[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39931-39949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13486]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[TRI-2004-0001; FRL-7532-6]
RIN 2025-AA15


Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Forms Modification Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: To improve reporting efficiency and effectiveness, reduce 
burden, and promote data reliability and consistency across Agency 
programs, EPA is simplifying the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 
reporting requirements. TRI reporting is required by section 313 of the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and section 
6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). This rule simplifies the 
TRI reporting requirements by removing 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, 
streamlining other TRI data elements through range codes and a reduced 
number of reporting codes, and eliminating a few data elements from the 
Form R. This rule also makes two technical corrections to the 
regulations to provide corrected contact information and to remove an 
outdated description of a pollution prevention data element.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 12, 2005. The first reports 
with the revised reporting requirements will be due on or before July 
1, 2006, for reporting year (i.e., calendar year) 2005.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. TRI-2004-0001. 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 whose 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 address: [email protected] for specific 
information on this proposed rule. For more information on EPCRA 
section 313, contact the TRI Information Center, Toll free: (800) 424-
9346, TDD: (800) 553-7672, callers in the DC area: (703) 412-9810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action 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. (See http://epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm#forms for detailed 
information about EPA's TRI reporting forms.) To determine whether your 
facility is 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 is also relevant to those who utilize EPA's TRI 
information, including State agencies, local governments, communities, 
environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations, as well 
as members of the general public.

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

    This 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

[[Page 39932]]

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.

III. What Is the Background and Purpose of Today's Actions?

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 reporting 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).
    The statute, along with regulations at 40 CFR part 372, subpart B, 
requires 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 
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 Resource Conservation Recovery 
Act (RCRA) Subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 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 Modifying the Form A Certification Statement and Form R?

    EPA is modifying the TRI reporting forms to improve efficiency and 
effectiveness, reduce burden, and promote data reliability and 
consistency across Agency programs.
    One of the purposes of today's actions is to reduce burden on 
facilities that submit annual TRI reports without compromising the data 
quality of toxic chemical release and other waste management 
information. ``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. 44 U.S.C. 3502(2). 
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.
    Today's actions reduce the time, cost and complexity of the 
reporting requirements imposed on facilities. While they are only 
expected to result in a modest amount of cost and burden savings, they 
also represent only the first phase of a broader and more substantive 
set of regulatory burden reduction alternatives currently being 
examined by EPA. That effort, described in more detail below, is 
expected to provide additional regulatory relief for TRI reporters.
    A second purpose of today's rule is to improve data reliability and 
consistency across EPA programs. By replacing self-reported data from 
facilities with data from EPA's Facility Registry System on items such 
as latitude and longitude and facility ID numbers for other EPA 
programs, EPA can better ensure that this information is reported 
consistently across programs and facilities. Further, as locational 
information will have method of collection, accuracy, and a description 
of the location to which the coordinates correspond (e.g., production 
center, discharge point), data users will be able to utilize 
information with greater confidence. By streamlining reporting 
requirements and improving data reliability and consistency, this rule 
will improve reporting efficiency and effectiveness.

C. What Led to the Development of This Rule?

    Throughout the history of the TRI program the Agency has 
implemented measures to improve reporting efficiency and effectiveness 
and 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,

[[Page 39933]]

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, 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 R or A 
report for a particular chemical. For those facilities required to 
report, the software provides guidance for each data element on Forms R 
and A. TRI-ME has a one-stop guidance feature, the TRI Assistance 
Library, which allows keyword searches on the statutes, regulations, 
and many EPCRA section 313 guidance documents. TRI-ME also offers a 
``load feature'' that enables the user to upload almost all of the 
facility's 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 2005, EPA 
distributed approximately 5,000 copies of TRI-ME in preparation for the 
2004 reporting year deadline of July 1, 2005. Approximately 93% of the 
roughly 98,000 Form Rs filed in 2004 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. For non-PBT 
chemicals, a facility may use the Form A if the facility manufactures, 
processes or otherwise uses a TRI chemical below the alternate 
threshold of one million pounds per year and 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 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 identified a 
number of 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) what the Agency believes are more substantial changes that may 
affect which facilities are required to report and at what level of 
detail.
    EPA decided to address the two categories of changes through 
separate rulemakings, one of which is today's action. This rule focuses 
on streamlining reporting associated with TRI's Forms R and A. The 
changes resulting from today's action are the elimination of some 
redundant or seldom-used data elements from these forms, and 
modification of other data elements to reduce the time and costs 
required to complete and submit annual TRI reports. It also replaces 
some elements with information from EPA's Facility Registry System in 
order to improve data reliability and consistency. 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, or higher quality, 
chemical release and other waste management information.
    The 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 expanding eligibility for Form A 
and introducing a ``no significant change'' option for chemical reports 
that have not changed significantly relative to a baseline reporting 
year. 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.

IV. Summary of Today's Final Rule

    EPA is removing from the TRI Forms R and A the latitude/longitude 
data elements (section 4.6, Part I), the EPA Identification Number(s) 
(RCRA ID No.) (section 4.8, Part I), the Facility NPDES Permit 
Number(s) (section 4.9, Part I), and the Underground Injection Well 
Code (UIC) ID Number(s) (section 4.10, Part I). Instead of continuing 
to request this information from the TRI reporter, the Agency's 
Facility Registry System (FRS) will be used to populate the TRI 
database with this information. This information will continue to 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 at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index_java.html. In other 
words, facility identification and locational data will still be made 
available for all reporters and data users, but instead of requiring 
facilities to supply their geographic coordinates or provide certain 
EPA program identification and permit numbers, the Agency will extract 
this data from information that is already collected, stored and 
maintained in its centrally managed database, the FRS.
    Based on comments received and information gathered since the 
proposed rule, EPA is not removing from Form R or modifying in any way, 
part II, section 5.3 column C as part of today's rule. Section 5.3 
applies to discharges to receiving streams and water bodies. Column C 
requires facilities to indicate the percentage of the total quantity of 
the EPCRA section 313 chemicals reported in column A (Total release) 
that are discharged from stormwater.
    As part of today's action, the Agency is, however, making 
modifications to five data elements of part II, section 7 of the Form 
R. This rule simplifies column B of section 7A--Waste

[[Page 39934]]

Treatment Method(s) Sequence, by replacing 64 codes used to describe 
the various waste treatment methods applied to EPCRA section 313 
chemicals treated on-site with a modified version of the 18 hazardous 
waste treatment codes (H040-H129), as they were described in the 
proposed rule. These 18 codes are a modified version of the codes used 
in EPA's National Biennial Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) 
Hazardous Waste Report (hereafter referred to as the RCRA Biennial 
Report). (See PDF screen 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). Based on comments submitted, several modifications were 
made to the list of H codes presented in the proposed rule. For 
example, in the proposed rule EPA inadvertently omitted treatment code 
H083 (Air or steam stripping) from the list of 18 hazardous waste 
treatment codes. This was an oversight and EPA has included this code 
in today's rule. Furthermore, ``as the major component of treatment'' 
has been removed as a qualifier from H082 (Adsorption as the major 
component of treatment) and H083 (Air or steam stripping as the major 
component of treatment), ``at another site'' has been removed as a 
qualifier from H111 (Stabilization or chemical fixation prior to 
disposal at another site) and H112 (Macro-encapsulation prior to 
disposal at another site), and ``only'' has been removed as a qualifier 
from H121 (Neutralization only).
    In addition, based on comment received on the proposed modification 
to section 7A column B, EPA has decided to retain the seven Air 
Emissions Treatment codes currently available for reporting in column B 
(see page 55 of the 2004 TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions (EPA 260-
B-05-001, January 2005) at http://epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm#forms). 
Accordingly, this rule finalizes the following list of waste treatment 
codes for reporting in part II, section 7A, column B of Form R:

A01 Flare
A02 Condenser
A03 Scrubber
A04 Absorber
A05 Electrostatic Precipitator
A06 Mechanical Separation
A07 Other Air Emission Treatment
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
H083 Air or steam stripping
H101 Sludge treatment and/or dewatering
H103 Absorption
H111 Stabilization or chemical fixation prior to disposal
H112 Macro-encapsulation prior to disposal
H121 Neutralization
H122 Evaporation
H123 Settling or clarification
H124 Phase separation
H129 Other treatment

    This rule eliminates section 7A, column C--Range of Influent 
Concentration from the Form R.
    Today's action allows facilities to report their treatment 
efficiency as a range instead of an exact percentage in column D (Waste 
Treatment Efficiency Estimate) of section 7A of Form R using the 
following ranges:

E1 = greater than 99.9999%
E2 = greater than 99.99%, but less than or equal to 99.9999%
E3 = greater than 99%, but less than or equal to 99.99%
E4 = greater than 95%, but less than or equal to 99%
E5 = greater than 50%, but less than or equal to 95%
E6 = equal to or greater than 0% but less than or equal to 50%

    This set of ranges is different from the set of ranges proposed. 
The ranges were modified from the proposal to allow data users to 
continue to distinguish the performance of combustion devices in excess 
of RCRA hazardous waste and TSCA PCB incinerator standards. The mid and 
lower range treatment efficiencies were modified as well, in response 
to comments to reduce the number of categories in those ranges and 
better reflect the distribution of historical values.
    This rule eliminates column E (Based on Operating Data) of section 
7A from Form R.
    This rule also removes the current recycling codes for section 7C 
(On-Site Recycling Processes) of the Form R and replaces them with the 
following three reclamation and recovery management categories used in 
EPA's RCRA Biennial Report:

H10 Metal recovery (by retorting, smelting, or chemical or physical 
extraction)
H20 Solvent recovery (including distillation, evaporation, 
fractionation or extraction)
H39 Other recovery or reclamation for reuse (including acid 
regeneration or other chemical reaction process)

    See the PDF screen 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. Readers will note that the actual code numbers differ 
slightly from those in the RCRA instructions in that the leading ``0'' 
(i.e., H020 ) has been removed from each code name. This was done to 
avoid the need to reprogram TRI-ME, thus saving administrative costs. 
The Agency does not believe this will cause any confusion.
    Today's action also modifies section 8.11 of Form R by removing the 
requirement to answer ``yes'' or ``no'' to this optional section on 
additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution 
control activities. Instead, an optional question will replace the 
requirement to answer ``yes'' or ``no'' and an optional text box 
feature will be added to EPA's TRI-ME reporting software to enable 
reporting facilities to add a brief description of their applicable 
source reduction, recycling, and other pollution control techniques and 
activities. Facilities will still have the opportunity to submit hard 
copies of any source reduction information they may wish to submit.
    Finally, through this rule EPA is amending 40 CFR 372.85(a) to 
provide a reference to the TRI Web site to obtain the Form R instead of 
publishing in the regulations an incorrect physical address from which 
to request copies of TRI forms. In addition, EPA will also provide a 
phone number from which to request TRI publications. EPA is also 
deleting 40 CFR 372.85(b)(18), an outdated pollution prevention data 
element, which expired after the 1990 reporting year.

V. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA received 31 distinctive comments in response to this proposed 
rule. While the majority of commenters were supportive of today's 
actions, many commenters cautioned the Agency to make sure that the 
changes do not result in diminished data quality, utility, or 
accessibility. Some commenters urged the Agency to consider data user 
needs and to balance user needs with burden reduction. A number of 
commenters also stated that today's actions will only provide minimal 
burden relief, especially since some of the changes are for information 
that is collected by the facility one time and used from year-to-year. 
Others

[[Page 39935]]

expressed concerns about the initial transaction costs that TRI 
reporters, as well as the states, may incur to account for these 
reporting changes and to modify training materials and analysis 
mechanisms already in place.
    The TRI reporting form changes in today's rule support existing 
data uses and fulfill statutory and regulatory obligations. They are 
the first step in the Agency's larger effort to reduce reporting burden 
for TRI reporters while at the same time, these changes allow the 
Agency to continue to provide valuable information to the public 
consistent with the goals and statutory requirements of the TRI 
program. Some of the changes being finalized today will shift the 
burden to the Agency, and will increase the quality of locational data 
and EPA program identification information (also referred to 
collectively hereafter as facility identification information). Other 
changes being finalized today will reduce computational burden, but 
maintain the availability of information in a form commensurate with 
its true underlying precision. Accordingly, EPA does not believe there 
will be a meaningful loss of information for users.
    While today's changes provide only a modest amount of burden 
relief, they are important nonetheless, and based on comments received, 
many TRI reporters support this burden relief measure. EPA is committed 
to all of its ongoing burden reduction activities. As stated in the 
proposed rule and above at Unit III.C., the Agency is pursuing a 
broader and more substantive set of regulatory burden reduction 
alternatives in a future rulemaking.
    EPA acknowledges that changes to the TRI reporting forms could lead 
to some initial transition costs for TRI reporting facilities and other 
TRI stakeholders. Balanced against this consideration, of course, is 
the fact that these changes will remove certain data elements from the 
reporting forms and simplify others, thereby making it easier for 
industry to comply with the TRI reporting requirements after the 
changes are made. For example, whereas Form R previously required 
reporters to distinguish between three separate on-site wastewater 
treatment method codes for cyanide oxidation, the changes finalized 
today will allow reporters to use one cyanide oxidation treatment code. 
In addition, the initial burden from adjusting to the form 
modifications that the commenters predict will not affect new 
reporters.
    Further, EPA's TRI-ME software can be used by reporters to greatly 
ease reporting burden. The software guides reporters through a series 
of logically ordered questions that helps them determine how to meet 
their regulatory obligations, and provides various tools for completing 
the reporting forms. The changes finalized in today's rule will be 
incorporated into the TRI-ME software. EPA does not require facilities 
or others to develop additional data collection, tracking or other 
databases or documentation. Neither does the Agency require any special 
training materials or courses as a result of today's actions.
    EPA does not believe that this rule will impose significant burden 
on the states. Most of the changes being finalized are in the form of 
eliminating data elements. The Agency will continue to make all 
facility identification data available through the Facility Registry 
System (FRS). Furthermore, the Agency will continue to work with the 
states to improve electronic information exchange capability and the 
timeliness of such exchanges.
    EPA's National Environmental Information Exchange Network 
(``Exchange Network'') provides state partners the capability to access 
data through a streamlined web services process. As more states 
participate, they will be provided with the ability to use the Exchange 
Network's built-in quality checks, standard file formats, and a common, 
user-friendly approach to exchanging data. A majority of states already 
take advantage of EPA's Exchange Network. In addition, we expect 
numerous benefits to result from the centralization of data in the 
Agency's FRS, which provides an integrated, comprehensive source of 
information about facilities subject to a variety of environmental 
statutes and regulations. As an essential part of implementing this 
rule, EPA will provide increased access to both the FRS resources and 
the Agency's Integrated Error Correction Process (IECP), so that 
states, facilities, and the general public can more easily access 
facility identification information and report data errors when 
appropriate.
    Finally, some commenters raised issues about burden reduction 
(e.g., no significant change certification criteria, expanded 
eligibility for Form A) that will be addressed in another rulemaking 
(discussed above in Unit III.C.) to be proposed later this year. Other 
commenters raised issues unrelated to this rulemaking (e.g., providing 
additional context for the TRI data). These comments are included in 
the public docket for this rulemaking but will not be addressed in this 
rule.

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

    In the proposed rule, EPA requested comment on removing reporting 
of certain facility identification data (latitude/longitude coordinates 
and certain EPA program and permit identification numbers) from the TRI 
forms. Instead of collecting the data annually from facilities, EPA 
would use the centralized EPA database, known as the Facility Registry 
System (FRS), to populate the TRI database with this information. 
Specifically, EPA proposed populating the TRI database with latitude 
and longitude information (also referred to as locational data or 
locational information) from the FRS.
    Under this proposal, locational information from FRS, including a 
description of what the latitude and longitude coordinates represent 
(e.g., center of production, pipe outfall, stack) would be made readily 
available for all TRI search applications, such as the publicly 
accessible TRI Explorer and all Form R and A retrievals from 
Envirofacts. Similarly, as part of the proposed rule, EPA requested 
comment on automatically populating the TRI database with EPA program 
and permit identification numbers (except the TRI facility 
identification number (TRIFID), which facilities must continue to 
report annually), from FRS as an alternative to requesting the 
information from TRI reporters. The program and permit identification 
numbers that will be populated from FRS 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 the permit numbers issued by a state to 
facilities with underground injection control wells (UIC).
    As discussed in the proposed rule, the FRS is a centrally-managed 
database developed by EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI). 
FRS 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

[[Page 39936]]

