Toxics Release Inventory Burden Reduction Proposed Rule, 57822-57847 [05-19710]
Download as PDF
57822
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
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 proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
(1) Releases in amounts less than
1,000 pounds per 24 hours of nitrogen
oxide to the air which are the result of
combustion and not the result of an
accident or malfunction of equipment.
(2) Releases in amounts less than
1,000 pounds per 24 hours of nitrogen
dioxide to the air which are the result
of combustion and not the result of an
accident or malfunction of equipment.
List of Subjects
1. The authority citation for part 355
continues to read as follows:
40 CFR Part 302
Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, Extremely
hazardous substances, Hazardous
chemicals, Hazardous materials,
Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous
wastes, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Waste treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 355
Air pollution control, Chemical
accident prevention, Chemical
emergency preparedness, Chemicals,
Community emergency response plan,
Community right-to-know, Contingency
planning, Disaster assistance,
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, Extremely
hazardous substances, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Penalties, Reportable
quantity, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act, Threshold
planning quantity.
Dated: September 27, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
PART 302—DESIGNATION,
REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND
NOTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for part 302
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, 9604; 33
U.S.C. 1321 and 1361.
2. Section 302.6 is amended by
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Notification requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) The following releases are exempt
from the notification requirements of
this section:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and
11048.
2. Section 355.40 is amended by
adding paragraph (a)(2)(vii) to read as
follows:
§ 355.40
Emergency release notification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vii) Any release in amounts less than
1,000 pounds per 24 hours of nitrogen
oxide or nitrogen dioxide to the air that
is the result of combustion and not the
result of an accident or malfunction of
equipment.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–19872 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[TRI–2005–0073; FRL–7532–8]
RIN 2025–AA14
Toxics Release Inventory Burden
Reduction Proposed Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, it is proposed to amend title
40, chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
§ 302.6
PART 355—EMERGENCY PLANNING
AND NOTIFICATION
Jkt 208001
SUMMARY: Under section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposes to revise certain requirements
for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
The purpose of these revisions is to
reduce reporting burden associated with
the TRI reporting requirements while
continuing to provide valuable
information to the public that fulfills the
purposes of the TRI program. ‘‘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. The Agency will continue to
provide valuable information to the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
public pursuant to section 313 of
EPCRA and section 6607 of the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)
regarding toxic chemical releases and
other waste management activities.
If adopted, today’s proposed action
would increase eligibility for the Form
A Certification Statement for nonPersistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic
(PBT) chemicals by raising the
eligibility threshold to 5000 pounds for
the ‘‘annual reportable amount’’ of a
toxic chemical. It would also, for the
first time, allow limited use of Form A
for PBT chemicals where total releases
are zero and the PBT annual reportable
amount does not exceed 500 pounds.
Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are
excluded from consideration for
expanded Form A eligibility. Today’s
proposal applies to the reporting of
individual chemicals and is not
intended to apply automatically to all
reports that a facility may be required to
file.
For non-PBTs under the current
regulations, the annual reportable
amount is the combined total quantity
released at the facility, treated at the
facility, recovered at the facility as a
result of recycle operations, combusted
for the purpose of energy recovery at the
facility, and amounts transferred from
the facility to off-site locations for the
purpose of recycling, energy recovery,
treatment, and/or disposal. This
combined total corresponds to the
quantity of the toxic chemical in
production—related waste, i.e., the sum
of Sections 8.1 through and including
Section 8.7 of the Form R. Today’s
proposal would define a PBT annual
reportable amount that would also
include amounts managed and reported
under Section 8.8 of the Form R. Greater
detail on how reporters can qualify for
increased Form A eligibility is provided
later in today’s proposal under Section
III.
DATES: Comments, identified by the
Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0073, must be
received on or before December 5, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. TRI–2005–
0073, by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Agency Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov
• Fax: 202–566–0741.
• Mail: Office of Environmental
Information (OEI) Docket,
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention
Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0073.
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center,
(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20004, telephone: 202–566–1744,
Attention Docket ID No. TRI–2005–
0073. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays). Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0073. EPA’s
policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made
available online at: https://www.epa.gov/
edocket, including any personal
information provided, unless the
comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do
not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through EDOCKET, https://
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The
EPA EDOCKET and the Federal
regulations.gov Web sites are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
EDOCKET or https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: EPA has established an
official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0073.
