[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 117 (Friday, June 18, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32859-32868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15544]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6363-8]
RIN 2050-AE50


Office of Solid Waste Burden Reduction Project

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency

ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: To meet the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the 
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) plans to reduce the recordkeeping and 
reporting burden on states, the public and regulated community 
associated with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The 
Paperwork Reduction Act establishes a federal government-wide goal to 
reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden on the states, the public 
and regulated community by 40% from a starting date of 1995 to 
September 2001. We are working to reduce burden while protecting human 
health and the environment.
    For this Notice of Data Availability (NODA), we reviewed our 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements and their burden on the 
states, public, and regulated community; reviewed burden reduction 
ideas developed by other EPA offices and the regulated community; 
developed additional burden reduction ideas; and sought input from EPA 
offices and states. In today's NODA, we are soliciting comment on our 
ideas and our background documents. These background documents are 
available on the Internet and in the RCRA Information Center. We plan 
to issue a proposed rulemaking to implement many of these ideas.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 20, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their 
comments referencing docket number F-1999-IBRA-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket 
Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Hand 
deliveries should be made to the RCRA Information Center at the 
Arlington, VA address below. Comments also may be submitted 
electronically via the Internet to: [email protected].
    Comments in an electronic format also should reference docket 
number F-1999-IBRA-FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as 
an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of 
encryption.
    Commenters should not submit any confidential business information 
(CBI) electronically. Commenters must submit an original and two copies 
of CBI under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, 
Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
    Public comments and technical background information are available 
for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located on the first 
floor of Crystal Gateway I, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, 
VA. The RIC is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is 
recommended that an appointment be made by calling (703) 603-9230. The 
public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from the docket at no charge. 
Additional copies are $0.15 per page. The docket index and some 
technical background information materials are also available 
electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS NOTICE CALL: The RCRA Hotline. Callers 
within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703-412-9810 or TDD 
703-412-3323 (hearing impaired). Long-distance callers may call 1-800-
424-9346 or TDD 1-800-553-7672. The RCRA Hotline operates weekdays, 
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time. Send written requests to: RCRA 
Information Center (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Background information materials for this Notice are available on 
the Internet. Follow the instructions below to access these materials 
electronically:

WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/burdenreduction
FTP: ftp.epa.gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/epaoswer

    The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. 
Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically to 
paper form and place them in the official record. The official record 
also will include all comments submitted in writing.

Acronyms

ICR: Information Collection Request
LDR: Land Disposal Restrictions
LQG: Large Quantity Generator
NODA: Notice of Data Availability
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSW: Office of Solid Waste
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TRI: Toxics Release Inventory
TSDF: Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility

Index of Notice

Glossary of Terms

I. Background and Purpose of NODA
    A. What is RCRA?
    B. What is recordkeeping and reporting burden?
    C. Why do we ask you to recordkeep and report?
    D. What are our goals for reducing recordkeeping and reporting 
burden?
    E. How is burden estimated?
    F. What is an ICR?
    G. What is the baseline for OSW paperwork requirements?
    H. What is the OSW Burden Reduction Initiative?
    I. What is in today's NODA?
    J. What we would like you to do.
    K. Information on burden reduction ideas not in the NODA.
    L. What happens after we receive comments?
II. Major Burden Reduction Ideas
    A. Should we allow facilities to submit all information and keep 
records of all information electronically?
    B. Should we reduce reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 
generators and TSDFs?
    C. Should we lengthen the periods between facility self-
inspections?
    D. Should we change RCRA personnel training requirements?
    E. Should we streamline the LDR paperwork requirements?
    F. Should we reduce the amount of data collected by the Biennial 
Report?
III. Other Burden Reduction Efforts Taking Place in RCRA
    A. Changes to the hazardous waste manifest.
    B. Integrating the Biennial Report with the Toxics Release 
Inventory
    C. Other RCRA Initiatives
IV. Other Agency Burden Reduction Initiatives
V. Technical Background Information
    A. Is there a description of other burden reduction ideas not in 
today's NODA?

[[Page 32860]]

    B. What are the RCRA hazardous waste reporting requirements?
    C. What are the accounting changes for EPA Information 
Collection Requests?
    D. What are EPA burden hours?

Glossary of Terms:

    Boilers/industrial furnaces: An enclosed device using controlled 
flame combustion to accomplish recovery of materials or energy.
    Characteristic waste: A solid waste that is a hazardous waste 
because it exhibits one or more of the following hazardous 
characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
    EPA identification number: A number assigned by EPA to each 
generator; transporter; and treatment, storage, or disposal facility. 
Identification numbers are facility-specific, except for the 
transporter who has one for all his/her operations.
    Facility: All land and structures used for treating, storing, or 
disposing of hazardous waste. A facility may consist of several 
treatment, storage, or disposal units.
    Generator: Any person whose process produces a hazardous waste in 
excess of 100 kg/month or acutely hazardous waste in excess of 1 kg/
month, or whose actions cause a hazardous waste to become subject to 
regulation.
    Groundwater: Water below the land surface.
    Hazardous waste: Includes solid wastes that have not been excluded 
from the definition of hazardous waste; have been listed as hazardous 
wastes by EPA; exhibit one or more characteristics of hazardous waste; 
or have been mixed with a hazardous waste.
    Inspections: Owner/operators of facilities must inspect their 
facilities for malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors, and 
discharges which may cause of lead to releases of hazardous 
constituents to the environment or a threat to human health.
    Land disposal: Includes placement in a landfill, surface 
impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt 
dome formation, salt bed formation, underground mine or cave, or 
concrete vault or bunker intended for disposal purposed.
    Land Disposal Restrictions: Also known as the land ban, these 
restrictions prohibit any land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. 
Land Disposal Restrictions establish treatment standards that must be 
met prior to any land application of hazardous wastes.
    Listed waste: A waste is a listed as hazardous based on the process 
from which the waste was generated and/or the constituents found in the 
waste.
    Manifest: The paperwork that must accompany a shipment of hazardous 
waste as it moves from the generator to the transporter and eventually 
to the treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
    Notification form: A form that notifies regulators of hazardous 
waste management activities at a facility.
    Operator: The person responsible for the overall operation of a 
facility.
    Owner: The person who owns a facility.
    RCRA: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted 
to protect human health and the environment, and to conserve valuable 
material and energy resources. The most important aspect of RCRA is the 
establishment of standards for the management and tracking of waste 
from generator to transporter to treatment, storage, and disposal.
    Permit: Lays out the legally enforceable requirements that owners 
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities must comply with.
    Recordkeeping and reporting requirements: A generator, transporter, 
or treatment, storage and disposal facility must keep all data relating 
to hazardous waste management units. They must also file reports to 
EPA, which become part of their operating record.
    Solid waste: Any garbage, refuse, sludge, or other waste materials 
not excluded by definition. Hazardous waste is a subset of solid waste.
    Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility: A facility that treats, 
stores, and/or disposes of hazardous waste.
    Treatment: Any method, technique, or process designed to change the 
physical, chemical, or biological character or composition of a 
hazardous waste to neutralize it or recover energy or material 
resources from the waste, or to render the waste nonhazardous or less 
hazardous.
    Treatment standards: Standards that hazardous wastes must meet 
prior to land disposal.