identification data are exchanged with over three dozen states through 
the Exchange Network. FRS also receives correction and verification 
information from the reporting community through Web-based access, and 
through EPA database systems, such as TRI, maintained by over a dozen 
EPA programs.
    Eight commenters supported removing the proposed facility 
identification data from Forms R and A, and instead, replacing these 
data elements with data from the Agency's FRS so that TRI reporters 
would no longer have to annually report these data elements on their 
Form Rs or As. Several commenters voiced support for greater 
consistency between EPA's program databases, as well as increased 
simplification and standardization of the facility identification data 
that EPA collects, stores and makes available to the public. One 
commenter asserted that this change would enhance TRI reporting 
efficiency and improve data quality, especially if existing databases 
are utilized for populating Forms R and A. Two commenters stated that 
these changes would ease paperwork and reporting burdens and lead to 
greater consistency on data collection across Agency programs. Several 
commenters stated that the change would help eliminate redundant data 
collection. One commenter stated that the change would promote wider 
use of the FRS. Another commenter asserted that the change should help 
avoid data entry errors and promote consistent reporting of facility 
locational data.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that the Agency's databases should 
be standardized and made consistent as much as possible across various 
programs. This regulatory change is part of a larger Agency initiative 
to increase the reliability and accuracy of the Agency's FRS database 
system. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing its proposal to use FRS to 
supply the data for sections 4.6 and 4.8 through 4.10 of Forms R and A.
    Before finalizing this proposal, however, EPA evaluated the 
concerns expressed about ``inherent flaws'' in the Agency's FRS that 
compromise the Agency's efforts to consolidate environmental data, 
minimize reporting redundancies and create a single identification 
system. Contrary to statements in the proposed rule, one commenter 
claimed that facility identification records in FRS are not accurate or 
authoritative. A commenter asserted that this understanding is 
supported by industry representatives who must reconcile FRS data with 
company records. A number of commenters emphasized that it was 
imperative to enable the public to easily retrieve all environmental 
information about a specific facility.
    Commenters did not provide data to substantiate their claims of 
erroneous information in FRS. Nevertheless, the Agency examined FRS 
coverage of EPA program identifiers in the context of RCRA 
identification numbers (hereafter referred to as RCRA IDs) to test the 
commenters' concern. The FRS database contains all EPA program 
identification numbers that are stored in EPA's national program system 
databases. Regarding RCRA, FRS contains all the RCRA IDs from the 
RCRAInfo database, and is thus a definitive source for such 
information. The Agency examined over 10,000 TRI forms with RCRA IDs 
from the 2002 reporting year. A description of this study is included 
below under Unit V.A.2. of this preamble.
    It is important to note here that the FRS database covers all the 
TRI reports for reporting year 2003 and has retained all TRIFIDs (there 
are over 49,000 of them) since the TRI program began in the late 1980s. 
FRS also has the latitude and longitude coordinates for all historical 
TRIFIDs. The Burden Reduction Rule will not impair the public's access 
to information about TRI reporting facilities, including locational 
data and EPA program identification numbers. These data will continue 
to be publicly available through various TRI access tools. Only now 
they will be supplied by the larger and more authoritative data files 
in FRS. To the extent that inconsistencies and errors are identified in 
the future, the Agency's Integrated Error Correction Process (IECP) 
will provide a convenient and effective mechanism for bringing these 
issues to the Agency's attention for resolution.
    Two commenters asserted that ideally, EPA should refrain from 
relying on FRS to supply data to TRI until all states are participating 
in the Exchange Network and have the capability to upload data into 
FRS. One commenter stated that 14 states are still not active in the 
Exchange Network. The commenter asserted that data regarding facilities 
in non-participating Exchange Network states are not being scrutinized 
by people most familiar with those facilities. According to the 
commenter, until all states are part of the network, EPA lacks the 
``on-the-ground'' intelligence needed to ensure that FRS data is 
accurate or complete.
    EPA agrees that ideally all the states should be part of the 
existing Exchange Network. However, we believe that the commenter that 
urged EPA to wait to implement this rule ``until all states are 
participating in the FRS program'' may not have understood that FRS 
contains data about regulated facilities' identification information 
that has been provided both by EPA's many database systems and by many 
state environmental agencies. States do not need to take any specific 
action to access information data from FRS and information is available 
in FRS for facilities in states that aren't yet a part of the Exchange 
Network from various EPA sources. Anyone, including state agencies, can 
access data from FRS at any time. While it is true that not all states 
currently participate in the Exchange Network, the vast majority of 
states do participate, and EPA is working closely with non-
participating states to help facilitate their full participation in the 
near future.
    Accordingly, EPA does not agree that the rule should be delayed 
until all states are participating in the Exchange Network, nor does 
EPA agree that the Agency lacks the ``on-the-ground'' intelligence 
needed to ensure that FRS data are accurate or complete until such 
time. The FRS is already functioning and will be further enhanced as 
part of the effort to implement this rule. EPA will provide all states 
and other data users the opportunity to correct inaccurate TRI data. 
All states and reporters will be able to correct inaccurate information 
on locational data and EPA program identification numbers through the 
Agency's Integrated Error Correction Process (IECP). As explained in 
the proposed rule, another advantage of utilizing information in the 
FRS is that one can take advantage of EPA's Public Internet site to 
submit corrections to EPA's data on regulated facilities through one 
central access point. The IECP unifies the process by which EPA 
regulatory programs manage error notifications 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 the following: (1) Selecting the ``Contact Us'' 
hotlink from the EPA Home Page and accessing the link ``report data 
errors'', (2) calling the IECP desk, (3) sending a fax, or (4) e-
mailing a detailed description of the error.
    Furthermore, the Agency will take one additional step to ensure a 
smooth transition to the use of FRS. For reporting year 2004, the e-FDR 
is expected to be publicly released in the fall of 2005. At the time of 
the posting of the individual TRI reporting form

[[Page 39937]]

submissions (which will still contain the collected facility 
identification data elements), EPA will also post the facility 
identification information stored in FRS. This will enable interested 
parties to directly observe the data and confirm its accuracy. Lastly, 
the Agency will be working closely with all states to ensure a smooth 
transition to the utilization of pre-existing facility identification 
data in FRS.
    One commenter recommended that EPA delay implementing the use of 
FRS to supply facility locational data and EPA program identification 
numbers until a pilot study is conducted to ensure that these data are 
of equal or higher quality in FRS than the data which are contained in 
the TRI database. In addition, according to the commenter, problems 
arise when the TRI dataset contains locational data for facilities that 
FRS does not cover. While having all states as part of the Exchange 
Network may help address these problems, the commenter asserted that 
there are inherent limits to this kind of after-the-fact 
reconciliation. The commenter urged EPA to delay implementation until 
the FRS dataset is complete and the agency can ensure the accuracy of 
the data.
    While EPA does not agree that we should delay using FRS to access 
TRI facility identification information until a pilot study can be 
undertaken, a separate assessment was conducted of locational 
information in FRS versus that contained in the TRI database. The 
locational information in the two systems was compared on the basis of 
performance against two criteria: A quality screening approach and 
conformance to the Agency's data standards for locational information.
    Absent very detailed site information, it is difficult to design a 
locational screening test. What the Agency did was to compare the 
locational data stored in FRS versus such data in the TRI database on a 
county basis (i.e., what percentage of reported locational data were 
within the boundaries of the counties where the facilities' street 
addresses were located). While it is possible for a street address to 
vary appreciably from the location of the facility's center of 
production, the Agency believes this test provides a first 
approximation of relative performance. We found that 98% of all FRS 
locational data as opposed to 97% of all TRI locational data met this 
criterion. Therefore, on the basis of this broad measure, the two 
systems had comparable information.
    For the second test, the Agency looked at how the data conformed 
with the Agency's data standards for locational information (i.e., a 
description of the method of data collection and what is measured, as 
well as probable accuracy). Fully 89% of all TRI facility locational 
data for reporting year 2003 would have been able to meet the Agency's 
data standard requirements if FRS had been used to derive TRI 
locational data. Currently, none of the TRI locational data can meet 
the Agency's data standards for locational information, which require 
metadata for the method, accuracy and description of what the latitude 
and longitude coordinates represent.
    Over the coming months, the Agency is implementing a program to 
ensure that virtually all TRI facilities will have locational 
information that meet the Agency's data standard requirements. An 
implementation plan describing this program has been included in the 
docket that accompanies this rule. Furthermore, through the IECP, EPA 
provides the opportunity to correct inaccurate data maintained for use 
by TRI data users.
    1. Removal of Latitude/Longitude Reporting Requirement (Section 4.6 
of Forms R and A). Three commenters recommended that reporters be 
provided the opportunity to review and correct the latitude/longitude 
data stored in EPA's FRS before removing section 4.6 from the reporting 
forms and replacing it with locational data from FRS. One of the 
commenters also recommended that EPA keep FRS locational data updated 
in a timely manner.
    While EPA does not agree with the commenters' suggestion on waiting 
for facilities to review their locational data before removing part I 
section 4.6 from the TRI reporting forms, EPA wholeheartedly agrees 
with the commenters that TRI reporters should be allowed to review and 
correct their latitude/longitude data in FRS. We are taking a number of 
steps to provide this opportunity. Specifically, in the fall of 2005, 
at the time of the electronic facility data release (eFDR), we will be 
providing the relevant FRS locational information along with the 
responses provided by the facility for the 2004 reporting year. This 
will enable all interested parties, including data reporters and users 
to compare the information contained in the most recent TRI submission 
with the corresponding information for that facility in FRS.
    Any interested party will have the opportunity to raise concerns 
with TRI-reported latitude/longitude values or the new values to be 
derived from FRS. These concerns may be submitted to the Agency through 
the IECP (discussed above). The Agency plans to improve access to the 
IECP to make it very easy for TRI reporters or data users to review and 
notify the Agency of inaccurate locational values.
    One commenter cautioned EPA that the definition of ``facility'' 
under EPCRA is not necessarily the same as the definition of 
``facility'' under other statutes, and that this could affect the use 
of FRS data. The commenter asserted that under EPCRA two sites that are 
adjacent and/or contiguous and that are owned by the same entity are 
considered to be one facility (even if separated by a public road). 
However, according to the commenter, under RCRA the sites would be 
considered two facilities. As such, there may be instances where the 
data from each source is different for the same ``facility.''
    Variation in facility definitions as one crosses EPA program 
boundaries is one of the major challenges the Agency faces in its 
efforts to develop a central facility registry. However, it is a 
challenge which already faces some users of TRI information. For 
example, users of information for RCRA assessments are already faced 
with the challenge to create a map between multiple RCRA facilities and 
a single TRI facility, when the facility definitions are not 
consistent. Likewise, there may be cases where the TRI-reported RCRA 
IDs do not constitute the totality of RCRA IDs associated with a given 
TRIFID due to a limited number of spaces on the TRI form. Presently, 
crosswalk checks are completed manually.
    The conversion to the use of FRS for facility identification 
information should actually strengthen the mapping across programs with 
different facility definitions. To understand why this is so, one needs 
to understand the meaning of a facility in FRS. In FRS, each entity 
with a discrete street address is an independent facility. Where 
individual programs will disagree is in the case of more complex 
facilities where ownership or programmatic considerations have led to 
the clustering of multiple FRS ``facilities'' into a single entity for 
the purposes of a program (e.g., TRI).
    A key step in the transition to the use of FRS supplied locational 
data will be the creation of a program map. This map will use the 2004 
TRI responses to assign a TRI facility identification number (TRIFID) 
to each relevant FRS facility. Where multiple FRS facilities have the 
same TRIFID, all will be assigned the same TRIFID. This map will ensure 
that the locational information for the TRI facility contains not only 
all relevant locational

