[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 195 (Monday, October 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52588-52600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25378]



[[Page 52587]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



Facility Identification Initiative; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 195 / Monday, October 7, 1996 / 
Notices  

[[Page 52588]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPPTS-00186; FRL-4991-5]
RIN 2070-AC92


Facility Identification Initiative

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: As part of EPA's effort to reinvent environmental regulations 
the Agency is seeking comment on a number of options to standardize 
facility data reporting. This initiative represents the first step of a 
larger Agency effort to streamline and consolidate EPA's collection and 
maintenance of environmental data. Specifically, in this Notice EPA is 
considering options for establishing a national standard for the 
reporting and maintenance of information regarding the identification 
of facilities that are subject to federal environmental reporting and 
permitting requirements. EPA believes that a successful standardized 
facility identification scheme would reduce reporting burden on the 
regulated community while improving public access to the Agency's 
environmental data. Since States are partners with EPA in receiving and 
managing environmental data, EPA has actively sought the participation 
of State representatives during the development of this Initiative. 
This Notice is intended to provide all stakeholders with an opportunity 
to comment on the goals and benefits of the Facility Identification 
Initiative, as well as on the potential approaches for implementation.

DATES: Written comments on this Notice must be received by EPA on or 
before December 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to: TSCA 
Document Receipt Office, (7407), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 401 M St., SW., Washington, 
DC 20460. Comments should include the document control number for this 
Notice, OPPTS-00186.
    Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending 
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [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-00186. Comments containing Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) should be submitted to the same address, with all CBI 
clearly identified, and must include a sanitized copy for the public 
record. No CBI should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments 
on this Notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository 
Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam K. Sasnett or Mary C. Hanley, 
Project Managers, 202-260-8020 or 202-260-1624, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-108, Mail 
Code 7407, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail: 
[email protected], or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Background

    The EPA and its governmental regulatory partners are authorized to 
collect a wide range of data from a variety of sources. For example, 
the data may be related to the management of wastes, to the maintenance 
of operations at a particular location in accordance with a permit, or 
to the locations at which pesticides are formulated. For the most part, 
the Federal laws authorizing environmental data collections were 
developed under different statutory authorities to address specific 
environmental media concerns such as hazardous and toxic chemical 
emissions and spills, control of pesticide use, air pollution, surface 
and subsurface water contamination, the management of solid and 
hazardous waste, the delivery of safe drinking water, and the cleanup 
of existing waste deposits. EPA, State, and local governments developed 
organizational structures and programs tailored to address these 
specific, single-media concerns. Consequently, the collection, 
maintenance, and use of environmental data by EPA and the States follow 
this media-by-media approach to addressing environmental concerns.
    In more recent years, concepts of environmental protection have 
evolved toward cross-media environmental impacts, the need to prevent 
pollution at the source, and the importance of a well-informed public 
participating in the decision making process. In most cases, however, 
environmental data collection and management has not adjusted to this 
evolution and is still collected and maintained in a media-specific 
way.
    Compounding this situation is the growing need for both government 
and the private sector to cut costs and increase the efficiency of 
operations. Currently, industries must report environmental information 
to many different offices, at different times, and in different 
formats. At the same time, the public expects to have access to 
accurate, comprehensive environmental data. Together, these forces are 
stimulating a fundamental and inevitable change in the collection and 
management of environmental data.
    Therefore, the Facility Identification Initiative represents a 
significant Agency reinvention commitment. The Initiative is a first 
step toward establishing a new one-stop reporting approach for 
environmental data. By having facilities identified the same way for 
all reporting requirements under environmental laws, a new approach can 
be established which will simplify reporting for affected parties and 
simplify public access to information currently residing in many 
different places. The President announced this initiative in the March 
1995 report, Reinventing Environmental Regulation. EPA will work 
closely with states to design this new approach. Facility 
identification is an important building block in this critical 
reinvention initiative.
    EPA believes that there is already a broad base of support for this 
initiative. For example, in August 1994, the National Advisory Council 
for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) published a report 
entitled ``Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and 
the Environment: Recommendations for Comprehensive Information 
Resources Management'' (Ref. 1). This report was developed by NACEPT's 
Information Resources Management Strategic Planning Task Force, which 
involved representatives of all the major groups concerned with EPA 
policy, including industry, states and local governments, the 
environmental community, and other government agencies. The NACEPT 
Committee made four major recommendations:
    (1) EPA must use information strategically to achieve the Agency's 
mission.
    (2) EPA must actively use information to empower its partners.
    (3) EPA must establish an integrated information infrastructure to 
support a comprehensive approach to environmental protection.
    (4) EPA must establish a more effective organization for 
information resources management.
    Under the third recommendation, the Committee went on to state 
that:


[[Page 52589]]


    Data standardization is a fundamental part of EPA's integrated 
information infrastructure. The first step towards standardizing 
data is to identify those common data elements widely used 
throughout the Agency and by State Co-Implementors, which provide 
the framework to link and combine information.

    Without standardized facility data across environmental data 
collections, two major problems persist. First, lack of standardized 
facility identification data makes it difficult to establish a linkage 
between all environmental data relating to the same facility. Second, 
multiple reporting of facility-specific data results in inefficiencies 
and additional burden for both the regulated community and regulators, 
and impedes public right-to-know.
    A primary problem that users of EPA and State environmental data 
experience is the difficulty (and in some cases the inability) to 
establish reliable links between data relating to the same facility. 
There are several underlying factors. There are inconsistencies in the 
facility identification data. A slightly different spelling of a 
facility name or address reduces the accuracy and effectiveness of 
comparing the data about a facility. Also, different reporting 
requirements may have different statutory or regulatory definitions for 
the reporting facility. This can result in reports that may represent 
the same facility but that appear to be different.
    There are numerous, separate environmental data collections that 
include the reporting of different facility identification data. The 
submitter must repeatedly report such data to multiple EPA and State 
data systems and the Agencies must also separately input and maintain 
such identification data. Developing some means to consolidate such 
reporting could lead to greater efficiencies for both the regulated 
community and government agencies that receive and maintain such data. 
Finally, it could improve the accuracy of the data and provide the 
public with easier access to the data.
    The Agency believes that these data linkage problems and reporting 
inefficiencies could be alleviated by developing a universal set of 
facility identification data which is shared by EPA and the States. 
Standardizing facility identification data could also pave the way for 
any further consolidation of Federal environmental data. Therefore, 
this Notice represents a detailed outline of the Agency's concepts on 
facility data standardization and consolidation.

B. Goals of the Facility Identification Initiative

    The overarching goal of the Facility Identification Initiative is:
    To streamline access to and reporting of environmental data by 
establishing a uniform set of facility identification data and the 
infrastructure needed to make it operational.
    The specific objectives of the initiative are:
    (1) To obtain and maintain an accurate set of uniform, facility-
specific information and keep it current.
    (2) To build an infrastructure based upon as many existing 
approaches as possible that efficiently support data linkage 
capabilities.
    (3) To improve public access to Agency data, to empower communities 
and to support multi-media analysis of environmental issues.
    (4) To minimize the burden on the regulated community and States as 
part of the process of obtaining and maintaining such information, and 
eliminate, where possible, duplication.
    (5) To serve as a first practical step toward the broader goal of 
consolidating environmental data collection.

C. Benefits of the Facility Identification Initiative

    The Facility Identification Initiative is seeking to create two 
features that will work together to create an electronic pointer system 
to Agency data. The first feature is a single record of consistent 
facility identification data (e.g. facility name, street address, 
corporate affiliation, etc.) established and updated for each reporting 
facility. The second feature is a unique facility identification number 
which is assigned to each facility. The facility identification number 
would then serve as the primary link or electronic pointer to all of 
the Agency's data about that facility.
    EPA believes that there are numerous benefits of establishing a 
universal set of facility identification data to be shared between EPA, 
States and the public.
    1. Better access to data by facility. For the first time, reliable 
links will be established between data relating to the same facility 
held in separate EPA and State data systems. Standardization of 
facility identification data will eliminate inconsistencies in facility 
identification data that currently exist. Environmental data about a 
facility can be found and used more effectively.
    2. Improved access by the public. The public would be provided with 
improved access to the Agency's environmental data. The facility 
identification data will provide new and greater capabilities for the 
public to access Federal environmental data, and allow for links to 
other data sources.
    Providers of information can also use the facility identification 
data as a tool to locate and check the accuracy of their data as 
represented in EPA and/or other systems. Standard facility 
identification data could increase opportunities for the owners or 
operators of facilities to tell their own story about site-specific or 
corporate pollution prevention and environmental progress. For example, 
the data could be designed to allow a facility to provide an Internet 
address as well as an E-mail address. This could serve as a link to 
further information, analyses, reports, or interpretations that the 
data provider believes would enable the public to better understand its 
submissions.
    3. Improve multi-media perspectives. The facility identification 
data would better support the efforts of data users who want to compile 
or analyze environmental data across media data collections. In 
particular, it would support those doing geographic or community-based 
analyses. Having an up-to-date linkage capability could significantly 
increase the reliability of multi-media analyses by providing a 
standard framework for organizing and storing facility information.
    4. Empowering communities. Facility identification data can serve 
as a tool to empower communities by aiding them in identifying the 
presence of detailed environmental data related to a specific facility 
within their localities.
    5. Reducing burden. Consolidating facility identification data 
could lead the way, over time, to reduce the reporting burden for those 
required to submit data under a number of existing Federal 
environmental regulations. The facility identification data of the 
individual reporting forms could be abbreviated. EPA is mindful of the 
need to implement the facility identification initiative creatively and 
in a fashion that minimizes burden on the regulated community. Thus, no 
additional burden will be placed on the regulated communities to 
reconcile facility data that EPA has already collected. The Agency will 
do an initial reconciliation of facility data using existing records, 
without asking facilities to submit additional information. Facilities 
would be provided an opportunity to voluntarily review and verify 
(electronically) their reconciled facility record if they choose to do 
so. Care also needs to be taken to minimize burden on the regulated 
community when deciding which data elements to consolidate into a 
single facility record. For example, EPA is considering innovative ways 
to include latitude-

[[Page 52590]]

longitude coordinates in the consolidated facility record without 
requiring facilities to incur any new reporting burden. Rather than 
requiring that facilities report longitude and latitude data, EPA 
intends to use secondary sources to populate these data fields. EPA 
will expend its own resources to conduct address matching and will use 
existing sources such as State data, to ascertain longitude and 
latitude for each facility. EPA is also considering providing Federal 
and State inspectors with the means to ascertain longitude and latitude 
easily and uniformly, or perhaps empowering facilities themselves with 
the means to do so voluntarily. One of EPA's primary objectives is not 
only to avoid imposing any new burden, but to also reduce existing 
burden wherever possible. As such, EPA is very interested in receiving 
comments or suggestions on ways that EPA can implement a consolidation 
program and still achieve either a zero impact on burden or a net 
reduction.

II. Approaches to Achieving Facility Identification

    This unit explores a number of alternatives for implementing the 
Facility Identification Initiative. Each alternative addresses who 
(e.g. EPA, the State, the facility) takes responsibility for data 
reconciliation, keeping the facility data record current, and providing 
public access. In reviewing these discussions, EPA requests that the 
reader consider how any individual alternative supports or does not 
support one or more of the goals as outlined in Unit I.B. of this 
document. Also, EPA requests reviewers to comment on the practical 
feasibility and relative probability of success of a given approach. 
The approaches are not mutually exclusive of each other, so the reader 
might comment that one or more approaches should be combined. 
Additionally, EPA also encourages commenters to suggest other 
approaches that could be implemented.
    In brief, the five approaches presented here include: (1) An 
administrative approach that would upgrade an existing Agency-
maintained facility identification data base, (2) establishment of an 
EPA-State non-regulatory data management partnership to develop and 
maintain facility identification data and the necessary linkages 
between information systems, (3) a distributed information system in 
which EPA would not establish a central facility identification data 
base but would rely on building connections to State systems, (4) a 
regulatory approach that would require consolidated reporting of 
facility data to EPA or the States while eliminating duplicative 
reporting, and (5) an approach that would use existing regulatory 
authority and establish facility identification reporting requirements 
by developing new OMB Information Collection Requests (ICR).

A. Approach 1: Upgrade FINDS

    EPA's Facility Index System (FINDS) is a data base of facility 
identification data maintained by the Agency. Facility identification 
data maintained by each program office data base are consolidated in 
FINDS and an attempt is made to reconcile discrepancies. The major 
deficiencies with the current FINDS approach are that the 
reconciliation occurs after data is entered into programmatic data 
bases; there is no formal mechanism for correcting the programmatic 
data bases, and the ``data of record'' continues to be the data 
contained in the program offices' data base which may be inconsistent 
across the data bases.
    Under the ``Upgrade FINDS'' approach, EPA would conduct a 
comprehensive clean-up, data reconciliation and restructuring of FINDS. 
The Agency would need to invest significant additional resources into 
upgrading the quality of the current FINDS data base by eliminating 
incorrect records and resolving certain existing discrepancies. The 
current FINDS data base would then be expanded and new methods would be 
adopted to share this data with the States, program systems, and the 
public.
    Under this approach, it is envisioned that EPA would assign a 
single identification number to each facility and use that number in 
all its data bases, thus supporting the goal of data integration and 
improving public access. This alternative would put no new obligation 
on the State or the industry to use the new identification number. 
Therefore, this approach does not affect the burden on industry and it 
also does not consolidate reporting data. It does maintain or even 
increase the burden on EPA to continue to reconcile differences in 
reported facility data and develop and maintain a consistent facility 
record.
    EPA would have the primary responsibility for data reconciliation 
under this approach. This reconciliation would continue to occur after 
data are entered into individual program data bases. There would be a 
continuing need for staff to use their best judgment to resolve 
discrepancies and populate certain new data fields. However, the Agency 
could provide facilities with a voluntary opportunity to review and 
comment on their facility identification record as is currently done 
for Federal facilities. (For example, EPA's Federal Facilities 
Enforcement Office uses the Federal Facilities Tracking System (FFTS) 
to provide a mechanism for facility records review, modification, and 
correction by a designated Federal agency representative.) Such a 
voluntary, interactive review process could be accomplished through 
EPA's Internet Home Page. EPA would like to receive comments and ideas 
on these and other mechanisms the Agency could use to provide a 
facility with an opportunity to review and comment on their facility 
identification data, regardless of the approach adopted to implement 
the facility identification initiative.
    For those who are interested, EPA's current Home Page address is: 
http://www.epa.gov. This will provide access to the EPA Server. The 
ENVIROFACTS system contains a listing for current FINDS records. It can 
be found under the listing for EPA Data Systems and Software.

B. Approach 2: State/Federal Data Management Model

    This approach recognizes that both EPA and the States are 
recipients of environmental reports from facilities. EPA is the initial 
recipient of some reports such as the Toxics Release Inventory, and 
pesticide data under FIFRA. However, most facility-based reports 
generated as a result of Federal environmental laws and regulations 
initially are received by States who have been delegated the authority 
by EPA.
    Under this approach, EPA and the States would agree to 
administrative data management procedures for accomplishing the basic 
goals of the Facility Identification Initiative. These agreements 
could, for example, be established through a new performance 
partnership agreement process or in connection with existing 
programmatic grants.
    The focus of this activity would be a State accepting the primary 
responsibility for reconciling differences in facility records for 
reports it collects. The State would maintain a consistent ``master 
record'' for that facility. EPA and the State would agree upon a 
standard set of data elements for such records, along with such other 
tools as a standard data dictionary and standards for timing of 
facility data records transfer and the acceptable level of data 
quality.
    Under this alternative, EPA would establish a national Facility 
Identification data base. The State and EPA would agree to apply a 
unique identifier number to each unique