I. Background and Purpose of Today's NODA

A. What Is RCRA?

    The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes a 
program for controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated, 
through its treatment and storage, until its ultimate disposal. RCRA 
also establishes a program for controlling nonhazardous industrial 
solid waste and municipal solid waste by encouraging states to develop 
comprehensive plans to manage these wastes, setting criteria for 
municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste disposal 
facilities, and prohibiting the open dumping of solid waste. RCRA is 
implemented by EPA and the states.
    EPA's regulations implementing RCRA are listed in Title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Within Title 40, the hazardous waste 
regulations are listed in Parts 260 through 279. The solid waste 
regulations are listed in Title 40, Parts 240 through 258. In this 
NODA, we often give the location of where you can find specific 
regulations as 40 CFR, with the specific part or parts listed afterward 
(e.g., 40 CFR Part 264).

B. What Is Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden?

    Recordkeeping and reporting burden includes information that EPA 
requires or requests of you (the public, states, and regulated 
community), and then is reported to us and/or kept as records by you.

C. Why Do We Ask You To Recordkeep and Report?

    We need information to ensure that human health and the environment 
are protected as required by RCRA. We can require that you provide us 
with information and/or that you keep records of information under the 
authority of RCRA. In addition, we sometimes ask you to submit 
information through voluntary surveys, focus groups, and studies.

D. What Are Our Goals for Reducing Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden?

    To meet the federal government-wide goal established by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), we are taking steps to reduce 
recordkeeping and reporting burden by 40 percent. Recordkeeping and 
reporting burden includes not only the time spent submitting 
information to us (writing a letter and putting it in the mail) or 
keeping records (creating and maintaining a filing system), but also 
the time it takes to develop the information (collecting data; 
organizing, analyzing, and summarizing data; writing reports; or 
filling out forms). Burden covers information that we require by 
regulation and the information that we request you give us voluntarily.
    The PRA establishes a government-wide goal of reducing the 
paperwork burden to the public by 40 percent from the total amount of 
paperwork required or requested from the public annually as of 
September 30, 1995. The PRA allows us to reduce paperwork burden in 
stages: 25 percent by September 30, 1998, an additional 5 percent by 
September 30, 1999, another 5 percent

[[Page 32861]]

by September 30, 2000, and a final 5 percent by September 30, 2001.

E. How Is Burden Estimated?

    We estimate the amount of time it takes you to respond to our 
information requests as follows: First, we list all of the activities 
you as state employees, members of the regulated community, or private 
citizens undertake to collect, organize, or otherwise develop the 
information; report the information; or keep it in your records. For 
each activity, we then estimate the time it takes an average respondent 
to complete the information request, taking into account differences 
such as facility size or level of data complexity. Next, we verify 
these estimates through consultations with a small number of 
respondents. Finally, these hour estimates are multiplied by the number 
of people or entities expected to complete the information collection. 
The results of these analyses are published in Information Collection 
Requests (ICRs).

F. What Is an ICR?

    An Information Collection Request (ICR) is a document summarizing 
our estimates of paperwork burden for an information collection. We 
have to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
of the ICR before we can collect any information. Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, you (state employees, members of the regulated 
community, or private citizens) have an opportunity to comment on the 
estimates in our ICRs prior to our submitting them to OMB for approval. 
After a 60-day public comment period, we review and incorporate, where 
appropriate, your comments into our estimates.
    OMB generally approves ICRs for a three-year period. In order to 
continue an information collection after this period, we must renew the 
ICR with OMB. ICR renewals follow the procedures outlined above, 
including consultations and public comment.

G. What Is the Baseline for OSW Paperwork Requirements and What 
Progress Has Been Made to Date in Reducing It ?

    On September 30, 1995, the paperwork burden baseline for the 
regulations OSW implements was 12,600,000 hours. To meet the 
government-wide goal, we would have to reduce this burden baseline by 
5,040,000 hours to an annual total of 7,560,000 hours by September 30, 
2001. As of October 1, 1998, we achieved burden reductions totaling 
nearly 2,000,000 hours or 16 percent. A chart of all OSW burden hours 
is available in the RCRA docket or on the Internet.

H. What Is the OSW Burden Reduction Initiative and What Have We Done to 
Date?

    The OSW Burden Reduction Initiative grew out of workshops and round 
tables for reinventing the RCRA regulations, such as the Land Disposal 
Roundtable we sponsored in July 1998. Over the last two years, we 
reviewed all of the OSW reporting and recordkeeping requirements and 
developed ideas for eliminating or streamlining them. After obtaining 
input from within EPA and a limited number of state experts, we 
developed today's NODA to seek broader input on the ideas. The goal of 
the Burden Reduction Initiative is to reduce paperwork while 
maintaining a protective OSW program.

I. What Is in Today's NODA?

    In today's NODA, we present our major burden reduction ideas. We 
also reference other smaller ideas, which are available in the RCRA 
Docket and on the Internet. And, we mention other ongoing burden 
reduction efforts so you can gain an understanding of our overall 
burden reduction strategy.
    If all of the burden reductions ideas presented in today's NODA and 
the background documents were implemented, we would achieve burden 
reductions that would allow us to meet our 40 percent goal. We estimate 
these ideas add up to 3.3 million hours, which is about a 40% overall 
reduction in burden. Note that this figure does not include savings 
from accounting changes, which are discussed at the end of the NODA. 
Also, in calculating this figure, we made sure that we were not double-
counting any burden reduction savings from the multiple ideas.
    Some of the ideas presented today are controversial, and we may not 
necessarily go forward with each idea in a rulemaking. However, we do 
expect to go forward with many of them. As discussed throughout today's 
NODA, your input will help us decide which areas are the best 
candidates to pursue in a later rulemaking. Please note that today's 
Notice does not change any existing recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements--they remain effective and are enforceable.

J. What We Would Like You To Do

    After reviewing today's NODA and the background information, we 
would like you to comment on: the positive and negative impacts of the 
burden reduction ideas; whether they would reduce burden as we have 
estimated; and other ideas for reducing RCRA burden, both in areas 
covered by this NODA and any others.

K. Information on Burden Reduction Ideas Not in the NODA

    You can find on the Internet at: 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/burdenreduction a document 
entitled ``Burden Reduction Ideas'' which lists some additional burden 
reduction ideas not in the NODA. This document is a chart that lists 
each idea, its ICR number(s) and regulatory citation(s), its baseline 
burden hour estimate, and an estimate of the burden savings that might 
be achieved if it were implemented.

