Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Forms Modification Rule

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: January 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 6)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 1674-1686]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10ja05-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[TRI-2004-0001; FRL-7532-3]
RIN 2025-AA15

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposes to revise certain requirements

[[Page 1675]]

for the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory. The purpose of these
revisions is to reduce reporting burden associated with the Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Reporting requirements without compromising
the usefulness of the information to the public. This proposal is one
of several efforts being undertaken by EPA to reduce the reporting
burden associated with the Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
program. It is not anticipated to impact any protections for human
health and the environment. The Agency will continue to provide
valuable information to the public pursuant to EPCRA section 313 and
the Pollution Prevention Act regarding toxic chemical releases and
other waste management activities.
If adopted, today's proposed action would simplify a number of TRI
reporting requirements; remove some data elements from the Form R and
Form A Certification Statement (hereafter referred to as Form A) that
can be obtained from other EPA information collection databases, or are
rarely used, and update the regulations to provide corrected contact
information and descriptions of the Forms R and A data elements. EPA
expects these proposed changes to improve TRI reporting efficiency and
effectiveness, as well as reduce reporting burden.

DATES: Comments, identified by the Docket ID No. TRI-2004-0001, must be
received on or before March 11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. TRI-2004-
0001, by one of the following methods:
1. Agency Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA's
electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
3. E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov.
4. Fax Number: 202-566-0741.
5. Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. TRI-2004-0001.
6. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, telephone: 202-566-
1744, Attention Docket ID No. TRI-2004-0001. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. TRI-2004-0001.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the federal regulations.gov Web sites are
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. TRI-2004-0001. The public docket contains
information considered by EPA in developing this proposed rule,
including the documents listed below, which are electronically or
physically located in the docket. In addition, interested parties
should consult documents that are referenced in the documents that EPA
has placed in the docket, regardless of whether these referenced
documents are electronically or physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating documents that are referenced in documents that
EPA has placed in the docket, but that are not electronically or
physically located in the docket, please consult the person listed in
the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. All documents in
the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at: http://www.epa.gov/
edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in EDOCKET, or in hard copy at the OEI
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone
number for the OEI Docket is 202-566-1752.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelley Fudge, Toxics Release
Inventory Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access
(2844T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-0674; fax number: 202-
566-0741; e-mail: fudge.shelley@epa.gov, for specific information on
this proposed rule, or for more information on EPCRA section 313, the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-424-9346, in Virginia and
Alaska: 703-412-9810 or Toll free TDD: 1-800-553-7672.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

A. Does This Document Apply to Me?

This document applies to facilities that submit annual reports
under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA). It specifically applies to those who submit the TRI Form R
or Form A Certification Statement. (See http://epa.gov/tri/report/
index.htm#forms for detailed information about EPA's TRI reporting
forms.) 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.
This document also is relevant to those who utilize EPA's TRI
information, including State agencies, local governments, communities,
environmental groups and other non-

[[Page 1676]]

governmental organizations, as well as members of the general public.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
2. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
2. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-
mail. Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such
proprietary information directly to the following address only, and not
to the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: OEI Document Control
Officer, Mail Code: 2822T, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460. You may claim information that you submit to EPA
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is CBI). EPA will disclose information
claimed as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth
in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Index

I. What Is EPA's Statutory Authority for Taking These Actions?
II. What Is the Background and Purpose of Today's Proposed Rulemaking?
A. What are the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Requirements
and Who Do They Affect?
B. What Are We Proposing To Reduce Burden Associated With TRI
Reporting Requirements?
C. What Led to the Development of This Proposed Rule?
III. What Reporting Requirement Changes Are Being Proposed?
A. Replacement of Certain Facility Data Reporting Requirements
With Existing EPA Data From the EPA Facility Data Registry (Sections
4.6 and 4.8 through 4.10 of Forms A and R)
B. Removal of Reporting Requirement for Determining the
Percentage of the Total Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Contributed by
Stormwater (Part II, Section 5.3 Column C)
C. Modifications to the Reporting Requirement for On-Site Waste
Treatment Methods and Efficiency (Part II, Section 7)
D. Removal of Reporting Data Field for Optional Submission of
Additional Information (Part II, Section 8.11)
IV. Technical Modifications to 40 CFR 372.85
V. What Are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Associated
With This Action?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Signficantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Environmental Justice

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

This proposed rule is being issued under sections 313(g)(1) and 328
of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(g)(1) and 11048; and section 6607(b) of the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13106. In general, section
313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of PPA require owners and operators of
facilities in specified SIC codes that manufacture, process, or
otherwise use a listed toxic chemical in amounts above specified
threshold levels to report certain facility-specific information about
such chemicals, including the annual releases and other waste
management quantities. Section 313(g)(1) of EPCRA requires EPA to
publish a uniform toxic chemical release form for these reporting
purposes, and it also prescribes, in general terms, the types of
information that must be submitted on the form. In addition, Congress
granted EPA broad rulemaking authority to allow the Agency to fully
implement the statute. EPCRA section 328 authorizes the ``Administrator
[to]
prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this
chapter.'' 42 U.S.C. 11048.

II. What Is the Background and Purpose of Today's Proposed Rulemaking?

A. What Are the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Requirements and Who
Do They Affect?

Pursuant to section 313(a) of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), certain facilities that manufacture,
process, or otherwise use specified toxic chemicals in amounts above
reporting threshold levels must submit annually to EPA and to
designated State officials toxic chemical release forms containing
information specified by EPA. 42 U.S.C. 11023(a). These reports must be
filed by July 1 of each year for the previous calendar year. In
addition, pursuant to section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act
(PPA), facilities reporting under section 313 of EPCRA must also report
pollution prevention and waste management data, including recycling
information, for such chemicals. 42 U.S.C. 13106. These reports are
compiled and stored in EPA's database known as the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI).
Regulations at 40 CFR part 372, subpart B, require facilities that
meet all of the following criteria to report:
? The facility has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents
(i.e., a total of 20,000 hours worked per year or greater; see 40 CFR
372.3); and
? The facility is included in Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Codes 10 (except 1011, 1081, and 1094), 12 (except
1241), 20-39, 4911 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil

[[Page 1677]]

for the purpose of generating electricity for distribution in
commerce), 4931 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for
the purpose of generating electricity for distribution in commerce),
4939 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating electricity for distribution in commerce), 4953
(limited to facilities regulated under RCRA Subtitle C, 42 U.S.C.
section 6921 et seq.), 5169, 5171, and 7389 (limited to facilities
primarily engaged in solvents recovery services on a contract or fee
basis), (or, under Executive Order 13148, federal facilities regardless
of their SIC code); and
? The facility manufactures (defined to include importing),
processes, or otherwise uses any EPCRA section 313 (TRI) chemical in
quantities greater than the established threshold for the specific
chemical in the course of a calendar year.
Facilities that meet the criteria must file a Form R report or in
some cases, may submit a Form A Certification Statement for each listed
toxic chemical for which the criteria are met. As specified in EPCRA
section 313(a), the report for any calendar year must be submitted on
or before July 1 of the following year. For example, reporting year
2003 data should have been postmarked on or before July 1, 2004.
The list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI can be found at 40 CFR
372.65. This list is also published every year as Table II in the
current version of the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms
and Instructions. The current TRI chemical list contains 582
individually listed chemicals and 30 chemical categories.