[[Page 52591]]

facility. EPA would then obtain the full facility record from the 
State. Furthermore, States and EPA would agree that any relevant data 
transmitted to an EPA program data base about such facilities would 
have to contain the facility identifier number. Otherwise, that data 
would not be accepted. In this way, both the State and EPA program data 
bases could contain the necessary linkage capability to make the 
Facility Identification Initiative function as envisioned.
    There may be cases where EPA receives reports directly from a 
facility and the State does not maintain the same record for that 
facility. In those cases, EPA would take direct responsibility for 
reconciling such facility records, establishing the master record, and 
assigning a facility identifier number. The State would, thereafter, 
have full access to such records.
    It is also possible that a State may want EPA to include records 
for ``State-only'' facilities and other geographic entities in its 
Facility Identification data base. For example, this could include 
records associated with facilities that report environmental data to 
the State under the authority of State law. For example, a number of 
States currently use EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System 
(AIRS) data system as their means of maintaining certain air quality 
data. These States include both Federally covered as well as any 
additional facility reports in their data uploads to AIRS.
    This non-regulatory approach would be transparent to the reporting 
facility and would result in no new reporting burden being placed on a 
facility. It would, however, not result in any direct consolidation of 
facility data reporting elements and the consequent burden reduction 
across several collections administered by the State. Voluntary 
mechanisms could be established for a facility to review and comment on 
their facility record. This would be left up to the State to 
administer.
    This would be a non-mandatory approach and not all States would 
want or be able to participate. EPA could establish a process to 
develop a model agreement and test the concept with as many States as 
may wish to participate. Thereafter, EPA and the States would need to 
be willing to fund their respective parts of such an initiative 
separately.
    EPA requests comment on the overall feasibility of such an 
approach. What specific provisions would be a necessary part of such 
State/EPA agreements? Ultimately, what level of State participation 
would be required in such a program (other than 100%) in order for EPA 
to be able to represent this option as a nationally viable facility 
identification data set? What should EPA do in situations where the 
State has accepted only partial delegation (e.g., for all programs 
except water, etc.)?

C. Approach 3: Distributed System Access

    The Agency and its State partners are reexamining their respective 
roles as co-implementers of environmental regulations. Many EPA 
programs currently delegate to the States much of the implementation of 
the national programs. Does this lessen the need for EPA to maintain a 
national facility-specific data set?
    Under this approach, States would pursue facility data integration 
in a manner that best meets their individual needs. This would 
represent decentralization of the concept of data integration and would 
support the concept of States developing their own approaches. A 
significant question needs to be addressed concerning such an approach. 
How will EPA obtain the data it needs for determining national and 
cross-boundary trends, and ensuring a national level playing field? 
This alternative could hamper the Agency's ability to use or provide 
integrated data on a national basis. EPA would be dependent upon the 
State systems for what questions could be answered. This approach 
would, however, provide the States with maximum flexibility to 
determine how they would manage their data and provide access to it. 
EPA could maintain a requirement that it and the public have access to 
these data systems. EPA could then use the data in these distributed 
systems to do analysis and special projects and reports. However, in 
this circumstance EPA would not try to maintain a ``master file'' of 
facilities that would try to track each facility and any changes 
thereto. Whether the States should be required to do this needs to be 
considered. Are there alternative ways of achieving the same goal? Is 
there a need for consistency across States? Should EPA be responsible 
for providing the public with a national pointer system to any 
individual facility and its related data points? Or can the public's 
need for this information be met through distributed State systems, 
each of which provides the public access to its data or subsets of its 
data? Should this decision be a national one, across all States and 
agencies implementing specific environmental reporting requirements, or 
should the decision on public access be left to each State?
    Another alternative to consider might be a requirement that States 
provide integrated facility data, but not specify how to do it. EPA 
could set certain minimum levels of service and a standard set of 
facility data that would tie together program information in various 
systems. The States would then implement the approach that makes the 
most sense to them, given other data projects they may already be 
involved in. No matter how individual States accomplished data 
integration, each State would have to develop a system of facility 
identification which would be applicable across program lines. This 
might result in a master file or lead program system which would assign 
identifiers which other State offices would pick up. This could be very 
similar to Approach 1: Upgrade FINDS, except that the State would not 
be required to establish a master file similar to FINDS and EPA would 
not establish and maintain a national data base of all the facilities 
or even all the Federally regulated facilities maintained at the State 
level. EPA could then use the data in these distributed systems to do 
analysis and special projects and reports. Access would be provided 
from the State and perhaps made available to the public and EPA through 
the Internet or other electronic medium. EPA could rely on the current 
movement of States to the Internet and World Wide Web where more and 
more State data are being made accessible electronically. This could 
obviate the need for a single EPA-managed system to integrate data. 
Mechanisms for integrating the more important facility elements at a 
local or regional basis could then be developed. This would allow 
systems to remain distributed, but would allow EPA or the public to 
obtain answers to their questions about a regulated entity.

D. Approach 4: Collecting Data by Rule

    This approach involves EPA promulgation of a rule that would 
require certain Federally regulated data submitters to report (or 
verify) a standard set of facility data. The responsibility for 
reconciliation of differences in facility data submissions and updating 
of the facility record would rest with the facility. EPA believes that 
it could reasonably cite multiple existing statutory authorities as the 
basis for promulgating a rule to establish and maintain a separate, 
consistent, facility data record and appropriately streamline the 
reporting of facility data elements under existing rules to reduce 
duplication of reporting.
    Definitions of what is to be reported in this rule (i.e., the term 
``facility''), would be cross-cutting and not

[[Page 52592]]

dependent upon the differing regulatory and statutory definitions that 
apply in any individual rule. The rule would also establish a time 
frame for the initial report and set forth any requirements for ongoing 
review and correction of the data record.
    A rule process would involve three basic changes:
    (1) EPA would place cross references into existing rules advising 
the regulated ``person'' that they are subject to the new consolidated 
facility data reporting requirements.
    (2) A Facility Identification number would then be added as a 
required data element in those existing rules allowing the form(s) 
authorized by those existing rules to include the new, consistent 
identifier number for that facility.
    (3) Existing rules and reporting forms would also be amended to 
eliminate certain data elements that would also be present in a 
Facility Identification rule. However, basic name and location address 
necessary for data validation purposes on any current form would not be 
eliminated.
    It is envisioned that facilities that are subject to one or more 
Federal environmental reporting requirements that are identified in the 
rule would be subject to the facility data reporting requirements of a 
potential rule. The reporting requirements identified in the rule would 
be site-specific, of a fixed location (e.g., mobile source regulation 
would be outside the scope); and would have to require periodic 
reporting, or could be a one-time application and/or registration with 
periodic follow-up. One-time notifications, surveys, and incident 
reports would not be considered within the scope of a new rule. Based 
upon this draft criteria, EPA has identified numerous data collections 
that it considers to be potentially within the scope of such a facility 
data reporting rule. These data collections are listed in Table 1 in 
Unit III.B. of this Notice.
    The Facility Identification data reported would be included in a 
central data base. This data base would be accessible to EPA, States, 
and the public. This approach could support most of the goals of a 
Facility Identification Initiative. By establishing a uniform set of 
place-based data, overlapping data elements could be reduced. 
Additionally, this reduction could be representative of the first step 
toward reporting data consolidation. Initially the burden reduction 
aspect of this approach may not be realized because a new reporting 
requirement would be established. However, over time the elimination of 
overlapping data elements from multiple rules could provide a net 
burden decrease.
    The workgroup discussed a number of other issues and options 
associated with development of a rule. The rule-related issues and 
options are presented in detail in a document titled ``Support Document 
for Facility Identification Initiative: Notice and Request for 
Comment'' which is available as part of the Public Record for this 
Notice. This document may also be found on the Key Identifiers Project 
Page of EPA's World Wide Web Home Page. The address is http: //
www.epa.gov/Internet/OPPTS or http: //www.epa.gov/EPAHome/
Initiatives.html. Included in the Support Document, for comment, are 
the following:
    1. State and Federal models for flow of data. A critical 
determination in implementing a rule will be how the data is collected. 
The Agency has looked at five rule-based models for collecting the data 
and entering it into a Facility Identification data base. These include 
a Federal collection, a State-only collection and, three variations of 
a State and Federal hybrid collection. EPA is interested in receiving 
comments on each of these models.
    2. Frequency and timing of facility identification reports. Related 
issues discussed in the Support Document include: (a) Setting an 
initial reporting time-frame; (b) submitter verification of existing 
Agency facility record to potentially minimize burden on data 
submitters; (c) options for phasing in the requirement for submitting 
the initial report; (d) addressing initial submissions by new 
facilities reporting after promulgation of the rule.
    3. Reviewing and updating the facility identification record. 
Keeping a Facility Identification data base current would be a long-
term challenge. It is essential that the Facility Identification record 
reflect the most current information about a facility because it would 
be the overall reference used by multiple Agency data systems and data 
users. Therefore, if a new reporting requirement is adopted, the Agency 
must consider how frequently the Facility Identification data should be 
reviewed and updated once the facility's record is established through 
initial reporting. The Agency must balance the need for keeping the 
data accurate with the burden association with the ongoing nature of 
such submissions. The following options for ongoing review and updating 
of the Facility Identification data base are presented for comment in 
the Support Document: (a) Mandated periodic review and update; (b) 
updating only when changes occur; (c) report changes as they occur, and 
verify periodically, and; (d) incorporate in the current submission.