The public docket contains information
considered by EPA in developing this
proposed rule, including the documents
listed below, which are electronically or
physically located in the docket. In
addition, interested parties should
consult documents that are referenced
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
in the documents that EPA has placed
in the docket, regardless of whether
these referenced documents are
electronically or physically located in
the docket. For assistance in locating
documents that are referenced in
documents that EPA has placed in the
docket, but that are not electronically or
physically located in the docket, please
consult the person listed in the
following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. All documents in the
docket are listed in the EDOCKET index
at: https://www.epa.gov/edocket.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in
EDOCKET, or in hard copy at the OEI
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is 202–
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the OEI Docket is 202–566–1752.
For
more specific information or technical
questions relating to this rule, contact
Kevin Donovan, Toxics Release
Inventory Program Division, Office of
Information Analysis and Access
(2844T), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: 202–566–0676; fax number:
202–566–0741; e-mail: donovan.kevine@epa.gov. The press point of contact
for this rule is Suzanne Ackerman,
Office of Public Affairs, 202–564–4355.
For general inquiries relating to the
Toxics Release Inventory or more
information on EPCRA section 313,
contact the TRI Information Center
Hotline, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 5101, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; toll free: 1–800–424–9346, in
Virginia and Alaska: 703–412–9810, or
toll free TDD: 1–800–553–7672.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Index
I. Background and General Information
A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in
this Document
B. Does this Document Apply to Me?
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My
Comments for EPA?
1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57823
2. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI)
D. What Are the Toxics Release Inventory
Reporting Requirements and Who Do
They Affect?
E. Why Is EPA Proposing to Reduce
Burden Associated with TRI Reporting
Requirements?
F. What Actions has EPA Taken in the Past
to Streamline TRI Reporting?
1. TRI–ME and Reporting Assistance
2. Form A Certification Statement
3. Stakeholder Dialogue
G. Burden Reduction Estimation
Methodology Used in Today’s Proposal
1. Summary of Basic Methodology
Table 1—Estimated Hours of Burden for a
TRI Form
II. What Is EPA’s Statutory Authority for
Taking this Action?
III. What Reporting Requirement Changes Are
Being Proposed?
A. Reference Guide for Burden Reduction
Options
Figure 1—Section 8 of Form R
Table 2—Burden Reduction Terms
Figure 2—Form R
Figure 3—Form A
B. Background on the Form A Certification
Statement
C. Form A Eligibility—PBT Chemicals:
Allows PBT Reporting Facilities with No
Releases to the Environment To Use
Form A Provided They Do Not Exceed a
1,000,000 Pound ‘‘Alternate Threshold’’
and Have 500 Pounds or Less of Total
Other Waste Management Quantities.
1. Description of Proposed Change and
Considerations
a. What Is this Approach to Burden
Reduction?
b. Is the Approach Available to All TRI
Chemicals?
c. Why Is this Approach Being Considered
for PBT Chemicals?
i. Lead and Lead Compounds
ii. PACs and Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
iii. Mercury and Mercury Compounds
d. How Often Is this Approach Available
to TRI Facilities?
e. What Are the Reporting Requirements?
f. Do My Recordkeeping Requirements
Change?
2. Estimates of Potential Impacts
a. What Are the Potential Impacts for
Reducing Burden?
b. What Are the Potential Impacts to Data
Users?
c. Are There Other Potential Impacts?
3. Rationale for Expanding Form A
Eligibility to PBT Chemicals
D. Expanding Form A Eligibility—Non-PBT
Chemicals: Allows Non-PBT Reporting
Facilities To Use an Alternate Reporting
Threshold Provided They Do Not Exceed
5000 Pounds of Total Other Waste
Management Quantities.
1. Description of Proposed Change
a. What Is this Approach to Burden
Reduction?
b. Is this Approach Available to All TRI
Chemicals?
c. How Often Is the Approach Available to
TRI Facilities?
d. What Are the Reporting Requirements?
e. Do My Record Keeping Requirements
Change?
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57824
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
2. Estimates of Potential Impacts
a. What Are the Potential Impacts for
Reducing Burden?
b. What Are the Potential Impacts to Data
Users?
