Facility Identification Initiative
[Federal Register: October 7, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 52587-52600]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[[Page 52587]]
Part VI
Environmental Protection Agency
Facility Identification Initiative; Notice
[[Page 52588]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPPTS-00186; FRL-4991-5]
RIN 2070-AC92
Facility Identification Initiative
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments.
SUMMARY: As part of EPA's effort to reinvent environmental regulations
the Agency is seeking comment on a number of options to standardize
facility data reporting. This initiative represents the first step of a
larger Agency effort to streamline and consolidate EPA's collection and
maintenance of environmental data. Specifically, in this Notice EPA is
considering options for establishing a national standard for the
reporting and maintenance of information regarding the identification
of facilities that are subject to federal environmental reporting and
permitting requirements. EPA believes that a successful standardized
facility identification scheme would reduce reporting burden on the
regulated community while improving public access to the Agency's
environmental data. Since States are partners with EPA in receiving and
managing environmental data, EPA has actively sought the participation
of State representatives during the development of this Initiative.
This Notice is intended to provide all stakeholders with an opportunity
to comment on the goals and benefits of the Facility Identification
Initiative, as well as on the potential approaches for implementation.
DATES: Written comments on this Notice must be received by EPA on or
before December 23, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to: TSCA
Document Receipt Office, (7407), Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Comments should include the document control number for this
Notice, OPPTS-00186.
Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number OPPTS-00186. Comments containing Confidential Business
Information (CBI) should be submitted to the same address, with all CBI
clearly identified, and must include a sanitized copy for the public
record. No CBI should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments
on this Notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam K. Sasnett or Mary C. Hanley,
Project Managers, 202-260-8020 or 202-260-1624, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-108, Mail
Code 7407, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail:
sasnett.sam@epamail.epa.gov, or hanley.mary@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Background
The EPA and its governmental regulatory partners are authorized to
collect a wide range of data from a variety of sources. For example,
the data may be related to the management of wastes, to the maintenance
of operations at a particular location in accordance with a permit, or
to the locations at which pesticides are formulated. For the most part,
the Federal laws authorizing environmental data collections were
developed under different statutory authorities to address specific
environmental media concerns such as hazardous and toxic chemical
emissions and spills, control of pesticide use, air pollution, surface
and subsurface water contamination, the management of solid and
hazardous waste, the delivery of safe drinking water, and the cleanup
of existing waste deposits. EPA, State, and local governments developed
organizational structures and programs tailored to address these
specific, single-media concerns. Consequently, the collection,
maintenance, and use of environmental data by EPA and the States follow
this media-by-media approach to addressing environmental concerns.
In more recent years, concepts of environmental protection have
evolved toward cross-media environmental impacts, the need to prevent
pollution at the source, and the importance of a well-informed public
participating in the decision making process. In most cases, however,
environmental data collection and management has not adjusted to this
evolution and is still collected and maintained in a media-specific
way.
Compounding this situation is the growing need for both government
and the private sector to cut costs and increase the efficiency of
operations. Currently, industries must report environmental information
to many different offices, at different times, and in different
formats. At the same time, the public expects to have access to
accurate, comprehensive environmental data. Together, these forces are
stimulating a fundamental and inevitable change in the collection and
management of environmental data.
Therefore, the Facility Identification Initiative represents a
significant Agency reinvention commitment. The Initiative is a first
step toward establishing a new one-stop reporting approach for
environmental data. By having facilities identified the same way for
all reporting requirements under environmental laws, a new approach can
be established which will simplify reporting for affected parties and
simplify public access to information currently residing in many
different places. The President announced this initiative in the March
1995 report, Reinventing Environmental Regulation. EPA will work
closely with states to design this new approach. Facility
identification is an important building block in this critical
reinvention initiative.
EPA believes that there is already a broad base of support for this
initiative. For example, in August 1994, the National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) published a report
entitled ``Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and
the Environment: Recommendations for Comprehensive Information
Resources Management'' (Ref. 1). This report was developed by NACEPT's
Information Resources Management Strategic Planning Task Force, which
involved representatives of all the major groups concerned with EPA
policy, including industry, states and local governments, the
environmental community, and other government agencies. The NACEPT
Committee made four major recommendations:
(1) EPA must use information strategically to achieve the Agency's
mission.
(2) EPA must actively use information to empower its partners.
(3) EPA must establish an integrated information infrastructure to
support a comprehensive approach to environmental protection.
(4) EPA must establish a more effective organization for
information resources management.
Under the third recommendation, the Committee went on to state
that:
[[Page 52589]]
Data standardization is a fundamental part of EPA's integrated
information infrastructure. The first step towards standardizing
data is to identify those common data elements widely used
throughout the Agency and by State Co-Implementors, which provide
the framework to link and combine information.
Without standardized facility data across environmental data
collections, two major problems persist. First, lack of standardized
facility identification data makes it difficult to establish a linkage
between all environmental data relating to the same facility. Second,
multiple reporting of facility-specific data results in inefficiencies
and additional burden for both the regulated community and regulators,
and impedes public right-to-know.
A primary problem that users of EPA and State environmental data
experience is the difficulty (and in some cases the inability) to
establish reliable links between data relating to the same facility.
There are several underlying factors. There are inconsistencies in the
facility identification data. A slightly different spelling of a
facility name or address reduces the accuracy and effectiveness of
comparing the data about a facility. Also, different reporting
requirements may have different statutory or regulatory definitions for
the reporting facility. This can result in reports that may represent
the same facility but that appear to be different.
There are numerous, separate environmental data collections that
include the reporting of different facility identification data. The
submitter must repeatedly report such data to multiple EPA and State
data systems and the Agencies must also separately input and maintain
such identification data. Developing some means to consolidate such
reporting could lead to greater efficiencies for both the regulated
community and government agencies that receive and maintain such data.
Finally, it could improve the accuracy of the data and provide the
public with easier access to the data.
The Agency believes that these data linkage problems and reporting
inefficiencies could be alleviated by developing a universal set of
facility identification data which is shared by EPA and the States.
Standardizing facility identification data could also pave the way for
any further consolidation of Federal environmental data. Therefore,
this Notice represents a detailed outline of the Agency's concepts on
facility data standardization and consolidation.
B. Goals of the Facility Identification Initiative
The overarching goal of the Facility Identification Initiative is:
To streamline access to and reporting of environmental data by
establishing a uniform set of facility identification data and the
infrastructure needed to make it operational.
The specific objectives of the initiative are:
(1) To obtain and maintain an accurate set of uniform, facilityspecific
information and keep it current.
(2) To build an infrastructure based upon as many existing
approaches as possible that efficiently support data linkage
capabilities.
(3) To improve public access to Agency data, to empower communities
and to support multi-media analysis of environmental issues.
(4) To minimize the burden on the regulated community and States as
part of the process of obtaining and maintaining such information, and
eliminate, where possible, duplication.
(5) To serve as a first practical step toward the broader goal of
consolidating environmental data collection.
C. Benefits of the Facility Identification Initiative
The Facility Identification Initiative is seeking to create two
features that will work together to create an electronic pointer system
to Agency data. The first feature is a single record of consistent
facility identification data (e.g. facility name, street address,
corporate affiliation, etc.) established and updated for each reporting
facility. The second feature is a unique facility identification number
which is assigned to each facility. The facility identification number
would then serve as the primary link or electronic pointer to all of
the Agency's data about that facility.
EPA believes that there are numerous benefits of establishing a
universal set of facility identification data to be shared between EPA,
States and the public.