E. ICR-Only Approach

    This approach is also a data reporting requirement and would 
involve many of the same issues as outlined in D. of this Unit. Under 
this approach, however, EPA would not revise regulations but would 
prepare a new Information Collection Request (ICR). An ICR outlines 
burdens and costs associated with information collections, and is 
required to be prepared by the Agency and approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    The new ICR prepared under this approach would seek approval under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act to centrally collect 
facility identification information that is currently collected under 
many separate rules. Those rules are currently supported by separate 
ICRs. In effect, EPA would consolidate facility data reporting into one 
new form and set of instructions approved by a new ICR. At the same 
time, all relevant existing forms approved by current ICRs would be 
modified to eliminate, where possible, existing duplicative facility 
data elements. The burden calculations of the existing ICRs would also 
be modified as appropriate to reflect the removal of reporting 
elements. The existing regulations would not be modified. Instead, the 
facility identification data requirements in each set of regulations 
would be fulfilled by submission of the consolidated facility 
information under the new ICR.
    There could be certain advantages to this approach. First, this 
approach could provide an expedited means of achieving the practical 
changes necessary to consolidate facility data reporting and streamline 
the facility data sections of many existing reporting forms. Also, 
under revised provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the ICR 
development mechanism provides expanded opportunity for public review 
and comment. This is not the equivalent of notice and comment 
rulemaking, but it does offer the public an opportunity to affect the 
substance of the data collection requirement prior to the Agency's 
submission of the ICR to OMB.
    A potential disadvantage is that the ICR-only approach may not 
provide the long-term stability necessary for such a comprehensive data 
management program. Without the backing of a codified requirement, it 
could be more vulnerable to discontinuation. Such a lack of long-term 
commitment could be very disruptive and wasteful of the

[[Page 52593]]

investments made by all parties involved in both supplying and managing 
the data.

III. Cross Cutting Issues

    EPA believes that there are a number of common questions that must 
be addressed regardless of the approach chosen to implement the 
Facility Identification Initiative. In order to create a comprehensive 
facility record, the question arises of whether we need to develop a 
comprehensive definition of ``facility''? What environmental data 
collections (i.e., which facilities) should be included in the 
Initiative? What should the comprehensive facility record contain? Are 
there any confidentiality concerns with the development and access to 
such a comprehensive facility data record? How can we take advantage of 
evolving technology to meet the information management challenges of 
the Facility Identification Initiative?

A. Facility Definition

    1. Rationale for a facility definition. As stated previously, one 
of the goals of the Facility Identification Initiative would be to 
establish a streamlined method for identifying a facility across 
various, separate environmental data collections. No matter how the 
Facility Identification Initiative is implemented, EPA believes that a 
standard concept of facility is central to the development of a 
successful program. For purposes of developing a consolidated 
``facility-specific'' record, it is essential that all parties involved 
have an opportunity to review and comment on the need for, and 
potential elements of, a ``facility'' term or definition. For purposes 
of further discussion in this Notice, EPA will use the term 
``facility.''
    The EPA workgroup considered the issue of how to define the term 
``facility'' for purposes of the Facility Identification Initiative. It 
identified three basic attributes which it believed needed to be 
considered in constructing a definition.
    (1) First is the fixed, spacial or geographic attribute of a 
facility. Generally speaking, regulated activities occur within a 
physical boundary, usually a real estate property boundary. In many 
cases (but not always), there is a ``street address'' that corresponds 
with this physical location, and other spacial coordinates can be used 
to identify or define the location.
    (2) Next, there is the attribute of ownership or control. Generally 
speaking a facility is owned or operated by a legal person (i.e. an 
individual, corporation, or government). Therefore, another parameter 
for a discrete ``facility'' is that the activities/property/physical 
boundary is owned or operated by the same person. Take, for example, 
the situation in which an operation owned by one person is physically 
surrounded by another persons operation. That separate ownership would 
be the critical factor in distinguishing one facility from the other.
    (3) Finally, there is the attribute of time. That is, the 
attributes of both physical composition and ownership/control can 
change with time. Obviously, facility ownership can change and so can 
the physical boundaries/components. Additions of operations on 
adjoining properties as well as sale of parts of a location can result 
in physical changes to a facility and, subsequently, changes to what 
that facility may have to report under environmental laws and 
regulations.
    2. Draft facility definition. EPA believes that developing a 
facility concept acceptable to all parties involved could ensure both 
the success and the longevity of the Facility Identification Initiative 
and data consolidation in general. However, EPA would not intend for a 
definition of ``facility'' developed under this initiative to alter or 
affect existing statutory and regulatory definitions of ``facility'' 
that guide reporting of substantive data within those collections. The 
point of reference (e.g., facility, site) for reporting substantive 
data and the substantive reporting requirements of separate collections 
would not change with a rule or other action defining ``facility'' for 
purposes of a Facility Identification Initiative.
    EPA believes that it would be appropriate to develop a definition 
of ``facility'' that could apply across a broad array of current 
environmental data collections and permit requirements. Therefore the 
definition would have to be broad enough to encompass the whole of the 
facility's operations but remain within the physical and ownership 
attributes as discussed above. The workgroup developed the following 
draft facility definition for comment:
    ``All buildings, equipment, structures, and other items located on 
a single site or contiguous or adjacent sites owned or operated by the 
same person or persons.''
    Under this approach, the outermost perimeter of the single 
geographic area occupied by the entire entity, including all of its 
parts or divisions, would constitute the ``facility.''
    Incorporated into the draft facility definition are elements that 
EPA considered to be necessary to achieve the goals of the initiative. 
First, the definition is holistic, or all encompassing. That is, the 
definition is comprehensive enough to encompass all activities at a 
particular facility, including all its parts or divisions. Also, the 
definition relates to a single piece of geography that can encompass 
contiguous or adjacent sites. This is an important element in achieving 
consolidated, facility-specific identification data. Finally, the 
definition specifies that the property must be under a common ownership 
or control. This element, in combination with the concept of single 
geographic area, would ensure that all related parts of a facility are 
captured in an entity's Facility Identification record.
    EPA would like to receive comment on whether a term other than 
``facility'' should be used to denote the reference point for 
consolidated facility identification data. If so, what term should be 
used instead. EPA realizes that other terms may be used such as 
``site,'' ``regulated entity,'' ``establishment,'' or ``reporting 
unit,'' to name a few. EPA requests comment, particularly from States, 
on their experience with developing and using such terms, along with 
the problems and successes they have experienced.
    3. Application of the proposed facility definition. Use of the 
facility definition proposed here may result in no change in the way 
that single establishment facilities represent themselves. Likewise, 
certain complex installations may currently represent themselves in a 
holistic manner, using a consistent, single name and address for 
reporting purposes.
    However, EPA recognizes that there may be instances where 
application of a holistic definition of facility could be problematic 
or confusing. EPA anticipates that such difficulty might arise for at 
least four specific types of reporting facilities.
    (1) Current rules may require reports from ``sub-entities'' of a 
facility (e.g. two different Divisions within the same larger facility 
report different names and addresses as separate hazardous waste 
disposal units).
    (2) Facilities reporting as systems or parts of systems (e.g. 
railroads, pipelines and other systems in which discrete operating 
units are ``contiguous'' by virtue of a transportation, property or 
other system connection).
    (3) Disjointed operations carried out by the same person within a 
larger real estate perimeter (e.g., non-contiguous production and 
warehouse units of the same company within an industrial park could 
under the draft definition be considered separate facilities).