Table 3—Potential Incremental Effects of
All Newly Eligible Reporters Using Form
A for non-PBTs
3. Rationale for Expanding Form A
Eligibility for Non-PBT Chemicals
IV. Requests for Public Comment
V. What Are the Statutory and Executive
Order Reviews Associated With This
Action?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
1. Methodology
2. Cost and Burden Savings Results
Table 4—Potential Annual Cost and
Burden Savings of the Phase II TRI
Burden Reduction Proposal
3. Impacts to Data
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Environmental Justice
I. Background and General Information
A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This
Document
ARA—Annual Reportable Amount
CAA—Clean Air Act
CBI—Confidential Business Information
CDX—Central Data Exchange
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
E.O.—Executive Order
EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA—Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
ICR—Information Collection Request
MACT—Maximum Achievable Control
Technology
NA—Not Applicable
NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
OEI—Office of Environmental Information
(EPA)
OMB—Office of Management and Budget
(Executive Office of the President)
PAC—Polycyclic Aromatic Compound
PBT—Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
PDR—Public Data Release
PPA—Pollution Prevention Act
PPM—Parts per million
PRA—PBT Reportable Amount
RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act
RY—Reporting Year
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SIC—Standard Industrial Classification
TEQ—Toxic Equivalency Quotient
TPRW—Total Production Related Waste
(total disposal and other releases plus all
other production related waste
management activities)
TRI—Toxics Release Inventory
TRI–ME—Toxics Release Inventory—Made
Easy
UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.—United States Code
B. Does This Document Apply to Me?
This document applies to facilities
that submit annual reports under
section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention
Act (PPA). It specifically applies to
those that submit the TRI Form R or
Form A Certification Statement. (See
https://www.epa.gov/tri/report/
index.htm#forms for detailed
information about EPA’s TRI reporting
forms.) To determine whether your
facility would be affected by this action,
you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in part 372, subpart
B, of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
This document also is relevant to
those who utilize EPA’s TRI
information, including State agencies,
local governments, communities,
environmental groups and other nongovernmental organizations, as well as
members of the general public.
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare
My Comments for EPA?
1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree;
suggest options and substitute language
for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
options.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
g. Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
h. Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
2. Submitting Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA’s electronic
public docket or by e-mail. Commenters
wishing to submit proprietary
information for consideration must
clearly distinguish such information
from other comments and clearly label
it as CBI. Send submissions containing
such proprietary information directly to
the following address only, and not to
the public docket, to ensure that
proprietary information is not
inadvertently placed in the docket:
Attention: OEI Document Control
Officer, Mail Code: 2822T,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460. You may claim information
that you submit to EPA as CBI by
marking any part or all of that
information as CBI (if you submit CBI
on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD ROM the specific information that is
CBI). EPA will disclose information
claimed as CBI only to the extent
allowed by the procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of
the comment that includes any
information claimed as CBI, a copy of
the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public
docket and EPA’s electronic public
docket. If you submit the copy that does
not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM
clearly that it does not contain CBI.
Information not marked as CBI will be
included in the public docket and EPA’s
electronic public docket without prior
notice. If you have any questions about
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
D. What Are the Toxics Release
Inventory Reporting Requirements and
Who Do They Affect?
Pursuant to section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), certain
facilities that manufacture, process, or
otherwise use specified toxic chemicals
in amounts above reporting threshold
levels must submit annually to EPA and
to designated State officials toxic
chemical release forms containing
information specified by EPA. 42 U.S.C.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
11023. These reports must be filed by
July 1 of each year for the previous
calendar year. In addition, pursuant to
section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention
Act (PPA), facilities reporting under
section 313 of EPCRA must also report
pollution prevention and waste
management data, including recycling
information, for such chemicals. 42
U.S.C. 13106. These reports are
compiled and stored in EPA’s database
known as the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI).
Regulations at 40 CFR part 372,
subpart B, require facilities that meet all
of the following criteria to report:
• The facility has 10 or more full-time
employee equivalents (i.e., a total of
20,000 hours worked per year or greater;
see 40 CFR 372.3); and
• The facility is included in Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 10
(except 1011, 1081, and 1094), 12
(except 1241), 20–39, 4911 (limited to
facilities that combust coal and/or oil
for the purpose of generating electricity
for distribution in commerce), 4931
(limited to facilities that combust coal
and/or oil for the purpose of generating
electricity for distribution in
commerce), 4939 (limited to facilities
that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating electricity for
distribution in commerce), 4953
(limited to facilities regulated under
RCRA Subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 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 thresholds 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 2004 data should have been
postmarked on or before July 1, 2005.