Better access to data by facility. For the first time, reliable
links will be established between data relating to the same facility
held in separate EPA and State data systems. Standardization of
facility identification data will eliminate inconsistencies in facility
identification data that currently exist. Environmental data about a
facility can be found and used more effectively.
Improved access by the public. The public would be provided with
improved access to the Agency's environmental data. The facility
identification data will provide new and greater capabilities for the
public to access Federal environmental data, and allow for links to
other data sources.
Providers of information can also use the facility identification
data as a tool to locate and check the accuracy of their data as
represented in EPA and/or other systems. Standard facility
identification data could increase opportunities for the owners or
operators of facilities to tell their own story about site-specific or
corporate pollution prevention and environmental progress. For example,
the data could be designed to allow a facility to provide an Internet
address as well as an E-mail address. This could serve as a link to
further information, analyses, reports, or interpretations that the
data provider believes would enable the public to better understand its
submissions.
Improve multi-media perspectives. The facility identification
data would better support the efforts of data users who want to compile
or analyze environmental data across media data collections. In
particular, it would support those doing geographic or community-based
analyses. Having an up-to-date linkage capability could significantly
increase the reliability of multi-media analyses by providing a
standard framework for organizing and storing facility information.
Empowering communities. Facility identification data can serve
as a tool to empower communities by aiding them in identifying the
presence of detailed environmental data related to a specific facility
within their localities.
Reducing burden. Consolidating facility identification data
could lead the way, over time, to reduce the reporting burden for those
required to submit data under a number of existing Federal
environmental regulations. The facility identification data of the
individual reporting forms could be abbreviated. EPA is mindful of the
need to implement the facility identification initiative creatively and
in a fashion that minimizes burden on the regulated community. Thus, no
additional burden will be placed on the regulated communities to
reconcile facility data that EPA has already collected. The Agency will
do an initial reconciliation of facility data using existing records,
without asking facilities to submit additional information. Facilities
would be provided an opportunity to voluntarily review and verify
(electronically) their reconciled facility record if they choose to do
so. Care also needs to be taken to minimize burden on the regulated
community when deciding which data elements to consolidate into a
single facility record. For example, EPA is considering innovative ways
to include latitude-
[[Page 52590]]
longitude coordinates in the consolidated facility record without
requiring facilities to incur any new reporting burden. Rather than
requiring that facilities report longitude and latitude data, EPA
intends to use secondary sources to populate these data fields. EPA
will expend its own resources to conduct address matching and will use
existing sources such as State data, to ascertain longitude and
latitude for each facility. EPA is also considering providing Federal
and State inspectors with the means to ascertain longitude and latitude
easily and uniformly, or perhaps empowering facilities themselves with
the means to do so voluntarily. One of EPA's primary objectives is not
only to avoid imposing any new burden, but to also reduce existing
burden wherever possible. As such, EPA is very interested in receiving
comments or suggestions on ways that EPA can implement a consolidation
program and still achieve either a zero impact on burden or a net
reduction.
II. Approaches to Achieving Facility Identification
This unit explores a number of alternatives for implementing the
Facility Identification Initiative. Each alternative addresses who
(e.g. EPA, the State, the facility) takes responsibility for data
reconciliation, keeping the facility data record current, and providing
public access. In reviewing these discussions, EPA requests that the
reader consider how any individual alternative supports or does not
support one or more of the goals as outlined in Unit I.B. of this
document. Also, EPA requests reviewers to comment on the practical
feasibility and relative probability of success of a given approach.
The approaches are not mutually exclusive of each other, so the reader
might comment that one or more approaches should be combined.
Additionally, EPA also encourages commenters to suggest other
approaches that could be implemented.
In brief, the five approaches presented here include: (1) An
administrative approach that would upgrade an existing Agencymaintained
facility identification data base, (2) establishment of an
EPA-State non-regulatory data management partnership to develop and
maintain facility identification data and the necessary linkages
between information systems, (3) a distributed information system in
which EPA would not establish a central facility identification data
base but would rely on building connections to State systems, (4) a
regulatory approach that would require consolidated reporting of
facility data to EPA or the States while eliminating duplicative
reporting, and (5) an approach that would use existing regulatory
authority and establish facility identification reporting requirements
by developing new OMB Information Collection Requests (ICR).
A. Approach 1: Upgrade FINDS
EPA's Facility Index System (FINDS) is a data base of facility
identification data maintained by the Agency. Facility identification
data maintained by each program office data base are consolidated in
FINDS and an attempt is made to reconcile discrepancies. The major
deficiencies with the current FINDS approach are that the
reconciliation occurs after data is entered into programmatic data
bases; there is no formal mechanism for correcting the programmatic
data bases, and the ``data of record'' continues to be the data
contained in the program offices' data base which may be inconsistent
across the data bases.
Under the ``Upgrade FINDS'' approach, EPA would conduct a
comprehensive clean-up, data reconciliation and restructuring of FINDS.
The Agency would need to invest significant additional resources into
upgrading the quality of the current FINDS data base by eliminating
incorrect records and resolving certain existing discrepancies. The
current FINDS data base would then be expanded and new methods would be
adopted to share this data with the States, program systems, and the
public.
Under this approach, it is envisioned that EPA would assign a
single identification number to each facility and use that number in
all its data bases, thus supporting the goal of data integration and
improving public access. This alternative would put no new obligation
on the State or the industry to use the new identification number.
Therefore, this approach does not affect the burden on industry and it
also does not consolidate reporting data. It does maintain or even
increase the burden on EPA to continue to reconcile differences in
reported facility data and develop and maintain a consistent facility
record.
EPA would have the primary responsibility for data reconciliation
under this approach. This reconciliation would continue to occur after
data are entered into individual program data bases. There would be a
continuing need for staff to use their best judgment to resolve
discrepancies and populate certain new data fields. However, the Agency
could provide facilities with a voluntary opportunity to review and
comment on their facility identification record as is currently done
for Federal facilities. (For example, EPA's Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office uses the Federal Facilities Tracking System (FFTS)
to provide a mechanism for facility records review, modification, and
correction by a designated Federal agency representative.) Such a
voluntary, interactive review process could be accomplished through
EPA's Internet Home Page. EPA would like to receive comments and ideas
on these and other mechanisms the Agency could use to provide a
facility with an opportunity to review and comment on their facility
identification data, regardless of the approach adopted to implement
the facility identification initiative.
For those who are interested, EPA's current Home Page address is:
http://www.epa.gov. This will provide access to the EPA Server. The
ENVIROFACTS system contains a listing for current FINDS records. It can
be found under the listing for EPA Data Systems and Software.
B. Approach 2: State/Federal Data Management Model
This approach recognizes that both EPA and the States are
recipients of environmental reports from facilities. EPA is the initial
recipient of some reports such as the Toxics Release Inventory, and
pesticide data under FIFRA. However, most facility-based reports
generated as a result of Federal environmental laws and regulations
initially are received by States who have been delegated the authority
by EPA.
Under this approach, EPA and the States would agree to
administrative data management procedures for accomplishing the basic
goals of the Facility Identification Initiative. These agreements
could, for example, be established through a new performance
partnership agreement process or in connection with existing
programmatic grants.
The focus of this activity would be a State accepting the primary
responsibility for reconciling differences in facility records for
reports it collects. The State would maintain a consistent ``master
record'' for that facility. EPA and the State would agree upon a
standard set of data elements for such records, along with such other
tools as a standard data dictionary and standards for timing of
facility data records transfer and the acceptable level of data
quality.
Under this alternative, EPA would establish a national Facility
Identification data base. The State and EPA would agree to apply a
unique identifier number to each unique
[[Page 52591]]
facility. EPA would then obtain the full facility record from the
State. Furthermore, States and EPA would agree that any relevant data
transmitted to an EPA program data base about such facilities would
have to contain the facility identifier number. Otherwise, that data
would not be accepted. In this way, both the State and EPA program data
bases could contain the necessary linkage capability to make the
Facility Identification Initiative function as envisioned.
There may be cases where EPA receives reports directly from a
facility and the State does not maintain the same record for that
facility. In those cases, EPA would take direct responsibility for
reconciling such facility records, establishing the master record, and
assigning a facility identifier number. The State would, thereafter,
have full access to such records.
It is also possible that a State may want EPA to include records
for ``State-only'' facilities and other geographic entities in its
Facility Identification data base. For example, this could include
records associated with facilities that report environmental data to
the State under the authority of State law. For example, a number of
States currently use EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS) data system as their means of maintaining certain air quality
data. These States include both Federally covered as well as any
additional facility reports in their data uploads to AIRS.
This non-regulatory approach would be transparent to the reporting
facility and would result in no new reporting burden being placed on a
facility. It would, however, not result in any direct consolidation of
facility data reporting elements and the consequent burden reduction
across several collections administered by the State. Voluntary
mechanisms could be established for a facility to review and comment on
their facility record. This would be left up to the State to
administer.
This would be a non-mandatory approach and not all States would
want or be able to participate. EPA could establish a process to
develop a model agreement and test the concept with as many States as
may wish to participate. Thereafter, EPA and the States would need to
be willing to fund their respective parts of such an initiative
separately.
EPA requests comment on the overall feasibility of such an
approach. What specific provisions would be a necessary part of such
State/EPA agreements? Ultimately, what level of State participation
would be required in such a program (other than 100%) in order for EPA
to be able to represent this option as a nationally viable facility
identification data set? What should EPA do in situations where the
State has accepted only partial delegation (e.g., for all programs
except water, etc.)?
C. Approach 3: Distributed System Access
The Agency and its State partners are reexamining their respective
roles as co-implementers of environmental regulations. Many EPA
programs currently delegate to the States much of the implementation of
the national programs. Does this lessen the need for EPA to maintain a
national facility-specific data set?
Under this approach, States would pursue facility data integration
in a manner that best meets their individual needs. This would
represent decentralization of the concept of data integration and would
support the concept of States developing their own approaches. A
significant question needs to be addressed concerning such an approach.
How will EPA obtain the data it needs for determining national and
cross-boundary trends, and ensuring a national level playing field?
This alternative could hamper the Agency's ability to use or provide
integrated data on a national basis. EPA would be dependent upon the
State systems for what questions could be answered. This approach
would, however, provide the States with maximum flexibility to
determine how they would manage their data and provide access to it.
EPA could maintain a requirement that it and the public have access to
these data systems. EPA could then use the data in these distributed
systems to do analysis and special projects and reports. However, in
this circumstance EPA would not try to maintain a ``master file'' of
facilities that would try to track each facility and any changes
thereto. Whether the States should be required to do this needs to be
considered. Are there alternative ways of achieving the same goal? Is
there a need for consistency across States? Should EPA be responsible
for providing the public with a national pointer system to any
individual facility and its related data points? Or can the public's
need for this information be met through distributed State systems,
each of which provides the public access to its data or subsets of its
data? Should this decision be a national one, across all States and
agencies implementing specific environmental reporting requirements, or
should the decision on public access be left to each State?
Another alternative to consider might be a requirement that States
provide integrated facility data, but not specify how to do it. EPA
could set certain minimum levels of service and a standard set of
facility data that would tie together program information in various
systems. The States would then implement the approach that makes the
most sense to them, given other data projects they may already be
involved in. No matter how individual States accomplished data
integration, each State would have to develop a system of facility
identification which would be applicable across program lines. This
might result in a master file or lead program system which would assign
identifiers which other State offices would pick up. This could be very
similar to Approach 1: Upgrade FINDS, except that the State would not
be required to establish a master file similar to FINDS and EPA would
not establish and maintain a national data base of all the facilities
or even all the Federally regulated facilities maintained at the State
level. EPA could then use the data in these distributed systems to do
analysis and special projects and reports. Access would be provided
from the State and perhaps made available to the public and EPA through
the Internet or other electronic medium. EPA could rely on the current
movement of States to the Internet and World Wide Web where more and
more State data are being made accessible electronically. This could
obviate the need for a single EPA-managed system to integrate data.
Mechanisms for integrating the more important facility elements at a
local or regional basis could then be developed. This would allow
systems to remain distributed, but would allow EPA or the public to
obtain answers to their questions about a regulated entity.
D. Approach 4: Collecting Data by Rule
This approach involves EPA promulgation of a rule that would
require certain Federally regulated data submitters to report (or
verify) a standard set of facility data. The responsibility for
reconciliation of differences in facility data submissions and updating
of the facility record would rest with the facility. EPA believes that
it could reasonably cite multiple existing statutory authorities as the
basis for promulgating a rule to establish and maintain a separate,
consistent, facility data record and appropriately streamline the
reporting of facility data elements under existing rules to reduce
duplication of reporting.
Definitions of what is to be reported in this rule (i.e., the term
``facility''), would be cross-cutting and not
[[Page 52592]]
dependent upon the differing regulatory and statutory definitions that
apply in any individual rule. The rule would also establish a time
frame for the initial report and set forth any requirements for ongoing
review and correction of the data record.
A rule process would involve three basic changes:
(1) EPA would place cross references into existing rules advising
the regulated ``person'' that they are subject to the new consolidated
facility data reporting requirements.
(2) A Facility Identification number would then be added as a
required data element in those existing rules allowing the form(s)
authorized by those existing rules to include the new, consistent
identifier number for that facility.
(3) Existing rules and reporting forms would also be amended to
eliminate certain data elements that would also be present in a
Facility Identification rule. However, basic name and location address
necessary for data validation purposes on any current form would not be
eliminated.
It is envisioned that facilities that are subject to one or more
Federal environmental reporting requirements that are identified in the
rule would be subject to the facility data reporting requirements of a
potential rule. The reporting requirements identified in the rule would
be site-specific, of a fixed location (e.g., mobile source regulation
would be outside the scope); and would have to require periodic
reporting, or could be a one-time application and/or registration with
periodic follow-up. One-time notifications, surveys, and incident
reports would not be considered within the scope of a new rule. Based
upon this draft criteria, EPA has identified numerous data collections
that it considers to be potentially within the scope of such a facility
data reporting rule. These data collections are listed in Table 1 in
Unit III.B. of this Notice.
The Facility Identification data reported would be included in a
central data base. This data base would be accessible to EPA, States,
and the public. This approach could support most of the goals of a
Facility Identification Initiative. By establishing a uniform set of
place-based data, overlapping data elements could be reduced.
Additionally, this reduction could be representative of the first step
toward reporting data consolidation. Initially the burden reduction
aspect of this approach may not be realized because a new reporting
requirement would be established. However, over time the elimination of
overlapping data elements from multiple rules could provide a net
burden decrease.
The workgroup discussed a number of other issues and options
associated with development of a rule. The rule-related issues and
options are presented in detail in a document titled ``Support Document
for Facility Identification Initiative: Notice and Request for
Comment'' which is available as part of the Public Record for this
Notice. This document may also be found on the Key Identifiers Project
Page of EPA's World Wide Web Home Page. The address is http: //
www.epa.gov/Internet/OPPTS or http: //www.epa.gov/EPAHome/
Initiatives.html. Included in the Support Document, for comment, are
the following:
State and Federal models for flow of data. A critical
determination in implementing a rule will be how the data is collected.
The Agency has looked at five rule-based models for collecting the data
and entering it into a Facility Identification data base. These include
a Federal collection, a State-only collection and, three variations of
a State and Federal hybrid collection. EPA is interested in receiving
comments on each of these models.
Frequency and timing of facility identification reports. Related
issues discussed in the Support Document include: (a) Setting an
initial reporting time-frame; (b) submitter verification of existing
Agency facility record to potentially minimize burden on data
submitters; (c) options for phasing in the requirement for submitting
the initial report; (d) addressing initial submissions by new
facilities reporting after promulgation of the rule.
Reviewing and updating the facility identification record.
Keeping a Facility Identification data base current would be a longterm
challenge. It is essential that the Facility Identification record
reflect the most current information about a facility because it would
be the overall reference used by multiple Agency data systems and data
users. Therefore, if a new reporting requirement is adopted, the Agency
must consider how frequently the Facility Identification data should be
reviewed and updated once the facility's record is established through
initial reporting. The Agency must balance the need for keeping the
data accurate with the burden association with the ongoing nature of
such submissions. The following options for ongoing review and updating
of the Facility Identification data base are presented for comment in
the Support Document: (a) Mandated periodic review and update; (b)
updating only when changes occur; (c) report changes as they occur, and
verify periodically, and; (d) incorporate in the current submission.
E. ICR-Only Approach
This approach is also a data reporting requirement and would
involve many of the same issues as outlined in D. of this Unit. Under
this approach, however, EPA would not revise regulations but would
prepare a new Information Collection Request (ICR). An ICR outlines
burdens and costs associated with information collections, and is
required to be prepared by the Agency and approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The new ICR prepared under this approach would seek approval under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act to centrally collect
facility identification information that is currently collected under
many separate rules. Those rules are currently supported by separate
ICRs. In effect, EPA would consolidate facility data reporting into one
new form and set of instructions approved by a new ICR. At the same
time, all relevant existing forms approved by current ICRs would be
modified to eliminate, where possible, existing duplicative facility
data elements. The burden calculations of the existing ICRs would also
be modified as appropriate to reflect the removal of reporting
elements. The existing regulations would not be modified. Instead, the
facility identification data requirements in each set of regulations
would be fulfilled by submission of the consolidated facility
information under the new ICR.
There could be certain advantages to this approach. First, this
approach could provide an expedited means of achieving the practical
changes necessary to consolidate facility data reporting and streamline
the facility data sections of many existing reporting forms. Also,
under revised provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the ICR
development mechanism provides expanded opportunity for public review
and comment. This is not the equivalent of notice and comment
rulemaking, but it does offer the public an opportunity to affect the
substance of the data collection requirement prior to the Agency's
submission of the ICR to OMB.
A potential disadvantage is that the ICR-only approach may not
provide the long-term stability necessary for such a comprehensive data
management program. Without the backing of a codified requirement, it
could be more vulnerable to discontinuation. Such a lack of long-term
commitment could be very disruptive and wasteful of the
[[Page 52593]]
investments made by all parties involved in both supplying and managing
the data.
III. Cross Cutting Issues
EPA believes that there are a number of common questions that must
be addressed regardless of the approach chosen to implement the
Facility Identification Initiative. In order to create a comprehensive
facility record, the question arises of whether we need to develop a
comprehensive definition of ``facility''? What environmental data
collections (i.e., which facilities) should be included in the
Initiative? What should the comprehensive facility record contain? Are
there any confidentiality concerns with the development and access to
such a comprehensive facility data record? How can we take advantage of
evolving technology to meet the information management challenges of
the Facility Identification Initiative?
A. Facility Definition
Rationale for a facility definition. As stated previously, one
of the goals of the Facility Identification Initiative would be to
establish a streamlined method for identifying a facility across
various, separate environmental data collections. No matter how the
Facility Identification Initiative is implemented, EPA believes that a
standard concept of facility is central to the development of a
successful program. For purposes of developing a consolidated
``facility-specific'' record, it is essential that all parties involved
have an opportunity to review and comment on the need for, and
potential elements of, a ``facility'' term or definition. For purposes
of further discussion in this Notice, EPA will use the term
``facility.''
The EPA workgroup considered the issue of how to define the term
``facility'' for purposes of the Facility Identification Initiative. It
identified three basic attributes which it believed needed to be
considered in constructing a definition.
(1) First is the fixed, spacial or geographic attribute of a
facility. Generally speaking, regulated activities occur within a
physical boundary, usually a real estate property boundary. In many
cases (but not always), there is a ``street address'' that corresponds
with this physical location, and other spacial coordinates can be used
to identify or define the location.
(2) Next, there is the attribute of ownership or control. Generally
speaking a facility is owned or operated by a legal person (i.e. an
individual, corporation, or government). Therefore, another parameter
for a discrete ``facility'' is that the activities/property/physical
boundary is owned or operated by the same person. Take, for example,
the situation in which an operation owned by one person is physically
surrounded by another persons operation. That separate ownership would
be the critical factor in distinguishing one facility from the other.
(3) Finally, there is the attribute of time. That is, the
attributes of both physical composition and ownership/control can
change with time. Obviously, facility ownership can change and so can
the physical boundaries/components. Additions of operations on
adjoining properties as well as sale of parts of a location can result
in physical changes to a facility and, subsequently, changes to what
that facility may have to report under environmental laws and
regulations.
Draft facility definition. EPA believes that developing a
facility concept acceptable to all parties involved could ensure both
the success and the longevity of the Facility Identification Initiative
and data consolidation in general. However, EPA would not intend for a
definition of ``facility'' developed under this initiative to alter or
affect existing statutory and regulatory definitions of ``facility''
that guide reporting of substantive data within those collections. The
point of reference (e.g., facility, site) for reporting substantive
data and the substantive reporting requirements of separate collections
would not change with a rule or other action defining ``facility'' for
purposes of a Facility Identification Initiative.
EPA believes that it would be appropriate to develop a definition
of ``facility'' that could apply across a broad array of current
environmental data collections and permit requirements. Therefore the
definition would have to be broad enough to encompass the whole of the
facility's operations but remain within the physical and ownership
attributes as discussed above. The workgroup developed the following
draft facility definition for comment:
``All buildings, equipment, structures, and other items located on
a single site or contiguous or adjacent sites owned or operated by the
same person or persons.''
Under this approach, the outermost perimeter of the single
geographic area occupied by the entire entity, including all of its
parts or divisions, would constitute the ``facility.''
Incorporated into the draft facility definition are elements that
EPA considered to be necessary to achieve the goals of the initiative.
First, the definition is holistic, or all encompassing. That is, the
definition is comprehensive enough to encompass all activities at a
particular facility, including all its parts or divisions. Also, the
definition relates to a single piece of geography that can encompass
contiguous or adjacent sites. This is an important element in achieving
consolidated, facility-specific identification data. Finally, the
definition specifies that the property must be under a common ownership
or control. This element, in combination with the concept of single
geographic area, would ensure that all related parts of a facility are
captured in an entity's Facility Identification record.
EPA would like to receive comment on whether a term other than
``facility'' should be used to denote the reference point for
consolidated facility identification data. If so, what term should be
used instead. EPA realizes that other terms may be used such as
``site,'' ``regulated entity,'' ``establishment,'' or ``reporting
unit,'' to name a few. EPA requests comment, particularly from States,
on their experience with developing and using such terms, along with
the problems and successes they have experienced.
Application of the proposed facility definition. Use of the
facility definition proposed here may result in no change in the way
that single establishment facilities represent themselves. Likewise,
certain complex installations may currently represent themselves in a
holistic manner, using a consistent, single name and address for
reporting purposes.
However, EPA recognizes that there may be instances where
application of a holistic definition of facility could be problematic
or confusing. EPA anticipates that such difficulty might arise for at
least four specific types of reporting facilities.
(1) Current rules may require reports from ``sub-entities'' of a
facility (e.g. two different Divisions within the same larger facility
report different names and addresses as separate hazardous waste
disposal units).
(2) Facilities reporting as systems or parts of systems (e.g.
railroads, pipelines and other systems in which discrete operating
units are ``contiguous'' by virtue of a transportation, property or
other system connection).
(3) Disjointed operations carried out by the same person within a
larger real estate perimeter (e.g., non-contiguous production and
warehouse units of the same company within an industrial park could
under the draft definition be considered separate facilities).
[[Page 52594]]
(4) Adjacent subsidiaries of the same corporation that are separate
business entities could be required to all have a common address as one
``facility.'' EPA is providing a detailed discussion of these scenarios
in the Support Document for this Notice (See Unit II.D. of this
document).
EPA requests comment on these and any other problematic situations
associated with implementing and interpreting the draft definition of
facility proposed herein.
4. Accommodating facility changes over time. Under the Facility
Identification Initiative, EPA will want to obtain reliable
identification information for a particular facility. Therefore, the
Facility Identification system will need to accommodate business
transactions that alter facility identification information over time
(e.g., changes in property boundaries or facility ownership). The types
of accommodations that EPA is considering are discussed in the Support
Document, and the Agency requests comment on these situations and any
other related issues.
B. Data Collections Included.
Data collections included in facility identification initiative.
In EPA's efforts to identify the most appropriate data collections
(i.e., reporting requirements) to be included for coverage under a
Facility Identification Initiative, EPA developed and used the
following draft criteria:
(i) The reporting requirement and reports submitted should be sitespecific.
In other words, the ``who'' information in a submission
should relate to the physical location of the permitted or regulated
activity.
(ii) The facility covered by the data collection would have to be
fixed (e.g., mobile source regulations under the CAA would be outside
the scope); and
(iii) The data collection would have to require periodic reporting
or could be a one-time application and/or registration with periodic
follow-up. One-time notifications, surveys, and incident reports would
not be considered within the scope of the Initiative.
Based upon this draft criteria, EPA has identified numerous data
collections that it considers to be potentially within the scope of the
Facility Identification Initiative. EPA began the identification
process by reviewing all of EPA's current Information Collection
Requests (ICRs). Detailed matrices were developed showing the specific
ICRs considered ``within scope.'' The specific elements included: the
responsible EPA program office; the statutory authority; the title of
the regulation; the ICR and OMB numbers; the CFR citation; the
frequency of reporting; whether or not the ICR was considered to be
within the scope of the draft criteria; and, the specific facility data
elements required to be reported. The completed matrices for these
``within-scope'' ICRs are available for review in the public record for
this Notice.
Appropriate offices within the Agency then reviewed the ICRs for
which they have responsibility and compared them to the criteria. The
results of this review are presented as Table 1 below. Each listed ICR
has its basis in a regulatory and/or statutory provision. Therefore,
Table 1, represents a list of Federal actions that could be included
under a Facility Identification Initiative. The facility identification
data submitted pursuant to the list reporting requirements would be
subject to consolidation into one facility record under the Initiative.
As an aid to the reader, Table 1 is organized by environmental statute
and includes the name of the regulation, the regulatory citation, and
the EPA ICR number.
Table 1.--Actions That Could Potentially Be Included Under a Facility
Identification Initiative
Regulatory Title 40 CFR Citation ICR Number
Clean Air Act
Source Compliance and State 51.100 107
Action Reporting
Annual, Updates of Emission Data 51.321-51.323 916
to Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS)
New Source Performance Standards Generally, part 60
(NSPS)
National Emissions Standards for Generally, parts
Hazardous Air Pollutants 61 & 63
(NESHAPS)
CAA Title V - Operating Permits 70, 502, 503 1587
Regulations - Information
Requirements
Federal Operating Permits Part 71 1713
Program of the Clean Air Act
(part 71)
Consolidated ICR for the Acid Part 72 1633
Rain Core Rules - Permits
Consolidated ICR for the Acid Part 72 1633
Rain Core Rules - Nitrogen
Oxides Emission Reduction
Program
Consolidated ICR for the Acid Part 74 1633
Rain Core Rules - Opt-In-
Program
Consolidated ICR for the Acid Part 75 1633
Rain Core Rules - Continuous
Emission Monitoring
Accidental Release Prevention Part 68 1656
Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air
Act
Recordkeeping and Periodic Part 82, Subparts 1432
Reporting of the Production and A & E
Consumption of Newly Controlled
Ozone Depleting Substances
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Continuous Release Reporting 302.8 1445
Regulation Under CERCLA
Clean Water Act
[[Page 52595]]
NPDES Permit Application 122.21, 122.26, 226
122.44, 122.501
National Pollutant Discharge 122.41, 122.47 1427
Elimination System (NPDES)/
Compliance Assessment
Information
Combined Sewer Overflow Policy 1680.01
(CSO), 59 FR 18688 (April 19,
1994)
Discharge Monitoring Report 122.21, 122.41 229
Pretreatment Program Information 403 2
Requirements
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act
Toxic Release Inventory 313 372.25, 372.85 1363
Reporting
Alternate Threshold for Low 372.85 1704
Annual Reportable Amounts
Federal Fungicide, Insecticide,
and Rodenticide Act
Application for Registration of 167.20, 167.85 160
Pesticide-Producing
Establishments (EPA Form 3540-
8); Notification of
Registration of Pesticide-
Producing Establishments (EPA
Form 3540-8A); Pesticide Report
for Pesticide-Producing
Establishments (EPA Form 3540-
16)
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Identification, Listing, and 260.20(b), 260.22, 1189
Rulemaking Petitions 261.4(d),
261.4(f)
Notification of Regulated Waste 262, 263, 264, 261
Activity 265, 266, 279
1993 Hazardous Waste Report 262.41, 264.75, 976
265.75
Hazardous Waste Generator 262.56(a), 820
Standards 265.56(d), (i),
(j)
General Hazardous Waste Facility 264.56(d)(2), 1571
Standards 264.56(i), (j)
RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit 270.1, 270.13, 262
Application and Modifications, 270.72
Part A
Part B Permit Application, 270.1, 270.14(b) 1573
Permit Modifications and
Special Permits
Used Oil Management Standards 279.57 1286
Safe Drinking Water Act
Public Water Supply Program 142 270
Underground Injection Control 144 370
Program Facility and Well
Inventory Information
Toxic Substances Control Act
Partial Updating of TSCA 710.32 1011
Inventory Data Base; Production
and Site Reports
Toxic Substances Control Act 712 586
(TSCA) Section 8(a) Preliminary
Assessment Information Rule
(PAIR)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls 750.11, 750.31 857
(PCBs): Manufacturing,
Processing and Distribution in
Commerce Exemptions
PCB Disposal Permitting 761.60 1012
Regulation
PCB Notification and Manifesting 761.180, 761.205, 1446
of PCB Waste Activities, and 761.211, 761.218
Records of PCB Storage and
Disposal
C. Elements of a Consolidated Facility Record
Another cross-cutting issue is the content of the facility
identification data record. Assuming that the Facility Identification
Initiative is implemented using a central facility data registry
approach, the Agency and the States will need to consider what facility
data elements are necessary to maintain. The content of this record is
particularly important to the discussion of collection of this data by
rule. A rule would need to specify what information elements must be
reported and updated over time. This has a direct bearing on the burden
issue, both from the standpoint of what elements would constitute a new
collection and what elements would be removed from the facility section
of existing rules and reporting forms. There is, however, an important
difference between what may be part of
[[Page 52596]]
a reporting requirement and what EPA and States would decide to include
as elements in a facility identification data record. For example,
under a reporting rule approach, EPA could decide that it is not
necessary to collect a certain data element from facilities. It may,
however, be a useful and appropriate data element that can be populated
from other existing sources. In short, the ultimate data base structure
could be more detailed than the elements of a reporting requirement.
Using a non-reporting/ non-regulatory approach would still call for
articulation of a facility identification data structure. One
distinction, however, is that the data records would all be populated
from existing sources. Therefore, the completeness of any given
facility identification data record would be a function of the detail
of existing facility data used to develop that consolidated facility
data record. This could lead to different decisions about total data
structure.
Following is a discussion of data elements that the Agency
identified and determined were appropriate for eliciting comment.
Facility Identification number. This is the unique identifier
that would be assigned to a facility, after an initial report or as a
result of EPA/State data reconciliation efforts. EPA envisions this to
be an ``unintelligent'' number. That is, all or most of the components
of the number would be randomly assigned and not relate to any
particular attribute of the facility. EPA realizes that some States may
have already developed such a unique identifier. In such cases, the
Agency would not necessarily need to utilize an additional identifier
if a means could be developed to incorporate the States number into the
structure of the Facility Identification data base. In addition the
Agency's current Facility Index System (FINDS) and some States use the
``EPA ID Number'' or ``RCRA ID Number.'' This is a number beginning
with a two letter state prefix followed by 9 digits, plus a check
digit. This is an identifier that many but not all facilities carry.
Also, it may currently apply to individual sub-entity hazardous waste
sites that are part of a larger facility. Thus this number may not be
appropriate to apply to a facility at large, particularly if there is
more than one such sub-entity within the facility. EPA requests
comments on how best to consider structuring a unique Facility
Identification number and whether the existing EPA Identification
Number (RCRA ID Number) could be utilized.
Facility name. In most cases, this is likely to be a name that
already exists in one or more EPA and/or State records. However, even
minor variations in a name (e.g., DeBernardo, de Bernardo, D. Bernardo)
can raise questions about the true identity of any given facility,
especially in situations where records are stored and reported
electronically. Other differences may exist as a result of the
variation in the current reporting requirements themselves. Such
variations also may exist because different individuals at the facility
may have completed different reports in slightly different ways (e.g.,
Conoco is owned by du Pont, but could be reported as Conoco, duPont -
Conoco Div., E. I. du Pont de Nemours, etc.)
EPA wishes to receive comment on what type of guidance, if any, to
provide regarding the name to be reported. For example, should the
facility record contain a commonly used, ``doing-business-as'' name, or
should it represent the legal incorporation name? A ``doing-businessas''
name (i.e, duPont - Conoco Div., rather than E. I. du Pont de
Nemours) could provide a unique name that most closely represents the
current status of facility records. For large corporations, this would
not offer a relatively common appellation shared by many other
facilities in many different places. As such, it may provide a facility
name more understandable to the public. However, the legal
incorporation name does appear in existing business and tax records for
the facility and may be a more appropriate standard to cite.
The Agency has also considered the inclusion of space for two
facility name elements in a data element dictionary so that both a
common and a legal incorporation name could be provided. At this point,
however, EPA believes that one name representation would be sufficient
and that maintaining more than one name record could be counter to the
consistency and consolidation goals of this Initiative as well as
potentially unnecessarily increasing the reporting burden.
Facility street (physical) address. This would usually be the
postal address corresponding to the physical location of the facility.
In some instances, however, it could be a physical description of
location if the facility's mailing address does not correspond to its
physical location. An example of the latter case would be an entry such
as the following, ``2 miles south of the intersections of State Route 2
and Route 5,'' or a conventional street address, ``123 XYZ Blvd.,''
where mail is not accepted at that address. Such an alternate, physical
descriptor is required in several current reporting requirements, such
as the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory. EPA believes it is reasonable
to include such information, particularly in those cases where the
facility mailing address is actually a Post Office box number, or is at
an entirely different site, such as a corporate office building away
from the site. Such information can aid the data user in understanding
the general physical location of the facility and is often critical for
spatial data analysis.
Facility mailing address. This element would be supplied in
those cases where the mailing address does not correspond with the
actual physical location address of the facility. Examples would be
Post Office box numbers or a corporate administrative building not
located within the facility itself. This element is necessary for basic
purposes of communicating with persons responsible for the operations
of the facility.
County, parish, or other jurisdictional indicator. This data
element would indicate jurisdictional location as a part of the
standard physical address data. EPA's own experience indicates that
this basic data element is very valuable in conducting a wide variety
of geographic analyses. Consequently, EPA favors including this data
element in the Facility Identification data structure. Furthermore,
EPA's experience points to a significant desire on the part of the
general public to be able to locate environmental data associated with
their county. It can also be an important data quality control check
for verifying the address information.
Facility contact. EPA favors including fields for the name of a
person to contact (including telephone number, FAX number, and E-mail
address if available) for questions that may arise about the content of
the Facility Identification record. EPA would not intend for this data
element to represent a contact that applies to all other reporting
requirements. Each individual data reporting requirement and system
(e.g., the RCRA Biennial Reporting System, BRS, or the Permits
Compliance System, PCS) could continue to require the name of a contact
person for questions concerning the substantive data submitted to such
other systems. It may be more problematic to consider including such a
data element if a non-reporting option were implemented. It may be
difficult for EPA and the State to make a judgment on filling this
element from contact person data available in specific media reports.
Facility SIC code. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code system is a statistical classification system maintained by the
Office of
[[Page 52597]]
Management and Budget and used throughout government and industry to
describe the economic activities undertaken by business entities. It
classifies the activities of business and other ``establishments''
using divisional groupings and a specified numbering system. While not
a regulatory system itself, the SIC code system has become the
predominant means by which many data users obtain a functional
classification of the activities of regulated facilities, and is an
essential analysis tool in the area of economics. Among other uses, an
accurate and current SIC code is critical to successful industry sector
analyses. Such analyses are carried out with increasing frequency for
purposes of identifying pollution prevention and compliance assistance
opportunities.
Most current data collections obtain one or more SIC codes, usually
at the 4-digit level. EPA believes that the facility identification
data structure should provide for multiple entries to accommodate
situations in which a facility engages in different activities or may
have more than one establishment engaged in different primary
activities. If EPA were to implement a reporting rule, the Agency would
like comment on the appropriateness of requiring such codes to be
supplied at an 8-digit level in order to support more refined analyses.
8. Facility Dun and Bradstreet number. Dun and Bradstreet is a
private, business information service that provides to its customers
data on companies that have applied for commercial credit. This type of
data can be facility-specific. The D&B Number, as it is commonly
called, is a valuable piece of information, allowing data users to
correlate current business data, such as sales and numbers of
employees, to the environmental data being reported by the facility. In
particular, EPA and other government agencies use such correlations to
develop estimates of the impact of current and future regulatory
requirements. The facility-specific D&B number can also be used to
obtain information on corporate ownership and subsidiaries through
access to the D&B Information System. For Federal facilities which do
not have D&B numbers, it has been suggested that GSA Real Property ID
number be substituted.
9. Parent company name and Dun and Bradstreet number. Parent
company data is also important to a wide variety of data users because
this information helps them to understand the relationship between the
activity taking place at a specific location and the higher level
corporate responsibility for that facility. Several current data
collections include reporting of parent company information, including
the D&B number. This reporting usually refers to the ultimate U.S.
parent company. This will provide information concerning the highest
level of corporate control within United States jurisdiction. Should
this emphasis on ultimate parent be retained or should the data element
apply to the facility's most immediate corporate parent? This
information could be particularly useful to individual citizens wanting
to determine who is immediately responsible for the actions of a
particular facility in their community. EPA requests comment on this
issue of the most appropriate identification of the facility's parent
company.
10. Permit numbers/system identifiers. As new EPA programs/data
collections were started, there was a need for each to utilize a
tracking number to identify the entity that was reporting. However, all
of these activities were mandated by Congress independently of each
other at different times and seldom utilized the same number. One
primary goal of the Facility Identification Initiative is to develop a
facility-based data system that acts as a pointer system to more
specific environmental data relating to that facility. This data will
include, for example, permit data and emissions data reported by the
facility to existing EPA or State data systems. It would, therefore, be
very important to establish viable links between the Facility
Identification data record and facility-based records in relevant
Federal and State systems.
Following is an exemplary list of identifier numbers currently used
by various EPA and State programs:
(1) TRIFID -- The Toxics Release Inventory Facility Identification
Number.
(2) NPDES Permit Number -- The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Number.
(3) RCRA Identification Number -- The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Identification Number. It is also known as the EPA ID
Number.
(4) Various air quality permit numbers and facility identifiers --
under authority of the Clean Air Act and administered primarily by the
States.
(5) ORIS PL Number -- The Office of Regulatory Information Systems
Plant Number. This is a facility identification number maintained by
the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration and
applies to electric power generation utility facilities. It is used as
a facility identifier in EPA's National Allowance data base.
(6) UIC Permit Number -- The Underground Injection Well Code Permit
Number.
(7) FIFRA Establishment Identification Number -- The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Identification Number.
(8) PWS Identification Number -- The Public Water System
Identification Number.
(9) The Federal Facility Identification Number -- A number assigned
by EPA only to Federal facilities.
(10) State Facility Identification Number -- A unique
identification number that may have been assigned to the facility by
the State (or local) delegated agency.
There are two basic sets of issues associated with permit numbers/
system identifiers and the facility identification data structure.
First, is it necessary for purposes of supporting linkage to include
such identifiers in the Facility Identification data set itself? If,
for example, a non-reporting alternative is selected, would the State
or EPA have to populate each Facility Identification record with other
current permit numbers and relevant system identifiers? As an
alternative, would it be sufficient for linkage purposes to add a
Facility Identification number field to each existing data base record
that relates to that same facility?
The second set of issues relates to a reporting requirement
approach. In brief, should a Facility Identification reporting rule
include a requirement for the facility to report certain permit
numbers/system identifiers in order to support the goal of data
linkage?
The workgroup considered several alternatives for collecting such
data in connection with the Facility Identification record. First, is
the option of ongoing reporting/verification of these identifiers. The
advantage to this approach is that it provides a consistent mechanism
to update changes in the individual identifiers over time. The
disadvantage is that it represents a somewhat heavier long-term
reporting burden.
The workgroup also considered an option that would require the
reporting of such linking elements but ``sunsetting'' the reporting
after a period of time sufficient to establish the linkage. This
``sunset'' provision would mean that these reporting elements would
automatically disappear from a rule and EPA would eliminate them, where
possible, from a form and reporting instructions after the specified
period of time. During preliminary discussions with stakeholders,
concern was expressed about how the term sunset may be interpreted. It
was
[[Page 52598]]
therefore recommended that if sunsetting were included that EPA be
specific about the length of time to provide for the transition to the
Facility Identification system. If a sunset approach is adopted, how
long should EPA provide for the transition?
Finally, the workgroup considered a check-box approach in which it
would require that the facility indicate that, for example, it has a
NPDES permit or a RCRA identification number. This would provide at
least a basic pointer to a system in which records relating to the same
facility may be located. This approach would be slightly less
burdensome than having to fill in the specific identification number.
It would, however, provide an imprecise means of establishing or
confirming the necessary linkages, and require a substantial
expenditure of Federal and State resources.
EPA requests comment on the issue of maintaining current permit
numbers and system identifiers as a means of promoting linkage in
connection with a Facility Identification record.
11. Latitude and longitude coordinates. EPA and the States
currently collect latitude/longitude coordinates under several rules
and in connection with facility inspections and other activities.
Therefore, another issue to consider is whether latitude and longitude
coordinates should be made part of the facility identification data
record. If so, should these coordinates be drawn from existing data
sources or should, for example, a reporting rule mandate facilities to
develop and report these coordinates as part of the exercise of
building the Facility Identification record? An important aspect of
establishing reliable facility identification involves selecting the
elements necessary to describe the facility's location. EPA believes
that latitude and longitude coordinates are important for two reasons:
(1) They support EPA's goal of place-based or community-based
environmental management, and (2) they may provide a universal way to
link data.
This data element discussion also has a connection with the
holistic facility concept. If data is drawn from several existing
sources, which set of coordinates should EPA or the State choose to
represent the ``facility''? There may be several to choose from that
are both general (e.g the TRI submission) and specific, including those
that equate to a wastewater discharge pipe or an air emissions stack.
Should the coordinates represent a central point of the facility, the
front gate, or does it matter as long as the coordinate is located in
the facility? A related factor to consider is the variable degree of
accuracy of currently available/reported latitude and longitude data.
That is why EPA has developed a Locational Data Policy (Ref. 3) that
will require EPA programs to include method, accuracy, and description
information in association with any latitude and longitude coordinates
they develop. Such a policy would improve the value of these data
elements, but requires a higher level of effort on the part of the
Agency, the State or the facility to develop and maintain.
If EPA and/or the States pursue a non-reporting approach, what
standards and agreements related to latitude and longitude data would
have to be developed in order to supply viable data for the Facility
Identification record?
If a reporting rule approach is taken, should the facility be
required to develop and submit these coordinates or should the States
or EPA supply the data for these fields? A decision to require such
reporting may not support the goals of burden reduction or reporting
element consolidation. Reporting of general latitude and longitude data
for the holistic facility would not substitute for reporting more
specific latitude and longitude data in the underlying collection.
Also, the burden associated with developing and submitting this type of
information, along with a necessary indication of the method used to
collect it and the accuracy of the data, could be significant in
relation to all the other data that may be required by a Facility
Identification rule. EPA's preliminary estimates indicate that cost of
having industry report latitude/longitude data could approximately
equal the cost of developing all the other reporting elements currently
under consideration.
Therefore, regardless of the means used to implement the Facility
Identification Initiative, EPA believes at this point that it may be
sufficient to draw on existing sources and use other methodologies to
obtain latitude/longitude data for any given facility. From both new
and existing sources, EPA believes that it can improve the quality of
this geographic data over time by updating that data with latitude/
longitude measurements conducted directly by the Agency, the State, or
other authoritative sources.
EPA requests comment on the issue of including latitude and
longitude coordinates in the Facility Identification data structure and
how best to accomplish it.
D. Supporting Electronic Data Transfer Methods
EPA believes that it will be very important to promote the concepts
of electronic data transfer methods in connection with implementing the
Facility Identification Initiative. The Agency believes that moving
aggressively into these data sharing and transfer methods will increase
the efficiency and accuracy of Federal and State data management
operations. Furthermore, if a reporting rule approach is adopted,
several alternatives are available that can support the goal of
minimizing burden on both the regulated community and the government.
There are a number of emerging technologies that will be easy to use
and will be widely available. Examples of the methods currently being
investigated are:
Transmission via fax. FAX systems are almost universally
available in industry and government and allow word copy transmissions
that can be received and processed in a machine readable format. This
can save resources for both the developer as well as the recipient of
the data and can improve data accuracy. This method can be used to send
the facility's current record for verification or generally provide
compliance materials. The facility would call an 800 telephone number
to request such materials. The benefit of a FAX system is that it can
accommodate material produced by the facility either manually or
electronically.
Transmission via Internet/World Wide Web (WWW). EPA currently
makes the existing Facility Index System (FINDS) data base available on
the WWW. In addition, it is investigating the capability of providing
updates to the existing information by posting a request for addition/
changes/deletion (archiving) of facility records to the regulated
community. Security issues are being analyzed with the goal of finding
effective ways to ensure the integrity of the information provided via
the World Wide Web.
Electronic submission. For several years, EPA has used and made
available to data submitters specific electronic data transmission
formats that EPA would intend to make available for use as part of this
initiative. Providers of Facility Identification data would be able to
use the electronic data transmission format currently used for other
data collections.
Other methods. In addition to the above data submission/
transmission methods, EPA would accept paper submissions, but would
prefer to receive paper forms by fax, as described in item
[[Page 52599]]
above. Other magnetic media submission methods used traditionally,
such as floppy disk, are being considered. However, floppy disks may
not be efficient for the submission of a small set of facility
information in the case of a reporting rule (i.e. a large number of
facilities reporting a small amount of data to EPA or the State).
Also, under consideration is submission via commercial online
services and electronic mail.
EPA would be interested in receiving comments from States and
potential data submitters regarding the most technically feasible and
cost effective methods of electronic data transmission for them.
E. Confidential Business Information and Trade Secrets
The type of information under consideration in the Facility
Identification Initiative is very general in nature. As currently
envisioned, this information would be maintained and/or submitted
separately from the substantive data reported under existing rules.
Only publicly-accessible data would be included. Given the general
nature of the facility identification information and its submission
independent of other substantive data, the Agency believes that it is
unlikely that facility identification information would qualify for
protection as either confidential business information (CBI) or a trade
secret.
Although the information being contemplated would not give rise to
a CBI claim, and the rule would preclude claims for facility identifier
information standing alone, all existing statutory and regulatory
protection for CBI and trade secrets would remain intact, should there
be a Facility Identification rule. Claims applicable to the link
between facility identifier information and other reported information
would continue to be asserted and maintained in accordance with the
statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to the underlying data
collections. Information would continue to be protected in the
underlying collections, as appropriate.
EPA takes seriously the obligation to protect CBI and will ensure
the continued protection of CBI regardless of the method of developing
Facility Identification records. EPA is mindful that safeguards are
necessary to ensure that CBI submitted under current rules is not
inadvertently made available through a facility identification data
profile.
EPA is interested in receiving comments on any CBI-related issues
that should be considered under the Facility Identification Initiative.
IV. Questions To Consider
This Unit summarizes a number of questions that the reader should
consider when developing comments on this Notice.
(1) Is integrated facility data useful and necessary? Should EPA
maintain a national data base of all (or some segment of) regulated
facilities in order to fulfill its mission and to allow the public and
others access to this information?
(2) What are the specific uses of integrated facility
identification data?
(3) Who are the customers for such data and how can they use this
data to improve environmental protection?
(4) Is there a benefit to having a national set of data or would
access to state collections suffice?
(5) Would a national standard for facility identification,
including a commonly applied definition of ``facility'', be a useful
first step to integrating facility data across media programs?
(6) How should ``facility'' be defined for purposes of such data
consolidation?
(7) Is there a better or more comprehensive term to use for the
purposes of facility-specific data collection than ``facility.''
(8) From which existing Federal environmental reporting
requirements should facility data be consolidated? Should priorities be
set regarding which Federally regulated facilities to cover?
(9) Should the Initiative be limited to facilities reporting under
Federal authority only or should a Facility Identification data base
include other facilities (e.g. those that only report to a State)?
(10) What data elements would form the optimum consolidated
facility identification record?
(11) What methods of electronic data transmission/submission should
EPA develop and support?
(12) Are there any CBI issues associated with developing and
maintaining a Facility Identification data base?
(13) This Notice outlines a number of possible alternatives for
implementing the Facility Identification Initiative. What other
approaches should be considered? How would such approaches support the
goals of a Facility Identification Initiative?
(14) If a reporting requirement were developed, who should collect
the data and who should maintain it -- EPA, the States, both?
(15) What reporting provisions or techniques of reporting would
minimize the costs of reporting and maintain current data?
(16) Are there non-national alternatives to providing integrated
data to the public? In other words, does facility-specific
environmental protection require the collection and maintenance of a
national data base? Are there needs for national data analyses (in
addition to facility-specific analyses) that would warrant such a
national data base?
(17) Presuming a system of national data integration is advisable,
how best can EPA work with the States to develop such a system?
(18) EPA realizes that there will be impacts to States because of
the Facility Identification Initiative. What are potential problems and
burdens that States may face under each of the various alternatives to
implementing the Facility Identification Initiative?
(19) EPA is aware that a number of States are in the process of
implementing programs much like the Facility Identification Initiative.
What specific programs have States implemented and what progress has
been achieved?
V. Request for Public Comment
EPA requests public comment on all the issues outlined in this
Notice regarding the consolidated reporting of facility identification
information. Comments should be submitted to the address listed under
the ADDRESSES unit. All comments must be received by EPA on or before
December 23, 1996.
VI. Public Participation
This Notice reflects input received early in the process from
various environmental and industrial interest groups, and States. For
example, EPA held ``stakeholders'' meetings on the project on June 23,
1995, in which the project's concepts to date were outlined and oral
comments were received. Copies of materials made available at that
meeting and a summary of comments is available in the public record for
this Notice.
In addition, the Agency entered into a cooperative agreement with
the National Governors' Association (NGA). The purpose of the
cooperative agreement was to provide a forum for States to exchange
information about their respective uniform reporting efforts, to learn
about the Agency's Facility Identification Initiative, and to share
their experiences with EPA. The forum, consisting of 12 State
representatives selected by NGA officials, has held a number of
meetings to discuss the Facility Identification Initiative concepts.
The individual meeting summaries will also be made part of the public
record for this Notice.
[[Page 52600]]
EPA intends to hold one or more public meetings in connection with
this Notice. Separate notice of such meeting or meetings will be
published in the Federal Register.
VII. Public Record
A record has been established for this Notice under docket number
OPPTS-00186 (including comments and data submitted electronically as
described below). A public version of this record, including printed,
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any
information claimed as CBI or trade secret, is available for inspection
from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The public record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information
Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of any special characters and any form of encryption. The official
record for this Notice, as described above will be kept in paper form.
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically
into printed, paper form as they are received and will place the paper
copies in the official record for this Notice which will also include
all comments submitted directly in writing. The official public record
is the paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the
beginning of this document.
VIII. References
(1) ``Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and
the Environment: Recommendations for Comprehensive Information
Resources Management'' issued by the Information Resources Management
Strategic Planning Task Force, a subcommittee of the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), August 1994,
EPA 270-K-94-002.
(2) EPA 2100 Information Resources Management Policy Manual,
Chapter 13 - Locational Data, April 8, 1991.
List of Subjects
Environmental protection.
Dated: September 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-25378 Filed 10-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}