[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51322-51330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25012]



[[Page 51321]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 372



Addition of Reporting Elements; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; 
Community Right-to-Know; and Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know; Notice of Public Meetings; Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 1, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 51322]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[OPPTS-400106; FRL-5387-6]


Addition of Reporting Elements; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; 
Community Right-to-Know

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).

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

SUMMARY: EPA intends to expand its Community Right-to-Know initiatives 
to increase the information available to the public on chemical use. 
This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is intended to give notice 
of EPA's consideration of this issue and to solicit comments on all 
aspects of chemical use and the collection of chemical use data and is 
an initial step in the regulatory development process. In the context 
of this action, EPA is considering all potential components of 
``chemical use.'' For the purposes of this Notice, the term ``chemical 
use'' refers to the information most commonly described as materials 
accounting data: amounts of a toxic chemical coming into a facility, 
amounts transformed into products and wastes, and the resulting amounts 
leaving the facility site. EPA believes that the collection of 
additional chemical use information beyond that already provided by the 
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data base would provide a more detailed 
and comprehensive picture to the public about environmental performance 
and about toxic chemicals in communities. TRI is the data base in which 
information collected under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution 
Prevention Act (PPA) is made available. EPA is considering expanding 
the type of information contained in this data base. A number of 
important concerns associated with the reporting and interpretation of 
chemical use information have been raised to the Agency, and EPA has 
determined that additional evaluation is needed before EPA can develop 
a proposal. In this ANPR, EPA is (1) Describing the Agency's plans to 
further evaluate these issues; (2) providing preliminary notice of 
additional public meetings; (3) requesting comment and information on 
issues where additional assessment is needed; (4) soliciting actual 
assessments that have been performed on these issues and (5) seeking 
public input concerning development of regulation in this area.

DATES: Written and electronic comments in response to this ANPR must be 
received on or before December 30, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to: OPPT 
Docket Clerk, TSCA Document Receipt Office (7407), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-G099, 401 
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments containing information 
claimed as confidential must be clearly marked as confidential business 
information (CBI). If CBI is claimed, three additional sanitized copies 
must also be submitted. Nonconfidential versions of comments will be 
placed in the record for this action and will be available for public 
inspection. Comments should include the docket control number for this 
ANPR, OPPTS-400106 and the EPA contact. Unit IV. of this document 
contains additional information on submitting comments containing 
information claimed as CBI.
    Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending 
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. 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-400106. No CBI should be submitted through e-mail. 
Electronic comments on this ANPR may be filed online at many Federal 
Depository Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions 
can be found in Unit IV. of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Gillen at 202-260-1801, e-mail: 
[email protected]; or Christine Lottes at 202-260-7258, e-
mail: [email protected] for specific information 
regarding this ANPR. For further information on EPCRA section 313 
contact the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Stop 5101, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Toll free: 1-800-535-0202, in Virginia and 
Alaska: 703-412-9877 or Toll free TDD: 800-553-7672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Background

    EPA considers Right-to-Know to be among its most effective 
strategies for improving environmental performance. Facilities 
currently covered by the TRI have reduced their reported releases of 
toxic chemicals by 44 percent, or 1.6 billion pounds, since 1988. These 
reductions have been attributed to voluntary industry action motivated 
by a number of factors including: (1) The availability of TRI data for 
release and transfers of covered chemicals; (2) public involvement in 
facility and community planning; (3) flexibility in choosing reduction 
methods; and (4) transparency of facility performance. In the Federal 
Register of November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432) (FRL-4922-2), EPA issued a 
final rule that expanded the chemical coverage of TRI to include 286 
additional toxic chemicals; and in the Federal Register of June 27, 
1996 (61 FR 33588) (FRL-5379-3), EPA proposed adding an additional 
seven industrial sectors to TRI. The Agency's commitment to expanding 
the TRI and the Right-to-Know Program is premised on its effectiveness 
as a tool to encourage pollution prevention, improved environmental 
quality, informed public involvement and public awareness of toxic 
chemicals that move to and through their communities.
    The TRI-Phase 3 project builds on two successful strategies: 
Pollution Prevention and Community Right-to-Know. [In this ANPR, the 
title ``TRI-Phase 3'' is used to designate the entire chemical use 
right-to-know project. The ``TRI'' is retained in recognition that the 
project arose out of a TRI background, even though EPA is currently 
considering use of non-TRI statutory authorities.] Pollution prevention 
provides the framework for identifying opportunities to reduce 
pollution at the source through cost effective changes in production, 
operation, and raw materials use. It encourages companies to consider 
opportunities for source reduction as the preferred route to improved 
environmental performance. Community Right-to-Know provides the 
framework for informing and educating citizens so that they can 
participate more effectively in decisions that affect their families 
and communities. Community Right-to-Know is increasingly recognized as 
an essential decisionmaking tool for both the public and industry. 
Public information fosters informed environmental involvement by many 
different segments of society, from citizens and consumers to corporate 
decisionmakers. Expanding public participation motivates improved 
environmental performance, and over the long term promotes the 
integration of environmental goals with economic and social goals. In 
addition to these

[[Page 51323]]

benefits, EPA believes that materials accounting has the potential to 
significantly increase the utility and completeness of data that would 
be available to identify, evaluate, and track toxic chemicals in the 
workplace and community. This is important because it is at the 
community level where environmental problems can first be identified, 
and where the groups with the most at stake can come together to 
develop solutions to best fit local needs.
    EPA believes that publicly available chemical use information shows 
promise for filling a number of data gaps identified by TRI 
stakeholders and that it could link together pollution prevention and 
Community Right-to-Know. Chemical use information could expand the 
public's ability to evaluate a range of national and community level 
environmental issues. Some stakeholders suggest that chemical use data 
may be used to assess the amounts of chemicals flowing into and through 
communities, the overall quantities of toxics going into products, 
worker safety and health issues, and facility pollution prevention 
performance. Chemical use data, in conjunction with existing TRI data, 
could also provide a more comprehensive picture of chemical use at the 
facility level. The more complete the understanding of use and 
wastestreams, the better positioned a facility is to assess process and 
product efficiencies and to modify use, process, or product as 
appropriate. Likewise, the more complete the understanding, the better 
positioned the public is to participate on an equal footing in 
environmental decisionmaking.
    The TRI-Phase 3 project began in 1993, and public meetings were 
held in 1994 and 1995 to receive stakeholder comments. On August 8, 
1995, in a memorandum to the EPA Administrator, President Clinton 
directed EPA to expedite Community Right-to-Know initiatives stating: 
``I am committed to the effective implementation of this law [EPCRA] 
because Community Right-to-Know protections provide a basic 
informational tool to encourage informed community-based environmental 
decisionmaking and provide a strong incentive for businesses to find 
their own ways of preventing pollution.'' The memorandum directed EPA 
to develop and implement ``an expedited, open, and transparent process 
for consideration of reporting under EPCRA on information on the use of 
toxic chemicals at facilities, including information on mass balance, 
materials accounting, or other chemical use data.'' This ANPR is part 
of EPA's response to this directive.

B. Statutory Authority

    EPA has available a number of statutory authorities that would 
allow the Agency to collect chemical use data elements. Because EPA has 
not determined which data elements would constitute a ``chemical use 
data set,'' it is premature to identify which specific authority(ies) 
would be used. Instead, at this time, EPA is considering a variety of 
strategies that could be used, individually or in combination, to 
expand the reporting and public availability of chemical use data. For 
example, the Agency might propose the addition of several data elements 
to expand the TRI reporting requirements established under section 313 
of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 
(EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. section 11023), and statutorily expanded under 
section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C 
section 13106). Alternatively, EPA might consider actions under the 
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), etc. EPA is also reviewing existing use data 
collected under other environmental statutes and by other Federal 
agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and 
the Department of Transportation, and could propose a strategy based on 
improving public access to such data. Improved public access is likely 
to involve some type of linkage with TRI, since it is considered the 
main public source of environmental data.
    EPCRA section 313 requires the owner or operator of a facility at 
which a listed chemical was manufactured, imported, processed or 
otherwise used at levels exceeding the statutory thresholds, to report 
certain information. Among the information required to be reported 
about each toxic chemical is the general category or categories of use, 
an estimated range of the maximum amount present at the facility, and 
the annual quantity entering each environmental medium. Section 328 
grants the Administrator general rulemaking authority to implement 
EPCRA. 42 U.S.C. section 11048.
    Section 6607 of the PPA requires owners and operators of a facility 
who must report under EPCRA section 313, to also report annually to EPA 
certain information on source reduction and recycling. Among the 
information that must be reported is the amount of the chemical 
recycled on or off-site, the quantity of the chemical released into the 
environment, the quantity of the chemical entering any waste stream (or 
otherwise released into the environment) prior to recycling, treatment 
or disposal. Facilities must also report on source reduction practices 
and the techniques used to identify source reduction opportunities.
    Section 8(a) of TSCA provides EPA with authority to require 
manufacturers, importers, and processors of a chemical substance or 
mixture to submit such reports as the Administrator may reasonably 
require. 15 U.S.C. section 2607(a). This section grants EPA broad 
discretion in determining what information must be reported, including: 
categories of use for each chemical substance or mixture; estimates of 
the amount manufactured or processed for each category of use; a 
description of the by-products resulting from manufacture, processing, 
use or disposal of each chemical substance or mixture; and estimates of 
the number of workers exposed and the duration of such exposure.
    EPA is currently developing proposed amendments to the TSCA 
Inventory Update Rule (IUR) (51 FR 21438, June 12, 1986) to require 
submission of information predictive of the potential for chemical 
exposures including data on industrial and consumer uses. These 
amendments of the IUR are referred to as the Chemical Use Inventory. 
EPA intends to use the data collected under the Chemical Use Inventory 
to screen chemical risks and to establish risk assessment and risk 
management priorities.
    While, arguably, some similar information could be collected under 
section 8(a) of TSCA and under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607, 
there are differences in the underlying purposes and available 
authorities that may make it preferable to use multiple authorities to 
accomplish the goal. For example, TSCA section 8(a) covers a larger 
number of chemicals than EPCRA section 313; however, EPCRA section 313 
covers pesticides, whereas TSCA section 8(a) does not. Use of EPCRA 
section 313 raises fewer public access issues, but would not involve 
the statutory small business exclusion included in TSCA section 8(a). A 
further distinction is that TRI includes information from manufacturers 
(including importers), processors and users, whereas TSCA section 8(a) 
is limited to manufacturers, importers, and processors. In considering 
any proposed rule(s) to require chemical use information in furtherance 
of its Community Right-to-Know objectives, EPA is mindful of its 
possibly overlapping authorities and will continue to coordinate its 
efforts to avoid duplicative requirements.

[[Page 51324]]

    In addition to the provisions discussed above, EPA is also 
considering the information collection authority available under all of 
the other statutes it implements, including the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. section 136 et. seq., the 
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. section 1251 et. seq., the Clean Air Act, 42 
U.S.C. section 7401 et. seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act, 42 U.S.C. section 6901 et. seq., and the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 
section 9601 et. seq.
    EPA has received a number of comments challenging EPA's authority 
to collect the kind of information discussed in this ANPR under EPCRA 
or the PPA. EPA believes that it has a broad array of statutory 
authorities available to it to require reporting of data elements 
discussed in this ANPR. EPA is currently examining all of the statutes 
it implements to determine which authorities would be relevant to the 
collection of chemical use data and the goals outlined in this ANPR. 
However, until EPA determines the course of action to follow, any 
discussion of specific statutory authority is premature.

C. Chemical Use and Materials Accounting Concepts and Background

    ``Chemical use'' is a broad information category that includes 
qualitative (e.g., function or end-use), and quantitative (e.g., amount 
or material flow) components. Use data are basic facility management 
information and essential to understanding material use and costs. In 
the TRI-Phase 3 project, EPA is looking at those aspects of use related 
to the amounts of toxic chemicals entering and leaving a facility, 
along with ancillary information connecting worker activity and 
chemical use. The tracking of chemical throughput data is an 
established engineering practice for many processes, currently 
performed at many facilities to develop estimates for TRI reporting and 
to monitor the engineering efficiency of facility processes. ``Mass 
balance'' is the term used to describe the systematic collection and 
evaluation of throughput data. The term reflects the principle that the 
sum of the mass of chemical inputs (into a process or facility) should 
equal the sum of the outputs after all chemical changes and 
accumulations have been accounted for. Closure occurs when inputs and 
outputs match or balance (within the accuracy of the measurements). 
Mass balance is used as a tool for managing chemicals because lack of 
closure may point to the need to examine the system for possible 
losses. Such losses can have important economic and environmental costs 
associated with them. Closure increases confidence that potential 
losses have been identified and accounted for. Mass balance serves a 
function similar to financial accounting, where inputs (income) and 
outputs (expenses) are reconciled on a regular basis as a routine check 
on financial performance.
    Engineering mass balance is the most accurate type of mass balance, 
as it involves actual measurement of process streams. It is useful for 
engineering design of processes. Materials accounting is a more 
approximate method of reporting a mass balance. It relies on routinely 
collected information such as records of incoming shipments of raw 
materials, production records, and product composition data. While it 
is less accurate than engineering mass balance, it nevertheless 
provides useful information and is also less costly to perform. 
Materials accounting has been the main focus of TRI-Phase 3.
    The utility of reporting mass balance information on TRI has been 
debated for over a decade. It was discussed during the negotiations 
that led to the passage of EPCRA in 1986. Proponents of mass balance 
data claimed that it would provide essential reference data underlying 
release estimates, and provide for a ledger check on TRI estimates. As 
such, proponents contend that chemical throughput should itself be 
considered a Right-to-Know issue. Opponents questioned the added value 
provided by materials balance data when compared to the cost, the 
public's need for information beyond release estimates, and the 
potential loss of sensitive or confidential business information.
    Because this issue was unresolved at the time of passage, section 
313(l) of EPCRA directed EPA to arrange for the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) to study this issue further. The resulting report, 
entitled ``Tracking Toxic Substances at Industrial Facilities'' was 
released in 1990. The purpose of the NAS study, as stated in EPCRA 
section 313, was to examine the contribution that mass balance 
information could make to assessing the accuracy of chemical release 
estimates, evaluating waste-reduction efficiency, and providing 
perspective on chemical management practices. The study was 
inconclusive as to a recommendation to pursue or to drop consideration 
of mass balance reporting. The NAS panel did, however, conclude that 
materials accounting data, properly validated and interpreted by 
persons with sufficient technical knowledge, may have better potential 
for achieving the goals for the national uses listed in section 313 
than engineering mass balance data. It went on to state that materials 
accounting data were not precise enough for some purposes such as 
checking on the accuracy of release estimates, but that these data did 
warrant further consideration for looking at other issues such as the 
reasonableness of release estimates, and for providing a better picture 
of waste reduction progress. Finally, the study provided a number of 
recommendations for future studies, many of which are reflected in 
EPA's requests for comment in this ANPR.
    Because the NAS evaluation was completed prior to enactment of PPA, 
it did not evaluate the utility of materials accounting data against 
the current TRI data set. Availability of the Form R section 8 data may 
have allowed for a more definitive NAS conclusion.
    TRI reporting trends clearly indicate that industry has made 
reductions in releases and that industry is moving up the waste 
management hierarchy established by PPA. However, based on 1994 TRI 
data, the overall level of waste generated by industry is not 
declining, thus raising many questions about the extent to which source 
reduction progress is occurring and how it should be measured. The PPA 
charges the Administrator with establishing standard methods for 
measuring source reduction, and EPA believes materials accounting data 
could facilitate the development and implementation of such methods. 
TRI currently provides the public with quantitative data on the methods 
of managing pollutants - recycling, treatment, and release (including 
disposal). It does not provide data on source reduction, even though it 
is the preferred national approach for improving environmental 
performance.
    Two states, New Jersey and Massachusetts, already require materials 
accounting reporting. New Jersey began collection of such data in 1987 
and expanded reporting beginning with the 1993 reporting year. The 
state uses ten data elements to collect information on inputs and 
outputs. Massachusetts began collection of materials accounting data in 
1990 and uses five data elements to collect information on inputs and 
outputs. Each state also collects data on performance measures 
calculated from the materials accounting data. Some groups believe that 
the resulting data have been useful in improving understanding and 
measurement of source reduction progress. In addition, the availability 
of these data have raised awareness about related Right-to-Know issues 
such as the flow of toxics through communities and the potential

[[Page 51325]]

contribution of the product stream to environmental releases and 
wastes. Stakeholders have indicated that information which would allow 
life-cycle analysis of toxic chemicals would be useful in environmental 
planning. Taken together, these developments have sustained general 
interest in chemical use reporting over the years, and influenced EPA 
to pursue additional review of materials accounting.

D. TRI-Phase 3 Origin and Status

    The TRI-Phase 3 project grew out of EPA stakeholder meetings held 
in 1993 to discuss the possible creation of a ``Chemical Use 
Inventory'' (CUI). EPA initiated these discussions based on increasing 
awareness of the potential value of ``use'' data to the Agency for 
chemical screening and priority-setting under TSCA. Environmental and 
public interest stakeholders were also interested in the concept of 
facility-level chemical use data as a fundamental right-to-know issue, 
and recommended that the Agency expand the project to put materials 
accounting data in the public domain. These stakeholders described TRI 
as the most logical place for this data, given its features and 
importance. Industry stakeholders question that there is any 
fundamental right to know about facility-level chemical use data unless 
there is a demonstrated use. EPA created the TRI-Phase 3 project in 
response to this interest and the importance of the underlying issues.
    EPA prepared an initial issues paper (Issues Paper #1 - Ref. 3) and 
held a public meeting in September of 1994 to begin the process of 
exploring chemical use issues. The focus of the meeting was to learn 
more about both stakeholder data needs driving the interest in 
materials accounting and the nature of industry concerns. EPA 
subsequently developed a three-step approach for categorizing and 
evaluating TRI-Phase 3 issues and combined it with preliminary Agency 
findings in a second issues paper released in October of 1995 (Issue 
Paper #2 - Ref. 4). A report was also prepared in response to Executive 
Order 12969 (Report to President Clinton - Expansion of Community 
Right-to-Know Reporting to Include Chemical Use Data: Phase III of the 
Toxics Release Inventory, Ref. 6). The Agency invited additional 
comments in a second public meeting in October of 1995. This meeting 
provided opportunity for more extensive discussion on issues such as 
CBI concerns, and the potential for overlap with existing Agency 
reporting. The Agency has prepared a third issues paper to report back 
to stakeholders on what the Agency heard at the second public meeting, 
and to describe plans for additional evaluation (Ref. 5). The issues 
paper can be obtained from the EPCRA hotline at the numbers listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT unit of this document, or 
electronically via EPA's TRI Homepage at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/
tri.

E. Discussion of Data Elements

    EPA is considering several categories of data elements for 
inclusion in this use information initiative, including elements on 
chemical inputs, outputs, and occupational exposure indicators. By 
input, EPA refers to the amounts of toxic chemicals brought into or 
originating at a facility. By output, EPA refers to the amounts 
produced, transformed into other chemicals, or present in products 
leaving the site. EPA derived preliminary data element options from 
those used in Massachusetts and New Jersey, where materials accounting 
data is reported. Additional options were developed for occupational 
indicator elements. The options, first described in Issues Paper #2 
(Ref. 2), are described below. They are intended to encourage public 
discussion.
Input options
Set A -Starting raw material inventory amount of the substance
    -Amount produced on site
    -Amount brought on site
Set B -Amount manufactured
    -Amount processed
    -Amount otherwise used
Set C -Total input amount

Output options
    -Amount consumed on site
    -Amount shipped off-site as (or in) product
    -Ending raw material inventory amount
    -Amount stored on site as or in product

Occupational exposure indicator options
Set A -Total number of workers at the facility
Set B -Total number of workers at the facility
    -Number of workers potentially exposed to each EPCRA section 313 
listed toxic chemical
Set C -Total number of workers at the facility
    -Number of workers potentially exposed to each EPCRA section 313 
listed toxic chemical
    -Whether exposure assessment was performed for the chemical during 
the year
    -Whether exposure monitoring has ever been performed for the 
chemical

Materials accounting measures
Waste-related source reduction performance measures
    -Amount of wastes prevented by source reduction, in pounds
    -Annual percentage (or index) reduction in total wastes
Normalization refinements
    -Procedure for weighting multiple chemical uses

F. Relationship to Other Agency and Administration Priorities

    EPA has received questions and comments on the value of chemical 
use data to the Agency, and how it might fit with other Agency 
priorities. TRI-Phase 3 is related to a variety of important issues 
that cut across the Agency. EPA's 5-year strategic plan includes 
``Prevention of wastes and harmful chemical releases,'' ``Improved 
understanding of the environment,'' and ``Worker safety'' among its 
national environmental goal areas. ``Pollution prevention'' and 
``Environmental accountability'' are among EPA's guiding principles 
(Ref. 2). EPA's responsibilities under PPA include establishing 
standard methods of measurement of source reduction and facilitating 
the adoption of source reduction techniques by business. The Agency 
recognizes that improving efficiency of material use, for chemicals as 
well as all other raw materials, is an important component of 
sustainable development. The President's Council on Sustainable 
Development recently recommended that the Federal government develop 
indicators of progress toward national sustainable development goals 
and to regularly report on these indicators to the public (Ref. 1).
    EPA's role as a provider of information is central to a strategy 
that promotes, empowers, and broadens activity by others to protect the 
environment. This role must be carefully expanded if EPA is to move 
beyond its traditional role as regulator of first resort. Community 
Right-to-Know is among the most successful alternatives to command and 
control approaches, and EPA believes that it provides an important 
foundation for new alternative performance-based management systems. 
For example, EPA is developing programs to increase community 
participation and partnerships to move environmental decision-making 
closer to the source of problems and solutions. Community access to 
meaningful information is an important ingredient for the success of 
this approach. Agency efforts to encourage more flexible approaches, 
such as the Common Sense Initiative

[[Page 51326]]

and Project XL, also require the right set of information to measure 
and understand environmental results. EPA's Common Sense Initiative 
involves multi-stakeholder groups looking for industry-specific 
``cleaner, cheaper, smarter'' approaches to environmental protection, 
and sector groups have discussed the value of materials accounting 
data. EPA's Project XL (for excellence and leadership) is intended to 
encourage innovation and flexibility in meeting higher environmental 
performance standards. Stakeholders in Project XL and CSI have 
indicated that chemical use information would facilitate progress in 
these projects as well. In sum, while the TRI-Phase 3 project involves 
a number of difficult issues, continued development of this chemical 
use project will have benefits across the Agency.

II. Key Issues and Request for Information

    EPA has classified TRI-Phase 3 issues into five major categories 
based on stakeholder comments to date. EPA encourages all interested 
persons to submit comments on these issues, and to identify any other 
relevant issues as well. This input will assist the Agency in 
developing a proposed rule that successfully addresses information 
needs while minimizing potential reporting problems associated with 
chemical use information. EPA requests that commenters making specific 
recommendations include supporting documentation where appropriate.

A. Questions about the Premise for and Utility of Chemical Use 
Information

    A fundamental TRI-Phase 3 issue is the usefulness and need for 
chemical use information. There is substantial disagreement among 
stakeholder groups on this question, and EPA solicits additional 
comments and examples. The two areas of use information are described 
below:
    1. Materials accounting information. Environmental and public 
interest groups contend that while TRI is an extremely valuable tool, 
it falls short of providing the complete right-to-know picture needed 
to fully understand toxic chemical issues. These groups have suggested 
materials accounting data as the best remedy for addressing these 
issues. Based on stakeholder input, EPA has identified the following 
Right-to-Know ``data gaps'': (1) The need for information on the flow 
and use of toxic chemicals at a facility; (2) the need for tracking 
toxic chemicals in products; (3) better information on occupational 
issues; (4) the need to create a ``scorecard'' for measuring and 
promoting pollution prevention/source reduction; (5) the lack of a 
ledger check on TRI estimates; (6) the need to improve TRI to serve as 
a better tool for regulatory integration efforts; and (7) other uses 
such as research and priority-setting.
    Industry and trade association commenters disagree and contend that 
chemical use information is of limited value. These groups have 
presented the following arguments against the merits and need for 
collecting materials accounting information: (1) Chemical use reporting 
is based on a false premise that any type of chemical use is harmful 
and should be eliminated; (2) a convincing argument has not been made 
as to the utility of materials accounting data to the public; and (3) 
materials accounting data does not in fact allow more accurate 
measurement of source reduction progress. EPA recognizes that some 
companies routinely collect materials accounting data as a way of 
monitoring their operations. These firms use the data internally to 
reduce chemical losses, improve product yield, and to manage their 
materials. EPA recognizes that this is not a universally accepted 
business practice and could be more appropriate for some industries 
than for other industries.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1EPA is specifically requesting comment on the costs associated 
with materials accounting data collection and concern associated 
with sensitive or confidential business information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some stakeholders from the industrial, environmental and state 
regulatory communities have indicated that materials accounting data 
are useful for looking at a variety of important environmental issues. 
For example, chemical inputs can be compared with existing TRI releases 
and wastes to examine the efficiency of facility chemical use over 
time. This may provide important pollution prevention insights. Knowing 
that 38 percent of the chemical input at a hypothetical chemical 
processing facility goes into the release and waste stream, and that 
the percentage has been increasing over time is valuable information, 
for facility managers, for state and EPA regulators, and for 
communities interested in looking at pollution prevention performance. 
It should be noted however, it is not yet clear to what extent the 
inaccuracies inherent in such data may limit it's usefulness for this 
purpose. Supporters of the Right-to-Know Program believe that this is 
the best approach currently available and better than the current gap 
in information. Access to such information facilitates dialogue on 
approaches that rely on preventing the generation of pollution over 
those that rely on more traditional end-of-pipe solutions. In the long 
run, the pursuit of strategies that improve efficiency are more likely 
to enhance the viability of affected facilities, and the success of the 
surrounding communities as well. Additional examples regarding the flow 
and use of toxics through communities and the value of product stream 
data can be found in EPA Issues Papers #1 and #2 (Refs. 3 and 4).
    While materials accounting data may provide important insights to 
the Agency, the public, and to industry, EPA acknowledges that further 
evaluation is needed. EPA requests additional comments that provide 
greater detail on how the public would use materials accounting data. 
EPA also welcomes comments that take issue with the need for use data, 
or challenge its information value. The Agency will use the comments to 
perform a more comprehensive review of the premise for use reporting.
    2. Occupational exposure indicator information. The manufacturing, 
processing, and use of chemicals also involves workers; and 
environmental and labor groups have recommended that data elements be 
included to describe this aspect of chemical use. Workers are also 
community members, and there is increasing interest in the link between 
occupational exposure and environmental performance as well. Data on 
the worker demographics at a facility can be viewed as part of the core 
data set needed to characterize a facility. The data elements 
describing the number of workers, providing basic estimates on the 
number of potentially exposed workers, and indicating the extent to 
which employee exposures have been assessed would enhance the 
usefulness of TRI. Industry commenters agree that worker exposure which 
may be tied to adverse effects should be monitored closely and provided 
to workers, but have suggested that the issue be deferred to agencies 
such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 
Industry stakeholders have also suggested that some data are already 
available through OSHA and NIOSH. Preliminary discussion with these 
agencies indicates that they support efforts by EPA to collect this 
information and put it in the public domain. EPA is interested in 
additional commentary and examples related to occupational exposure 
indicator issues.
    In summary, EPA requests additional comments on the premise for 
chemical use information and its value to the

[[Page 51327]]

different sectors of the public. In addition to commentary, the Agency 
requests that hypothetical or actual examples be submitted. EPA is also 
interested in comments that distinguish between direct application of 
chemical use data (e.g., using chemical input or output to look at the 
flow of toxics through a community) and derived applications where the 
data are combined with other information to develop a measurement 
(e.g., combining chemical input with release and waste data to address 
efficiency). Several questions are provided below:
    1a. Do gaps exist in the current Right-to-Know Program? Do chemical 
use data serve or not serve to fill right-to-know gaps identified by 
stakeholders? Provide examples that will support your position. EPA is 
interested in perspectives ranging from the community and facility 
level up to the national level.
    2a. Are any individual chemical use data elements viewed as more 
useful than others?
    3a. Can facility environmental performance be judged based on 
existing publicly available environmental data? EPA is interested in 
examples where data users could/ could not judge facility performance. 
Is chemical use information seen as improving understanding and 
accountability?
    4a. If chemical use information were available to the public, how 
would the public utilize this data? For example, what actions could a 
community take with a better system to track pollution prevention or 
the flow of toxics into and out of a neighborhood? Would there be the 
potential for serious misuse of the data?
    5a. How have chemical use data been applied by the public in New 
Jersey and Massachusetts, where such reporting is already required? Has 
the public in other states ever requested chemical use information from 
facilities? If so, how was it used?
    6a. What concerns are there about misuse, misunderstanding, or 
misinterpretation of chemical use data by the public? What is the basis 
for these concerns? Which specific data elements are most subject to 
potential misunderstandings about a facility? How should these concerns 
be considered in developing this initiative? EPA is also interested in 
any examples of misuse and misinterpretations resulting from the 
availability of this information in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
    7a. Have industry and community organizations engaged in dialogue 
about issues such as pollution prevention performance, toxics in 
products, flow of toxics through communities, or the need for 
accountability to support the use of flexible approaches to 
environmental protection? If so, what information was seen as helpful?
    8a. How could occupational indicator data be used by various 
groups, including at the community level? Do other sources of data 
exist (e.g., OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard) that could fill this 
informational gap? EPA is interested in stakeholders views on the role 
of TRI and its relationship to worker safety and health performance, 
including the number of potentially exposed workers and environmental 
performance, and the appropriate linkage between them.
    9a. What are the views of state environmental representatives about 
the utility of chemical use information? What experiences have states 
had in measuring pollution prevention efforts? What might the 
advantages and/or disadvantages be of having materials accounting data 
collected nationally rather than at the state level? EPA welcomes state 
perspectives on TRI-Phase 3 issues.
    10a. Should EPA conduct a national pilot program to collect 
materials accounting data on a limited number of chemicals as 
recommended by the NAS report?
    11a. What methodologies are available for quantifying the benefits 
of chemical use data? Could the relative use levels of data from New 
Jersey and Massachusetts be used to develop a measure of willingness to 
pay for the data? EPA welcomes comments from potential users of the 
data on their own willingness to pay. EPA is also interested in 
examples from New Jersey and Massachusetts on the savings versus costs 
of collecting and using materials accounting data.

B. Agency-wide Environmental Reporting Issues

    Industry commenters have raised several issues concerning the 
relationship between TRI-Phase 3 and Agency-wide reporting policies. 
One comment is that the Agency may already collect certain types of 
chemical use data under other programs, and that EPA should explore how 
it could integrate such data into TRI before calling for additional 
reporting. This perspective appears to suggest that chemical use data 
gaps can be addressed with improvements in internal EPA data 
management. Another issue is the relationship between the TRI-Phase 3 
project and EPA efforts under the National Performance Review 
``Reinventing Environmental Regulation'' project, which includes goals 
for reducing reporting burdens. EPA's objective is to identify and 
eliminate unnecessary burden so that resources dedicated to data 
collection can be focused on information considered more useful. The 
need to reduce overall reporting burden does not preclude all efforts 
to expand reporting. However, given the overall need for reduction, 
some commenters have inquired as to how chemical use data compares in 
priority with other types of environmental information across the 
Agency. Environmental stakeholders have asserted that the need to 
streamline current reporting requirements should not be confused with 
the need to collect the appropriate set of data on facility 
environmental performance. These groups have expressed confidence that 
materials accounting data are part of any core data set needed for 
performance review. EPA will be evaluating these environmental 
reporting issues further as part of TRI-Phase 3. In the meantime, the 
Agency encourages interested persons to submit comments on TRI-Phase 3 
reporting issues. Several questions are provided below:
    1b. Which existing EPA or other Federal agency data sources do 
stakeholders view as providing information equivalent to materials 
accounting and other chemical use data? The Agency is especially 
interested in perspectives of facility personnel filling out 
environmental reports, and members of the public and environmental 
groups who use EPA data.
    2b. Please provide examples of existing sources of chemical use 
information which have been or could be used to examine data gap issues 
such as tracking pollution prevention, the flow of toxic chemicals 
through communities, and product stream issues. Please provide 
suggestions for improving access to such data and how these data could 
be used.
    3b. Please comment on how materials accounting data can be used as 
a basis for streamlining multi-media permitting or similar efforts. 
Would the collection of materials accounting data replace the need to 
collect data currently being collected by EPA? If so, which data?
    4b. For all of the above, how should EPA address situations where 
use data from other internal data bases have value, but the scope of 
chemical or facility coverage differs so that the end result would be 
an incomplete TRI data base?

[[Page 51328]]

C. Impacts on Confidential Business Information (CBI)

    Preliminary information provided by industry groups has been 
helpful in clarifying the set of issues related to CBI concerns. 
Industry is concerned that public dissemination of chemical use data 
collected under TRI-Phase 3 would result in release of CBI. They 
believe that access to chemical use information would provide 
competitors with the opportunity to extract sensitive product, process 
and economic information about a company. They are concerned that this 
would, in turn, put American companies at a competitive disadvantage 
and cause them to lose world-wide market share.
    Environmental stakeholders recognize potential release of CBI as a 
legitimate concern, but are less certain about the magnitude and 
frequency of the problem. They contend that there is no indication that 
existing TRI data have been used for industrial espionage. 
Additionally, they assert that there have been no examples where 
materials accounting reporting has resulted in a loss to industry, 
specifically in New Jersey and Massachusetts where materials accounting 
information is collected by the state.
    EPA agrees that the potential for loss of sensitive business 
information is a legitimate issue that must be addressed in order for 
chemical use reporting to move forward. EPA requests additional 
information describing and listing the different types of losses that 
are of concern to industry, so that the Agency can perform a more 
comprehensive review. For example, EPA is interested in the sequence by 
which materials accounting and other chemical use data, by itself or in 
combination with other environmental data, can be used by competitors 
to reveal sensitive business information. EPA also seeks additional 
information on conditions that could either contribute to or alleviate 
these concerns. For example, manufacturing facilities producing large 
numbers of different products might not have the same CBI concerns as 
smaller facilities producing only a few products. The volume of 
products and production lines might serve to mask the use information. 
Similarly, a facility using a toxic chemical in a variety of processes 
might not have the same CBI concerns of a facility producing or using a 
unique chemical or a distinct manufacturing process which requires a 
specific chemistry.
    Case reports or studies that will allow the Agency and other 
stakeholders to understand and verify how losses occur would be 
especially useful. Such information will assist the Agency in 
developing common-sense approaches to CBI issues. For example, the 
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) commissioned a study by Kline 
Company to develop a business profile of an actual facility using 
publicly available information supplemented by materials accounting 
data. (CMA has provided EPA with a copy and it has been placed in the 
docket.) The study concluded that the materials accounting data were 
useful for developing an overall profile, although they were considered 
less useful than data from Clean Air Act (CAA) permit filings. The 
study helps to characterize the categories of losses considered 
important by industry. EPA is interested in receiving similar studies, 
and recommends that background information be included to allow a 
better understanding of the basis for conclusions. EPA is interested in 
the relative value of each materials accounting data element for the 
extraction of sensitive business information, the role and contribution 
made by other types of environmental data, and the impact of various 
safeguards in protecting CBI. The Agency is also interested in any 
differences in CBI issues among industry sectors. EPA invites comments 
on the following specific questions:
    1c. What business loss categories (e.g., reverse engineering of 
product line, revealing of cost structure) does industry associate with 
public disclosure of materials accounting data? How do the categories 
rank in importance? For each category, which data elements are 
involved, and what is the sequence by which the information is used by 
competitors to transform the data into a competitive gain?
    2c. Which loss categories are associated only with materials 
accounting data? What additional loss categories can result when 
materials accounting data are combined with other environmental data 
(e.g., Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act permit data)? What are the 
other types of data, and what is the sequence by which they can be used 
by competitors to reveal CBI?
    3c. Have any cases been identified in New Jersey or Massachusetts 
where CBI loss was linked to public access to materials accounting 
data?
    4c. Which of the materials accounting data elements is of most 
concern? What suggestions do CBI or Right-to-Know experts have for 
modifying materials accounting data elements to better protect CBI 
while still preserving public access to relevant chemical use data?
    5c. To what extent do CBI issues vary by industry sector? 
Preliminary information indicates that the potential for business 
losses might be more of an issue for chemical manufacturers than for 
chemical users. EPA requests comment on this question. Do sector-
specific differences offer any strategies for safeguarding CBI?
    6c. If other EPA data play a significant role (when combined with 
materials accounting data) in loss of CBI, what suggestions do 
stakeholders have for changes to other data systems to improve 
protection of CBI?

D. Cost Estimates

    EPA believes that some of the raw data used as the basis for 
materials accounting will typically be generated or used in the normal 
course of business by many firms. EPA is interested in identifying 
which data are already routinely collected, which data that might be 
required for materials accounting are not already collected, the steps 
and factors involved in transforming the raw data into chemical-
specific materials accounting and other use information, and the costs 
associated with this process. EPA is also interested in the extent to 
which firms already assemble materials accounting data. In some cases, 
full materials accounting data may already be routinely collected. In 
other cases, partial data, such as chemical inputs, may be collected at 
a facility in order to document that they exceed the 25,000 pound a 
year EPCRA section 313(f)(1) reporting threshold for manufacture or 
process activities, and/or the 10,000 pound a year threshold for 
otherwise use activities. In other cases, facilities may be collecting 
use information because they are using mass balance methods to estimate 
TRI releases. Where partial materials accounting data are already 
collected, the Agency is interested in steps and costs associated with 
collecting the additional materials accounting data, such as amounts 
consumed on-site and amounts shipped off-site in products. EPA 
encourages facilities that currently report under state programs in New 
Jersey and Massachusetts, or that currently collect materials 
accounting data for their own business purposes, to submit cost 
information for review. Estimates that include a general facility 
description (e.g., manufacturer versus processor, number of forms 
submitted), that address other uses of the data, and that provide 
estimates per chemical report form will be most helpful. A list of 
questions follows:
    1d. What are the steps involved in gathering materials accounting 
data,

[[Page 51329]]

starting with the basic cost and operations data collected in the 
normal course of business? Are there obstacles in collecting this 
information? EPA is interested in descriptions for each data element, 
the estimated costs for each step, and a description of the obstacles 
and any remedies to address identified obstacles.
    2d. What would be the steps and costs for facilities that already 
collect and use materials accounting information?
    3d. How many facilities collect basic cost and operations data that 
can be used to generate partial or full materials accounting data? How 
many facilities currently generate partial or full materials accounting 
data?
    4d. It has been suggested that while facilities which do not 
currently gather materials accounting data will likely have higher 
costs, these facilities would also be expected to derive the greater 
benefit and savings offsets from the inherent value of the information. 
Others argue that facilities which do not currently collect such data 
may be those for which the data has the least value, or for which 
collecting it would be particularly difficult or expensive. EPA is 
interested in comments and examples on how this issue should be 
treated.
    5d. Please provide existing cost estimates based on facility 
experiences in New Jersey and Massachusetts, or from other facilities 
where materials accounting data are collected as a good business 
practice.
    6d. EPA is interested in information regarding both first year 
start-up costs and annual costs once a system is set up.
    7d. EPA requests information on variations in cost. For example, 
are there any particular materials accounting data elements that are 
more costly than the others? How does the number of uses affect costs? 
How does the number of products in the product stream affect costs? Do 
costs differ among use sectors, especially for otherwise users who 
should not need to report on amounts consumed or put into the product 
stream?
    8d. EPA requests comment on the potential costs to small businesses 
of collecting materials accounting data and on what factors EPA should 
focus in further developing this project so that these costs are 
minimized, e.g. facility size, employees, revenue, etc.
    9d. TRI provides a number of reporting exemptions and modifications 
such as the alternate threshold reporting modification, de-minimis 
exemption, article exemption, laboratory exemption, structural 
component exemption, etc. How would these reporting exemptions and 
modifications impact the collection and utility of materials accounting 
data if EPA were to expand TRI to collect chemical use information? 
What role could reporting exemptions and modifications play in 
alleviating the reporting burden to small businesses?

E. Technical Collection and Interpretation Issues

    Stakeholders have raised technical questions about the mechanics of 
materials accounting and occupational exposure indicator reporting, and 
the precision and appropriate interpretation of the results. Topics 
range from the conceptual to the practical and include the following: 
(1) The activities that need to be accounted for to measure source 
reduction; (2) the mechanics of using materials accounting to measure 
source reduction, and the degree to which it improves upon the current 
TRI-based methods; (3) the role of normalization in the measurement of 
source reduction; (4) the mechanics of product stream reporting; (5) 
appropriate comparisons of materials accounting data between 
facilities; (6) the basis for estimating ``potentially exposed 
workers''; and (7) the need for definitions for certain terms. EPA 
requests comments on these and other technical measurement and 
reporting issues. The Agency is also interested in alternative data 
element options and suggestions for safeguards that balance CBI and 
Right-to-Know. Specifically, EPA is soliciting information on the 
following:
    1e. EPA is not aware of any major technical reporting or 
interpretation issues arising out of state requirements in New Jersey 
or Massachusetts that need to be addressed as part of TRI-Phase 3. 
Please provide information on any state reporting issues that should be 
considered relevant to TRI-Phase 3.
    2e. Please provide any suggestions for additional data element 
options, along with rationale for why they should be considered.
    3e. To what extent should EPA identify formulas that can be used to 
derive performance measures using materials accounting data? If some 
data gaps are best filled with derived measures, should EPA consider 
reporting of the measure instead?
    4e. Are caveats needed when materials accounting data from two or 
more different facilities are being compared? If so, what are they?

III. Plans for Evaluation and Proposal Development

    In addition to evaluating the public comments submitted in response 
to this Notice, EPA will also take the following additional steps to 
evaluate several key issues.

A. EPA Evaluation Activities

    EPA is taking steps to examine the following issues as part of its 
evaluation of TRI-Phase 3 issues.
    1. Comprehensive review of existing EPA data collection programs. 
EPA will take a closer look at existing data bases to identify and 
evaluate sources of chemical use data already being collected by the 
Agency as well as data available from other Federal agencies such as 
OSHA and DOT. The purpose is to examine whether improving access to 
existing data might provide an effective alternative to new reporting 
requirements. The evaluation will include looking at the scope of 
facility and chemical coverage, and factors related to integration of 
the existing data into TRI. The review will also address: linkages 
between TRI-Phase 3 and the TSCA Inventory Update Rule expansion; 
coordination with the Agency One-Stop Reporting initiative; and the 
potential for using materials accounting to integrate regulatory 
requirements. EPA believes that TRI-Phase 3 and the TSCA Inventory 
Update Rule Amendments can be designed so that any overlap between them 
is minimal. However, the Agency will track this issue as the two 
projects are developed further. In addition, EPA will ask for public 
comment on how to minimize any overlap when the TSCA proposed rule is 
published.
    2. Evaluation of New Jersey and Massachusetts materials accounting 
programs. EPA will review the impact that materials accounting 
reporting has made in these two states. EPA will look at who is using 
the data and for what purpose. The Agency also plans to examine the 
state program experience with CBI in order to learn more about the 
effectiveness of various approaches to protect CBI, and the potential 
impacts that are associated with loss of CBI. EPA also plans to examine 
the economic effects of the state programs, including reporting costs 
and qualitative and quantitative estimates of benefits from collecting, 
evaluating, and using the data.
    3. Evaluation of CBI issues. EPA also plans to examine other 
aspects of the CBI issue in greater detail. The Agency will evaluate 
existing reports on this subject (e.g., the Kline Report), and will 
examine the relationship between specific data elements and the 
potential for loss of sensitive business information. EPA will also 
assess the adequacy and value of different mechanisms for protecting 
CBI.

[[Page 51330]]

    4. Review of occupational exposure indicator issue with OSHA and 
NIOSH. EPA will continue its consultation with its occupational agency 
partners to discuss the utility of occupational exposure indicator 
information, and whether it is appropriate for EPA to collect it and 
make it available via TRI. EPA will also review alternative options for 
making this information available to the public.

B. Public Meetings

    EPA will hold two 1-day public meetings, one in Boston, MA and one 
in Baton Rouge, LA to discuss the issues presented above. The tentative 
agenda for these public meetings will include a discussion of the 
issues presented in Unit II. of this ANPR. Specific information on 
these public meetings is contained in a Notice of public meeting 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Information 
from all public meetings will be placed into the TRI-Phase 3 docket.

C. Examination of Data Elements, Reporting Vehicles, and Formats

    After reviewing public comments, internal evaluation results, and 
after further consideration of reporting vehicles, EPA will examine 
whether additional data element options can be, or need to be developed 
for consideration as part of any proposal. The Agency believes that 
careful selection of data elements and reporting features is essential 
to optimizing the Right-to-Know value of chemical use information while 
avoiding reporting problems. EPA is open to development of new 
combinations of data elements, and intends to examine whether 
additional types of reporting options and data elements might play a 
role in addressing concerns.

IV. Rulemaking Record and Electronic Filing of Comments

    A record has been established for this ANPR under docket number 
``OPPTS-400106'' (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, 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, Room 
NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Any person who submits comments claimed as CBI must mark the 
comments as ``confidential,'' ``CBI,'' or other appropriate 
designation. Comments not claimed as confidential at the time of 
submission will be placed in the public file. Any comments marked as 
confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40 
CFR part 2. Any person submitting comments claimed to be confidential 
must prepare a nonconfidential public version of the comments in 
triplicate that EPA can place in the public file.
    Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at 
[email protected]. Electronic comments must be submitted as an 
ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption. The official record for this action, as well as the public 
version, 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 which will also include all comments submitted directly 
in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the 
address in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document.

V. References

    1. PCSD. Sustainable America - A New Consensus for Prosperity, 
Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future. The President's 
Council on Sustainable Development, Washington, DC (1996).
    2. USEPA/OA. The New Generation of Environmental Protection - EPA's 
Five Year Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC (1994).
    3. USEPA/OPPT. Issue Paper #1: Expansion of the Toxics Release 
Inventory to Gather Chemical Use Information: TRI-Phase 3: Use 
Expansion. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1994).
    4. USEPA/OPPT. Issue Paper #2: Expansion of the Toxics Release 
Inventory to Gather Chemical Use Information: TRI-Phase 3. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1995).
    5. USEPA/OPPT. Issue Paper #3: Expansion of the Toxics Release 
Inventory to Gather Chemical Use Information: TRI-Phase 3. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (1996).
    6. USEPA/OPPT. Report to President Clinton - Expansion of Community 
Right-to-Know Reporting to Include Chemical Use Data: Phase III of the 
Toxics Release Inventory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC (1995).

VI. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
it has been determined that this ANPR is ``significant'' because it may 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates and 
the President's priorities. This action was submitted to OMB for 
review, and any comments or changes made during that review have been 
documented in the public record.
    In the event that EPA decides to issue a proposed rule (or rules) 
to expand its Community Right-to-Know program to include additional 
chemical use information, EPA will need to comply with a number of 
additional statutory and regulatory requirements. The exact 
requirements will vary depending on the specifics of the proposed 
rule(s). However, among the additional requirements with which EPA 
might need to comply are the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act. In addition, EPA might need to comply with the Executive 
Orders 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership; 12866, 
Regulatory Planning and Review; and 12898, Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations. In preparing any proposed rule(s) contemplated by this 
ANPR, EPA will develop the analysis necessary to satisfy these other 
requirements, as well as comply with the procedural steps mandated by 
the underlying statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

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

    Dated: September 25, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-25012 Filed 9-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F