B. Why Are We Proposing To Reduce Burden Associated With TRI Reporting
Requirements?

``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. That 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.
EPA has made considerable progress in reducing burden associated
with its various information collections through streamlining,
consolidating and harmonizing regulations, guidance and compliance
assistance, and implementing technology-based processes (i.e.,
electronic reporting, cross program data utilization, using geospatial
information to pre-populate data fields). These measures have reduced
the time, cost, and complexity of existing environmental reporting
requirements, while enhancing reporting effectiveness and efficiency.
The purpose of today's action is to propose options for reducing
burden on facilities that submit annual TRI reports without
compromising the data quality of toxic chemical release and other waste
management information. The options described in this proposal provide
several relatively simple options for reducing the time, cost and
complexity of the reporting requirements imposed on facilities. They
are thus expected to result in a modest, but important, amount of cost
and burden savings. Another broader and more complex set of regulatory
burden reduction alternatives is currently being examined by EPA. That
effort, described in more detail below, is expected to provide
additional regulatory relief for TRI reporters.

C. What Led to the Development of This Proposed Rule?

Throughout the history of the TRI Program the Agency has
implemented measures to reduce the TRI reporting burden on the
regulated community. Through a range of compliance assistance
activities, such as the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting
Forms & Instructions (which is published and mailed every year),
industry training workshops, chemical-specific and industry-specific
guidance documents, and the EPCRA Call Center (a call hotline), the
Agency has shown a commitment to enhancing the quality and consistency
of reporting and assisting those facilities that must comply with EPCRA
section 313.
EPA has also done extensive work to make reporting easier for the
TRI reporting community through the development and use of technology
such as EPA's Toxics Release Inventory--Made Easy software, otherwise
known as ``TRI-ME'' (http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/trime/). TRI-ME is
an interactive, intelligent, user-friendly software tool that guides
facilities through the TRI reporting process. By leading prospective
reporters through a series of logically ordered questions, TRI-ME
facilitates the analysis needed to determine if a facility must
complete a Form A or R report for a particular chemical. For those
facilities required to report, the software provides guidance for each
data element on Forms A and R. TRI-ME also has a one-stop guidance
feature, the TRI Assistance Library, that allows keyword searches on
the statutes, regulations, and many EPCRA section 313 guidance
documents. It also offers a ``load feature'' that enables the user to
upload almost all of their prior year data into the current year's
report. Finally, TRI-ME checks the data for common errors and then
prepares the forms to be sent electronically over the Internet via
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). TRI-ME generated reporting forms may
also be submitted offline via magnetic media or on paper. In the spring
of 2003, EPA distributed approximately 25,000 copies of TRI-ME in
preparation for the 2002 reporting year deadline of July 1, 2003.
Approximately 90% of the roughly 84,000 Form Rs filed in 2003 were
prepared using the TRI-ME software.
In 1994, partially in response to petitions received from the U.S.
Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and the American Feed
Industry Association, an EPA rulemaking established the Form A
Certification Statement as an alternative to Form R. This burden-
reducing measure was based on an alternate threshold for quantities
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used by those facilities with
relatively low annual reportable amounts of TRI chemicals. A facility
may use the Form A for toxic chemicals manufactured, processed and
otherwise used below the alternate threshold of one million pounds per
year, if the facility has annual reportable amounts of these toxic
chemicals not exceeding 500 pounds. The annual reportable amount is the
total of the quantity released at the facility, the quantity treated at
the facility, the quantity recovered at the facility as a result of
recycle operations, the quantity combusted for the purpose of energy
recovery at the facility, and the quantity transferred off-site for
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and/or disposal. This combined
total corresponds to the quantity of the toxic chemicals in production-
related waste (i.e., the sum of sections 8.1 through and including
section 8.7 on the Form R).
In an effort to further explore burden reduction opportunities, EPA
conducted a TRI Stakeholder Dialogue between November 2002 and February
2004. The dialogue process focused on identifying improvements to the
TRI reporting process and exploring a number of

[[Page 1678]]

burden reduction options associated with TRI reporting. In total, EPA
received approximately 770 documents as part of this stakeholder
dialogue. Of that, approximately 730 were public comments and the
remaining documents were either duplicates or correspondence
transmitting public comments to the online docket system. The public
comments expressed a range of views, with some supporting burden
reduction and others opposing it. You may view and obtain copies of all
documents submitted to EPA by accessing TRI docket TRI-2003-0001 online
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket or by visiting the EPA docket reading
room in Washington, DC.
As a result of the Stakeholder Dialogue, the Agency believes that
it has identified a number of potential burden reducing options which
will continue to support existing data uses and statutory and
regulatory obligations. These changes fall into two broad categories:
(1) Changes or modifications to the reporting forms and processes
(including modifications to the forms and improvements in the TRI-ME
software) which will streamline reporting without significantly
affecting the information collected; and (2) more substantial changes
that may affect which facilities are required to report and at what
level of detail.
EPA has decided to address the two categories of changes through
separate rulemakings, one of which is today's proposed action. This
proposal focuses on options for streamlining reporting associated with
TRI's Forms A and R. The proposed changes would eliminate some
redundant or seldom-used data elements from these forms, and modify
others that can be shortened, simplified or otherwise improved to
reduce the time and costs required to complete and submit annual TRI
reports. The proposal also contemplates the elimination of reporting
for data elements available through other EPA data sources. EPA is
confident these changes will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness
of the TRI program by reducing reporting requirements, while continuing
to provide communities and other data users with the same level of
chemical release and other waste management information. EPA currently
expects to complete this rulemaking in time for the 2006 reporting year.
This second rulemaking, to be proposed later in 2005, will examine
the potential for more significant reporting modifications with greater
potential impact on reducing reporting burden. The options which may be
considered in that rulemaking include increasing reporting thresholds
for small businesses, or for classes of chemicals or facilities,
expanding eligibility for Form A, introducing a ``no significant
change'' option for chemical reports that have not changed
significantly relative to a baseline reporting year, and expanding the
use of range codes in section 8 of Form R. Because of the greater
complexity and larger impacts potentially associated with this latter
group of changes, additional analysis is needed to more thoroughly
characterize its impact on TRI reporters and data users.