[[Page 39938]]

information, but also all relevant EPA program identification numbers. 
Furthermore, the locational information retrieved will be superior to 
current TRI information because it will have metadata describing how 
the information was derived, its collection method, its probable 
accuracy, and a geographic description (i.e., whether it is based on 
the center of the production facility, a pipe outfall, stack, etc). 
This change will provide a much more comprehensive look at all of the 
locational information for TRI facilities. Furthermore, the enhanced 
access to the IECP for data suppliers and users should result in a 
steady improvement in facility mapping and locational information.
    One commenter was troubled about how long it would take to populate 
FRS with TRI data and complete data quality checks. The commenter urged 
EPA to ensure that no lapses occur in the availability of locational 
data as a result of this process.
    EPA will ensure that there is no lapse in making locational data 
available for TRI data users. Locational data from TRI and other 
programs is already stored in FRS and the Agency will provide a 
seamless transition from collecting locational data directly from TRI 
reporters to pulling existing locational data out of FRS and providing 
it along with other facility identification information to TRI data 
users starting with the public data release for reporting year 2005 
information, which must be submitted by July 1, 2006.
    Several commenters expressed concern that EPA's FRS database does 
not often have previously stored locational data for first-time TRI 
reporters. The commenter asserted that this data gap problem could also 
be exacerbated by the fact that not every state is participating in 
EPA's Exchange Network. The commenter recommended that EPA modify the 
rule to require reporting of locational data by first time reporters. 
Another commenter stated that data gaps in the FRS database could be 
best addressed by requiring new reporting entities to include 
additional information on facility identification data the first time 
they are required to complete Form R or A.
    EPA acknowledges that there are a relatively small number of new 
facilities that submit TRI Form R or A reports each year for which the 
Agency does not already have locational data stored in FRS. The Agency 
disagrees, however, that new reporters should be required to submit 
locational data. EPA plans to use street address matching in 
combination with its siting tool to populate FRS with locational data 
for those cases in which FRS has no previous locational data for new 
reporters. As discussed above, reporters, as well as the states and the 
general public will be provided the opportunity to submit a request for 
correcting inaccurate facility locational data by using the Agency's 
IECP.
    Two commenters opposed the use of address matching for deriving TRI 
facility latitude/longitude data. One commenter stated that the two 
most apparent problems with this method are: (1) If the facility is in 
a rural or unpopulated area, offshore, etc., then the software may be 
unable to match the address to a location; and (2) the facility's 
mailing address may not be the location where the toxic chemical 
releases occur. For example, if a facility picks up mail at a 
headquarters building that manages several facilities, this would 
create a different latitude/longitude than where its stacks are 
located.
    The second commenter claimed that as much as 70% of the locational 
data derived from various EPA databases and stored in FRS may be based 
on address matching. The commenter maintained that some of the 
locational data in FRS may be based on wastewater outfall locations 
that can be long distances from the facilities. Reliance on FRS data 
collected from these other databases, according to the commenter, would 
introduce significant error into the use of the information.
    The Agency disagrees with these commenters. Dealing with the second 
comment first, FRS does not use mailing addresses for locational 
referencing of facilities. Rather, the actual street address of the 
facility is used. EPA believes that street address matching, used in 
combination with our facility siting tool (i.e., a geospacial 
application that uses aerial imagery to determine latitude and 
longitude coordinates) in rural areas, can provide credible locational 
coordinates for all TRI facilities. EPA plans to use this method for 
new reporters and for other cases in which no credible locational data 
is available in FRS. The Agency believes that this method provides a 
better source of data than locational data for which there is no 
metadata (i.e., no explanation as to how the information was derived or 
its accuracy), which occurs with the current locational data reported 
to the TRI program. Furthermore, because the Agency plans to include 
all locational information in the next e-FDR, anyone interested in a 
particular facility will be able to easily raise concerns through the 
IECP with the data chosen to represent the location of the facility.
    As to the concern with the quality of FRS, FRS has been operational 
since 2000 and continues to improve data quality. Many EPA programs 
utilize FRS and the existing IECP process is in place to facilitate 
receipt of suggested corrections to locational information. Despite 
these facts, only a very small percentage of IECP requests have 
involved locational updates. Further, for smaller facilities, 
especially those most likely to rely on street addresses, we believe an 
address is a reliable indicator of location.
    Further, FRS will provide a complete picture of all locational 
information available on a facility. Because FRS provides metadata for 
the method, accuracy, and description of its locational data, it will 
be possible to know exactly the nature of the point being measured. The 
data user of such information will know whether they are using a point 
based on an outfall, a stack, or the center of the production. To the 
extent that a preferred location reported out of FRS is incongruent 
with the intended use of the TRI information, the data user may simply 
use another locational value for their purposes. This is a significant 
improvement on the current TRI locational values of unknown accuracy 
and relevance.
    One commenter recommended that instead of removing section 4.6 from 
the TRI reporting forms, facilities should instead certify that the 
latitude and longitude data reported to TRI is obtained either from 
EPA's Facility Siting Tool or from a Global Positioning System (GPS) 
device. According to the commenter, this would ensure that facilities 
provide more accurate information.
    The Agency does not agree with the commenters that there is an 
issue with the accuracy of locational information in FRS. Furthermore, 
we do not agree that increasing reporting burden on TRI reporters to 
provide locational data that is already available in FRS is an 
appropriate response. Transitioning to FRS use for locational 
information will allow users to not only have the most current 
locational information, but a clear indication of the method of 
collection, description of what is measured, and probable accuracy. 
They will know the reference point of the facility (e.g., the street 
address, a stack, or some permitted portion of the facility) for which 
locational information is provided. Finally, use of FRS will improve 
the overall quality of TRI facility locational information. FRS will be 
continuously gathering the best locational information based on 
metadata for the method, accuracy and description of what the latitude 
and

[[Page 39939]]

longitude coordinates represent--including GPS-based data--as opposed 
to relying only on TRI-reported values of unknown precision. 
Furthermore, as stated in response to several previous questions, the 
IECP will provide yet another means for continually improving facility 
identification information.
    2. Removal of Reporting Requirements for EPA Permit and Program 
Identification Numbers (Sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of Forms R and A). 
Three commenters emphasized the importance of EPA facility 
identification numbers to TRI data users, including various EPA program 
offices and the general public. One commenter cited, as an example, the 
use of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) identification 
numbers to calculate ``double counting'' of TRI chemical disposal 
transfers sent to TRI facilities that report the same chemicals again. 
The commenter stated that RCRA Identification numbers (RCRA IDs) allow 
transfers of chemicals (marked with RCRA IDs in section 6 of Form R) to 
be matched up with receiving TRI facilities (marked with RCRA IDs in 
section 4.8). The commenter also cited a 1998 report by a public 
interest organization to demonstrate the usefulness of collecting EPA 
program identification numbers in TRI. The report used the Underground 
Injection Control identification numbers to help analyze the 
completeness and accuracy of underground injection well data in EPA 
databases. According to the commenter, these examples are just a small 
sample of the many uses for this data. The commenter recommended that 
EPA conduct a small study to demonstrate that FRS data is of equal or 
higher quality to TRI's program identification data before removing 
these data elements from the TRI reporting forms.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that the EPA program identification 
numbers in sections 4.8 through 4.10 of the TRI reporting forms are 
important and are used extensively by various EPA offices, the states, 
and the general public. This information will not be lost. Program 
identification numbers previously reported through TRI are already 
stored in the TRI database known as the Toxics Release Inventory System 
(TRIS) and will be available to data users through access tools offered 
by the Agency.
    Nevertheless, in consideration of commenters' concerns, EPA 
conducted a study of RCRA IDs and concluded that FRS provided higher 
data quality than TRI reporting. In particular, the Agency examined 
over 10,000 TRI forms with RCRA IDs from the 2002 Reporting Year. These 
facilities were selected because they were used by the Office of Solid 
Waste in its annual evaluation of waste minimization progress for 
approximately thirty chemicals related to a Federal Government 
Performance and Result Act (GPRA) goal. In its evaluation, the Office 
of Solid Waste uses the RCRA IDs in conjunction with Form R sections 5 
and 6 data to estimate the quantities of priority chemicals that may be 
contained in hazardous versus non-hazardous wastes. This activity is 
analogous to those of interest to the commenters.
    Approximately 800 RCRA IDs were found in the TRI database that did 
not match RCRA IDs in the RCRAInfo database. Almost half of these RCRA 
IDs contained obvious transcription errors (i.e., ``o'' substituted for 
``zero'', etc). It is not clear to what extent the remainder represent 
more subtle transcription errors or other factors, although it is 
important to note that the Office of Solid Waste maintains an active 
data stewardship program. On the other hand, it is also important to 
note that the TRI Reporting Form has only two spaces for the listing of 
RCRA IDs. Because of differences in facility definitions, it is quite 
reasonable to assume that a current TRI facility could be associated 
with more than two RCRA IDs. Given these factors, and the fact that FRS 
contains RCRA IDs assigned by EPA's RCRA program, there can be little 
doubt that FRS is a more definitive source of information on RCRA IDs, 
and that cross program coverage will be improved by conversion to the 
use of FRS.
    We believe that the few cases in which there may be information 
gaps can be addressed by improving communication between EPA's Office 
of Environmental Information, which operates both the TRI and FRS 
programs, and the other Agency offices responsible for the program 
identification data at issue. The one possible exception to this 
statement relates to IDs for underground injection sites reported under 
the UIC program. Presently, UIC IDs are not collected on the Federal 
level except as a part of TRI. States maintain these records. 
Unfortunately, because of form limitations, TRI reporters have not 
necessarily provided a full listing of UIC permitted wells. EPA's 
Office of Information Collection is working with the Office of Ground 
Water and Drinking Water, however, to gather UIC information from 
individual states to include in FRS. It is anticipated that states will 
begin to provide this more complete information in 2006, in advance of 
the first data release to be affected by this rule.
    One commenter expressed concern about a time lag in the 
availability of EPA program identification data if EPA removes the 
program identification numbers from the TRI reporting forms. The 
commenter cited the importance of this data to a variety of community 
groups across the country and urged EPA to quickly address this 
potential problem so the public would not experience a lag in its use 
of TRI Explorer.
    As discussed above, the FRS already stores EPA program 
identification data. EPA will ensure that there is no lag in the 
availability of such data in TRI Explorer or Envirofacts, the two EPA 
data applications that TRI data users rely upon to access TRI-related 
data. By the time that the 2006 TRI Public Data Release (PDR) is 
published, all applicable FRS data will have been copied into the TRI 
database for publication.
    One commenter asserted that the EPA program identification numbers 
on the TRI reporting forms are used by state environmental agencies as 
a cross reference for other program applications. According to the 
commenter, at least one state uses the data as a link to hazardous 
waste generator reporting, in addition to its use as a key identifier 
for TRI facilities. The commenter expressed concern that the proposed 
rule did not address how states would receive these data elements if 
they are not supplied with the Form R. The commenter contended that 
many states have developed their own data systems to manage the TRI 
reports filed with the state and they regard TRI reporting as a joint 
EPA-State partnership since facilities are required to file their forms 
at both the Federal and State levels. The commenter expressed concern 
that the data elements states need to manage their TRI data will be 
lost if this change is finalized.
    EPA is committed to ensuring that states and TRI data users have 
accurate program identification numbers associated with TRIFIDs. To 
ensure that these data are available to states in a timely fashion 
after the TRI report is filed with EPA's Reporting Center, the Agency 
will use the Exchange Network to share data with states using the web 
services available through the Central Data Exchange (CDX). For states 
that may not yet be web-enabled, EPA will make available other 
electronic means to retrieve program identification numbers for the 
TRIFIDs of interest.

