[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1674-1686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-430]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[TRI-2004-0001; FRL-7532-3]
RIN 2025-AA15


Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Forms Modification Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

[[Page 1675]]

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Information

A. Does This Document Apply to Me?

    This document applies to facilities that submit annual reports 
under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Act (EPCRA). It specifically applies to those who submit the TRI Form R 
or Form A Certification Statement. (See http://epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm#forms for detailed information about EPA's TRI reporting 
forms.) To determine whether your facility would be affected by this 
action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in part 
372 subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you 
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    This document also is relevant to those who utilize EPA's TRI 
information, including State agencies, local governments, communities, 
environmental groups and other non-

[[Page 1676]]

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

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

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

Index

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1677]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1678]]

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

III. What Reporting Requirement Changes Are Being Proposed?

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

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

[[Page 1679]]

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

[[Page 1680]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1681]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1682]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 1683]]

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

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

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

IV. Technical Modifications to 40 CFR 372.85

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

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

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

[[Page 1684]]

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

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


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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    We have prepared a document estimating the recordkeeping and 
reporting burden savings associated with this rule. We calculate the 
reporting and recordkeeping burden reduction for this rule as 45,000 
hours and the estimated cost savings as $1.85 million. Burden means 
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to 
generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for 
a Federal agency. That includes the time needed to review instructions; 
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the 
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, 
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing 
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously 
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to 
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise 
disclose the information.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses,

[[Page 1685]]

small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has 
fewer than either 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the 
firm's primary SIC code; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 
a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    The economic impact analysis conducted for today's proposal 
indicates that these revisions would generally result in savings to 
affected entities compared to baseline requirements. The rule is not 
expected to result in a net cost to any affected entity. Thus, adverse 
impacts are not anticipated.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for the proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' 
that may result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year.
    Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, 
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider 
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal 
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The Agency's analysis of compliance with the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 found that today's proposed rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the 
private sector. This proposed rule contains no federal mandates (under 
the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, EPA has 
determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule 
merely streamlines reporting requirements for an existing program. 
Therefore we have determined that today's proposal is not subject to 
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' 65 FR 67249 (November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the federal Government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
federal government and Indian tribes. This proposed rule does not have 
tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175.

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

    ``Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks,'' 62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that EPA 
determines (1) ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive 
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk 
that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potential effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
rule as defined by Executive Order 12866.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

[[Page 1686]]

inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business 
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not establish 
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any 
voluntary consensus standards.

J. Environmental Justice

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

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

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

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

PART 372--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart E--[Amended]

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


Sec.  372.85  Toxic chemical release reporting form and instructions.

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

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