26544 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Each USPS-produced Priority Mail 

flat-rate box is charged $8.95, regardless 

of the actual weight of the piece or its 

destination. Only USPS-produced flatrate boxes are eligible for the flat-rate 

box rate. 

* * * * * 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. E7–9129 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

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 dioxinlike compounds category. The current 

EPCRA section 313 regulations require 

facilities to report dioxin and dioxinlike 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: 

Category Examples of potentially affected 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. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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 dioxinlike 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 dioxinlike 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
26546 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 dioxinlike 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-tetrachlorodibenzop-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 dioxinlike 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 dioxinlike 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
26548 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 precedentsetting 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 dioxinlike compounds category to be 

consistent with typical reporting 

schemes that list the members in order 

of ascending chlorination (see list 

below). 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 26549 

Number CAS No. Chemical name Abbreviation 

1 ........... 01746–01–6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ................................................................................. 2,3,7,8-TCDD 

2 ........... 40321–76–4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ............................................................................. 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 

3 ........... 39227–28–6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................... 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 

4 ........... 57653–85–7 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................... 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 

5 ........... 19408–74–3 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ........................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 

6 ........... 35822–46–9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ....................................................................... 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 

7 ........... 03268–87–9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ...................................................................... 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDD 

8 ........... 51207–31–9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran ....................................................................................... 2,3,7,8-TCDF 

9 ........... 57117–41–6 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran ................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 

10 ......... 57117–31–4 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran ................................................................................... 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 

11 ......... 70648–26–9 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran ................................................................................. 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 

12 ......... 57117–44–9 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran ................................................................................. 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 

13 ......... 72918–21–9 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran ................................................................................. 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 

14 ......... 60851–34–5 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran ................................................................................. 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 

15 ......... 67562–39–4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran ............................................................................. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 

16 ......... 55673–89–7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran ............................................................................. 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 

17 ......... 39001–02–0 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran ............................................................................ 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-OCDF 

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 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
26550 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 dioxinlike 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 

Activity 

Labor category Total unit 

burden 

Number of 

facilities/ 

reports 

Total 

burden Managerial Technical Clerical 

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. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 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. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
26552 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 costeffective 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 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. 

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 final 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. 

G. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Effects) 

This 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. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 26553 

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 

As noted in the proposed rule, 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 final rulemaking does not require 

the reporting of TEQ data and therefore 

does not involve technical standards. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective July 9, 2007. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 9 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

40 CFR Part 372 

Environmental protection, 

Community right-to-know, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic 

chemicals. 

Dated: May 3, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ Therefore, Title 40 Chapter 1 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 9—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136–136y; 

15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601–2671; 

21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 

1321, 1326, 1330, 1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and 

(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR, 

1971–1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 

242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g–1, 300g–2, 

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–1, 

300j–2, 300j–3, 300j–4, 300j–9, 1857 et seq., 

6901–6992k, 7401–7671q, 7542, 9601–9657, 

11023, 11048. 

■ 2. In § 9.1 the table is amended by 

revising the entries under the heading 

‘‘Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: 

Community Right-to-Know’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

40 CFR citation OMB control No. 

* * * * * * * 

Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-to-Know 

Part 372, subpart A .................................................................................................................................. 2070–0093, 2070–0143, 2025–0007 

372.22 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2070–0093, 2070–0143, 2025–0007 

372.25 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2070–0093, 2025–0007 

372.27 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2070–0143 

372.30 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2070–0093, 2070–0143, 2025–0007 

372.38 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2070–0093, 2070–0143, 2025–0007 

Part 372, subpart C .................................................................................................................................. 2070–0093, 2070–0143, 2025–0007 

Part 372, subpart D .................................................................................................................................. 2070–0093, 2070–0143, 2025–0007 

372.85 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2070–0093, 2025–0007 

372.95 ....................................................................................................................................................... 2070–0143 

* * * * * 

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 § 372.30, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 372.25, § 372.27, or § 372.28 at its 

covered facility described in § 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) and, 

for the dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds category, EPA Form R 

Schedule 1 (EPA Form 9350–3) in 

accordance with the instructions 

referred to in subpart E of this part. 

* * * * * 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

■ 3. Section 372.85 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (a). 