L. What Happens After We Receive Your Comments?

    After reviewing comments received, we will issue a proposed 
rulemaking to implement a number of these burden reduction ideas. We 
will consider your comments and suggestions, and will probably do 
supplemental analyses on some of the ideas. The proposed rulemaking 
that follows this NODA will present more complete rationales for 
changes we are considering to existing requirements.

II. Our Major Burden Reduction Ideas

    For the ideas presented below, we summarize our existing policies 
on the issue, discuss possible changes, and highlight areas you might 
want to comment on. Comments are of course welcome on any and all 
aspects of the discussion below.

A. Should We Allow Facilities To Submit All Information and Keep All 
Records of Information Electronically?

Existing Policies for Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
    EPA has been working to introduce electronic reporting and 
recordkeeping into our programs. In the short term, our goal is to 
eliminate the cost to industry and government of using paper to 
transfer data and eliminate the errors and delays involved in 
keystroking reports into databases. Our longer term goal is to use 
electronic reporting as a tool for streamlining and automating the 
exchanges of data among industry, environmental agencies, and the 
public. To accomplish these goals, we are developing guidelines and 
have convened workgroups to ensure that we develop consistent and 
effective electronic reporting and recordkeeping programs across all 
program offices.
    In the RCRA program, we are exploring ways to increase electronic 
reporting and recordkeeping. While we have no RCRA-wide policy on this 
subject, we have made strides in some

[[Page 32862]]

areas. For example, on November 2, 1996, we wrote an interpretive 
letter to the company Safety-Kleen saying that they can store 
electronic image files of manifests instead of keeping paper copies. We 
also recently initiated a pilot project to test the feasibility of 
using Electronic Data Interchange and the Internet to automate 
manifesting activities. In this pilot, users will prepare, transmit and 
keep copies of a digitally signed electronic manifest. The pilot is 
scheduled to be completed by September 1999 and will be evaluated by 
EPA as part of a manifest revisions proposed rule. We are also heavily 
promoting electronic reporting for the Biennial Report.
Possible Changes to Our Policies for Electronic Reporting and 
Recordkeeping
    We are evaluating whether to develop an across-the-board policy 
whereby you could electronically report and keep records of RCRA-
required documents so long as you meet some conditions, such as 
ensuring data integrity in storage and that the documents are readily 
available during inspections. This would mean that you would not have 
to keep paper copies of any RCRA records, unless you prefer to do so. 
In some cases, this policy would mean that we would have to upgrade our 
data management systems. We will not be able to do this immediately, 
but over time we could move to a primarily electronic system for RCRA, 
while maintaining paper capability for those parties who cannot or will 
not go to electronic reporting.
Questions/Comments
    We want comment on whether electronic reporting and recordkeeping 
should be allowed across-the-board, or whether it should be limited to 
specific areas. In addition, please comment on the enforceability of 
electronic signatures (we especially want comment from state agencies 
who would be implementing the requirements), the accessibility of 
electronic records during inspections, and how easy it would be for 
companies to submit electronically. Also comment on whether you would 
see any burden or cost savings from electronic reporting and 
recordkeeping.
    In addition, please comment on whether the costs of automation such 
as obtaining a computer, software, and on-line provider outweigh these 
cost savings. Even though the electronic submissions would be 
voluntary, we need to understand how many parties are likely to pursue 
electronic submissions to help us decide what resources we should be 
committing to this area.

B. Should EPA Reduce Reporting Requirements for Generators and 
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)?

Existing Reporting Requirements
    We receive more than 300 notifications, reports, certifications, 
demonstrations, and plans from generators and TSDFs in order to show 
compliance with the RCRA regulations, as well as applications for 
extensions, permits, variances, and exemptions. Generators and TSDFs 
must notify us of their regulated waste activities and TSDFs must 
submit information such as ground-water quality reports, closure and 
post-closure certifications, and Part A permit applications. These 
reporting requirements are in 40 CFR Parts 262, 264, 265, 266, 268, 
270.
Possible Changes to Reporting Requirements/Agency Analyses and Data
    We are evaluating whether we should continue to require facilities 
to submit all this information. We would still require facilities to 
develop and maintain the required information. Rather than submitting 
the required information to EPA, however, it would be kept on-site.
    We believe that not requiring facilities to submit this information 
will save them time and money. Receiving less information would also 
reduce our data management and administrative burden. We have developed 
a list of all of the reporting requirements that apply to generators 
and TSDFs, and the burden for each of these activities. This list is 
available in the RCRA Information Center and on the Internet at: http:/
/www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/burdenreduction.
    Please be aware that we believe some notices to be high priority 
(to ensure compliance with regulations), and do not plan on eliminating 
the requirement that they be sent to EPA. Below are some of the notices 
we will keep:
     40 CFR Parts 264.143, 145 and 265.143, 145 requirements 
that facilities submit financial assurance information or updates of 
financial assurance information. Allowing facilities to maintain this 
information on site only rather than sending it to EPA will increase 
the likelihood that facilities will not obtain adequate financial 
assurance for closure or corrective action.
     40 CFR Parts 262.12; 263.11; 264.11; 265.11; and 266.70 
requirements that facilities notify us of their legal owner. This 
information is needed to identify responsible parties in enforcement 
cases.
     40 CFR Part 264.12 requirement that TSDFs notify 
generators that they have appropriate permits. Eliminating this 
requirement would shift the burden of proof to the Agency when we 
attempt to bring an action against a generator that ships waste to an 
unpermitted TSDF.
     40 CFR Parts 264.12; 265.12 transfer of ownership 
requirements. These requirements help ensure that the buyer is fully 
aware of its RCRA obligations and increases the likelihood that the new 
owner will be in compliance with RCRA.
     40 CFR Part 268.7(a) generator notification requirements. 
This tracking requirement is essential for federal regulators to ensure 
that the correct information is placed on file at the waste generating 
facility and is provided to the receiving facility, and allows us to 
monitor what happens to hazardous waste from generation to treatment.
     40 CFR Part 268.7(b)(3)-(b)(4) treatment facility 
notifications. This tracking requirement is essential for federal 
regulators to ensure that the correct information is placed on file at 
the facility and is provided to the waste disposal facility, and to 
allow us to monitor what happens to hazardous waste.
     40 CFR Part 268.9 characteristic waste notifications. 
Maintaining this notice and supporting information is important because 
once the waste has been decharacterized it can be land disposed in a 
nonhazardous landfill. An inspector will not know where this waste was 
sent for treatment or disposal without this notice because the 
receiving facility is out of RCRA jurisdiction. Therefore, this 
information is critical to maintain the RCRA cradle-to-grave tracking 
process.
     40 CFR part 264.1036--RCRA air regulations subpart AA 
reporting requirements are used to determine compliance.
     40 CFR part 264.1065--RCRA air regulations subpart BB 
reporting requirements are used to determine compliance.
     40 CFR part 264.1090--RCRA air regulations subpart CC 
reporting requirements are used to determine compliance.
     40 CFR Parts 262.12, 263.11, 264.11 notification of 
regulated waste activity. This is a basic requirement to inform us of 
who is generating and managing hazardous waste.
Questions/Comments
    By identifying these high priority notices, we are asking whether 
the remaining paperwork imposed by existing regulations has to be sent 
to us.