III. What Reporting Requirement Changes Are Being Proposed?

A. Replacement of Certain Facility Data Reporting Requirements With
Existing EPA Data From the EPA Facility Data Registry (Sections 4.6 and
4.8 Through 4.10 of Forms A and R)

1. Overview. Over the last several years, the entire federal
community has been working to establish a common federal-wide
enterprise architecture with one goal: to become a more citizen-centric
government. A broad objective of this effort is to eliminate duplicate
investment in information systems by identifying common business needs
and satisfying these common needs through the implementation of common,
reusable information systems, data, and technology. In the spirit of
this effort, EPA has been working to identify like business needs to
institute a common Environmental and Health Protection Target
Architecture (EHPTA) and develop standard reusable information systems,
data and technology.
Through the EHPTA, EPA determined that there is a recurring need
across EPA's programs and external customers for high quality
information about the location, name and environmental attributes of
each specific facility subject to EPA regulatory or reporting
requirements. EPA established a centrally managed Facility Registry
System (FRS) as a component of the EHPTA. The FRS will become the
authoritative source of all facility information used by EPA in its
public access transactions. EPA proposes to remove the reporting
requirement for facility data (latitude/longitude coordinates, permit
and environmental program identification numbers other than the TRI
facility identification number) from the TRI forms. Instead, the EPA
database, FRS, would be used to populate the TRI data base with this
information. EPA believes this change will improve the management of
environmental information and increase the quality of the data. It will
also reduce burden on EPA and its partners through the elimination of
redundant data collection and duplicate maintenance of facility level
information across EPA systems.
2. What is the FRS? The FRS is a centrally managed database
developed by EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) that
provides Internet access to a single source of comprehensive
information about facilities that are subject to environmental
regulations and/or have attributes that are of environmental interest
to EPA.
The FRS database currently contains over 1.5 million unique
facility records, and new facilities are continuously being added to
the system, either through information supplied by EPA programs or
through our State partners on the Exchange Network. At this time
facility data are exchanged with over three dozen States through the
National Environmental Information Exchange Network. FRS also receives
correction and verification information from the reporting community
through Web-based access, and through EPA database systems maintained
by over a dozen EPA media programs. These EPA databases include, but
are not limited to:
? Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)--years 1988-2003,
? Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Information System,
? Risk Management Plans (RMPs),
? Permit Compliance System (PCS) majors and minors,
? Aerometric Information Retrieval System/AIRS Facility
Subsystem (AIRS/AFS), and
? Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS).
The FRS responds to the increasing demand for access to high
quality information and the public need for one source of comprehensive
environmental information about a given place. Agency databases, such
as Envirofacts, the Window to My Environment EnviroMapper and
Environmental Compliance History Online (ECHO) rely on the FRS for
comprehensive and up-to-date facility information through web services.
3. Removal of Latitude/Longitude Reporting Requirement (Section 4.6
of Forms A and R). Geospatial data in the form of address information,
latitude and longitude values, geospatial metadata and other coordinate
information provide EPA with the capacity to spatially locate, identify
and assess aspects of the environment critical to program operations
and regulatory oversight. Locational data are

[[Page 1679]]