[[Page 39940]]

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

    In the proposed rule, EPA asked for comment on removing part II, 
section 5.3 column C from Form R. This data element applies to 
discharges to receiving streams and water bodies. Column C requires 
facilities to indicate the percentage of the total quantity of the 
EPCRA section 313 chemicals reported in column A (Total release to that 
water body) that are discharged due to stormwater. Column C was the 
only part of section 5.3 affected by this proposal. Changes to the rest 
of part II, section 5.3 were not included in this proposal.
    A number of commenters supported the removal of column C, claiming 
that this data element is difficult to accurately estimate. Others in 
favor of removing column C from Form R asserted that there does not 
appear to be any significant use of this data element by the public or 
other TRI stakeholders.
    Three commenters, however, opposed removing section 5.3, column C. 
One commenter noted that this data element is important to 
understanding periodic spikes in overall water releases that may be 
caused by stormwater run-off. According to this commenter, directing 
data users to the NPDES system to obtain this information is not an 
adequate option because integrating data across EPA's databases is not 
an easy task. Further, the commenter asserted that phosphate mining 
stacks may be an example of a sector that is not part of the NPDES 
system but reports significant quantities of toxic chemicals 
contributed by stormwater. The commenter requested EPA to examine 
whether there are other sectors for which the public cannot get the 
same data from NPDES before eliminating this data element.
    Another commenter stated that it is not uncommon for the overall 
water releases reported in TRI to rise or fall because of a few 
facilities with large releases associated with stormwater. The 
commenter contended that stormwater runoff often dominates such large 
releases, and the inclusion of this data element allows users to better 
understand what drives year-to-year variations in water release data, 
and to detect whether increases were due to production changes or 
rainfall. According to the commenter, if column C were to be removed 
TRI data users would have to cobble together information about the 
percentage of stormwater contribution from various EPA database 
sources.
    Yet another commenter stated that these particular percentages have 
been useful to the public when making year-to-year comparisons of 
discharges to water. According to this commenter, these numbers can 
vary wildly from year-to-year, and having information about the 
percentage attributed to stormwater runoff, versus the amount that 
could be attributed to a discharge of toxic chemicals, is critical 
information for the public. The commenter asserted that this proposed 
change represents a significant loss of data.
    Based on the public comments received and additional information 
that has recently come to light from EPA's Office of Water, the Agency 
now better understands how this data element is used by EPA program 
offices, states, communities, researchers and other TRI data users. The 
Agency has thus decided not to remove column C of section 5.3 from Form 
R. While EPA acknowledges that it may be difficult for some facilities 
to estimate the percentage of the total quantity of toxic chemicals 
contributed by stormwater, EPA believes that this data element provides 
important information that helps researchers, communities and other TRI 
data users make year-to-year comparisons of discharges of toxic 
chemicals to water that is unavailable elsewhere. One example of how 
these data are used comes from the Division of Engineering and Analysis 
in EPA's Office of Water, which uses this data element in its pollution 
control activities and the Agency's biennial report to Congress under 
section 304 B of the Clean Water Act.
    As to the availability of this information from other sources, the 
commenters were again divided. There clearly are areas of non-coverage 
by other databases and, at a minimum, it would be difficult to pull the 
information together in one place to inform the public and other data 
users. Furthermore, even if the information could be pulled together in 
one place, there inevitably would be difficulties introduced by trying 
to harmonize TRI and NPDES release totals between two databases that 
may have differences in assumptions or measurement approaches. We 
believe the continued collection of this data element best fulfills the 
EPCRA reporting goals of the program and therefore, EPA will not be 
finalizing the proposal to eliminate column C of section 5.3, part II 
of the Form R.

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

    As explained in the proposed rule, 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). For recycling activities, 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 section 313 chemicals in part 
II, section 7 of the Form R.
    In the proposed rule EPA asked for comment on the following 
modifications to part II, section 7 of the Form R:
    (1) Simplifying column B of section 7A (Waste Treatment Method(s) 
Sequence) by replacing 64 codes used to describe the various waste 
treatment methods with a modified version of the 18 hazardous waste 
treatment codes currently used in EPA's RCRA Biennial Report;
    (2) Eliminating column C of section 7A (Range of Influent 
Concentration);
    (3) Simplifying column D of section 7A (Waste Treatment Efficiency 
Estimate) by replacing the requirement to submit an exact percentage 
with a range code;
    (4) Eliminating column E of section 7A (Based on Operating Data); 
and
    (5) Simplifying section 7C (On-Site Recycling Processes) by 
replacing 16 codes used to report particular recycling methods with 3 
reclamation and recovery codes used in EPA's RCRA Biennial Report.
    EPA received comment on each of these five proposed modifications. 
A summary of these comments and responses to them are addressed in turn 
in the following sections.
    1. Part II, Section 7A--On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and 
Efficiency (Column B--Waste Treatment Methods(s) Sequence). EPA 
received a number of comments in response to the proposal to simplify 
column B of section 7A--Waste Treatment Method(s)

[[Page 39941]]

Sequence, by replacing the 64 codes (see page 55 of the 2004 Toxic 
Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions (EPA 260-B-
05-001, January 2005) at http://epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm#forms) 
used to describe the various waste treatment methods applied to EPCRA 
section 313 chemicals treated on-site with a modified version of the 18 
hazardous waste treatment codes (H040-H129) currently used in EPA's 
National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report, also known as the 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).
    A majority of the commenters supported reducing the number of on-
site waste treatment codes, claiming that this change will reduce 
burden for TRI reporters. Further, by making the reporting codes 
consistent with the RCRA Biennial Report, TRI reporting will be made 
easier for those facilities familiar with RCRA.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that reducing the number of on-site 
waste treatment codes and making them more consistent with the 
reporting codes used in EPA's RCRA Biennial Report will result in less 
reporting burden for TRI reporters. The vast majority of comments 
submitted about this section of the proposal confirmed EPA's belief 
that facilities recognize and appreciate EPA's efforts to provide more 
consistency between its various reporting requirements and program 
activities. The comments also confirmed our belief that there would be 
no significant loss of data quality if the codes were consolidated.
    One commenter supported the proposed change but cautioned that it 
would actually increase the burden of TRI reporting since not all 
facilities file RCRA Biennial Reports, and these facilities may be 
unfamiliar with the RCRA codes. The commenter expressed concern about 
those reporters who would have to familiarize themselves with the new 
codes and revise their TRI analysis accordingly. This commenter was 
also concerned that reporters that fill out both TRI annual and RCRA 
biennial reporting forms would still have an initial period where TRI 
analysis mechanisms already in place would have to be adjusted.
    EPA appreciates the commenter's concern regarding those reporters 
unfamiliar with the reporting codes in the RCRA Biennial Report. EPA 
believes, however, that in the vast majority of cases, facilities will 
be familiar with these codes. As explained in the proposed rule, 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. While there may 
be an initial period of adjustment, EPA believes that the long-term 
burden reduction benefits greatly surpass any short-term drawbacks. To 
facilitate a smooth transition, EPA will include additional information 
in the annual TRI reporting forms and instructions manual. The 
instructions will define each of the new codes, explain the few minor 
differences that exist between the new TRI codes and the RCRA Biennial 
Report codes, and describe the relationship between the old treatment 
codes and the new ones.
    Some commenters opposed the proposal to replace the 64 waste 
treatment codes with the 18 codes used in the RCRA Biennial Report. One 
commenter recommended that EPA not use the RCRA H treatment codes and 
instead, use a shorter, more concise list of codes.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter that a shorter list of codes 
should be used for section 7A column B instead of the RCRA H treatment 
codes. We believe that since the majority of TRI reporters also report 
their hazardous waste treatment methods in EPA's RCRA biennial 
reporting process, a consistent use of reporting codes will result in 
more reduced reporting burden than shortening the current TRI list of 
codes. During the development of the proposed rule, the Agency 
considered reducing the number of RCRA H treatment codes for Form R, 
but we decided that a slightly modified version of all 18 different 
RCRA H treatment codes is needed to adequately capture the various 
types of hazardous waste treatment methods used by facilities.
    Another commenter expressed opposition to reducing the number of 
treatment codes, emphasizing the desire for accurate reporting rather 
than ``simplified'' reporting. A second commenter stated general 
opposition to this proposed change contending that such a change would 
represent a loss of data.
    EPA disagrees with these commenters. No specific information or 
compelling examples were provided by commenters regarding potential 
data loss if the treatment codes in section 7A column B were reduced 
and made consistent with the hazardous waste treatment codes used in 
the Agency's RCRA Biennial Report. Rather, EPA believes that this 
change will improve data quality because it will prevent reporters from 
over-specifying their treatment trains. Consequently, EPA will replace 
the 64 waste treatment codes with a modified version of the 18 
hazardous waste H treatment codes used in the RCRA Biennial Report 
(plus seven air emission treatment codes as discussed in the following 
paragraphs) for use in section 7A, column B of Form R.
    Some commenters who were generally supportive of the proposal to 
use the RCRA treatment codes, raised specific concerns. For example, 
ten commenters expressed concerns regarding the removal of air 
emissions treatment codes in the proposed consolidated treatment codes 
for section 7A, column B. Several of these commenters recommended that 
the Agency retain the seven air emissions treatment codes (A01 to A07) 
currently used for reporting in Section 7A, column B. Many commenters 
stressed their concern about the lack of codes to cover the treatment 
of gas streams, which one commenter asserted was the primary means by 
which utilities reduce their toxic chemical releases, and the primary 
waste treatment method used at electric power plants. Another commenter 
stated that since the on-site treatment of acid aerosols are among the 
most voluminous gas streams reported in Section 8.6, it was especially 
important to make air emissions codes in section 7A column B available 
to accurately capture this type of treatment. Without specific air 
emission codes, they maintained that facilities would have to use the 
code for ``other treatment'' (H129) and this code would not provide any 
useful information to TRI data users.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that it is important to adequately 
describe the treatment methods used for air emissions and gas streams. 
Based on the comments submitted, the Agency better understands and 
appreciates the necessity to include air emissions codes in section 7A 
column B of Form R. While EPA proposed the complete consolidation of 
the treatment codes in section 7A column B to make them consistent with 
the hazardous waste codes used in the RCRA Biennial Report, we 
inadvertently overlooked the fact that the RCRA codes don't cover air 
emissions very well. EPA agrees with the commenters that a substantial 
amount of valuable data would be lost if the seven existing codes for 
air emissions were to be removed. Consequently, this final rule retains 
the seven existing air emissions codes used in section 7A column B.

[[Page 39942]]

    Several commenters questioned why EPA omitted one of the RCRA H 
treatment codes, H083, from the list of 18 hazardous waste treatment 
codes proposed for use in section 7A column B. Several of these 
commenters requested that EPA clarify whether this was an intentional 
omission.
    EPA inadvertently omitted treatment code H083 from the list of 18 
hazardous waste treatment method codes that were proposed to replace 
the existing 64 treatment codes in section 7A, column B of Form R. EPA 
recognizes the need to include treatment code H083 to capture air or 
steam stripping treatment and has included this code in the final rule.
    One commenter questioned how the phrase used in a parenthetical in 
the proposed treatment code H083 ``(as the major component of 
treatment),'' would apply in sequential on-site treatment methods where 
the approach is simply one step in a multi-step process. The commenter 
noted that the same parenthetical phrase might be applied to proposed 
treatment code H082 as well if EPA used that code in the final rule. 
This commenter contended that since several of the other treatment 
codes proposed for use in section 7A column B did not include the 
parenthetical phrases used in the RCRA Biennial Report, ``(as the major 
component of treatment),'' should be omitted from codes H082 and H083 
as well.
    EPA appreciates receiving the comment requesting clarification on 
the use of the parenthetical phrase ``as the major component of 
treatment'' at the end of the treatment codes H083 and H082. EPA agrees 
that the use of this parenthetical may cause confusion regarding 
sequential on-site treatment methods where the approach is simply one 
step in a multi-step process. Consequently, EPA has removed the 
parenthetical ``as the major component of treatment'' from H083 (Air or 
steam stripping) and H082 (Adsorption).
    A commenter requested that EPA clarify the use of the RCRA 
hazardous waste treatment codes H111 (stabilization or chemical 
fixation prior to disposal at another site) and H112 (macro-
encapsulation prior to disposal at another site) in section 7A column 
B. The commenter noted that the use of the phrase ``at another site'' 
would pose a problem for TRI reporting facilities with on-site 
landfills, as well as for facilities that use stabilization for the 
final treatment of their wastes. The commenter recommended that the 
phrase, ``at another site'' be removed from the treatment code 
description in the final rule.
    EPA agrees with the commenter and is removing the phrase, ``at 
another site'' from the description for treatment codes H111 
(Stabilization or chemical fixation prior to disposal) and H112 (Macro-
encapsulation prior to disposal). We agree that the use of the phrase 
``at another site'' would unnecessarily restrict the use of these codes 
to waste intended to go off-site, and believe that the removal of this 
phrase will avoid confusing reporters who otherwise can use these codes 
to describe their on-site treatment methods.
    Four commenters requested clarification of proposed treatment code 
H121--Neutralization only. They pointed out that the word ``only'' 
would eliminate the use of this code by facilities that use 
neutralization as one of several steps in a sequence of waste treatment 
methods, rather than as the single method of treatment. One commenter 
contended that such a restriction would force facilities that use it as 
one of several waste treatment method steps, to use treatment code 
H129--Other treatment. Two commenters requested that EPA consider 
removing the word ``only'' from the treatment code description for 
H121. Another commenter suggested that the word ``only'' is relevant to 
reporting under the RCRA Biennial Report and does not serve the 
purposes of TRI reporting.
    EPA agrees with the commenters regarding the use of the word 
``only'' in the description of proposed treatment code H121. We 
acknowledge that the word could restrict the use of that code 
unnecessarily and force facilities that use neutralization as one of 
several steps in a sequence of waste treatment methods to instead use 
treatment code H129--Other treatment. EPA believes that more useful 
information can be derived from the proper use of treatment code H121 
than H129 by facilities that use neutralization as either their only 
treatment method or as one of several steps in their waste treatment 
process. The Agency has thus removed the word, ``only'' from the H121 
treatment code description to be used in section 7A column B.
    In accordance with all of the above, this rule finalizes the 
following list of waste treatment codes for reporting in part II, 
section 7A, column B of Form R:

A01 Flare
A02 Condenser
A03 Scrubber
A04 Absorber
A05 Electrostatic Precipitator
A06 Mechanical Separation
A07 Other Air Emission Treatment
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
H083 Air or steam stripping
H101 Sludge treatment and/or dewatering
H103 Absorption
H111 Stabilization or chemical fixation prior to disposal
H112 Macro-encapsulation prior to disposal
H121 Neutralization
H122 Evaporation
H123 Settling or clarification
H124 Phase separation
H129 Other treatment

    2. Part II, Section 7A--On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and 
Efficiency (Column C--Range of Influent Concentration). As discussed in 
the proposal to eliminate section 7A, column C--Range of Influent 
Concentration, EPA explained that 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. As 
expressed in the proposal, contrary to the intended uses of this 
information, EPA has not identified a specific Agency use for the 
information in section 7A, column C and does not believe that this 
information is widely used by states or the public.
    To date, completion of column C requires facilities to enter a 
numerical code, from the following list, indicating the concentration 
range of the EPCRA section 313 chemical as it enters the treatment 
step:

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

[[Page 39943]]

5 = Less than 1 part per billion

    In the proposed rule, EPA also asked for comment on whether as an 
alternative reporting under section 7A, column C should be optional, 
with facilities having a choice as to whether to report the influent 
concentration range of the EPCRA section 313 chemical.
    Sixteen commenters expressed support for removing the range of 
influent concentration data element under section 7A column C. One 
commenter asserted that this change would provide the most significant 
amount of burden reduction of all the changes proposed in this rule. 
Several commenters stated that calculating these concentrations for 
each EPCRA section 313 chemical (or chemical category) in each waste 
stream is very time consuming and often requires numerous assumptions. 
One commenter asserted that facilities have spent upwards of 40 hours 
or more to report on this data element, reflecting the significant 
burden associated with this requirement.
    Commenters also contended that the resulting data are of little 
value to the general public. One commenter stated that since certain 
facilities, like power plants, do not normally sample the 
concentrations of various process streams before treatment occurs, the 
reported values in column C are estimates that have little value to the 
general public. Commenters claimed that the removal of the range of 
influent concentration would not result in a significant loss to the 
TRI community. In response to this proposed removal of column C of 
section 7A, one commenter stated that data users can determine from the 
remaining information in section 7A that a facility has a given 
chemical in its influent and that it is treating that chemical with a 
specific treatment method to a specific percentage range of efficiency. 
Commenters maintained that removing this data element would not impact 
the usefulness of the waste treatment efficiency estimate in Column D.
    Further, several commenters expressed support for entirely removing 
the data element rather than providing an option to report this data 
element. They contended that allowing for such an option would create 
confusion among reporters and inconsistencies in the TRI database. One 
commenter added that it is unlikely that facilities would provide data 
should the requirement to report data in Column C be made optional.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that removing the data element for 
range of influent concentration under section 7A column C would reduce 
a significant amount of burden for TRI reporters. We acknowledge that a 
large number of facilities do not collect monitoring data and instead, 
provide estimates for this data element on influent concentration. The 
Agency also appreciates the information provided by commenters 
regarding whether this data element should be made optional. We agree 
with the commenters that such an option could create confusion among 
reporters, and due to the inconsistent amount of data that would be 
reported, we believe that it would provide information of very limited 
value to the public.
    In the proposal, EPA stated its belief that this information is not 
widely used by states and the public as was anticipated when this data 
element was first included on Form R. EPA did not receive any comments 
that opposed the removal of this data element, nor any comments that 
provided information on the extent of its use or why the data element 
was important to retain. Therefore, EPA believes that its original 1988 
assumptions that this information would be valuable to the public have 
not been substantiated and has decided to finalize the elimination of 
this data element.
    3. Part II, Section 7A--On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and 
Efficiency (Column D--Waste Treatment Efficiency Estimate). As 
discussed in the proposal, the waste treatment efficiency (expressed as 
a percentage) reported in section 7A column D 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. 
To date, facilities are required to enter an exact percentage in this 
column of the form. In the proposed rule EPA asked for comment on 
allowing facilities to report their treatment efficiency as a range 
instead of an exact percentage. The Agency proposed using 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%

    This proposed set of ranges was developed by analyzing a subset of 
the treatment efficiencies reported in reporting year 2002. Most of the 
efficiencies were between 90% and 100%. The proposed range codes 
reflect this reporting trend by grouping three of the codes between 90% 
and 100% and having the other three codes represent larger ranges 
between 0% and 90%.
    Commenters expressed general support for allowing TRI reporters to 
use range codes instead of a specific percentage number in section 7A 
column D. Several commenters claimed that a single value estimate 
suggests far greater certainty about removal efficiencies than exists 
in the real world and that it is difficult to estimate a precise 
percentage for the treatment efficiency of the method used by a 
facility. Another commenter stated that since electric utility power 
plants operate in a variety of different ways over the course of a year 
and because fossil fuels are heterogeneous, a single treatment 
efficiency value is nothing more than a long-term average value. One 
commenter contended that the use of ranges is a more reasonable 
approach, and covers any variance in the treatment efficiencies. The 
commenter added that the use of ranges would avoid the appearance of a 
precise estimate when the estimate was actually based on professional 
judgment.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that allowing ranges to be reported 
in section 7A column D provides a more realistic estimate of on-site 
waste treatment efficiency. We believe that the use of ranges will 
provide burden relief to facilities that currently find it difficult to 
estimate an exact percentage due to the reasons pointed out by 
commenters regarding facility operations. We do not believe that this 
change will result in a loss of data since the data element will still 
consist of an estimate of the treatment efficiency typically achieved 
by the waste treatment or disposal methods employed for each waste 
stream. We believe it will instead more accurately reflect the 
treatment efficiency variations that occur over the course of a 
facility's yearly operation.
    One commenter asserted that the use of range codes for treatment 
efficiencies would not be a labor saver since its emissions-estimating-
software already calculates the overall treatment efficiencies. A 
second commenter stated that in order to report within one of the 
ranges proposed by EPA, a facility must still undergo the analysis 
required to obtain an exact percentage. The commenter noted that this 
is particularly true in the higher ranges, where most reported 
efficiencies fall. The commenter concluded that burden reduction would 
not result from this change.
    EPA disagrees with these commenters that little, if any, burden 
would be eliminated as a result of this change.

[[Page 39944]]

The majority of commenters supported this change, asserting that it is 
difficult to derive an exact treatment efficiency percentage estimate 
for this data element. Even for facilities with access to sophisticated 
emissions-estimating software that allows faster calculations of 
emissions estimates, such software does not necessarily capture the 
uncertainty in the estimate, and even those facilities may realize a 
reduction in burden through the use of ranges.
    One commenter asserted that the proposed change in section 7A 
column D could create problems with reporting in other sections of Form 
R. As an example, this commenter referred to problems with the use of 
ranges in sections 5 and 6 of Form R. According to the commenter, when 
the ranges in those sections are compared against the values reported 
in section 8 of Form R, the values do not balance (e.g., often the use 
of range codes will result in a ``NOTE'' error on the Facility Data 
Profile, because the software evidently uses the midpoint of the 
range).
    EPA disagrees with this comment. EPA does not believe that the use 
of range codes in section 7A column D will affect reporting in other 
sections of the form, such as sections 5, 6 or 8. However, EPA will 
review the TRI-ME and data quality software to ensure that this change 
does not create errors in data processing.
    Two commenters opposed the change to range codes in section 7A 
column D due to general concerns about the use of range codes. One of 
these commenters stated that the use of range codes in section 7A 
column D would represent a loss of data. The commenter said that range 
codes would also limit information without reducing the amount of time 
and resources a facility would need to estimate its efficiency. The 
second commenter stated that range codes set a bad precedent and this 
commenter had difficulty understanding how range codes would reduce 
burden since facilities would still need to calculate the general 
efficiency percentage in order to determine the appropriate range.
    EPA disagrees with these commenters. Range reporting is already 
used in a variety of Form R data elements and we do not believe that 
applying range code reporting to this data element will set any kind of 
precedent that would degrade the quality of TRI data. As many 
commenters noted, the data reported in section 7A column D are 
generally based upon an estimate, rather than specific monitoring data. 
We believe that the use of range codes in this data element will more 
accurately reflect an estimated value without sacrificing data quality.
    Two commenters who supported the proposed change expressed concern 
about the limited number of ranges provided in the high-end of the 
proposed ranges. They prefer that EPA either allow TRI reporters, 
particularly incinerators, to report a specific on-site waste treatment 
efficiency percentage estimate, or that EPA provide additional 
efficiency percentage range categories at the upper end of the range 
scale. These commenters claimed that this was necessary to prevent un-
permitted incinerators that do not meet RCRA-mandated treatment 
efficiencies for some chemical wastes, to report in the highest 
performing efficiency range. According to these commenters, the absence 
of these additional upper-end range categories would result in accurate 
but misleading information that would be contrary to the goals of 
Community Right-to-Know and arguably the Data Quality Act. The 
commenters asserted that the absence of these additional upper-end 
ranges would contradict the Agency's attempt to meet the Pollution 
Prevention Act's goal of allowing the public to understand the ultimate 
destruction of toxic chemicals. Both commenters recommended that if 
upper ranges are used instead of allowing reporters to use specific 
percentages, the ranges should be changed to the following: greater 
than 99.9% to 99.99%, greater than 99.99% to 99.9999%, and greater than 
99.9999%.
    EPA appreciates receiving specific recommendations and agrees with 
the commenters that some adjustments should be made to the proposed 
upper ranges of treatment efficiency estimates for use in section 7A 
column D. We have used similar, although not exactly the same treatment 
efficiency ranges as those proposed by the commenters. The upper-level 
ranges that EPA used in the final rule include the following: Greater 
than 99% to 99.99%, greater than 99.99% to 99.9999%, and greater than 
99.9999%. These ranges were selected in order to ensure an equal 
distribution of the range categories, and to allow data users to 
continue to distinguish the performance of combustion devices in excess 
of RCRA hazardous waste and TSCA PCB incinerator standards. EPA 
believes that these revised range categories will provide a means for 
those TRI reporters who are achieving a high degree of treatment 
efficiency to communicate that desirable outcome to the public. EPA 
does not believe that this level of specificity will diminish the 
burden saving associated with the use of ranges because facilities in 
the high-efficiency ranges will have readily-available knowledge about 
the efficiency of their processes since those high efficiencies are 
required by other programs' regulatory standards. EPA is not going to 
allow TRI reporters, however, to report a specific percentage amount in 
section 7A column D since it could result in two sets of confusing data 
that would be impossible to combine for any meaningful assessment.
    Four commenters supported the proposed change but recommended 
reducing the total number of ranges used in section 7A column D. These 
commenters favored reducing the number of ranges in the mid-range. 
Three of the commenters proposed combining proposed ranges E2 (greater 
than 95% to 99.9%) and E3 (greater than 90% to 95%), so that there 
would be one category that covers greater than 90% to 99.9%. One 
commenter recommended changing the proposed ranges to 0 to 50%, greater 
than 50% to 90%, greater than 90% to 99%, and greater than 99%.
    In response to the comments on modifying the ranges, in this rule 
EPA has reduced the number of reporting ranges for the lower and mid-
ranges from four categories to two categories (greater than 0% to 50% 
and greater than 50% to 95%). However, the Agency cannot agree to 
consolidate the upper range codes. If, as the commenters suggested, the 
Agency consolidated greater than 90% to 99.9% into one range, over half 
of all respondents would be in that category. By dividing the ranges 
into greater than 0% to 50%, greater than 50% to 95%, and greater than 
95% to 99%, the new categories will represent 18%, 20% and 29%, 
respectively of all responses. EPA believes these ranges provide a 
balance that is adequate for realizing burden reduction, while 
simultaneously distinguishing major differences in treatment 
performance.
    Based on all of the above, EPA is finalizing the following ranges 
for use in part II, section 7A, column D:

E1 = greater than 99.9999%
E2 = greater than 99.99% but less than or equal to 99.9999%
E3 = greater than 99% but less than or equal to 99.99%
E4 = greater than 95% but less than or equal to 99%
E5 = greater than 50% but less than or equal to 95%
E6 = equal to or greater than 0% but less than or equal to 50%

    4. Part II, Section 7A--On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and 
Efficiency (Column E--Based on Operating Data). As discussed in the 
proposed rule,

[[Page 39945]]

column E 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). EPA explained in the proposed rule that it is 
unaware of any significant use of this data. EPA thus proposed 
eliminating column E of section 7A of Form R.
    Several commenters supported the removal of section 7A, column E. 
Two commenters stated that if the proposed changes to section 7A, 
columns C (Range of influent concentration) and D (Waste treatment 
efficiency estimate) were finalized, then the data in column E would 
not provide meaningful data to the public. Another commenter asserted 
that most of their treatment efficiencies are based on company-derived 
estimated efficiencies rather than on monitoring data.
    EPA agrees with the commenters that section 7A, column E would not 
provide meaningful information to the public without specific 
percentage estimates in section 7A, column D. Since the proposed 
modification of column D to range codes is being finalized through this 
rule for the reasons discussed above, and because EPA did not receive 
any comments on the usefulness of column E data, EPA has finalized the 
elimination of column E.
    5. Part II, Section 7C--On-Site Recycling Processes. As discussed 
in the proposed rule, facilities that conduct on-site recycling 
currently use sixteen codes (see page 58 of the 2004 TRI Reporting 
Forms and Instructions (EPA 260-B-05-001, January 2005) at http://epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm#forms) to report the particular recycling 
method(s) applied to each EPCRA section 313 chemical being recycled on-
site. For each Form R filed, facilities may report up to ten ``R'' (On-
site recycling) codes, as appropriate.
    EPA proposed eliminating these sixteen recycling codes and 
replacing them with the following three reclamation and recovery 
management codes used in EPA's 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)

    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. See 
the PDF screen page 63 of the 80 page report.
    Fourteen commenters supported reducing the number of on-site 
recycling codes for use in section 7C. Several commenters stated that 
such a change would promote consistency between the RCRA hazardous 
waste and TRI reporting programs. One commenter stated that this change 
would reduce unnecessary complexity. Several commenters expressed 
support for the change because they felt that the three proposed codes 
adequately cover the range of recycling activities that might be 
undertaken at a facility. In addition, the vast majority of commenters 
contended that the change would not compromise the utility of TRI 
program data.
    EPA appreciates receiving comments that confirmed the Agency's 
belief that the use of fewer codes will simplify reporting in section 
7C of Form R. Further, by making the TRI reporting process more 
consistent with the RCRA biennial reporting process we will facilitate 
even greater use of data in both the TRI and RCRA programs. Based on 
these comments, EPA has finalized this proposed change. However, in 
order to avoid software reprogramming costs, the Agency has decided to 
maintain a three digit numerical code for this data element, and thus, 
will not use the first zero in each of the three RCRA reclamation and 
recovery management codes. Otherwise, the codes will conform with the 
reclamation and recovery management codes in the RCRA Biennial Report. 
The codes to be used in part II, section 7C of Form R will thus be as 
follows:

H10 Metal recovery (by retorting, smelting, or chemical or physical 
extraction)
H20 Solvent recovery (including distillation, evaporation, 
fractionation or extraction)
H39 Other recovery or reclamation for reuse (including acid 
regeneration or other chemical reaction process)

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

    As discussed in the proposal, 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). At the present time, EPA 
requires each facility to answer a ``yes/no'' question to indicate 
whether the 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. Accordingly, EPA proposed minor 
changes to this data element to improve public access to such 
information.
    As explained in the proposal, an optional text box feature would be 
added to EPA's TRI-ME reporting software to enable reporting facilities 
to submit a brief description of their applicable source reduction, 
recycling, and other pollution control techniques and activities. In 
addition, reporters would be provided with 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 would 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 
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.
    Several commenters supported the removal of the current ``yes/no'' 
question in section 8.11 of Form R, and the addition of an optional 
text box feature in EPA's TRI-ME reporting software. As one commenter 
stated, TRI reporters have up until now been forced to submit 
additional information about their source reduction, recycling, and 
other pollution prevention techniques separately on paper, rather than 
electronically. The addition of an electronic text box would allow 
facilities to more easily submit such

[[Page 39946]]

information. Another commenter remarked that such additional 
information was not readily accessible in the past since it was only 
available on paper.
    EPA agrees with commenters that the removal of the current question 
in section 8.11 and the replacement of it with an optional electronic 
text box for reporting additional information about source reduction, 
recycling, and other pollution prevention techniques will increase the 
accessibility and usefulness of such information. We also believe that 
the use of an electronic text box, as opposed to paper submissions, 
will increase the likelihood that reporters will submit such 
information since it will be easier to do so. Accordingly, EPA has 
finalized this section of the proposal.
    One commenter did oppose this change in 8.11, claiming that while 
the text box feature is optional, many reporters will feel compelled to 
enter information. The commenter contended that compliance issues could 
arise if the information submitted was not completely accurate or 
precise and this could result in discouraging submission of such 
information.
    EPA disagrees with this commenter. Reporters have never been 
required to include additional information in section 8.11, nor would 
they be required to do so under this change from paper to electronic 
submission. In fact, under the proposed change, section 8.11 would be 
entirely optional since those who do not wish to include additional 
information would no longer need to check the ``no'' box. Instructions 
for using the text box will clearly state that its use is optional. 
While EPA does not believe that compliance issues would arise from use 
of the text box, the same compliance issues triggered by inaccurate 
information could have arisen under the current paper-only method of 
submission.

VI. Technical Modifications to 40 CFR 372.85

    As discussed in the proposed rule, in addition to streamlining the 
TRI Reporting Forms, EPA also proposed two technical corrections to 40 
CFR 372.85.
    Prior to 1991, EPA published the most 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 copies.
    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 section 
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.
    EPA received one comment on this section of the proposal. The 
commenter expressed concern that the proposed change could be misread 
to imply that web-based reporting is the only available reporting 
option.
    This modification should not be construed to imply that web-based 
reporting will be the only reporting option. This modification simply 
updates the method by which a facility can obtain a copy of the TRI 
Forms. After a facility obtains and completes its form(s), web-based 
reporting can have huge potential advantages for both respondents and 
the Agency, allowing respondents to receive pre-populated forms and the 
Agency to reduce processing costs by over 90%. EPA recognizes, however, 
that there may be facilities that do not yet have suitable internet 
connectivity. Accordingly, the modification to section 372.85(a) does 
not require reporting by any specific method.
    The 1991 rule also added a list describing the Form R data elements 
at 40 CFR 372.85(b). This list includes Paragraph 18, which describes a 
pollution prevention data element. This data element 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 its continued presence in the regulations may lead to 
confusion about whether pollution prevention data are required elements 
of the Form R. Therefore, EPA is deleting 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.

VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements

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 rule is a significant 
regulatory action. The Agency therefore submitted the proposed action 
to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or 
recommendations are documented in the docket to today's final rule.
    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--final Rule'') have been placed in the TRI docket for public 
review.
    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 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

[[Page 39947]]

savings and cost savings per form using an engineering analysis. Burden 
savings for the various forms were calculated separately because not 
all final modifications appear on every form. The total burden and cost 
savings associated with the final modifications to Forms R and A are 
the product of the unit burden and cost savings per form times the 
number of forms (Forms R and A) submitted.
    2. Cost & Burden Savings Results. Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the 
number of 2002 first and subsequent year Forms R and A submissions.

                       Table 1.--National Burden and Cost Savings for First Year Reporters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Burden       Total burden
     Number of 2002 forms           Form type       savings per       savings       Cost saving     Total cost
                                                  form R (hours)      (hours)       per form R        savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
458...........................  Form R PBT......            2.17             996          $97.93         $44,852
880...........................  Form R non-PBT..            1.37           1,203           61.99          54,554
324...........................  Form A non-PBT..            0.52             168           22.31           7,227
                               -------------------
    Total.....................  ................  ..............           2,367  ..............         106,634
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Table 2.--Preliminary National Burden and Cost Savings for Subsequent Year Reporters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Burden       Total burden
     Number of 2002 forms           Form type       savings per       savings       Cost saving     Total cost
                                                  form R (hours)      (hours)       per form R        savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15,085........................  Form R PBT......            0.78          11,837          $33.67        $507,856
65,006........................  Form R non-PBT..            0.56          36,564           24.73       1,607,661
11,594........................  Form A..........            0.11           1,292            3.69          42,797
                               -------------------
    Total.....................  ................  ..............          49,693  ..............       2,158,314
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA estimates that the total annual burden savings for this rule 
are 52,060 hours. EPA estimates that the total annual cost savings for 
this rule are $2.26 million. Average annual cost savings for facilities 
submitting Form Rs or Form As are between $4 and $100 per form or 
between $12 and $300 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 also conducted outreach to potentially affected stakeholders 
to solicit any specific uses of the fields being removed or simplified. 
Based on that outreach, the Agency believes the potential for 
significant data loss to the public to be minimal.

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 52,060 
hours and the estimated cost savings as $2.26 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, 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 rule 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 rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a

[[Page 39948]]

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 rule imposes no 
enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal government or the 
private sector. This 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 rule 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 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 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 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 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

[[Page 39949]]

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 rule 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 being removed or streamlined 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.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). This rule will be effective September 12, 2005.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

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

    Dated: June 30, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental Protection 
Agency 40 CFR part 372 is amended as follows:

PART 372--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.

Subpart E--[Amended]

0
2. Section 372.85 is amended as follows:
0
i. Revise paragraph (a).
0
ii. Remove paragraph (b)(6).
0
iii. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(18) as paragraphs (b)(6) 
through (b)(17).
0
iv. Revise the newly-designated paragraph (b)(6).
0
v. Remove the newly-designated paragraph (b)(16)(iii).
0
vi. Redesignate the newly-designated paragraphs (b)(16)(iv) and 
(b)(16)(v) as paragraphs (b)(16)(iii) and (b)(16)(iv).
0
vii. Revise the newly-designated paragraph (b)(16)(iii).
0
viii. Remove the newly-designated paragraph (b)(17).


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.
* * * * *
    (16) * * *
    (iii) An estimate of the efficiency of the treatment, which shall 
be indicated by a range.
* * * * *


Sec.  372.95  [Amended]

0
3. Section 372.95 is amended as follows:
0
i. Remove paragraphs (b)(11), (b)(13), (b)(14) and (b)(15).
0
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. 05-13486 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P