Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Forms Modification Rule, 39931-39949 [05-13486]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39931-39949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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outdated description of a pollution prevention data element.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 https://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: fudge.shelley@epa.gov 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 https://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'' (https://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 https://
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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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.