more important than ever and directly support Agency program
initiatives, environmental reports and many public access tools such as
Envirofacts and ECHO. To promote and increase the quality of the
geospatial information, the Agency promotes the approach of ``collect
once--use many.'' As a result, the EPA is proposing to populate the TRI
database with latitude and longitude information from the FRS as an
alternative to continuing to request the information from the reporter.
Under this proposal, locational information from FRS would be made
readily available for all TRI reports and applications such as the
publicly accessible TRI Explorer and all Form A or R retrievals from
Envirofacts.
There are several reasons for this proposal. First, the latitude/
longitude coordinates and program identification numbers are reported
through other EPA program systems; therefore, the data provided to TRI
are generally redundant. Second, the accuracy of any latitude/longitude
data are highly dependent on the method used to collect the
coordinates, and understanding the accuracy limitations are important
to data users in determining whether or not an information source can
be used for a particular type of analysis or application. Since there
are no fields for reporting the method used to determine accuracy on
the current TRI forms, the accuracy of the latitude/longitude data
collected through TRI is not known. Consequently, even in those cases
where data in the TRI data base may be of higher quality than those in
FRS, it is impossible to verify this fact.
FRS, on the other hand, maintains locational data in its Locational
Reference Tables (LRT) in the database. These tables serve as a
repository for locational information collected from the program system
databases and Regional Data Stewards databases, as well as from
locational data values supplied by States. The information in these
locational tables include geographic attributes (e.g., state, county,
ZIP, etc.), coordinate data (latitude and longitude values), and the
method, accuracy and description (MAD) qualifiers (Source Map Scale
Number, Horizontal Accuracy Measure, Horizontal Collection Method Text,
Vertical Measure, Reference Point, Horizontal Reference Datum Name, and
Geometric Type Name) for the latitude and longitude values collected or
derived when possible. This is a much more comprehensive documentation
of the latitude and longitude data for a facility location than what is
currently collected from the TRI reporters.
Because FRS collects data from a number of Agency systems and these
systems may reference different points within a given facility due to
different statutory obligations that govern EPA programs (e.g., a stack
versus a water treatment discharge point), there sometimes are more
than one locational set of latitude and longitude values for a given
facility. In these cases, EPA uses an algorithm that picks the best
documented locational value for a facility, site or place. This
selected locational value is termed the best point location for a
facility and the algorithm is called the Best Pick Process. It is
described more thoroughly on the Agency Web site: (http://www.epa.gov/
enviro/html/locational/lrt/pick_best.html). EPA is continually
examining the collection, database modeling and Best Pick Process to
enhance the accuracy of the location values selected for use by
geospatial applications used by the Agency and offered to the public
and other stakeholders. Locational information will be readily
available for all TRI reports and applications including: TRI Explorer
or Form A or R retrievals from Envirofacts.
Another advantage of utilizing information in the FRS is that TRI
reporters can take advantage of EPA's Public Internet site that enables
the public to submit corrections to EPA's data on regulated facilities
through one central access point. The submission process is known as
the Integrated Error Correction Process (IECP) because it unifies the
process by which EPA regulatory programs manage corrections to the data
in their systems. IECP is part of an ongoing EPA effort to improve the
quality of EPA's publicly available data. Through the IECP, the public
can directly notify EPA of a data error they've identified in EPA's
publicly available data. They may notify EPA through a variety of
venues that include: Selecting the ``Contact Us'' hotlink from the EPA
Home Page and accessing the link ``report data errors''; by calling the
IECP desk; sending a fax; or by e-mailing a detailed description of the
error. Once the error report is generated, it is routed within EPA to
the appropriate program official, who may be either within the federal
EPA or a state environmental agency that has been authorized to manage
an EPA program. The official has the authority to make appropriate
corrections to the program database. The error routing process usually
takes place in two to four business days, and depending on the error,
corrections are usually reflected in a few weeks. Last year the IECP
handled over 8,000 error notifications and continues to operate as a
simple, effective way of resolving errors in EPA's databases.
In addition to the IECP's continuous process of improving
locational information in the FRS, EPA has recently launched a long
term strategic effort to enhance the quality of the locational data.
The Locational Data Improvement Strategy consists of four major goals:
(1) Improve the quality of data in FRS, (2) improve the locational data
that is being sent to EPA, (3) improve the technical infrastructure for
managing locational data, and (4) develop and maintain locational data
policies, plans and procedures. To meet these goals, EPA is launching a
series of discrete projects that both leverage existing EPA
capabilities and adopt new approaches. Work under each of the four
goals began in 2004 and it is anticipated that many of the significant
technical, policy, and data enhancements to FRS will begin to be phased
in during the latter part of calendar year 2005. It is believed that
these changes will further enhance the quality and completeness of FRS
information relative to that which could be separately collected under
the TRI forms.
Three potential concerns were raised in the public comments with
respect to the use of FRS for locational references under the TRI
program. The first is how to address existing facilities which do not
have locational information other than that obtained through TRI. In
this case EPA proposes to continue to use existing historical TRI data
until such time as data are available in FRS.
The second potential issue is how to address new facilities. In
these cases, one of the first steps for the new reporter is to call the
TRI Call Center to obtain a TRI ID number to report on their Form A or
R. At this time, the Call Center would obtain the facility address and
send this information to the FRS management group at EPA. This group
would use the FRS locational reference tools to create latitude and
longitude data for the facility. The previously discussed IECP would
provide a mechanism for validation of this value.
The third potential concern relates to the fact that locational
information on a facility is currently only accessible from FRS through
EPA's publically accessible Envirofacts Web site: http://www.epa.gov/
enviro/frs. This poses a concern for many data users who rely on TRI
Explorer for reviewing release information on sources. This problem
will eventually be addressed by a TRI Explorer re-engineering effort
presently underway. If the re-engineering is not

[[Page 1680]]

completed prior to the removal of latitude and longitude information
from the TRI forms, EPA will implement an interim provision to ensure
uninterrupted access to locational information for TRI facilities.
Under the proposed approach, facility locational data would still
be made available for all reporters and data users, but instead of
requiring facilities to determine their geographic coordinates, EPA
would extract the data from information that is already collected,
stored and maintained in its centrally managed database, the FRS.
Comment is specifically sought on barriers or concerns with the removal
of latitude and longitude fields from the Forms A and R, and the
Agency's plan for implementing this change.
4. Removal of Reporting Requirements for EPA Permit and Program
Identification Numbers (Sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of Forms A and R).
The EPA is proposing to automatically populate the TRI database with
EPA program identification numbers from FRS as an alternative to
requesting the information from TRI reporters. The identification
numbers include the numbers assigned to facilities under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the permit identification numbers
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and
permit numbers issued by EPA or a state to facilities with underground
injection wells. The 1988 rule in which the original Form R was
published stated that ``EPA requires the listing of specific permit
numbers in the facility identification part of the form. EPA believes
that these permit numbers provide a useful link between the release
information and any relevant permit data.'' 53 FR 4513 (Feb. 16, 1988).
Instead, the FRS would be used to supply the information removed
from the TRI Form R to stakeholders who need this information. FRS
provides the integration of all environmental program activities at a
given place by linking all program identification numbers to the FRS
record. The FRS contains accurate and authoritative facility
identification records which are subjected to rigorous verification and
data management quality assurance procedures. FRS records are
continuously reviewed and enhanced by a Regional Data Steward network
and active State partners. The facility records are based on
information from EPA's national program systems and State master
facility records and enhanced by other Web information sources. For all
of these reasons, leveraging FRS as the authoritative source for
facility information presents a better alternative for collecting
program identification numbers and providing them to the public.
As with latitude and longitude information, one potential concern
is that there be no lapse in information availability with respect to
facility identification under various programs. This concern is an
especially important one since major data uses include cross
comparisons with other program reports. The Agency is fully aware and
sensitive to this concern and will work to ensure that there is no
lapse in public availability of facility identification records. Cross
comparisons between TRI and FRS records will be made to validate
coverage before these sections are removed from Forms A and R. Comment
is specifically requested on the elimination of individual EPA program
identification number reporting requirements from the TRI forms, as
well as the timing of implementation.

B. Removal of Reporting Requirement for Determining the Percentage of
the Total Quantity of Toxic Chemicals Contributed by Stormwater (Part
II, Section 5.3 Column C)

EPA is proposing to remove part II, section 5.3 column C from
reporting Form R. This data element applies to discharges to receiving
streams and water bodies. It requires facilities that have monitoring
data regarding the amount of EPCRA section 313 chemicals that are
released in stormwater runoff to indicate the percentage of the total
quantity of the EPCRA section 313 chemicals that are discharged in
stormwater. The rest of section 5.3 is unaffected by this proposal.
When Form R was first created, the Agency had issued few NPDES
permits that regulated stormwater and those were generally only for
very significant contributors of contaminated stormwater. Significant
industrial stormwater dischargers typically had one NPDES permit that
regulated both storm and process waters. The Form R provided valuable
information on the stormwater system. Now, approximately 100,000
industrial facilities have stormwater permits, with half or so required
to monitor and report pollutant-specific data. As such, EPA and
authorized states (i.e., authorized to issue NPDES permits) now gather
stormwater specific monitoring data that was not being collected in 1987.
EPA's stormwater permitting requirements will not be affected by
removing section 5.3 column C from Form R. While the Agency's
industrial stormwater permits originally included special
considerations for any chemicals that were ``water priority chemicals''
and were also reported on Form R, the ``water priority chemicals''
language is no longer used. There is no longer any connection between
the EPA stormwater permit program and the TRI reporting requirements.
Rather, the Agency's industrial stormwater permits require that all
pollutants be considered.
EPA believes any current uses of these data may be supported by
data derivable from other sources. Therefore, EPA is proposing to no
longer collect the information. We are seeking comment on the potential
deletion of this element and specifically on whether anyone uses the
information in section 5.3 column C.