[[Page 32863]]

The notices highlighted above are, in our opinion, necessary to 
properly ensure compliance. The other nearly 300 notices, however, may 
not be absolutely necessary, and simple recordkeeping onsite may 
suffice. We recognize that opinions will vary on how we should decide 
which notices to keep and thus welcome comments on a methodology for 
deciding what to drop and what to keep.
    We are also interested in learning what impact there may be on the 
environment, human health, and worker health and safety if this 
information were not required to be submitted to EPA. In addition, we 
would like to know if this proposal would relieve the public and 
regulated community of significant burden.
    To help you evaluate which of these notices and other documents are 
necessary to be submitted to us, we have developed some criteria, such 
as notices necessary for:
     Hazardous Waste Program Evaluation: These are items 
collected to measure the success of programs in protecting human health 
and the environment. They could include corrective action reports.
     Hazardous Waste Program Implementation: This is 
information collected to help us develop regulations and policies. This 
could include the biennial report and assurances of financial 
responsibility for corrective action.
     Enforcement: These items are necessary for the enforcement 
of environmental regulations. For example, the requirement that 
hazardous waste generators and transporters notify us of their legal 
owner provides us with information needed to identify responsible 
parties in enforcement cases.
     Required by statute: These are information items we must 
collect according to the RCRA statute, such as the hazardous waste 
reports under RCRA Section 3002.

C. Should We Lengthen the Periods Between Facility Self-Inspections?

Existing Self-Inspection Requirements
    RCRA regulations require large quantity generators and treatment, 
storage and disposal facilities to inspect their facilities to ensure 
that they are operating in compliance with RCRA requirements. The 
regulations include both facility-wide and specific types of unit and 
equipment inspection standards. Some of RCRA's inspection requirements 
specify a frequency with which inspections must be conducted. For 
example, an owner of a container storage area must inspect it at least 
weekly, while an owner of a tank must inspect it daily. You can find 
RCRA's inspection requirements throughout the regulations, but mostly 
in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.
    Inspections are a vital component of an effective regulatory 
system. We also recognize that some facilities may have very good 
facility management practices and might be able to inspect less 
frequently without sacrificing human health and environmental 
protection.
Possible Changes to the Inspection Requirements
    We are evaluating whether to revise RCRA's inspection requirements 
by lengthening the time between inspections. We believe that some 
facilities might have controls in place that could let us reduce the 
frequency of inspections; this could possibly be established on a case-
by-case basis. These special inspection schedules might be worked out 
during facility permitting, and/or we might put a special variance in 
the regulations under which we could allow less frequent inspections. 
We are also considering a variable implementation schedule, where for 
example, larger tank inspection frequency would remain the same, while 
smaller tanks would be inspected less frequently. And, we are 
considering a phased schedule where facility inspection might go from 
daily to weekly to biweekly, if no problems arise.
Questions/Comments
    We would like comment on whether we should lengthen any of RCRA's 
inspection frequencies, on the extent to which such an action would 
reduce burden, and whether this would impact human health and the 
environment. Also, you might suggest mechanisms such as variances and 
waivers that we could use to allow a less frequent schedule, and what 
should be involved in such mechanisms, such as public input. If you are 
opposed to the idea of lengthening inspection frequencies, please 
explain your concerns.

D. Should We Change RCRA Personnel Training Requirements?

Existing RCRA Requirements for Personnel Training
    RCRA regulations require large quantity generators (LQGs) and 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) to train their 
employees on how to perform their jobs in a way that ensures the 
facility's compliance with RCRA requirements (see 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) 
for LQGs and 40 CFR 264.16 for TSDFs).
    The training program must ensure that employees are able to respond 
to emergencies by familiarizing them with emergency procedures, 
equipment, and systems, and must include introductory and refresher 
courses and be taught by a qualified trainer. Employees must complete 
the program within six months after being hired or assigned to a new 
position at the facility. LQGs and TSDFs must keep updated information 
on employees, job descriptions, and the type of training that facility 
personnel have received. Training records on current personnel must be 
kept until closure of the facility.
Possible Changes to RCRA Personnel Training Requirements
    We are evaluating two alternatives for changing the RCRA personnel 
training requirements. Alternative 1 would keep the requirements for 
personnel training under RCRA the same. However, we would eliminate all 
associated recordkeeping. Alternative 2 would eliminate the RCRA 
personnel training requirements that we believe overlap with 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) training 
requirements.
    Alternative 1: Eliminate Recordkeeping for RCRA Personnel Training.
    We are evaluating eliminating all recordkeeping associated with 
RCRA personnel training and replacing it with a one-time certification 
that all employees have been properly trained. Under this approach, we 
would maintain the Section 264.16(a)-(c) requirements and eliminate 
paragraph (d), replacing it with the certification. We would like 
comment on whether a certification would be sufficient to verify that 
employees have received proper training.
    Alternative 2: Replace RCRA Personnel Training Requirements that 
overlap OSHA Training Requirements.
    We believe that some RCRA personnel training requirements overlap 
with OSHA's requirements for health and safety training (see 29 CFR 
1910.120 for some of OSHA's training requirements). For example, both 
regulatory programs require that facility personnel be trained in 
emergency response.
    We are evaluating whether to eliminate RCRA requirements that may 
duplicate OSHA's. For requirements that overlap, we could just 
reference the OSHA requirements, or simply eliminate the entire set of 
RCRA requirements. We would work closely with OSHA if we did this. We 
have prepared a document that is in the

[[Page 32864]]

RCRA Information Center and on the Internet which provides information 
on what we believe to be overlapping requirements.
Questions/Comments
    We would like comment on whether we should eliminate all 
recordkeeping for RCRA personnel training, or all training and 
recordkeeping that duplicates OSHA's. Please let us know if and where 
you believe the RCRA and OSHA training programs are duplicative for 
LQGs and TSDFs. In addition, please comment on whether the RCRA 
regulations require training beyond the scope of OSHA's training and 
whether their elimination would impact human health or the environment.

E. Should We Streamline the LDR Paperwork Requirements?

Existing LDR Paperwork Requirements
    The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) are a major component of the 
RCRA program. In addition to establishing treatment standards for 
hazardous waste prior to land disposal, Part 268 requires generators 
and TSDFs to determine if their waste needs to be treated before land 
disposal, and requires notices and/or certifications to be sent with 
the waste shipments to TSDFs. Generators and TSDFs must keep records of 
their waste determinations, notifications, certifications, and other 
paperwork for three years.
    The LDR paperwork requirements account for nearly one-third of all 
the burden for the RCRA program. Since the passage of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, we have reduced LDR paperwork substantially--
particularly with the May 12, 1997 Land Disposal Restrictions rule. 
Before this rule, generators and treaters that sent their hazardous 
waste offsite had to send a notification with each shipment of waste. 
This rule changed these requirements so that the notification need only 
be sent with the initial waste shipment, so long as the waste and the 
receiving facility remained unchanged. This paperwork change resulted 
in a savings of 1,630,000 burden hours annually. We are now evaluating 
the LDR paperwork requirements for even more burden reduction.
    Based on our review of the LDR paperwork requirements, as well as 
conversations with the regulated community, we believe that some of the 
Part 268 requirements for waste determinations, notifications, and 
certifications could be reduced or eliminated altogether. We have 
summarized these requirements as they currently exist in the following 
paragraphs:
    Section 268.7(a)  Generator Paperwork Requirements.
    Hazardous waste generators must determine if their waste meets the 
applicable LDR treatment standards. They may either test the waste or 
use their knowledge of it to make the determination (268.7(a)(1)). If 
the waste does not meet the applicable standards, the generator must 
send a one-time notification to the treatment facility indicating this. 
And, when the waste does meets the treatment standards, the generator 
must also send a one-time certification with the initial shipment. 
These one-time notifications and certifications must be placed in the 
generator's files. No further notification is required, except if the 
waste or receiving facility changes, in which case a new notification 
must be sent and a copy placed in the generator's files (268.7(a)(2)-
(3)). Generators must keep copies of all waste determinations, 
notifications and certifications for at least three years 
(268.7(a)(8)).
    Section 268.7(b)  Treatment Facility Paperwork Requirements.
    Treatment facilities must test their waste according to the 
frequencies established in their waste analysis plans to determine 
whether their waste complies with applicable LDR treatment standards 
(268.7(b)(1)-(2)). In addition, treatment facilities must send a one-
time notice to the disposal facility that provides specified 
information on the waste. The treatment facility must also send a one-
time certification to the disposal facility that the treatment 
technology used was operated properly. No further notification or 
certification is required, except if the waste or receiving facility 
changes, in which case a new notification and certification must be 
sent and a copy placed in the treatment facility's files (268.7(b)(3)-
(4)). Where a waste is a recyclable material used in a manner 
constituting disposal (and meets other criteria), the treatment 
facility/recycler need not notify the receiving facility. It still must 
send a notice and certification with each shipment to EPA. It must also 
keep records of who received the hazardous waste-derived product 
(268.7(b)(6)).
    Section 268.7(d)  Paperwork Requirements for Hazardous Debris.
    Generators or treatment facilities who claim that their hazardous 
debris is excluded from the definition of a hazardous waste, such as 
debris treated by a specified extraction or destruction technology, 
must send a one-time notification to EPA and keep a copy in their 
files. The notification must be updated under specified circumstances 
such as if the waste is shipped to a different facility. In addition, 
treatment facilities must certify compliance with the treatment 
standards by keeping specified records such as inspections and, for 
each shipment of treated debris, place a signed certification of 
compliance in their files.
    Section 268.9  Paperwork Requirements for Characteristic Waste.
    Generators of characteristic hazardous wastes must determine the 
underlying hazardous constituents (268.2(i)) in their characteristic 
waste. They may either test the waste or use knowledge of it to make 
the determination. (268.7(a)(1)). Generators or treatment facilities 
who treat their characteristic hazardous wastes to meet the treatment 
standards at 40 CFR Section 268.48 and render the waste non-hazardous 
must place a one-time notification and certification in their files. 
They must also send a copy to EPA. The generator or treatment facility 
must update the notification and certification in their files if the 
operation generating the waste changes and/or if the facility receiving 
the waste changes. The generator or treatment facility must update EPA 
on an annual basis if such changes occur.
Possible Changes to LDR Paperwork Requirements
    We are evaluating the following changes to the LDR program:
    Change 1: Eliminate 268.7(a)(1) Generator Waste Determinations.
    We are assessing whether a separate waste determination under 
268.7(a) is needed. Currently, generators are required to determine 
whether they have a hazardous waste under section 262.11. And, treaters 
are required to obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis under 
section 264.13, which provides all the information required to comply 
with Part 268. Under section 268.40, hazardous waste is prohibited from 
land disposal unless it meets the requirements in the Table of 
Treatment Standards (which requires knowledge of EPA hazardous waste 
code, waste constituents, wastewater and nonwastewater classification, 
and treatability group).
    We believe that the section 262.11 waste determination, along with 
the determinations required under sections 264.13 and 268.40, would be 
sufficient to assure that a waste is properly characterized for 
achieving compliance with the LDRs. In addition, we believe that a TSDF 
may continue to use generator-supplied information, if available, to 
meet 264.13 and 269.40 obligations, even if the waste determination 
requirement under 268.7

[[Page 32865]]

is removed. Therefore, we are considering whether the 268.7(a) waste 
determination should be eliminated.
    Change 2: Eliminate 268.7(b)(6) Recycler Notifications and 
Certifications.
    We believe it may be unnecessary for treatment facilities or 
recyclers to send these notifications and certifications to EPA, as 
long as the information contained in them is kept in facility records. 
We note that this kind of reporting relief is not new to the RCRA 
program. RCRA regulations currently allow waste handlers making a claim 
(or taking other action) to keep records on site and not submit them. 
For example, under 261.2(f), a person can accumulate materials before 
recycling without being subject to RCRA if it can be proved that the 
materials are potentially recyclable and have a feasible means of being 
recycled. Submittal of this proof is not required.
    Change 3: Eliminate 268.7(d) Hazardous Debris Notifications.
    We believe it may be unnecessary for generators and treaters of 
excluded debris to send these notifications to EPA, as long as the 
information contained in them is kept in facility records. Our 
reasoning is set out in Change 2 above.
    Change 4: Eliminate 268.9(a) Characteristic Waste Determinations 
and Streamline 268.9(d) Notification Procedures.
    We are reconsidering whether a separate waste determination under 
268.9(a) is needed. Generators are required to determine whether they 
have a hazardous waste under section 262.11. Treaters are required to 
obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis under section 264.13 
which provides all information required to comply with Part 268 (among 
other requirements). And under section 268.40, hazardous waste is 
prohibited from land disposal unless it meets the requirements in the 
Table of Treatment Standards (which requires knowledge of the EPA 
hazardous characteristic waste code, underlying hazardous constituents, 
wastewater and nonwastewater classification, and treatability group).
    We believe that the section 262.11 waste determination, along with 
the determinations required under sections 264.13 and 268.40, would be 
sufficient to assure a waste is properly characterized for achieving 
compliance with the LDRs. Therefore, we are considering whether the 
268.9(a) waste determination should be eliminated.
    Under section 268.9(d), once a characteristic waste is treated so 
it is no longer characteristic, a one-time notification and 
certification must be placed in the generators' or treaters' files and 
sent to EPA. We are reevaluating whether these records need to be sent 
to EPA when they are required to be kept on site in the facility's 
files. Our reasoning is set out in Change 2 above.
Comments/Questions
    We are soliciting comment on whether we should modify any of these 
LDR requirements for waste determinations or notifications. Please let 
us know if the contemplated modifications would eliminate information 
waste handlers need to manage wastes properly. And, please let us know 
if the reduced tracking requirements would weaken waste handlers' 
accountability.

F. Should We Reduce Amount of Data Collected by the Biennial Report?

Existing Reporting Requirements for the Biennial Report
    RCRA requires hazardous waste generators and TSDFs to submit a 
report every other year on the quantity, composition, and disposition 
of hazardous wastes they generate or receive for treatment, storage, or 
disposal. Congress required that these reports be submitted to EPA or 
an authorized state.
    To implement these provisions, we issued the Biennial Report 
regulations for large quantity generators and TSDFs, which are found in 
40 CFR 262.41, 264.75, and 265.75. Generators and TSDFs must submit the 
Biennial Report forms by March 1 of every even numbered year for their 
hazardous waste activities in the previous (odd numbered) year. Through 
these forms and their instructions, we tell generators and TSDFs what 
information they should provide.
    Over the years, we have changed the Biennial Report forms and 
instructions. For example, in the 1997 Biennial Report, we eliminated 
the entire Waste Treatment, Disposal, or Recycling Process System (PS) 
form and the waste minimization questions. In doing so, we decreased 
the amount of burden associated with the Biennial Report.
Possible Changes to the Biennial Report
    We are evaluating whether we should revise the Biennial Report 
forms and instructions to further reduce burden. Potentially, these 
changes could be implemented for the 2001 Biennial Report cycle.
    Change 1: Remove Optional Data Elements from the Current BRS Forms.
    The current Biennial Report forms include data elements required by 
EPA and those that are optionally reported by respondents. These 
optional elements include state hazardous waste code, SIC code, origin 
code, source code, point of measurement, and form code. We are 
evaluating whether to remove some or all of these optional data 
elements from the Biennial Report forms. Since not all respondents 
complete the optional elements, we have incomplete information in our 
national database for these elements. We have proposed eliminating 
these elements before, and have received mixed feedback from states and 
the regulated community.
    Change 2: Eliminate Reporting of RCRA Hazardous Wastes That Are 
Managed in Units Exempt From RCRA Permitting.
    Currently, the Biennial Report covers all hazardous wastes that are 
generated by LQGs and managed by TSDFs. However, many RCRA hazardous 
wastestreams are managed in units that are subject to other 
environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. These particular waste streams are typically high volume 
industrial wastewaters. We are considering whether to continue asking 
for the reporting of any wastewater or nonwastewater wastestream 
managed in exempt units in future Biennial Reports. We have also 
proposed this idea before, and received mixed feedback.
Questions/Comments
    We would like to know how you use Biennial Report data. We would 
also like comments on these and other possible changes to the Biennial 
Report. We want to know what impacts these changes might have on how 
your facility would be characterized, as well as the characterization 
of your waste streams. Would hazardous waste generation and management 
data collected through a data set that excluded hazardous wastes 
managed in units exempt from RCRA permitting meet the needs of Biennial 
Report users? Would Biennial Report data that does not have optional 
data elements be useful? Conversely, if optional data elements are 
retained, how will that affect the usefulness and quality of the data 
for analysis? As with other sections in today's NODA, do you have 
additional ideas for reducing burden associated with the Biennial 
Report?

III. What Other Burden Reduction Efforts Are Taking Place in RCRA

    In addition to the proposals listed in today's NODA, there are 
other efforts in EPA to identify and streamline RCRA paperwork 
requirements. Because these projects are being conducted as separate

[[Page 32866]]

efforts from this particular burden reduction project, we are not 
seeking detailed comments on them in this Notice, except for the BRS/
TRI integration idea.

A. Changes to the Hazardous Waste Manifest

Existing Manifest Requirements
    RCRA directs us to develop a manifest system to ensure that offsite 
shipments of hazardous waste arrive at a designated treatment, storage, 
or disposal facility. The manifest system requirements are in 40 CFR 
Parts 262, 263, 264, and 265. Under Part 262, hazardous waste 
generators generally must complete a manifest for each shipment of 
hazardous waste offsite. The manifest consists of a minimum of four 
copies to facilitate recordkeeping by multiple parties. Generators must 
keep a copy of the manifest signed by the transporter and, 
subsequently, by the designated TSDF who must return a copy to the 
generator. Part 263 requires hazardous waste transporters to sign and 
date the manifest at pickup, carry it to the designated TSDF, and keep 
a copy. Parts 264 and 265 require designated TSDFs to sign and date the 
manifest, note any significant discrepancies, return a copy to the 
generator, and keep a copy.
Proposed Changes to Manifest System
    Based on recent analyses, we estimate that waste handlers take 
about 4.2 million hours each year to comply with EPA and State 
manifesting requirements. We are evaluating modifications to the 
manifest system which could substantially reduce this burden, 
including:
    Modifying the manifest form.
    We are considering further standardizing the manifest form and 
allowing generators to obtain the form from multiple sources. We are 
also thinking about ways to reduce the burden associated with a 
generator's waste minimization certification requirements.
    Providing manifesting relief to utilities.
    Electric and gas utilities have told us they have difficulty 
complying with some of the manifest procedures at their remote sites 
(such as substations and manholes). We are evaluating whether to 
streamline manifesting procedures for these sites.
    Allowing automation of manifesting activities.
    We are considering standards to enable industry to automate their 
manifesting. To study this, we developed the Hazardous Waste Manifest 
Automation Pilot Project, which is looking at both Electronic Data 
Interchange (EDI) and the Internet as mechanisms for automation. We 
have tested EDI with waste handlers and hazardous waste agencies in 
three states. Generators initiated the EDI manifests from their 
personal computers and transmitted them through a network to 
transporters, waste management facilities, and state agencies. Each 
facility signed their manifests with a unique identification number. 
Plans for the rest of 1999 include testing a digital signature in an 
EDI system and testing use of the Internet to transmit manifests.
    Addressing other technical concerns.
    We are also evaluating improvements to other areas of the manifest 
system. These include reducing inconsistencies between EPA and DOT 
shipping requirements and improving the tracking of problem shipments 
such as rejected loads and container residues.
    If adopted, these changes could result in 600,000 hours of burden 
reduction. These changes are scheduled to be published in a proposed 
rule in June 2000.

B. Is There a Way To Decrease Burden Reduction of Biennial Reporting 
System (BRS) Through Integration With the Toxics Release Inventory 
(TRI)?

    An area for potential burden reduction that comes up frequently is 
minimizing the overlap of reporting requirements for facilities that 
file both the Biennial Report and the Toxic Release Inventory. EPA is 
aware of the differences between these two information systems, 
including the universe covered, the frequency of reporting, what is 
reported, and the definition of facilities. However, a 1995 study of 
facilities showed that 43% of facilities reporting under BRS also 
reported to TRI and these facilities produced over 90% of the hazardous 
waste volumes reported to BRS. With recent changes to TRI, the 
percentage of BRS facilities that also report to TRI are expected to be 
even higher. Given this overlap, EPA believes it should assess burden 
reduction opportunities in this area. Comment is requested on the 
following ideas:
    Change 1: Pre-population of electronic forms with redundant data 
elements.
    Some burden reduction may be achieved by ensuring that similar data 
elements are uniformly defined so that an electronic reporting format 
for pre-populating a facility's TRI report with similar data elements 
from that facility's BRS submission (or a BRS submission with TRI data) 
could be implemented. These include the name of the facility, street 
and mailing addresses of the facility, contact names and telephone 
numbers, SIC Code, and EPA ID Number.
    Change 2: Eliminate Biennial Reporting for wastes covered under 
TRI.
    Studies have shown that facilities which report under the Biennial 
Report and also report to the Toxics Release Inventory are likely 
generating 90% of the wastes that are reported to BRS. Although BRS 
collects data on hazardous waste quantities and not the toxic chemical 
quantities reported to TRI, we are studying ways to match hazardous 
waste streams with the chemicals reporting in TRI . To the extent these 
matches can be made clearly and accurately, we could potentially 
eliminate whole categories of hazardous waste from being reported in 
the Biennial Report.
    Change 3: Limit the Biennial Report to 100 top generators; rely on 
TRI for other RCRA facilities.
    A small number of facilities are responsible for the majority of 
the waste reported in BRS. This option would require the top 100 (or 
some other number) facilities as measured by waste volume reported to 
BRS to continue reporting under BRS. No other facilities would have to 
report to BRS. All of these other facilities who reported to TRI in the 
past would still report to TRI in this option.
    Note that only facilities in certain North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS--the replacement for SIC) codes are 
required to report under TRI. Under this option, many generators who 
now report under BRS would not be required to report under TRI. This 
would include business services (NAICS 5414), automotive repair and 
services (NAICS 8111), health services (NAICS 621), national security 
(NAICS 928), and wholesale/retail trade sectors. Furthermore, under 
this option, we would no longer obtain information on off-site waste 
shipments, since this is not covered in TRI.
    Change 4: Collect all information under TRI.
    Under this option, the TRI form would be modified to take data 
elements currently only collected in BRS, such as waste code 
description, waste code number, RCRA permitting information and put 
them on the TRI form. There would be no more Biennial Report. The TRI 
reporting universe would remain the same under this option.
    EPA is aware that these options could pose concerns to both states 
and the regulated community, especially given the investments that have 
been made in BRS. We welcome comment on impacts should any of these 
options be

[[Page 32867]]

implemented, and whether they would reduce the paperwork burden on the 
public and regulated community.

C. Other RCRA Initiatives

    We are not taking comments on the following initiatives. They are 
being presented for informational purposes.
     EPA and the States have recognized the need to reassess 
the information collected and managed to implement the RCRA hazardous 
waste program. To meet this need, the Waste Information Needs (WIN) 
Initiative was established to plan for and implement necessary 
information management changes. One of the key principles of the WIN 
Initiative is to identifying opportunities for reducing reporting 
burden.
    The Initiative is evaluating what information is needed to 
implement and manage the hazardous waste program. Once these needs have 
been identified, the Initiative will determine what information should 
be available in a national database. The project has five phases: 
Planning, analysis, design, construction, and implementation. Currently 
the project is in the analysis and design phases.
    For the analysis phase we divided the hazardous waste program into 
five areas, which are called Program Area Analyses (PAA). Three PAAs 
are active:

--Program Evaluation: The information needed to plan and evaluate the 
hazardous waste program against its goals and objectives.
--Universe Identification: Who is regulated and what we need to know to 
categorize and track them.
--Waste Activity Monitoring: The information needed on 
characterization, generation, movement, and management of hazardous 
wastes.

    More information on the WIN/INFORMED Initiative is available on the 
Internet at: http://www.eps.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data.
     EPA is drafting streamlined permitting procedures for 
facilities that generate hazardous waste and manage it on-site in 
tanks, containers, or containment buildings. We expect a proposed rule 
on this subject to be published this summer.
     EPA proposed in a rulemaking in February of this year to 
allow generators of the RCRA hazardous waste F006 (wastewater treatment 
sludges from electroplating) up to 180 days (or 270 days, if 
applicable) accumulation time without obtaining a hazardous waste 
storage permit or interim status if certain conditions are met. This is 
an extension by 90 days of the time period to store hazardous waste 
without a permit.
     EPA is working to streamline RCRA Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 
261. This is a list of over 480 chemicals used to define hazardous 
waste as well as the constituents which must be monitored during waste 
treatment. To reduce the burden to Appendix VIII users, EPA is 
reconfiguring and modifying Appendix VIII entries based on the 
probability of occurrence of certain constituents in particular types 
of waste.
     A number of years ago, we reexamined the regulatory 
standards for used oil handlers. We decided to remove used oil handlers 
entirely from the hazardous waste regulatory realm. They are now 
covered under their own regulatory authority, which provides hazardous 
waste regulatory-level environmental protection with a much lower level 
of reporting and record keeping. At the time these standards were 
established, EPA learned that most of the recordkeeping requirements 
established in the new regulatory scheme were already standard industry 
practices. Because substantial changes have already been implemented by 
this program, we have not included any used oil ideas in today's 
Notice.
     Likewise, a number of years ago we reexamined the 
regulations governing the collection and management of universal 
waste--batteries, thermostats, and certain pesticides. We decided to 
reduce the reporting requirements for these wastes at that time. For 
example, Biennial Report requirements do not apply to large quantity 
and small quantity handlers of universal waste, and a manifest is not 
required to accompany off-site shipments.
     The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has 
enacted burden reduction for the RCRA air regulations (40 CFR Parts 264 
and 265 subparts AA: Process vents, BB:Equipment leaks, and CC: Tanks, 
surface impoundments, containers, and miscellaneous units). This 
eliminated much of the overlap between the RCRA air regulations and the 
Clean Air Act standards. Now TSDFs and large quantity generators can 
demonstrate compliance with the RCRA air regulations by simply 
documenting that affected units are operating with air emission 
controls that are in accordance with applicable Clean Air Act standards 
under 40 CFR 60, 61, or 63.
    For any RCRA unit in compliance with such Clean Air Act 
regulations, these provisions would reduce the reporting and record 
keeping burden of the RCRA air regulations by nearly 100%. EPA is 
currently in the process of quantifying the burden reduction savings of 
these provisions. We expect that the majority of large-quantity 
generators and TSDFs are subject to one or more regulations under 40 
CFR 60, 61 or 63. In addition to these compliance exemptions, EPA has 
also published other amendments to the Subparts AA, BB and CC air 
regulations that significantly reduce reporting and record keeping.

IV. What Are Other Agency Burden Reduction Initiatives?

    We are not taking comments on the following initiatives. They are 
being presented for informational purposes.
     The Agency's The Next Generation in Permitting Plan, which 
was announced in February of this year, combines permitting system 
improvements underway in the individual program offices (such as 
hazardous waste, air, and water) with improvements developed by an 
Agency workgroup. The goal is to increase flexibility, encourage 
pollution reduction, improve public participation in permitting 
decisions, and reduce paperwork burden.
     The different designs of Agency information collection 
systems have caused facilities to be identified inconsistently across 
program offices. This makes it difficult to link and analyze all the 
information collected by EPA. The Agency's Facility Identification 
Initiative hopes to standardize identification information for all 
facilities subject to federal environmental reporting requirements.
     The One Stop Reporting Program's mission is to reinvent 
environmental reporting to: reduce industry reporting burden, foster 
multimedia and place-based (a specific area of contamination, an 
ecological area, or a political jurisdiction) approaches to 
environmental problem solving, and provide the public with easy access 
to environmental information. Recognizing the importance of states as 
primary collectors of environmental data, One-Stop is working with them 
to implement data reporting and management reforms. To date, the One 
Stop Program has awarded demonstration grants to 21 states to work 
towards achieving these goals.
     The Common Sense Initiative (CSI), which began in1994, has 
tested the possibilities of replacing a single-media approach to 
regulation and reporting with a multimedia approach focusing on 
industrial sectors. One of the industries that has been looked at is 
the metal finishing industry. From this examination, several 
recommendations were made: We should promote electronic reporting (one 
of the recommendations in today's NODA), replace RCRA IDs with a common 
identification that could be used across

[[Page 32868]]

multi-media programs, and eliminate redundancy in the Toxics Release 
Inventory, the Hazardous Waste Manifest, and the Biennial Report.
    The CSI CURE (Consolidated Uniform Report for the Environment) 
project was developed for the computer and electronics industry sector 
between 1995-99 by the state of Texas. CSI CURE examined consolidating 
environmental reporting at the facility level and eliminating 
redundancies.
     In February 1998, the EPA Administrator issued the 
Reinventing Environmental Information Action Plan. The Plan commits 
EPA, in partnership with the states, to implement core data standards 
and make electronic reporting available in the Agency's major national 
systems within five years.
     Finally, in partnership with industry associations, 
environmental groups, universities, and other government agencies, EPA 
has created nine Compliance Assistance Centers. The Centers help small 
and medium sized businesses and local governments better understand and 
comply with federal environmental requirements. Each center is targeted 
to a specific industry sector and explains relevant federal 
environmental regulations.

V. Technical Background Information Containing Specific Burden 
Reduction Ideas

A. Is There a Description of Burden Reduction Ideas Not in Today's 
NODA?

    We have put a document entitled ``Burden Reduction Ideas'' in the 
RCRA Information Center and on the Internet: http://www.epa.oswer/
hazwaste/data/burdenreduction. In it, we describe some sections of the 
RCRA regulations that require paperwork and propose ideas for reducing 
this burden.
    We seek your comments on the merits or disadvantages of any of 
these ideas and our estimates of burden savings. As with other sections 
of this NODA, if you have additional ideas, we welcome them.

B. What Are the RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting Requirements?

    We have put a document entitled ``RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting 
Requirements'' in the RCRA Docket and on the Internet. In this 
document, we list all the RCRA hazardous waste reporting requirements. 
For each reporting requirement, we provide specific information on each 
requirement, including a description of the requirement, its regulatory 
citation(s), the approved EPA ICR that covers the reporting 
requirement, the current baseline burden estimate, frequency of its 
reporting, and whether the requirement applies to generators, TSDFs, or 
both. We organize and display the reporting requirements in six 
categories: Notifications; reports; certifications; variances, 
exemptions, demonstrations, and extensions; permits; and plans. Within 
these categories, we sorted the requirements by regulatory citation.
    As noted earlier in the NODA, we are evaluating whether we should 
turn some of the RCRA hazardous waste reporting requirements into 
recordkeeping requirements. We recognize that some of this information 
will still need to be reported to EPA or a state. We seek your comments 
on this concept, what criteria should be used in determining whether 
reporting requirements can be turned into recordkeeping requirements, 
any potential impacts there would be if this information is not 
submitted, and whether this will result in burden reduction.

C. What Are the Accounting Changes for OSW ICRs?

    We have put a document entitled ``Accounting Changes'' in the RCRA 
Docket and on the Internet. In this document, we list accounting 
changes for some OSW ICRs that could be implemented through ICR 
renewals. Accounting changes are not changes to paperwork requirements 
but rather changes to the way we measure burden in our ICRs. They are 
our efforts to better estimate the actual burden to the public and 
regulated community. For example, we could make it a rule throughout 
all ICRs that we only assign burden for reading regulations to new 
facilities. The presumption here is that existing facilities know the 
regulations and do not have to read them each time they do an activity. 
While not regulatory changes, these accounting changes reduce the 
amount of paperwork burden OSW has in its individual ICRs.
    In this document, we list proposed accounting changes for reducing 
burden associated with specific paperwork requirements and ICRs. Each 
idea includes a brief summary, the affected regulatory citations, 
comments on implementing these ideas, the ICR in which the paperwork 
requirement can be found, an estimate of the burden savings that might 
be achieved if it were implemented, and a description of the 
assumptions used in calculating the potential burden hour savings. In 
most cases, we used our best judgment to estimate the savings, while in 
others, we were able to make specific calculations.
    In reviewing this document, we ask you to comment on whether these 
are realistic assumptions and the accuracy of our estimates of burden 
savings.

D. What Are OSW's Burden Hours ?

    We have put a document in the RCRA docket and on the Internet which 
lists OSW's ICRs and their burden hours as of 1995 and today.

    Dated: June 8, 1999.
Elizabeth Cotsworth,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 99-15544 Filed 6-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P