[[Page 52594]]

    (4) Adjacent subsidiaries of the same corporation that are separate 
business entities could be required to all have a common address as one 
``facility.'' EPA is providing a detailed discussion of these scenarios 
in the Support Document for this Notice (See Unit II.D. of this 
document).
    EPA requests comment on these and any other problematic situations 
associated with implementing and interpreting the draft definition of 
facility proposed herein.
    4. Accommodating facility changes over time. Under the Facility 
Identification Initiative, EPA will want to obtain reliable 
identification information for a particular facility. Therefore, the 
Facility Identification system will need to accommodate business 
transactions that alter facility identification information over time 
(e.g., changes in property boundaries or facility ownership). The types 
of accommodations that EPA is considering are discussed in the Support 
Document, and the Agency requests comment on these situations and any 
other related issues.

B. Data Collections Included.

    1. Data collections included in facility identification initiative. 
In EPA's efforts to identify the most appropriate data collections 
(i.e., reporting requirements) to be included for coverage under a 
Facility Identification Initiative, EPA developed and used the 
following draft criteria:
    (i) The reporting requirement and reports submitted should be site-
specific. In other words, the ``who'' information in a submission 
should relate to the physical location of the permitted or regulated 
activity.
    (ii) The facility covered by the data collection would have to be 
fixed (e.g., mobile source regulations under the CAA would be outside 
the scope); and
    (iii) The data collection would have to require periodic reporting 
or could be a one-time application and/or registration with periodic 
follow-up. One-time notifications, surveys, and incident reports would 
not be considered within the scope of the Initiative.
    Based upon this draft criteria, EPA has identified numerous data 
collections that it considers to be potentially within the scope of the 
Facility Identification Initiative. EPA began the identification 
process by reviewing all of EPA's current Information Collection 
Requests (ICRs). Detailed matrices were developed showing the specific 
ICRs considered ``within scope.'' The specific elements included: the 
responsible EPA program office; the statutory authority; the title of 
the regulation; the ICR and OMB numbers; the CFR citation; the 
frequency of reporting; whether or not the ICR was considered to be 
within the scope of the draft criteria; and, the specific facility data 
elements required to be reported. The completed matrices for these 
``within-scope'' ICRs are available for review in the public record for 
this Notice.
    Appropriate offices within the Agency then reviewed the ICRs for 
which they have responsibility and compared them to the criteria. The 
results of this review are presented as Table 1 below. Each listed ICR 
has its basis in a regulatory and/or statutory provision. Therefore, 
Table 1, represents a list of Federal actions that could be included 
under a Facility Identification Initiative. The facility identification 
data submitted pursuant to the list reporting requirements would be 
subject to consolidation into one facility record under the Initiative. 
As an aid to the reader, Table 1 is organized by environmental statute 
and includes the name of the regulation, the regulatory citation, and 
the EPA ICR number.

  Table 1.--Actions That Could Potentially Be Included Under a Facility 
                        Identification Initiative                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Regulatory Title            40 CFR Citation       ICR Number    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Act                                                           
                                                                        
Source Compliance and State       51.100              107               
 Action Reporting                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual, Updates of Emission Data  51.321-51.323       916               
 to Aerometric Information                                              
 Retrieval System (AIRS)                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Source Performance Standards  Generally, part 60                    
 (NSPS)                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Emissions Standards for  Generally, parts                      
 Hazardous Air Pollutants          61 & 63                              
 (NESHAPS)                                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA Title V - Operating Permits   70, 502, 503        1587              
 Regulations - Information                                              
 Requirements                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Operating Permits         Part 71             1713              
 Program of the Clean Air Act                                           
 (part 71)                                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated ICR for the Acid     Part 72             1633              
 Rain Core Rules - Permits                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated ICR for the Acid     Part 72             1633              
 Rain Core Rules - Nitrogen                                             
 Oxides Emission Reduction                                              
 Program                                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated ICR for the Acid     Part 74             1633              
 Rain Core Rules - Opt-In-                                              
 Program                                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated ICR for the Acid     Part 75             1633              
 Rain Core Rules - Continuous                                           
 Emission Monitoring                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accidental Release Prevention     Part 68             1656              
 Requirements: Risk Management                                          
 Programs Under the Clean Air                                           
 Act                                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping and Periodic        Part 82, Subparts   1432              
 Reporting of the Production and   A & E                                
 Consumption of Newly Controlled                                        
 Ozone Depleting Substances                                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Environmental                                             
 Response, Compensation, and                                            
 Liability Act                                                          
                                                                        
Continuous Release Reporting      302.8               1445              
 Regulation Under CERCLA                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Water Act                                                         
                                                                        

[[Page 52595]]

                                                                        
NPDES Permit Application          122.21, 122.26,     226               
                                   122.44, 122.501                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Pollutant Discharge      122.41, 122.47      1427              
 Elimination System (NPDES)/                                            
 Compliance Assessment                                                  
 Information                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Sewer Overflow Policy                        1680.01           
 (CSO), 59 FR 18688 (April 19,                                          
 1994)                                                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge Monitoring Report       122.21, 122.41      229               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretreatment Program Information  403                 2                 
 Requirements                                                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Planning and Community                                        
 Right-to-Know Act                                                      
                                                                        
Toxic Release Inventory 313       372.25, 372.85      1363              
 Reporting                                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate Threshold for Low       372.85              1704              
 Annual Reportable Amounts                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Fungicide, Insecticide,                                         
 and Rodenticide Act                                                    
                                                                        
Application for Registration of   167.20, 167.85      160               
 Pesticide-Producing                                                    
 Establishments (EPA Form 3540-                                         
 8); Notification of                                                    
 Registration of Pesticide-                                             
 Producing Establishments (EPA                                          
 Form 3540-8A); Pesticide Report                                        
 for Pesticide-Producing                                                
 Establishments (EPA Form 3540-                                         
 16)                                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Conservation and                                               
 Recovery Act                                                           
                                                                        
Identification, Listing, and      260.20(b), 260.22,  1189              
 Rulemaking Petitions              261.4(d),                            
                                   261.4(f)                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification of Regulated Waste   262, 263, 264,      261               
 Activity                          265, 266, 279                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 Hazardous Waste Report       262.41, 264.75,     976               
                                   265.75                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Waste Generator         262.56(a),          820               
 Standards                         265.56(d), (i),                      
                                   (j)                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Hazardous Waste Facility  264.56(d)(2),       1571              
 Standards                         264.56(i), (j)                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit       270.1, 270.13,      262               
 Application and Modifications,    270.72                               
 Part A                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part B Permit Application,        270.1, 270.14(b)    1573              
 Permit Modifications and                                               
 Special Permits                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Used Oil Management Standards     279.57              1286              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe Drinking Water Act                                                 
Public Water Supply Program       142                 270               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underground Injection Control     144                 370               
 Program Facility and Well                                              
 Inventory Information                                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic Substances Control Act                                            
                                                                        
Partial Updating of TSCA          710.32              1011              
 Inventory Data Base; Production                                        
 and Site Reports                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic Substances Control Act      712                 586               
 (TSCA) Section 8(a) Preliminary                                        
 Assessment Information Rule                                            
 (PAIR)                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polychlorinated Biphenyls         750.11, 750.31      857               
 (PCBs): Manufacturing,                                                 
 Processing and Distribution in                                         
 Commerce Exemptions                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCB Disposal Permitting           761.60              1012              
 Regulation                                                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCB Notification and Manifesting  761.180, 761.205,   1446              
 of PCB Waste Activities, and      761.211, 761.218                     
 Records of PCB Storage and                                             
 Disposal                                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Elements of a Consolidated Facility Record

    Another cross-cutting issue is the content of the facility 
identification data record. Assuming that the Facility Identification 
Initiative is implemented using a central facility data registry 
approach, the Agency and the States will need to consider what facility 
data elements are necessary to maintain. The content of this record is 
particularly important to the discussion of collection of this data by 
rule. A rule would need to specify what information elements must be 
reported and updated over time. This has a direct bearing on the burden 
issue, both from the standpoint of what elements would constitute a new 
collection and what elements would be removed from the facility section 
of existing rules and reporting forms. There is, however, an important 
difference between what may be part of

[[Page 52596]]

a reporting requirement and what EPA and States would decide to include 
as elements in a facility identification data record. For example, 
under a reporting rule approach, EPA could decide that it is not 
necessary to collect a certain data element from facilities. It may, 
however, be a useful and appropriate data element that can be populated 
from other existing sources. In short, the ultimate data base structure 
could be more detailed than the elements of a reporting requirement.
    Using a non-reporting/ non-regulatory approach would still call for 
articulation of a facility identification data structure. One 
distinction, however, is that the data records would all be populated 
from existing sources. Therefore, the completeness of any given 
facility identification data record would be a function of the detail 
of existing facility data used to develop that consolidated facility 
data record. This could lead to different decisions about total data 
structure.
    Following is a discussion of data elements that the Agency 
identified and determined were appropriate for eliciting comment.
    1. Facility Identification number. This is the unique identifier 
that would be assigned to a facility, after an initial report or as a 
result of EPA/State data reconciliation efforts. EPA envisions this to 
be an ``unintelligent'' number. That is, all or most of the components 
of the number would be randomly assigned and not relate to any 
particular attribute of the facility. EPA realizes that some States may 
have already developed such a unique identifier. In such cases, the 
Agency would not necessarily need to utilize an additional identifier 
if a means could be developed to incorporate the States number into the 
structure of the Facility Identification data base. In addition the 
Agency's current Facility Index System (FINDS) and some States use the 
``EPA ID Number'' or ``RCRA ID Number.'' This is a number beginning 
with a two letter state prefix followed by 9 digits, plus a check 
digit. This is an identifier that many but not all facilities carry. 
Also, it may currently apply to individual sub-entity hazardous waste 
sites that are part of a larger facility. Thus this number may not be 
appropriate to apply to a facility at large, particularly if there is 
more than one such sub-entity within the facility. EPA requests 
comments on how best to consider structuring a unique Facility 
Identification number and whether the existing EPA Identification 
Number (RCRA ID Number) could be utilized.
    2. Facility name. In most cases, this is likely to be a name that 
already exists in one or more EPA and/or State records. However, even 
minor variations in a name (e.g., DeBernardo, de Bernardo, D. Bernardo) 
can raise questions about the true identity of any given facility, 
especially in situations where records are stored and reported 
electronically. Other differences may exist as a result of the 
variation in the current reporting requirements themselves. Such 
variations also may exist because different individuals at the facility 
may have completed different reports in slightly different ways (e.g., 
Conoco is owned by du Pont, but could be reported as Conoco, duPont - 
Conoco Div., E. I. du Pont de Nemours, etc.)
    EPA wishes to receive comment on what type of guidance, if any, to 
provide regarding the name to be reported. For example, should the 
facility record contain a commonly used, ``doing-business-as'' name, or 
should it represent the legal incorporation name? A ``doing-business-
as'' name (i.e, duPont - Conoco Div., rather than E. I. du Pont de 
Nemours) could provide a unique name that most closely represents the 
current status of facility records. For large corporations, this would 
not offer a relatively common appellation shared by many other 
facilities in many different places. As such, it may provide a facility 
name more understandable to the public. However, the legal 
incorporation name does appear in existing business and tax records for 
the facility and may be a more appropriate standard to cite.
    The Agency has also considered the inclusion of space for two 
facility name elements in a data element dictionary so that both a 
common and a legal incorporation name could be provided. At this point, 
however, EPA believes that one name representation would be sufficient 
and that maintaining more than one name record could be counter to the 
consistency and consolidation goals of this Initiative as well as 
potentially unnecessarily increasing the reporting burden.
    3. Facility street (physical) address. This would usually be the 
postal address corresponding to the physical location of the facility. 
In some instances, however, it could be a physical description of 
location if the facility's mailing address does not correspond to its 
physical location. An example of the latter case would be an entry such 
as the following, ``2 miles south of the intersections of State Route 2 
and Route 5,'' or a conventional street address, ``123 XYZ Blvd.,'' 
where mail is not accepted at that address. Such an alternate, physical 
descriptor is required in several current reporting requirements, such 
as the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory. EPA believes it is reasonable 
to include such information, particularly in those cases where the 
facility mailing address is actually a Post Office box number, or is at 
an entirely different site, such as a corporate office building away 
from the site. Such information can aid the data user in understanding 
the general physical location of the facility and is often critical for 
spatial data analysis.
    4. Facility mailing address. This element would be supplied in 
those cases where the mailing address does not correspond with the 
actual physical location address of the facility. Examples would be 
Post Office box numbers or a corporate administrative building not 
located within the facility itself. This element is necessary for basic 
purposes of communicating with persons responsible for the operations 
of the facility.
    5. County, parish, or other jurisdictional indicator. This data 
element would indicate jurisdictional location as a part of the 
standard physical address data. EPA's own experience indicates that 
this basic data element is very valuable in conducting a wide variety 
of geographic analyses. Consequently, EPA favors including this data 
element in the Facility Identification data structure. Furthermore, 
EPA's experience points to a significant desire on the part of the 
general public to be able to locate environmental data associated with 
their county. It can also be an important data quality control check 
for verifying the address information.
    6. Facility contact. EPA favors including fields for the name of a 
person to contact (including telephone number, FAX number, and E-mail 
address if available) for questions that may arise about the content of 
the Facility Identification record. EPA would not intend for this data 
element to represent a contact that applies to all other reporting 
requirements. Each individual data reporting requirement and system 
(e.g., the RCRA Biennial Reporting System, BRS, or the Permits 
Compliance System, PCS) could continue to require the name of a contact 
person for questions concerning the substantive data submitted to such 
other systems. It may be more problematic to consider including such a 
data element if a non-reporting option were implemented. It may be 
difficult for EPA and the State to make a judgment on filling this 
element from contact person data available in specific media reports.
    7. Facility SIC code. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 
code system is a statistical classification system maintained by the 
Office of

[[Page 52597]]

Management and Budget and used throughout government and industry to 
describe the economic activities undertaken by business entities. It 
classifies the activities of business and other ``establishments'' 
using divisional groupings and a specified numbering system. While not 
a regulatory system itself, the SIC code system has become the 
predominant means by which many data users obtain a functional 
classification of the activities of regulated facilities, and is an 
essential analysis tool in the area of economics. Among other uses, an 
accurate and current SIC code is critical to successful industry sector 
analyses. Such analyses are carried out with increasing frequency for 
purposes of identifying pollution prevention and compliance assistance 
opportunities.
    Most current data collections obtain one or more SIC codes, usually 
at the 4-digit level. EPA believes that the facility identification 
data structure should provide for multiple entries to accommodate 
situations in which a facility engages in different activities or may 
have more than one establishment engaged in different primary 
activities. If EPA were to implement a reporting rule, the Agency would 
like comment on the appropriateness of requiring such codes to be 
supplied at an 8-digit level in order to support more refined analyses.
    8. Facility Dun and Bradstreet number. Dun and Bradstreet is a 
private, business information service that provides to its customers 
data on companies that have applied for commercial credit. This type of 
data can be facility-specific. The D&B Number, as it is commonly 
called, is a valuable piece of information, allowing data users to 
correlate current business data, such as sales and numbers of 
employees, to the environmental data being reported by the facility. In 
particular, EPA and other government agencies use such correlations to 
develop estimates of the impact of current and future regulatory 
requirements. The facility-specific D&B number can also be used to 
obtain information on corporate ownership and subsidiaries through 
access to the D&B Information System. For Federal facilities which do 
not have D&B numbers, it has been suggested that GSA Real Property ID 
number be substituted.
    9. Parent company name and Dun and Bradstreet number. Parent 
company data is also important to a wide variety of data users because 
this information helps them to understand the relationship between the 
activity taking place at a specific location and the higher level 
corporate responsibility for that facility. Several current data 
collections include reporting of parent company information, including 
the D&B number. This reporting usually refers to the ultimate U.S. 
parent company. This will provide information concerning the highest 
level of corporate control within United States jurisdiction. Should 
this emphasis on ultimate parent be retained or should the data element 
apply to the facility's most immediate corporate parent? This 
information could be particularly useful to individual citizens wanting 
to determine who is immediately responsible for the actions of a 
particular facility in their community. EPA requests comment on this 
issue of the most appropriate identification of the facility's parent 
company.
    10. Permit numbers/system identifiers. As new EPA programs/data 
collections were started, there was a need for each to utilize a 
tracking number to identify the entity that was reporting. However, all 
of these activities were mandated by Congress independently of each 
other at different times and seldom utilized the same number. One 
primary goal of the Facility Identification Initiative is to develop a 
facility-based data system that acts as a pointer system to more 
specific environmental data relating to that facility. This data will 
include, for example, permit data and emissions data reported by the 
facility to existing EPA or State data systems. It would, therefore, be 
very important to establish viable links between the Facility 
Identification data record and facility-based records in relevant 
Federal and State systems.
    Following is an exemplary list of identifier numbers currently used 
by various EPA and State programs:
    (1) TRIFID -- The Toxics Release Inventory Facility Identification 
Number.
    (2) NPDES Permit Number -- The National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System Permit Number.
    (3) RCRA Identification Number -- The Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act Identification Number. It is also known as the EPA ID 
Number.
    (4) Various air quality permit numbers and facility identifiers -- 
under authority of the Clean Air Act and administered primarily by the 
States.
    (5) ORIS PL Number -- The Office of Regulatory Information Systems 
Plant Number. This is a facility identification number maintained by 
the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration and 
applies to electric power generation utility facilities. It is used as 
a facility identifier in EPA's National Allowance data base.
    (6) UIC Permit Number -- The Underground Injection Well Code Permit 
Number.
    (7) FIFRA Establishment Identification Number -- The Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Identification Number.
    (8) PWS Identification Number -- The Public Water System 
Identification Number.
    (9) The Federal Facility Identification Number -- A number assigned 
by EPA only to Federal facilities.
    (10) State Facility Identification Number -- A unique 
identification number that may have been assigned to the facility by 
the State (or local) delegated agency.
    There are two basic sets of issues associated with permit numbers/
system identifiers and the facility identification data structure. 
First, is it necessary for purposes of supporting linkage to include 
such identifiers in the Facility Identification data set itself? If, 
for example, a non-reporting alternative is selected, would the State 
or EPA have to populate each Facility Identification record with other 
current permit numbers and relevant system identifiers? As an 
alternative, would it be sufficient for linkage purposes to add a 
Facility Identification number field to each existing data base record 
that relates to that same facility?
    The second set of issues relates to a reporting requirement 
approach. In brief, should a Facility Identification reporting rule 
include a requirement for the facility to report certain permit 
numbers/system identifiers in order to support the goal of data 
linkage?
    The workgroup considered several alternatives for collecting such 
data in connection with the Facility Identification record. First, is 
the option of ongoing reporting/verification of these identifiers. The 
advantage to this approach is that it provides a consistent mechanism 
to update changes in the individual identifiers over time. The 
disadvantage is that it represents a somewhat heavier long-term 
reporting burden.
    The workgroup also considered an option that would require the 
reporting of such linking elements but ``sunsetting'' the reporting 
after a period of time sufficient to establish the linkage. This 
``sunset'' provision would mean that these reporting elements would 
automatically disappear from a rule and EPA would eliminate them, where 
possible, from a form and reporting instructions after the specified 
period of time. During preliminary discussions with stakeholders, 
concern was expressed about how the term sunset may be interpreted. It 
was

[[Page 52598]]

therefore recommended that if sunsetting were included that EPA be 
specific about the length of time to provide for the transition to the 
Facility Identification system. If a sunset approach is adopted, how 
long should EPA provide for the transition?
    Finally, the workgroup considered a check-box approach in which it 
would require that the facility indicate that, for example, it has a 
NPDES permit or a RCRA identification number. This would provide at 
least a basic pointer to a system in which records relating to the same 
facility may be located. This approach would be slightly less 
burdensome than having to fill in the specific identification number. 
It would, however, provide an imprecise means of establishing or 
confirming the necessary linkages, and require a substantial 
expenditure of Federal and State resources.
    EPA requests comment on the issue of maintaining current permit 
numbers and system identifiers as a means of promoting linkage in 
connection with a Facility Identification record.
    11. Latitude and longitude coordinates. EPA and the States 
currently collect latitude/longitude coordinates under several rules 
and in connection with facility inspections and other activities. 
Therefore, another issue to consider is whether latitude and longitude 
coordinates should be made part of the facility identification data 
record. If so, should these coordinates be drawn from existing data 
sources or should, for example, a reporting rule mandate facilities to 
develop and report these coordinates as part of the exercise of 
building the Facility Identification record? An important aspect of 
establishing reliable facility identification involves selecting the 
elements necessary to describe the facility's location. EPA believes 
that latitude and longitude coordinates are important for two reasons: 
(1) They support EPA's goal of place-based or community-based 
environmental management, and (2) they may provide a universal way to 
link data.
    This data element discussion also has a connection with the 
holistic facility concept. If data is drawn from several existing 
sources, which set of coordinates should EPA or the State choose to 
represent the ``facility''? There may be several to choose from that 
are both general (e.g the TRI submission) and specific, including those 
that equate to a wastewater discharge pipe or an air emissions stack. 
Should the coordinates represent a central point of the facility, the 
front gate, or does it matter as long as the coordinate is located in 
the facility? A related factor to consider is the variable degree of 
accuracy of currently available/reported latitude and longitude data. 
That is why EPA has developed a Locational Data Policy (Ref. 3) that 
will require EPA programs to include method, accuracy, and description 
information in association with any latitude and longitude coordinates 
they develop. Such a policy would improve the value of these data 
elements, but requires a higher level of effort on the part of the 
Agency, the State or the facility to develop and maintain.
    If EPA and/or the States pursue a non-reporting approach, what 
standards and agreements related to latitude and longitude data would 
have to be developed in order to supply viable data for the Facility 
Identification record?
    If a reporting rule approach is taken, should the facility be 
required to develop and submit these coordinates or should the States 
or EPA supply the data for these fields? A decision to require such 
reporting may not support the goals of burden reduction or reporting 
element consolidation. Reporting of general latitude and longitude data 
for the holistic facility would not substitute for reporting more 
specific latitude and longitude data in the underlying collection. 
Also, the burden associated with developing and submitting this type of 
information, along with a necessary indication of the method used to 
collect it and the accuracy of the data, could be significant in 
relation to all the other data that may be required by a Facility 
Identification rule. EPA's preliminary estimates indicate that cost of 
having industry report latitude/longitude data could approximately 
equal the cost of developing all the other reporting elements currently 
under consideration.
    Therefore, regardless of the means used to implement the Facility 
Identification Initiative, EPA believes at this point that it may be 
sufficient to draw on existing sources and use other methodologies to 
obtain latitude/longitude data for any given facility. From both new 
and existing sources, EPA believes that it can improve the quality of 
this geographic data over time by updating that data with latitude/
longitude measurements conducted directly by the Agency, the State, or 
other authoritative sources.
    EPA requests comment on the issue of including latitude and 
longitude coordinates in the Facility Identification data structure and 
how best to accomplish it.

D. Supporting Electronic Data Transfer Methods

    EPA believes that it will be very important to promote the concepts 
of electronic data transfer methods in connection with implementing the 
Facility Identification Initiative. The Agency believes that moving 
aggressively into these data sharing and transfer methods will increase 
the efficiency and accuracy of Federal and State data management 
operations. Furthermore, if a reporting rule approach is adopted, 
several alternatives are available that can support the goal of 
minimizing burden on both the regulated community and the government. 
There are a number of emerging technologies that will be easy to use 
and will be widely available. Examples of the methods currently being 
investigated are:
    1. Transmission via fax. FAX systems are almost universally 
available in industry and government and allow word copy transmissions 
that can be received and processed in a machine readable format. This 
can save resources for both the developer as well as the recipient of 
the data and can improve data accuracy. This method can be used to send 
the facility's current record for verification or generally provide 
compliance materials. The facility would call an 800 telephone number 
to request such materials. The benefit of a FAX system is that it can 
accommodate material produced by the facility either manually or 
electronically.
    2. Transmission via Internet/World Wide Web (WWW). EPA currently 
makes the existing Facility Index System (FINDS) data base available on 
the WWW. In addition, it is investigating the capability of providing 
updates to the existing information by posting a request for addition/
changes/deletion (archiving) of facility records to the regulated 
community. Security issues are being analyzed with the goal of finding 
effective ways to ensure the integrity of the information provided via 
the World Wide Web.
    3. Electronic submission. For several years, EPA has used and made 
available to data submitters specific electronic data transmission 
formats that EPA would intend to make available for use as part of this 
initiative. Providers of Facility Identification data would be able to 
use the electronic data transmission format currently used for other 
data collections.
    4. Other methods. In addition to the above data submission/
transmission methods, EPA would accept paper submissions, but would 
prefer to receive paper forms by fax, as described in item

[[Page 52599]]

1. above. Other magnetic media submission methods used traditionally, 
such as floppy disk, are being considered. However, floppy disks may 
not be efficient for the submission of a small set of facility 
information in the case of a reporting rule (i.e. a large number of 
facilities reporting a small amount of data to EPA or the State).
    Also, under consideration is submission via commercial online 
services and electronic mail.
    EPA would be interested in receiving comments from States and 
potential data submitters regarding the most technically feasible and 
cost effective methods of electronic data transmission for them.

E. Confidential Business Information and Trade Secrets

    The type of information under consideration in the Facility 
Identification Initiative is very general in nature. As currently 
envisioned, this information would be maintained and/or submitted 
separately from the substantive data reported under existing rules. 
Only publicly-accessible data would be included. Given the general 
nature of the facility identification information and its submission 
independent of other substantive data, the Agency believes that it is 
unlikely that facility identification information would qualify for 
protection as either confidential business information (CBI) or a trade 
secret.
    Although the information being contemplated would not give rise to 
a CBI claim, and the rule would preclude claims for facility identifier 
information standing alone, all existing statutory and regulatory 
protection for CBI and trade secrets would remain intact, should there 
be a Facility Identification rule. Claims applicable to the link 
between facility identifier information and other reported information 
would continue to be asserted and maintained in accordance with the 
statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to the underlying data 
collections. Information would continue to be protected in the 
underlying collections, as appropriate.
    EPA takes seriously the obligation to protect CBI and will ensure 
the continued protection of CBI regardless of the method of developing 
Facility Identification records. EPA is mindful that safeguards are 
necessary to ensure that CBI submitted under current rules is not 
inadvertently made available through a facility identification data 
profile.
    EPA is interested in receiving comments on any CBI-related issues 
that should be considered under the Facility Identification Initiative.

IV. Questions To Consider

    This Unit summarizes a number of questions that the reader should 
consider when developing comments on this Notice.
    (1) Is integrated facility data useful and necessary? Should EPA 
maintain a national data base of all (or some segment of) regulated 
facilities in order to fulfill its mission and to allow the public and 
others access to this information?
    (2) What are the specific uses of integrated facility 
identification data?
    (3) Who are the customers for such data and how can they use this 
data to improve environmental protection?
    (4) Is there a benefit to having a national set of data or would 
access to state collections suffice?
    (5) Would a national standard for facility identification, 
including a commonly applied definition of ``facility'', be a useful 
first step to integrating facility data across media programs?
    (6) How should ``facility'' be defined for purposes of such data 
consolidation?
    (7) Is there a better or more comprehensive term to use for the 
purposes of facility-specific data collection than ``facility.''
    (8) From which existing Federal environmental reporting 
requirements should facility data be consolidated? Should priorities be 
set regarding which Federally regulated facilities to cover?
    (9) Should the Initiative be limited to facilities reporting under 
Federal authority only or should a Facility Identification data base 
include other facilities (e.g. those that only report to a State)?
    (10) What data elements would form the optimum consolidated 
facility identification record?
    (11) What methods of electronic data transmission/submission should 
EPA develop and support?
    (12) Are there any CBI issues associated with developing and 
maintaining a Facility Identification data base?
    (13) This Notice outlines a number of possible alternatives for 
implementing the Facility Identification Initiative. What other 
approaches should be considered? How would such approaches support the 
goals of a Facility Identification Initiative?
    (14) If a reporting requirement were developed, who should collect 
the data and who should maintain it -- EPA, the States, both?
    (15) What reporting provisions or techniques of reporting would 
minimize the costs of reporting and maintain current data?
    (16) Are there non-national alternatives to providing integrated 
data to the public? In other words, does facility-specific 
environmental protection require the collection and maintenance of a 
national data base? Are there needs for national data analyses (in 
addition to facility-specific analyses) that would warrant such a 
national data base?
    (17) Presuming a system of national data integration is advisable, 
how best can EPA work with the States to develop such a system?
    (18) EPA realizes that there will be impacts to States because of 
the Facility Identification Initiative. What are potential problems and 
burdens that States may face under each of the various alternatives to 
implementing the Facility Identification Initiative?
    (19) EPA is aware that a number of States are in the process of 
implementing programs much like the Facility Identification Initiative. 
What specific programs have States implemented and what progress has 
been achieved?

V. Request for Public Comment

    EPA requests public comment on all the issues outlined in this 
Notice regarding the consolidated reporting of facility identification 
information. Comments should be submitted to the address listed under 
the ADDRESSES unit. All comments must be received by EPA on or before 
December 23, 1996.

VI. Public Participation

    This Notice reflects input received early in the process from 
various environmental and industrial interest groups, and States. For 
example, EPA held ``stakeholders'' meetings on the project on June 23, 
1995, in which the project's concepts to date were outlined and oral 
comments were received. Copies of materials made available at that 
meeting and a summary of comments is available in the public record for 
this Notice.
    In addition, the Agency entered into a cooperative agreement with 
the National Governors' Association (NGA). The purpose of the 
cooperative agreement was to provide a forum for States to exchange 
information about their respective uniform reporting efforts, to learn 
about the Agency's Facility Identification Initiative, and to share 
their experiences with EPA. The forum, consisting of 12 State 
representatives selected by NGA officials, has held a number of 
meetings to discuss the Facility Identification Initiative concepts. 
The individual meeting summaries will also be made part of the public 
record for this Notice.

[[Page 52600]]

    EPA intends to hold one or more public meetings in connection with 
this Notice. Separate notice of such meeting or meetings will be 
published in the Federal Register.

VII. Public Record

    A record has been established for this Notice under docket number 
OPPTS-00186 (including comments and data submitted electronically as 
described below). A public version of this record, including printed, 
paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any 
information claimed as CBI or trade secret, is available for inspection 
from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 
The public record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information 
Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
    [email protected].
    Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the 
use of any special characters and any form of encryption. The official 
record for this Notice, as described above will be kept in paper form. 
Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically 
into printed, paper form as they are received and will place the paper 
copies in the official record for this Notice which will also include 
all comments submitted directly in writing. The official public record 
is the paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the 
beginning of this document.

VIII. References

    (1) ``Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and 
the Environment: Recommendations for Comprehensive Information 
Resources Management'' issued by the Information Resources Management 
Strategic Planning Task Force, a subcommittee of the National Advisory 
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), August 1994, 
EPA 270-K-94-002.
    (2) EPA 2100 Information Resources Management Policy Manual, 
Chapter 13 - Locational Data, April 8, 1991.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: September 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-25378 Filed 10-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F