The list of toxic chemicals subject to
TRI reporting can be found at 40 CFR
372.65. This list is also published every
year as Table II in the current version of
the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting
Forms and Instructions. The current TRI
chemical list contains 581 individuallylisted chemicals and 30 chemical
categories.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
E. Why Is EPA Proposing To Reduce
Burden Associated With TRI Reporting
Requirements?
As noted above in the summary,
‘‘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 is
proposing this action because the
Agency believes it will reduce burden
and save resources for regulated entities,
while continuing to provide valuable
information to the public that fulfills the
purposes of the TRI program.
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
using the Toxics Release Inventory—
Made Easy (TRI–ME) software and
EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX),
making use of data submitted to the
Agency through other EPA programs,
and using geospatial information to prepopulate data fields). These measures
have reduced the time, cost, and
complexity of existing environmental
reporting requirements, while
enhancing reporting effectiveness and
efficiency and continuing to provide
useful information to the public.
In July 2005, the Agency promulgated
the TRI Reporting Forms Modification
Rule (70 FR 39931, July 12, 2005),
which streamlined the current forms by
eliminating some fields and simplifying
completion of others. The purpose of
today’s action is to propose additional
burden reduction that will continue to
provide valuable information on toxic
chemical release and other waste
management information that is
necessary to fulfill the purposes of the
TRI program.
Today’s proposal provides burden
reduction for facilities that report small
quantities of PBT and non-PBT
chemicals, though with different
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57825
eligibility thresholds. Those familiar
with the Stakeholder Dialogue that EPA
conducted between November 2002 and
February 2004 will note that the Agency
is pursuing Option 3, Expanding
Eligibility for the Form A Certification
Statement, but modified to include a
limited option for PBT chemicals. (More
detail on the ‘‘Dialogue’’ is provided
below in Section I.F.3). While the
Agency has considered a much broader
range of alternatives, many were
determined to provide only limited
opportunity for burden reduction, or to
be inconsistent with the purposes of the
TRI program. In a separate notice in
today’s Federal Register, EPA is also
announcing its notice to Congress of the
intention to initiate a rule-making that
would modify the reporting frequency
for some or all TRI reports.
The Agency believes that today’s
proposal will provide meaningful
burden reduction while still
maintaining the value of the TRI
information and will hereafter refer to
this action as the ‘‘Phase 2’’ burden
reduction rulemaking. In developing
this approach, EPA considered input
provided by stakeholders, and identified
a number of criteria to guide the
development of the approach that is
presented here today. These criteria
include making sure that this proposal
maintains the integrity of the TRI
database by providing meaningful data
to users that fulfills the purposes of the
TRI program; providing an overall
burden savings in hours needed for
reporting, adding to the time saved by
streamlining the forms and instructions
in the Forms Modification Rule;
providing benefits to both non-PBT and
PBT reporting facilities as appropriate;
ensuring that the approach is relatively
easy to implement; and creating
incentives for pollution prevention.
F. What Actions Has EPA Taken in the
Past To Streamline TRI Reporting?
1. TRI–ME and Reporting Assistance
Throughout the history of the TRI
Program, the Agency has implemented
measures to reduce the TRI reporting
burden on the regulated community
while still ensuring the provision of
valuable information to the public that
fulfills the purposes of the TRI program.
Through a range of compliance
assistance activities, such as the Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Reporting
Forms and Instructions (which is
published and mailed every year),
industry training workshops, chemicalspecific and industry-specific guidance
documents, and the TRI Information
Center (a call hotline), the Agency has
shown a commitment to enhancing the
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57826
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
quality and consistency of reporting and
assisting those facilities that must
comply with EPCRA section 313.
EPA has also done extensive work to
make reporting easier for the TRI
reporting community through the
development and use of technology
such as EPA’s Toxics Release
Inventory—Made Easy software,
otherwise known as TRI–ME (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 reporting facilities through
a series of logically-ordered questions,
TRI–ME facilitates the analysis needed
to determine if a facility must complete
a Form A or Form R report for a
particular chemical. For those facilities
required to report, the software provides
guidance for each data element on
Forms A and R. TRI–ME also has a onestop guidance feature, the TRI
Assistance Library, that allows keyword
searches on the statutes, regulations,
and many EPCRA section 313 guidance
documents. It also offers a ‘‘load
feature’’ that enables the user to upload
almost all of 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).
Reporting forms generated by TRI–ME
may also be submitted offline via
magnetic media or on paper. In the
spring of 2003, EPA distributed
approximately 25,000 copies of TRI–ME
in preparation for the 2002 reporting
year deadline of July 1, 2003.
Approximately 90% of the roughly
84,000 Form R’s filed in 2003 were
prepared using the TRI–ME software.
2. Form A Certification Statement
In 1994, partially in response to
petitions received from the U.S. Small
Business Administration Office of
Advocacy and the American Feed
Industry Association, an EPA
rulemaking established the Form A
Certification Statement as an alternative
to Form R. This burden-reducing
measure was based on an alternate
threshold for quantities manufactured,
processed, or otherwise used by those
facilities with relatively low annual
reportable amounts of TRI chemicals. A
facility may use an alternate, higher
reporting threshold for a toxic chemical
for which it has an annual reportable
amount not exceeding 500 pounds. The
annual reportable amount (ARA) 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 recycling
operations, the quantity combusted for
the purpose of energy recovery at the
facility, and the quantity transferred offsite 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). The
reporting threshold for chemicals with
an ARA less than or equal to 500
pounds is one million pounds
manufactured, processed, or otherwise
used. Facilities that meet the ARA
eligibility requirement and fall below
the one million pound reporting
threshold for a particular toxic chemical
may so certify by using Form A, and
thus avoid having to submit a detailed
Form R.
When EPA lowered reporting
thresholds in the subsequent PBT rule,
EPA determined that allowing the Form
A certification for PBT chemicals at that
time would be inconsistent with the
intent of expanded PBT chemical
information (64 FR 58732, October 29,
1999) and so disallowed the use of Form
A for PBT chemicals. EPA cited
concerns over releases and other waste
management of these chemicals at low
levels and said that, based on the
information available to the Agency at
that time, EPA believed that the level of
information from Form A was
insufficient to do meaningful analyses
on PBT chemicals (Id. at 58733). EPA
also stated ‘‘the Agency believes that it
is appropriate to collect and analyze
several years worth of data at the
lowered thresholds before EPA
considers developing a new alternate
threshold and reportable quantity
appropriate for PBT chemicals’’ (Id. at
58732).
3. Stakeholder Dialogue
In an effort to further explore burden
reduction opportunities, EPA conducted
a TRI Stakeholder Dialogue between
November 2002 and February 2004. A
summary is available at https://
www.epa.gov/tri/programs/
stakeholders/outreach.htm. 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
submissions as part of this Stakeholder
Dialogue. Of those, approximately 730
were substantive 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,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with some supporting burden reduction
and others opposing it. Approximately
63% of the comments came from private
citizens; another 16% came from
environmental groups, public interest
groups, and public health groups;
approximately 15% came from industry
and trade group representatives; and
about 6% came from government
agencies, including nine States, three
Federal agencies, and one municipality.
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 Public
Reading Room in Washington, DC.
As a result of the Stakeholder
Dialogue and subsequent comments
from stakeholders, the Agency
identified several burden reducing
options that could be implemented
while continuing to provide valuable
information to data users. These options
fall into three broad categories: (1)
Relatively minor changes or
modifications to the reporting forms and
the TRI–ME software; (2) expanding
Form A eligibility; and (3) reducing the
frequency of reporting for some or all
reports.
EPA decided to address the three
categories of changes through separate
rulemakings, the first of which was
promulgated in July 2005. The
promulgated changes eliminated some
redundant or seldom-used data
elements from Forms A and R, and
modified others that could be shortened,
simplified, or otherwise improved to
reduce the time and costs required to
complete and submit annual TRI
reports. They also improved data
consistency and reliability by replacing
some elements on the forms with
information extracted from the EPA’s
Facility Registry System (FRS) which
includes QA/QC’d data on most
facilities subject to environmental
reporting requirements across EPA
programs.
Today’s rulemaking, the second of the
three sets of changes, will expand
eligibility for Form A reporting for nonPBT chemicals, and allow limited Form
A reporting in some cases for PBT
chemicals with zero releases. In a
separate notice in today’s FR, EPA is
announcing notice to Congress of its
intention to initiate a rulemaking to
address the third option, modifying the
reporting frequency for all or some TRI
reports. EPCRA Section 313(i)(5)
requires one-year advance notification
to Congress before initiating such a rule
making. This notification is being
delivered today, concurrent with the
publication of this notice.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
G. Burden Reduction Estimation
Methodology Used in Today’s Proposal
1. Summary of Basic Methodology
The burden methodology used in
today’s proposal is based on currently
approved estimates of the time required
to complete a Form R or Form A and is
summarized in the economic analysis
contained in the docket for this
proposal. Basically, allowing
respondents to file a Form A in lieu of
a Form R significantly reduces the
calculation and form completion burden
and also makes a small difference (2
hours) in recordkeeping and form
57827
submission costs. The beneficiaries of
today’s proposal will almost exclusively
be subsequent year reporters (i.e.,
current Form R respondents). The
currently approved burden estimates for
calculations and form completion are
shown below in Table 1.
TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED HOURS OF BURDEN FOR A TRI FORM
First year
reporter
Type of form
PBT Response on Form R ......................................................................................................................................
Non-PBT Response on Form R ..............................................................................................................................
Non-PBT Form A Response ....................................................................................................................................
PBT Form A Response* ..........................................................................................................................................
Form R Recordkeeping and Submission ................................................................................................................
Form A Recordkeeping and Submission .................................................................................................................
69
37
25.1
45.6
5
3
Subsequent
year reporter
47.1
25.2
17.6
31.6
5
3
* Note: PBT Form A’s do not presently exist so burden estimated using approved non-PBT Form A approach.
EPA is also using today’s notice to
seek comment on a proposed
methodology for improving the
estimation of calculation and form
completion burden. The approach taken
by the Agency in developing the new
burden estimation methodology was to
assemble a team of persons with
knowledge or experience related to the
preparation of TRI reports who then
applied their best professional judgment
to break down the reporting
requirements into separate item-specific
tasks, and then estimate the average
time required to complete each task.
This report was internally vetted
through Agency TRI program personnel
in the Regions and at Headquarters. The
resulting estimates are assembled and
described in a July 16, 2004,
memorandum entitled TRI Reporting
Burden Estimates from Hilary Eustace,
David Cooper, and Susan Day of Abt
Associates to Paul Borst, EPA which is
contained in the docket for this
rulemaking.
The resulting burden estimates
derived from that engineering analyses
for PBT and non-PBT chemicals are
substantially lower than the current
burden estimates in the OMB-approved
Information Collection Request (ICR)
supporting statement for Form R. For
example, under the current ICR, the
subsequent year Form R burden
estimates for PBT and non-PBT
chemicals for form completion and
calculation are 47.1 and 25.2 hours
respectively. Form A calculation burden
is estimated to be 64% of the Form R
burden. To this amount, 1.4 hours of
form completion time is added,
resulting in Form A calculation and
completion estimates of 31.6 hours for
PBT chemicals and 17.6 hours for nonPBT chemicals.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
Under the Agency’s new engineering
estimates, Form R estimates for PBT and
non-PBT chemicals are reduced to 6.7
and 7.6 hours for PBT and non-PBT
chemicals respectively. Under the new
methodology, the average burden for
Form A for both PBT and non-PBT
chemicals is 1.4 hours. If these new
numbers had been used in the
estimation of the burden reduction from
today’s proposal, the estimated burden
reduction would have been about threefourths of what is estimated using the
currently approved numbers.
The Agency conducted an external
peer review of this new analysis to
assess the reasonableness of the new
methodology and specific burden
estimates. The peer review panel was
generally favorable to both the general
methodology used in the engineering
analysis (summing across Form R
elements to derive total burden) and the
specific form completion steps
described. However, the panel felt that
the time allocated for many of the tasks
should be increased. The panel
disagreed with the assumption in the
Agency’s engineering analysis that a
typical TRI reporting facility was
reasonably modern and well-organized.
A majority of the panel thought that
EPA overestimated the experience and
knowledge that a typical TRI reporting
facility would have in completing its
Form R and thus underestimated the
time it would take to complete the
Form.
The Agency has placed both its
engineering estimate and the peer
review summary in the docket for
today’s proposed rule. The Agency
solicits comment on the reasonableness
and accuracy of the methodology, form
completion steps and specific burden
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
estimates as well as on the conclusions
of the external peer review.
II. What Is EPA’s Statutory Authority
for Taking This Action?
This proposed rule is being issued
under sections 313(f)(2) and 328 of
EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2) and
11048. In general, section 313 of EPCRA
and section 6607 of the Pollution
Prevention Act (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. This
information is submitted on EPA Form
9350–1 (Form R) or EPA Form 9350–2
(Form A) and compiled in an annual
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Each
covered facility must file a separate
Form R for each listed chemical
manufactured, processed, or otherwise
used in excess of applicable reporting
thresholds which were initially
established in section 313(f)(1). EPA has
also established an alternate threshold
for non-PBT chemicals with low annual
reportable amounts. Facilities making
use of the alternate reporting threshold
must file a Form A certification
statement listing their toxic chemicals
that qualify for the alternate threshold.
EPA has authority to revise the
threshold amounts pursuant to section
313(f)(2); however, such revised
threshold amounts must obtain
reporting on a substantial majority of
total releases of the chemical at all
facilities subject to section 313. In
addition, Congress granted EPA broad
rulemaking authority to allow the
Agency to fully implement the statute.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57828
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
EPCRA section 328 authorizes the
‘‘Administrator [to] prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry
out this chapter.’’ 42 U.S.C.11048.
Today’s proposed approach would
raise the reporting thresholds for a
specific class of chemical reports.
Congress set statutory default reporting
thresholds of 25,000 pounds for
manufacturing, 25,000 pounds for
processing, and 10,000 pounds for the
otherwise use of a listed toxic chemical
in EPCRA section 313(f)(1). EPCRA
section 313(f)(2), however, provides
EPA with authority to establish different
reporting thresholds. EPA may, at the
Administrator’s discretion, base these
different thresholds on classes of
chemicals or categories of facilities.
EPCRA specifies that the revised
threshold adopted by EPA ‘‘shall obtain
reporting on a substantial majority of
total releases of the chemical at all
facilities subject to the requirements of
this section.’’ 42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2).
EPA has raised the reporting
thresholds for a class of chemical
reports once previously. In 1994, EPA
finalized a rule that created the Form A
Certification Statement (59 FR 61488).
That rule raised the reporting thresholds
for manufacturing, processing, and the
otherwise use of listed toxic chemicals
to 1 million pounds for a category of
facilities whose total annual reportable
amount for a particular chemical was
500 pounds or less. In that rulemaking,
EPA discussed the value of information
that is collected on the Form A as
follows: ‘‘EPA believes that the
proposed annual certification will
provide information relating to the
location of facilities manufacturing,
processing, or otherwise using these
chemicals, that the chemicals are being
manufactured, processed, or otherwise
used at current reporting thresholds,
and that chemical releases and transfers
for the purpose of treatment and/or
disposal are [500 pounds or less] per
year (i.e., within a range of zero to [500]
pounds per year).’’ (59 FR 38527) EPA
further indicated that the information
collected on the Form A helped to
ensure that the revised thresholds
continued to obtain reporting on a
substantial majority of releases.
The burden reduction approach in
today’s proposal is modeled after the
approach taken in the 1994 Form A
rulemaking. Expanding Form A
eligibility for Non-PBT chemicals and
allowing limited eligibility for PBT
chemicals raises the reporting threshold
for eligible chemicals at a specifically
defined category of facilities. As
explained below, eligibility is
determined on a chemical-by-chemical
basis, rather than a facility-wide basis.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
Under the expanded Form A eligibility,
facilities qualifying for the raised
threshold for a given chemical would
continue to file an annual certification
statement in place of a Form R. Through
its narrow definition of the category of
facilities eligible for the raised threshold
for certain chemicals and through the
information collected on the
certification statements, EPA is ensuring
that reporting under the raised
thresholds will continue to ