements.
    If only TEQ values were to be collected, the TEQ values would not 
be based on data collected under Section 1.4. Section 1.4 provides a 
generic distribution that may be specific to one particular release or 
waste management quantity or may be a facility average. If TEQ values 
were the only information being collected, they would need to be 
specific to each reported release or waste management quantity. In 
addition, EPA is concerned that, since many facilities (approximately 
25%) were unable to report any distribution data for the dioxin and 
dioxin-like compounds category in Section 1.4 of the Form R, those 
facilities may not be able to report TEQ values. Therefore, if EPA 
could collect only TEQ data, those facilities not currently reporting a 
generic distribution would not report anything.
    Regarding the proposed alternative to change the Section 1.4 data 
from percentages to total gram quantities for each member of the 
category, EPA does not understand how the commenter's proposed 
alternative method would work. Collecting individual grams data in 
Section 1.4 based on some kind of total grams data for the facility 
would not provide TEQ values for all of the release and waste 
management quantities since those quantities are based on the gram 
quantities reported for each data element. The commenter's method would 
only provide a total TEQ value for the facility based on the facility's 
total grams reported for each dioxin and dioxin-like compound. A 
facility total TEQ value combines all releases and waste management 
quantities resulting in a TEQ value of limited use since the type of 
release or waste management activity can significantly impact potential 
exposures. Changing the units of Section 1.4 from a percentage 
distribution to an individual grams distribution actually reduces the 
utility of the Section 1.4 data, since the data cannot be used to 
calculate TEQ values for the individual release and waste management 
quantities without conversion back to percentages.

C. What Legal Issues Were Raised by the Commenters?

    1. Authority to have more than one reporting form. Two commenters 
questioned EPA's authority to have more than one reporting form. The 
commenters cited EPCRA section 313(g) which states that ``* * * the 
Administrator shall publish a uniform toxic chemical release form for 
facilities covered by this section * * *'' The commenters contend that 
the Form R-D would be a unique form and thus EPA would not be providing 
a ``uniform'' toxic chemical release form for purposes of reporting 
under EPCRA section 313.
    Agency response: The issue of whether the new form violates the 
requirement in Section 313(g) that EPA

[[Page 26548]]

publish a ``uniform toxic chemical release form'' is now moot, because 
EPA is not developing a new reporting form but is instead modifying the 
existing Form R by adding a schedule that is to be used by those 
facilities that report for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 
category and that have the information required by the final rule. The 
pages of the new Form R Schedule 1 are like any other pages of the Form 
R in that if a facility has the information required on a certain page 
they must fill out that page and if they do not have the necessary 
information then the page is left blank.
    2. Authority to collect data on individual members of a listed 
category on one reporting form. One commenter questioned EPA's 
authority for collecting the annual quantity of each compound within a 
chemical category being released to each environmental medium on one 
reporting form. The commenter stated that this is precedent-setting or 
in terms of Executive Order 12866, it raises ``novel legal or policy 
issues'' and thus should be subject to OMB review as a significant 
regulatory action. The commenter suggested that if EPA wants to collect 
extensive data on 17 compounds, then it should go through the 
rulemaking process to list each compound separately as a TRI chemical, 
and ensure each compound meets the criteria for listing.
    Agency response: EPA has broad authority to determine how 
information regarding the members of a chemical category shall be 
reported (see, e.g., general regulatory authority in EPCRA section 
328). Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds occur as a mixture of the 
members of the category, they are not manufactured, processed, or 
otherwise used as separate compounds (except for laboratory testing 
purposes), so the most logical way to report is as a category on one 
reporting form. EPA already collects specific information on each 
member of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category on the current 
Form R. This rule only breaks down that information by reportable 
release or waste management activity. EPA notes that when the Agency 
via rulemaking added the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, it 
made an express finding that all members of the category met the EPCRA 
section 313 listing criteria and specifically listed the 17 members of 
the category (62 FR 24887, May 7, 1997; and 64 FR 58695, October 29, 
1999).
    Nor is additional rulemaking required in order to collect 
additional information on one form: The proposed rule and this final 
rule constitute the necessary rulemaking to collect additional 
information on members of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category 
on one form.
    Regarding Executive Order 12866, OMB has concurred in EPA's 
determination that this action is not a ``significant regulatory 
action,'' as defined in EO 12866.
    3. Authority to collect TEQ data. One commenter does not believe 
that EPA has the statutory authority to require the reporting of TEQ 
data for the dioxin and dioxin-like compound category. The commenter 
stated that the EPCRA section 313 statute and the congressional history 
only requires the reporting of releases as quantities or amounts of the 
toxic chemical, and that TEQs are not a quantity or release but an 
estimate of the risk of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.
    Agency response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's position that 
EPA does not have the authority to collect TEQ data. But given that EPA 
is finalizing Option 3 of the proposed rule, which does not require the 
reporting of TEQ data, the question is moot. Under this option EPA is 
not collecting any TEQ data and is collecting only individual grams 
data for the members of the dioxin category. EPA notes that TEQ values 
alone are not risk data. Rather, TEQ values provide a method to 
consider the relative hazards of the different members of the category 
to the most toxic members of the category; relative risk would need to 
consider exposure.

D. What Other Issues Did the Commenters Raise?

    1. Form R-D. Nearly all commenters were opposed to EPA's proposed 
10-page Form R-D, including most commenters that supported one or more 
of EPA's proposed options for making TEQ values available to the 
public. Those commenters that supported one or more of EPA's proposed 
options felt that only minor changes to the Form R should be made to 
capture the additional data.
    Agency response: EPA did consider making changes to the existing 
Form R, but there is no way to readily adapt the Form R to capture all 
the new data elements. The Form R would need to be expanded 
significantly to incorporate the additional data elements, which would 
mean that all TRI reporters would have to deal with a longer form just 
to capture the additional information for one chemical category. 
However, in response to commenters who do not wish to have an entirely 
new form for reporting the additional dioxin data, EPA has decided not 
to proceed with the Form R-D. Instead, EPA has developed a four-page 
schedule called the Form R Schedule 1, which captures all the 
additional information required under the final rule. Most commenters 
wanted little or no changes to the existing Form R. Since the new data 
are collected on a separate schedule rather than on the main part of 
the Form R, there will be little change to the main part of the Form R. 
Facilities are only required to report additional information on the 
Form R Schedule 1 to the extent that they have readily available or can 
reasonably estimate the additional information.
    2. Electronic reporting. EPA proposed to require that all reports 
for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds be filed electronically. EPA 
believes that electronic reporting will help reduce the potential for 
errors that may occur when EPA contractors enter the grams data for the 
individual members of the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. 
However, nearly all of the commenters objected to EPA requiring that 
all reports for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds be filed 
electronically.
    Agency response: While EPA strongly encourages the use of 
electronic reporting, the final rule does not require electronic 
reporting. EPA notes that hard copy forms significantly slow down data 
processing, increase EPA costs, and increase the potential for errors. 
EPA strongly encourages those facilities that decide to report using 
hard copy to carefully check their electronic Facility Data Profiles 
each year to make sure that no errors have occurred during data input.
    3. Distribution reporting scheme. Several commenters requested that 
EPA modify the proposed Form R-D by reconfiguring the reporting scheme 
used in Section 1.4 of Form R to conform to that used in common 
analytical reports. Specifically, each dioxin member of the category 
should be listed in ascending order of chlorination, followed by each 
furan member in ascending order of chlorination.
    Agency response: While EPA is not finalizing the Form R-D or 
requiring that facilities report TEQ values, EPA will adjust the 
numbering scheme for the members of the dioxin and dioxin-like 
compounds category to be consistent with typical reporting schemes that 
list the members in order of ascending chlorination (see list below).

[[Page 26549]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Number             CAS No.              Chemical name                         Abbreviation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................      01746-01-6  2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-   2,3,7,8-TCDD
                                       dioxin.
2...................      40321-76-4  1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p- 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
                                       dioxin.
3...................      39227-28-6  1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-  1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
                                       p-dioxin.
4...................      57653-85-7  1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-  1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
                                       p-dioxin.
5...................      19408-74-3  1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-  1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
                                       p-dioxin.
6...................      35822-46-9  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-                  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
                                       Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
7...................      03268-87-9  1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-                1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD
                                       Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
8...................      51207-31-9  2,3,7,8-                        2,3,7,8-TCDF
                                       Tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
9...................      57117-41-6  1,2,3,7,8-                      1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
                                       Pentachlorodibenzofuran.
10..................      57117-31-4  2,3,4,7,8-                      2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
                                       Pentachlorodibenzofuran.
11..................      70648-26-9  1,2,3,4,7,8-                    1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
                                       Hexachlorodibenzofuran.
12..................      57117-44-9  1,2,3,6,7,8-                    1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
                                       Hexachlorodibenzofuran.
13..................      72918-21-9  1,2,3,7,8,9-                    1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
                                       Hexachlorodibenzofuran.
14..................      60851-34-5  2,3,4,6,7,8-                    2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
                                       Hexachlorodibenzofuran.
15..................      67562-39-4  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-                  1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
                                       Heptachlorodibenzofuran.
16..................      55673-89-7  1,2,3,4,7,8,9-                  1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
                                       Heptachlorodibenzofuran.
17..................      39001-02-0  1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-                1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF
                                       Octachlorodibenzofuran.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This should make it easier for facilities to transfer data from 
analytical reports to the new Form R Schedule 1.

    4. Economic Costs. One commenter stated that EPA estimates a modest 
cost to comply with any of the three options included in the proposed 
rule. The commenter noted that the industry costs range from about 
$122,000 to about $170,000 for the first year, while EPA estimates that 
its own initial cost for implementing the new reporting form would be 
approximately $1.15 million. The commenter stated that the EPA cost 
estimate for the Agency is therefore nearly an order of magnitude 
greater than the estimated total industry cost for the first year. 
Considering that EPA estimates over 480 parent companies are to be 
impacted by the reporting requirements, it appears to the commenter 
that the total industry cost for the first year is substantially 
underestimated.
    Agency response: EPA believes that its estimate for total industry 
first year cost is reasonable, based on the best engineering judgment 
used to complete the Form R Schedule 1. The Agency's methodology is 
transparent and described in detail in Section 4 of the economic 
analysis (Ref. 5). Section 5 of the economics analysis describes in 
detail what steps are performed under each of the options and provides 
estimates for rule familiarization, form completion and recordkeeping 
cost, and burden. Apart from comparing the estimated industry 
compliance cost to the administrative cost EPA is estimated to incur, 
the commenter does not provide any basis for the assertion that total 
industry cost is underestimated. The Agency does not believe that the 
proportion of compliance cost to administrative cost is germane to the 
reasonableness of the Agency's cost and burden estimate for this 
rulemaking.
    Two commenters stated that EPA did not consider industry costs for 
the reprogramming of their TRI reporting software. One commenter stated 
that EPA failed to include in its economic impacts any costs incurred 
by the States that maintain electronic databases and which accept TRI 
data electronically.
    Agency response: The commenters are correct that the Agency did not 
quantify costs that industry may incur if they need to reprogram their 
own reporting software. EPA believes that overall such costs should be 
small since 90 percent of respondents currently use EPA's free TRI-ME 
reporting software to submit their Form Rs, and EPA will be providing a 
new version of TRI-ME that accommodates the new dioxin reporting 
requirements. Similarly, EPA did not quantify any State administrative 
cost associated with updating their electronic databases. However, if a 
State has its own electronic database and is not able to update it to 
accommodate the new format for dioxin data, EPA will work with the 
State on a case-by-case basis to try to provide the data to it in a 
format it can use. EPA notes that the new format is more useful 
(because it includes individual grams data for each dioxin and dioxin-
like compound and will also include EPA's calculated TEQ values) and 
hopes that States will find it in their interest and the interest of 
their citizens to update their databases to accommodate the new format.
    One commenter stated that EPA took comment in March 2005, on a 
proposal to revise Form R for the purpose of burden reduction. The 
commenter claimed that the increase in burden as per the proposed rule 
will totally negate any benefits of the earlier proposal and actually 
increase overall burden. The commenter stated that if EPA finalizes the 
Form R-D and if the burden reduction changes are eventually made to 
Form R, they would expect such changes to also be incorporated into 
Form R-D.
    Agency response: EPA is not revising the Form R, except to drop 
Section 1.4. The Phase I Burden Reduction final rule issued in July 
2005, applies to all TRI reporters, not just those that report for 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, so this final rule does not negate 
all the benefits from the Phase I Burden Reduction final rule. The 
Agency disagrees with the commenter that the burden increase from this 
rulemaking will negate any benefit from the Phase 1 Burden Reduction 
rulemaking. The Agency estimated that the Phase 1 Burden Reduction rule 
will reduce burden by 52,000 hours whereas the increase in burden from 
this final rule is estimated at 3,383 hours. The Phase 2 Burden 
Reduction rule (71 FR 76932, December 22, 2006), which expands 
eligibility for Form A certification for some chemical reports, 
specifically excludes dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, so it does not 
affect and is not affected by the changes in today's rule.

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 Schedule 1, in addition to 
the Form R, for EPCRA section 313 reporting on the dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds category. The economic analysis was revised to reflect 
the fact that this final rule does not create a new Form R-D for all 
facilities reporting for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category, 
but rather requires reporting of the new information on the four-page 
Form R Schedule 1 (Ref. 5). While the incremental costs did not change 
significantly, the presentation of the costs was changed to consider 
only the incremental costs associated with filling

[[Page 26550]]

a Form R Schedule 1. Only the costs associated with this final rule are 
presented below, however, the economic analysis includes the costs for 
all three of the options discussed in the proposed rule. This final 
rule is based on Option 3 of the proposed rule which is the least 
costly of the three options that EPA proposed. This final rule requires 
facilities to report the mass in grams of each of the 17 individual 
members of the category for sections 5, 6, and 8 (current year only) of 
the existing Form R on the new Form R Schedule 1, when such information 
is readily available or can be reasonably estimated.
    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 are not readily available 
and will still not be readily available once this final rule takes 
effect. 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 and dioxin-like compounds in individual waste streams.
    This final rule requires that, in addition to the activities 
already conducted as part of the reporting This final rule requires 
that, in addition to the activities already conducted as part of the 
reporting process for Form R, a facility filing the Form R Schedule 1 
would be required to report the mass in grams of each of the 17 
chemicals in sections 5, 6, and 8 of Form R Schedule 1. The facility 
would not be required to obtain the TEF values or conduct additional 
multiplication and addition to calculate total grams TEQ to submit to 
the Agency. For reporting year 2003, there were 1,268 facilities that 
filed Form Rs for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. Of 
these facilities, 75 percent (956 facilities) completed Section 1.4 of 
the Form R, containing generic distribution information on the members 
of the category. Since these 956 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 Schedule 1 in the first 
and subsequent reporting years. All 1,268 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. 
6). Because the Form R Schedule 1 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 are shown in the following table (Ref. 
5).

 Table 1.--Report Mass in Grams of Each Member of the Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds Category in Each Section
                                              of Form R Schedule 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Labor category                           Number of
             Activity              ---------------------------------------  Total unit  facilities/     Total
                                     Managerial   Technical     Clerical      burden      reports       burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Incremental First-Year Burden (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Familiarization..............         0.25         1.00         0.00         1.25        1,268        1,585
Form Completion...................         0.11         0.33         0.00         0.44          956          421
Recordkeeping.....................         0.00         0.33         0.17         0.50          956          478
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................         0.36         1.66         0.17         2.19  ...........        2,484
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Incremental Subsequent-Year Burden (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form Completion...................         0.11         0.33         0.00         0.44          956          421
Recordkeeping.....................         0.00         0.33         0.17         0.50          956          478
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................         0.11         0.66         0.17         0.94  ...........          899
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Facilities would expend additional time in the first year to become 
familiar with the new reporting requirements associated with the Form R 
Schedule 1. 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. 
The rule requires an underlying level of recordkeeping. It is generally 
expected that facilities reporting any of the new information requested 
on Form R Schedule 1 will be using information already in their 
possession. Based on the number of facilities that filed reports on 
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in 2003, the percentage that reported 
distribution information and EPA's estimates of incremental burden, the 
total incremental burden of this rule would be approximately $114,000 
in the first reporting year and approximately $38,000 in subsequent 
reporting years.

[[Page 26551]]

More detailed information on the derivation of these burden hour and 
cost estimates is available in the public docket for this action (Ref. 
5).
    The information collected on Form R Schedule 1 will allow EPA to 
calculate grams TEQ values and provide that data to the public. The 
mass in grams data collected on Form R Schedule 1 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, EPA and other data users would be unable to 
calculate TEQ values or determine to what extent each dioxin and 
dioxin-like compound is contributing to the TEQ values. 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.

VIII. References

    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2002-0001. The public docket includes 
information considered by EPA in developing this action, 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 above FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.
    1. 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.
    2. Martin Van den Berg, Linda S. Birnbaum, Michael Denison, Mike 
DeVito, William Farland, Mark Feeley, Heidelore Fiedler, Helen 
Hakansson, Annika Hanberg, Laurie Haws, Martin Rose, Stephen Safe, 
Dieter Schrenk, Chiharu Tohyama, Angelika Tritscher, Jouko Tuomisto, 
Mats Tysklind, Nigel Walker, and Richard E. Peterson (2006), The 2005 
World Health Organization Reevaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic 
Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-Like Compounds. 
Toxicological Sciences 93(2), 223-24.
    3. USEPA/OEI, 2006. Form R Schedule 1, March 2006 Draft.
    4. USEPA/OEI, 2006. Response to Comments Received on the March 7, 
2005, Proposed Rule (70 FR 10919) to Add Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) 
Reporting for The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 
(EPCRA) Section 313 Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds Category, June 19, 
2006.
    5. USEPA/OEI, 2006. Analysis of the Estimated Burden and Cost of 
Form R Schedule 1 for Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds; Toxic 
Equivalency Reporting; Community Right to Know Toxic Chemical Release 
Reporting, March 1, 2006.
    6. USEPA/OEI, 2002. Estimates of Burden Hours for Economic Analyses 
of the Toxics Release Inventory, June 10, 2002.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the 
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control number 2025-0007.
    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 any of the new data 
on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds would have to use the EPA Toxic 
Chemical Release Inventory Form R Schedule 1 (tentative EPA Form No. 
9350-3).
    For Form R Schedule 1, EPA estimates the industry reporting burden 
for collecting this information (including recordkeeping) at 2.19 hours 
($99) per response in the first reporting year and 0.94 hours ($40) in 
subsequent years for facilities with distribution data for the members 
of the category. For facilities without distribution data, the burden 
associated with rulemaking familiarization is estimated to average 1.25 
hours ($59) per response in the first reporting year. Note that these 
are total per facility burden and cost estimates for the Form R 
Schedule 1 based on Option 3 of the proposed rule. This rule is 
estimated to cause 956 facilities to file a Form R Schedule 1. Under 
this rule, Form R Schedule 1 reporting is associated with a total 
burden of approximately 2,484 hours in the first year, and 899 hours in 
subsequent years, at a total estimated industry cost of $114 thousand 
in the first year and $38 thousand in subsequent years. 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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. In addition, EPA is 
amending the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved OMB control 
numbers for various regulations to list the regulatory citations for 
the information requirements contained in this final rule.

[[Page 26552]]

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 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 469 parent companies that own 
the 1,268 facilities that report on dioxin and dioxin-like compounds. 
Of the affected parent companies, approximately 19 percent, or 90 
companies, are small businesses as defined by the Small Business 
Administration. No small governments or small organizations are 
expected to be affected by this action. Based on the selected Option 3, 
each affected facility is expected to expend approximately 2.19 hours 
in the first year and 0.94 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 business, and the annual revenues of the affected small 
businesses, all 90 affected small businesses are expected to experience 
incremental cost impacts of less than one percent of annual revenues 
(Ref. 5).
    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 final 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), P.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