C. Modifications to the Reporting Requirement for On-Site Waste
Treatment Methods and Efficiency (Part II, Section 7)

The Agency is proposing to make five modifications to part II,
section 7 of the Form R. As part of the TRI Stakeholder Dialogue, EPA
received several comments regarding potential changes to this section.
Comments ranged from clarifying the reporting requirements of part II,
section 7 to eliminating the section all together. One commenter stated
that EPA should eliminate all data elements in section 7A that,
according to the commenter, are not required by statute. This commenter
believes that the data collected in section 7A is not being used in any
meaningful way by the TRI community and therefore this section imposes
an unnecessary burden on reporting facilities. Another commenter
suggested that EPA modify the Form R, including part II, section 7, to
reflect the operation of the electric utility industry as this would
reduce burden for that industry. Specifically, it proposed that the
Agency simplify or eliminate section 7A and eliminate sections 7B and 7C.
Section 313(g)(1)(C)(iii) of EPCRA states that facilities must
report ``for each wastestream, the waste treatment or disposal methods
employed, and an estimate of the treatment efficiency typically
achieved.'' 42 U.S.C. 11023(g)(1)(C)(iii). Data elements collecting
waste treatment information and related details, such as whether the
efficiency estimate was based on operating data, were implemented
through a 1988 rule. 53 FR 4516-18 (Feb. 16, 1988). Section 6607(b)(2)
of the PPA states facilities must report ``the amount of the chemical *
* * which is recycled * * * and the process of recycling used.'' 42
U.S.C. 13106(b)(2). Facilities fulfill these obligations, in part, by
reporting qualitative information regarding their on-site waste
treatment and recycling of EPCRA

[[Page 1681]]

section 313 chemicals in part II, section 7 of the Form R.
The Agency has not been able to verify that all of the information
in section 7 is routinely used and, therefore, is proposing to modify
or eliminate some parts of section 7. The Agency believes that
simplifying this section will result in reduced reporting burden for
those facilities required to complete this portion of the form.
1. Part II, Section 7A--On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and
Efficiency (Column B--Waste Treatment Method(s) Sequence). The Agency
proposes to simplify column B of section 7A--Waste Treatment Method(s)
Sequence, by reducing the number of codes available for reporting.
Currently there are 64 codes that can be reported in column B to
describe the various waste treatment methods applied to EPCRA section
313 chemicals treated on-site. The Agency is proposing to replace these
codes with the newly-revised list of 18 hazardous waste treatment codes
(H040-129) currently used in EPA's biennial Hazardous Waste Report,
also known as the EPA Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)
Biennial Report. See page 63 of the 2003 Hazardous Waste Report
Instructions and Forms (booklet) [EPA Form 8700-13 A/B; 11/2000]
available
at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/03report.pdf.
EPA believes that decreasing the number of codes in section 7A,
column B will reduce reporting burden and improve EPA's data collection
and dissemination. First, facilities will have fewer codes to consider
when reporting in this section. Second, under this proposed option, the
same codes will be used for both the RCRA hazardous waste and TRI
reporting programs, providing consistency between two EPA reporting
systems regarding waste treatment methods data. Eighty percent of TRI
reporters report a RCRA identification number on Form R, part I,
section 4.8. The majority of facilities with an assigned RCRA
identification number also file a RCRA Biennial Report. These
facilities should already be familiar with the RCRA Biennial Report codes.
The RCRA hazardous waste treatment codes represent a minimal set of
meaningful codes at a sufficient level of technological differentiation
to support EPA's current and future hazardous waste rulemakings,
regulatory monitoring and enforcement activities, thus fulfilling one
of the purposes of data collection under EPCRA, ``to aid in the
development of appropriate regulations, guidelines, and standards.'' 42
U.S.C. 11023(h). During a previous burden reduction effort, EPA reduced
the original set of RCRA Biennial Report waste treatment codes used
over prior data years (before 2001), from 65 codes to the current 18 codes.
The current waste treatment codes are listed in section 7A, column
B of Form R:
Air Emissions Treatment (applicable to gaseous waste streams only)
A01 Flare
A02 Condenser
A03 Scrubber
A04 Absorber
A05 Electrostatic Precipitator
A06 Mechanical Separation
A07 Other Air Emission Treatment
Biological Treatment:
B11 Aerobic
B21 Anaerobic
B31 Facultative
B99 Other Biological Treatment
Chemical Treatment:
C01 Chemical Precipitation--Lime or Sodium Hydroxide
C02 Chemical Precipitation--Sulfide
C09 Chemical Precipitation--Other
C11 Neutralization
C21 Chromium Reduction
C31 Complexed Metals Treatment (other than pH adjustment)
C41 Cyanide Oxidation--Alkaline Chlorination
C42 Cyanide Oxidation--Electrochemical
C43 Cyanide Oxidation--Other
C44 General Oxidation (including Disinfection)--Chlorination
C45 General Oxidation (including Disinfection)--Ozonation
C46 General Oxidation (including Disinfection)--Other
C99 Other Chemical Treatment
Incineration/Thermal Treatment
F01 Liquid Injection
F11 Rotary Kiln with Liquid Injection Unit
F19 Other Rotary Kiln
F31 Two Stage
F41 Fixed Hearth
F42 Multiple Hearth
F51 Fluidized Bed
F61 Infra-Red
F71 Fume/Vapor
F81 Pyrolytic Destructor
F82 Wet Air Oxidation
F83 Thermal Drying/Dewatering
F99 Other Incineration/Thermal Treatment
Physical Treatment
P01 Equalization
P09 Other Blending
P11 Settling/Clarification
P12 Filtration
P13 Sludge Dewatering (non-thermal)
P14 Air Flotation
P15 Oil Skimming
P16 Emulsion Breaking--Thermal
P17 Emulsion Breaking--Chemical
P18 Emulsion Breaking--Other
P19 Other Liquid Phase Separation
P21 Adsorption--Carbon
P22 Adsorption--Ion Exchange (other than for recovery/reuse)
P23 Adsorption--Resin
P29 Adsorption--Other
P31 Reverse Osmosis (other than for recovery/reuse)
P41 Stripping--Air
P42 Stripping--Steam
P49 Stripping--Other
P51 Acid Leaching (other than for recovery/reuse)
P61 Solvent Extraction (other than recovery/reuse)
P99 Other Physical Treatment
Solidification/Stabilization
G01 Cement Processes (including silicates)
G09 Other Pozzolonic Processes (including silicates)
G11 Asphaltic Techniques
G99 Other Solidification Processes

The Agency proposes to replace these codes with the following RCRA
H treatment codes:

H040 Incineration--thermal destruction other than use as a fuel
H071 Chemical reduction with or without precipitation
H073 Cyanide destruction with or without precipitation
H075 Chemical oxidation
H076 Wet air oxidation
H077 Other chemical precipitation with or without pre-treatment
H081 Biological treatment with or without precipitation
H082 Adsorption as the major component of treatment
H101 Sludge treatment and/or dewatering
H103 Absorption
H111 Stabilization or chemical fixation prior to disposal at another site
H112 Macro-encapsulation prior to disposal at another site
H121 Neutralization only
H122 Evaporation
H123 Settling or clarification
H124 Phase separation
H129 Other treatment

EPA requests comments on whether reducing the number of codes used
in section 7A, column B will affect the quality of TRI data, especially
with respect to the use of those data.
2. Part II, Section 7A--On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and
Efficiency (Column C--Range of Influent

[[Page 1682]]

Concentration). To help simplify reporting in section 7A of the Form R,
EPA is proposing to eliminate section 7A, column C--Range of Influent
Concentration. Currently, completion of column C requires facilities to
enter a numerical code indicating the concentration range of the EPCRA
section 313 chemical as it enters the treatment step. The following
range codes are currently used for reporting in column C:

1 = Greater than 10,000 parts per million (1%)
2 = 100 parts per million (0.01%) to 10,000 parts per million (1%)
3 = 1 part per million (0.0001%) to 100 parts per million (0.01%)
4 = 1 part per billion to 1 part per million
5 = Less than 1 part per billion

Column C was implemented in the 1988 rule in which EPA initially
published the Form R. 53 FR 4518. During the development of the 1988
rule, EPA believed that concentration information would assist users in
determining whether effective treatment methods may be available for
wastes containing different amounts of a given chemical because the
effectiveness of most treatment methods is concentration-dependent. See
Proposed Rule, 52 FR 21152, 21163 (June 4, 1987). Further, an
indication of influent concentration would aid in the evaluation of
treatment methods across industries and therefore put the data into
better perspective. 53 FR 4518. Contrary to the intended use of
information from section 7, column C, EPA does not believe that this
information is widely used by States and the public. Consequently, the
Agency is proposing to stop collection of the data currently reported
in this column.
The second option that EPA is considering in this proposal is to
make reporting under section 7A, column C optional. Under this option,
facilities would have a choice as to whether to report the influent
concentration range of the EPCRA section 313 chemical.
EPA requests comments on how the proposed removal of column C of
section 7A could affect the use of TRI data in general, and in
particular, how it could affect the use of information reported in
column D of section 7A. EPA also requests comments on whether many
facilities could be expected to continue to report data in column C if
such reporting was deemed to be optional.
3. Part II, Section 7A--On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and
Efficiency (Column D--Waste Treatment Efficiency Estimate). In this
section, facilities enter the number indicating the percentage of the
EPCRA section 313 chemical removed from the waste stream. The waste
treatment efficiency (expressed as a percentage) represents the
percentage of the TRI chemical destroyed or removed (based on amount or
mass).
Under EPCRA section 313(g)(1)(C)(iii), facilities are required to
submit an estimate of the treatment efficiency typically achieved by
the waste treatment or disposal methods employed for each waste stream.
Currently facilities must enter an exact percentage in this column of
the form. EPA is proposing to allow facilities to report their
treatment efficiency as a range instead of an exact percentage. The
Agency is thus proposing to use the following ranges in column D:

E1 = greater than 99.9%
E2 = greater than 95% to 99.9%
E3 = greater than 90% to 95%
E4 = greater than 75% to 90%
E5 = greater than 30% to 75%
E6 = 0% to 30%

The proposed set of range codes were developed by analyzing a
subset of treatment efficiencies reported in RY 2002. Most of the
efficiencies were between 90% and 100%. The range codes reflect this
reporting trend by grouping three of the codes between 90% and 100%
while the other three codes represent larger ranges between 0% and 90%.
The Agency is seeking comment on whether replacing an exact
percentage estimate with these proposed ranges will make it easier for
facilities to complete section 7A, column D. We are also seeking
comment on how the use of range codes for treatment efficiency will
affect the utility of the data. EPA also requests comment on the
specific set of range codes proposed.
4. Part II, Section 7A--On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and
Efficiency (Column E-Based on Operating Data). This column of section
7A requires facilities to indicate ``Yes'' or ``No'' as to whether the
waste treatment efficiency reported in section 7A, column D is based on
actual operating data such as the case where a facility monitors the
influent and effluent wastes from this treatment step. When this data
element was first implemented, EPA believed that this information would
be valuable to users because it would indicate the relative quality and
reliability of the efficiency estimate figure (see 52 FR 21152, 21163).
If the change mentioned in section C(3) above is made, however,
treatment efficacy data will only be represented by a range. Under such
conditions, the significance of the method of range determination could
be less meaningful. Furthermore, EPA is unaware of any significant use
of this data under the present form where specific treatment efficiency
is specified. EPA thus proposes to remove column E of section 7A from
Form R. We request comments on how removal of this data field could
affect the usefulness of TRI data.
5. Part II, Section 7C--On-Site Recycling Processes. In this
section, facilities that conduct on-site recycling use the sixteen
codes below to report the particular recycling methods applied to the
EPCRA section 313 chemical being recycled. For each Form R filed,
facilities may report up to ten R codes, as appropriate. Following are
the currently-used codes:

R11 Solvents/Organics Recovery--Batch Still Distillation
R12 Solvents/Organics Recovery--Thin-Film Evaporation
R13 Solvents/Organics Recovery--Fractionation
R14 Solvents/Organics Recovery--Solvent Extraction
R19 Solvents/Organics Recovery--Other
R21 Metals Recovery--Electrolytic
R22 Metals Recovery--Ion Exchange
R23 Metals Recovery--Acid Leaching
R24 Metals Recovery--Reverse Osmosis
R26 Metals Recovery--Solvent Extraction
R27 Metals Recovery--High Temperature
R28 Metals Recovery--Retorting
R29 Metals Recovery--Secondary Smelting
R30 Metals Recovery--Other
R40 Acid Regeneration
R99 Other Reuse or Recovery

EPA is proposing to eliminate the current recycling codes and
replace them with the following three reclamation and recovery
management codes used in EPA's biennial Hazardous Waste Report, also
known as the EPA Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) Biennial Report:

H010 Metal recovery (by retorting, smelting, or chemical or physical
extraction)
H020 Solvent recovery (including distillation, evaporation,
fractionation or extraction)
H039 Other recovery or reclamation for reuse (including acid
regeneration or other chemical reaction process)

Similar to the proposed modification to column B of part II,
section 7A, the reporting burden associated with completing section 7C
would be reduced because facilities would have fewer codes to consider.
EPA's data

[[Page 1683]]

collection and dissemination would also be improved by adopting the
same codes for both the RCRA hazardous waste and TRI reporting
programs. Eighty percent of TRI reporters report a RCRA identification
number on Form R, part I, section 4.8. The majority of facilities with
an assigned RCRA identification number also file a RCRA Biennial
Report. These facilities should already be familiar with the RCRA
Biennial Report codes.
For further information about the RCRA reclamation and recovery
management codes, see EPA's RCRA Biennial Report, which can be found
at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/03report.pdf--PDF
screen page 63 of the 80 page report.
EPA requests comment on how the simplification of codes regarding
on-site recycling processes will affect the use of the data. Please
provide, if available, specific examples of how detailed information on
recycling processes is currently used.

D. Removal of Reporting Data Field for Optional Submission of
Additional Information (Part II, Section 8.11)

Section 6607(d) of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) requires that
reporters be provided the opportunity to include ``additional
information regarding source reduction, recycling, and other pollution
control techniques'' with their reporting form. 42 U.S.C. 13106(d).
Currently, EPA requires that facilities answer a ``yes/no'' question to
indicate whether a facility has included such information. Facilities
with such information then attach a physical copy describing their
activity. Because such information is long and in varied forms, it has
not been coded into the TRI database. This lack of coding creates a
large potential burden for users of information seeking to identify
innovative programs or processes. EPA is proposing to make a minor
change to this question to improve public access to such information.
Under this proposal, an optional text box feature would be added to
EPA's TRI-E reporting software to enable reporting facilities to add a
brief description of their applicable source reduction, recycling, and
other pollution control techniques and activities. In addition,
reporters would be provided instructions in EPA's ``Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Reporting Forms'' on how to denote on their Form R
submission that they are providing a brief summary and/or more detailed
information on one of these activities. Form R would be modified to
include a checkbox allowing facilities that provide additional
information to check ``yes'' if they use the text box feature or send
EPA additional information in hardcopy. Facilities that do not wish to
provide additional information would no longer need to check ``no'' in
section 8.11.
With this revision, EPA could make this additional information
available on the Agency's public access Web site for the first time,
through one of EPA's system applications, such as Envirofacts. This
proposed change would provide TRI data users with improved access to
the additional information that facilities submit about their source
reduction, recycling, and other pollution control techniques.
EPA requests comments on whether reporters would utilize a text box
for section 8.11, and whether TRI data users would find increased
access to this additional data useful.

IV. Technical Modifications to 40 CFR 372.85

In addition to the proposals for streamlining the TRI Reporting
Forms explained above, EPA is proposing two technical corrections to 40
CFR 372.85.
Prior to 1991, EPA published the current version of the Form R and
Reporting Instructions in its regulations at 40 CFR 372.85(a). On June
26, 1991, 56 FR 29183, EPA published a final rule that replaced the
full version of the form and instructions in the regulation with a
Notice of Availability of the most current version of the Form R and
Reporting Instructions and an address from which to obtain a copy.
The address for requesting the current version of Form R is
outdated. Moreover, the likelihood exists that the address may change
from time to time in the future because the entity managing Form R
distribution may change. Therefore, EPA is amending 40 CFR 372.85(a) by
giving a reference to the TRI Web site to obtain the Form R instead of
publishing in the regulations an address from which to request copies
of TRI forms. EPA is also providing a phone number from which to
request TRI publications.
The 1991 rule also added a list describing the Form R data elements
at 40 CFR 372.85(b). This list includes Paragraph 18 describing a
pollution prevention data element, which was optional and set to expire
after the 1990 reporting year. After the 1991 rule was finalized, EPA
incorporated mandatory pollution prevention reporting elements pursuant
to the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 57 FR 22330. EPA believes the
presence of the outdated Paragraph 18 element in the regulations is
unnecessary since it has expired. Further, the Agency is concerned that
it may lead to confusion about whether pollution prevention data are
required elements of the Form R. Therefore, EPA proposes to delete 40
CFR 372.85(b)(18) for the purposes of order and clarity. This action
will not affect the reporting obligations found in section 6607 of the
PPA; facilities must continue to report pollution prevention
information as collected in part II, section 8 of the Form R.

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, the Agency must determine
whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject
to formal review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to
the requirements of the Executive Order, which include assessing the
costs and benefits anticipated as a result of the proposed regulatory
action. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that
is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or
tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency
or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined that today's proposed rule is a
significant regulatory action. The Agency therefore submitted this
action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions
or recommendations are documented in the docket to today's proposal.
To estimate the cost savings, incremental costs, economic impacts
and benefits from this rule to affected regulated entities, EPA
completed an economic analysis for this rule. Copies of this analysis
(entitled ``Economic Assessment of the Burden Reduction-Modifications
to Form R-Proposed Rule'') have been placed in the TRI docket for
public review. The Agency solicits comment on the methodology and
results from the analysis as well as

[[Page 1684]]

any data that the public feels would be useful in a revised analysis.
1. Methodology
To estimate the cost savings, incremental costs, economic impacts
and benefits of this rule, the Agency estimated both the cost and
burden of completing the TRI reporting forms, as well as the number of
affected entities. The Agency has used the 2002 reporting year for TRI
data as a basis for these estimates. First, the Agency identified the
number of PBT and non-PBT respondents completing Form R and non-PBT
respondents for Form A (PBT respondents are currently ineligible to use
Form A). Then the Agency determined the unit burden savings and cost
savings per form using an engineering analysis. Burden savings for the
various forms were calculated separately because not all proposed
modifications appear on every form. The total burden and cost savings
associated with the proposed modifications to Forms A and R are the
product of the unit burden and cost savings per form times the number
of forms (Forms A and R) submitted.
2. Cost & Burden Savings Results
Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the number of 2002 first and
subsequent year Forms A and R submissions.

Table 1.--National Burden and Cost Savings for First Year Reporters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden
savings per Total burden Cost saving Total cost
Number of 2002 forms Form type Form R (hours/ savings per Form R savings
% of total) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
458........................... Form R PBT...... 2.23/3.2 1,023 $97.05 $44,449
880........................... Form R non-PBT.. 0.96/1.4 842 40.89 35,979
324........................... Form A non-PBT.. 0.52/1.1 168 21.59 6,994
-----------------
Total..................... ................ .............. 2,033 .............. $87,423
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Preliminary National Burden and Cost Savings for Subsequent Year Reporters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden
savings per Total burden Cost saving Total cost
Number of 2002 forms Form type Form R (hours/ savings per Form R savings
% of total) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15,085........................ Form R PBT...... 1.11/2.4 16,681 $46.99 $708,841
65,006........................ Form R non-PBT.. 0.39/1.5 25,167 15.72 1,021,833
11,594........................ Form A non-PBT.. 0.11/0.6 1,292 3.58 41,543
-----------------
Total..................... ................ .............. 43,140 .............. $1,772,217
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA estimates that the total annual burden savings for this
proposal are 45,000 hours. EPA estimates that the total annual cost
savings for this proposal are $1.85 million. Average annual cost
savings for facilities submitting Form Rs or Form As are between $22
and $97 per form or between $66 and $291 per facility.
3. Impacts on Data
EPA evaluated the potential impacts on data from removing or
simplifying these specific data fields and determined that the risk of
significant data loss is minimal. In the case of some elements (e.g.,
latitude and longitude information), reporting is being discontinued
because information already exists or can be developed from other EPA
data systems. In other cases (e.g., changes in waste management or
recycling reporting codes), streamlining is being proposed to bring
reporting categories in line with existing practices of other Agency
program offices which should ultimately increase the utility of the
information. Range reporting options being considered include intervals
selected to maintain relatively equal population subcategories which
should maintain the utility of the data while minimizing the potential
uncertainty associated with individual values. The Agency has also
conducted outreach to potentially affected stakeholders to solicit any
specific uses of the fields being proposed for removal or
simplification. Based on that outreach, the Agency believes the
potential for significant data loss to the public to be minimal. EPA
solicits comment on whether and how the specific data fields in today's
proposal are used and whether or not alternate sources of the same data
are available.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

We have prepared a document estimating the recordkeeping and
reporting burden savings associated with this rule. We calculate the
reporting and recordkeeping burden reduction for this rule as 45,000
hours and the estimated cost savings as $1.85 million. Burden means
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for
a Federal agency. That 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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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,

[[Page 1685]]

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 small business that has
fewer than either 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the
firm's primary SIC code; (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.
The economic impact analysis conducted for today's proposal
indicates that these revisions would generally result in savings to
affected entities compared to baseline requirements. The rule is not
expected to result in a net cost to any affected entity. Thus, adverse
impacts are not anticipated.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 the proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates''
that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year.
Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The Agency's analysis of compliance with the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that today's proposed rule imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the
private sector. This proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under
the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, EPA has
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule
merely streamlines reporting requirements for an existing program.
Therefore we have determined that today's proposal is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' 64 FR 43255 (August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This
proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.

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

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' 59 FR 22951 (November 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
federal government and Indian tribes. This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks,'' 62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that EPA
determines (1) ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive
Order 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 potential effective and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant
rule as defined by Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be

[[Page 1686]]

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) 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. This rule does not establish
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.

J. Environmental Justice

Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'', EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice
into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing
environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in
environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for
all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure
that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national
origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies,
programs, and activities.
EPA has considered the impacts of this proposed rulemaking on low-
income populations and minority populations and concluded that it will
not cause any adverse effects to these populations. As stated above,
the Agency has determined that the risk of significant data loss is
very low. The data elements proposed for removal or streamlining either
have a low incidence of reporting, have other data source readily
available or do not appear to be used to any significant degree by the
public.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

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

Dated: December 29, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 372 as follows:

PART 372--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11028.

Subpart E--[Amended]

2. Section 372.85 is amended as follows:
i. Revise paragraph (a).
ii. Remove paragraph (b)(6).
iii. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(18) as paragraphs
(b)(6) through (b)(17).
iv. Revise the newly-designated paragraph (b)(6).
v. Revise the newly-designated paragraph (b)(14)(i)(C).
vi. Remove the newly-designated paragraph (b)(16)(iii).
vii. Redesignate the newly-designated paragraphs (b)(16)(iv) and
(v) as paragraphs (b)(16)(iii) and (iv).
viii. Revise the newly-designated paragraph (b)(16)(iii).
ix. Remove the newly-designated paragraph (b)(17).

Sec. 372.85 Toxic chemical release reporting form and instructions.

(a) Availability of reporting form and instructions. The most
current version of Form R may be found on the following EPA Program Web
site, http://www.epa.gov/tri. Any subsequent changes to the Form R will
be posted on this Web site. Submitters may also contact the TRI Program
at (202) 564-9554 to obtain this information.
(b) * * *
(6) Dun and Bradstreet identification number.
* * * * *
(14) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Discharges to receiving streams or water bodies.
* * * * *
(16) * * *
(iii) An estimate of the efficiency of the treatment, which shall
be indicated by a range.
3. Section 372.95 is amended as follows:
i. Remove paragraphs (b)(11), (b)(13), (b)(14) and (b)(15).
ii. Redesignate paragraph (b)(12) as paragraph (b)(11) and
redesignate paragraphs (b)(16) through (b)(17) as paragraphs (b)(12)
through (b)(13).

[FR Doc. 05-430 Filed 1-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Forms Modification Rule

Local Navigation