■ b. Revise paragraph (b) introductory 

text. 

■ c. Revise paragraph (b)(14)(ii). 

■ d. Revise paragraphs (b)(15)(i)(B), and 

(b)(15)(ii)(B). 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
26554 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 90 / Thursday, May 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 372.85 Toxic chemical release reporting 

form and instructions. 

(a) Availability of reporting form and 

instructions. The most current version 

of Form R and Form R Schedule 1 may 

be found on the following EPA Program 

Web site, http://www.epa.gov/tri. Any 

subsequent changes to the Form R or 

Form R Schedule 1 will be posted on 

this Web site. Submitters may also 

contact the TRI Program at (202) 564–

9554 to obtain this information. 

(b) Form elements. Information 

elements reportable on EPA Form R and 

Form R Schedule 1, or equivalent 

magnetic media format include the 

following: 

* * * * * 

(14) * * * 

(ii) Additional Reporting for the 

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

category. 

(A) For reports pertaining to a 

reporting year ending on or before 

December 31, 2007, report a distribution 

of the chemicals included in the dioxin 

and dioxin-like compounds category. 

Such distribution shall either represent 

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. 

(B) For reports pertaining to a 

reporting year ending after December 

31, 2007, report the quantity of each 

member of the dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds category in units of grams 

per year on Form R Schedule 1. 

* * * * * 

(15)(i) * * * 

(B) An estimate of the amount of the 

chemical transferred in pounds (except 

for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, 

which shall be reported in grams) per 

year (transfers of less than 1,000 pounds 

per year may be indicated as a range, 

except for chemicals set forth in 

§ 372.28) and an indication of the basis 

of the estimate. In addition, for reports 

pertaining to a reporting year ending 

after December 31, 2007, report the 

quantity of each member of the dioxin 

and dioxin-like compounds category in 

units of grams per year on Form R 

Schedule 1. 

* * * * * 

(15)(ii) * * * 

(B) An estimate of the amount of the 

chemical transferred in pounds (except 

for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, 

which shall be reported in grams) per 

year (transfers of less than 1,000 pounds 

per year may be indicated as a range, 

except for chemicals set forth in 

§ 372.28) and an indication of the basis 

of the estimate. In addition, for reports 

pertaining to a reporting year ending 

after December 31, 2007, report the 

quantity of each member of the dioxin 

and dioxin-like compounds category in 

units of grams per year on Form R 

Schedule 1. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–9015 Filed 5–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[MB Docket No. 03–15; RM–9832; FCC 07–

69] 

Second Periodic Review of the 

Commission’s Rules and Policies 

Affecting the Conversion To Digital 

Television 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission adopts rules requiring 

sellers of analog-only TV equipment to 

label or post signs at point of sale 

disclosing limitations after the February 

17, 2009 deadline for the transition from 

analog to digital television service. The 

Commission states that sellers must 

advise consumers at point of sale if the 

television equipment includes only an 

analog tuner that will require a 

converter box to receive over-the-airbroadcast-television after the deadline. 

DATES: The rules in 47 CFR 15.117(k) 

contains information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). The FCC will 

publish a document announcing the 

effective date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by MB Docket No. 03–15, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–

418–0432. 

For additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eloise Gore, Eloise.Gore@fcc.gov of the 

Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 

418–2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order (Order), FCC 07–69, 

adopted on, April 25, 2007, and released 

on May 3, 2007. The full text of this 

document is available for public 

inspection and copying during regular 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY–

A257, Washington, DC 20554. These 

documents will also be available via 

ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). 

(Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an e-mail 

to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

This document contains new 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. It 

will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Section 3507(d) of the 

PRA. OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies will be invited to 

comment on the new information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proceeding. The Commission will 

publish a separate document in the 

Federal Register at a later date seeking 

these comments. In addition, we note 

that pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we previously sought specific comment 

on how the Commission might ‘‘further 

reduce the information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees.’’

Summary of the Report and Order 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Second Report and Order in 

the Second DTV Periodic Review, we 

take up the issue of labeling of 

television receiving equipment, which 

was raised in the Second DTV Periodic 

NPRM, 68 FR 7737–01. This Order 

applies to televisions, television 

receivers, and other television receiving 

equipment, which includes television 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES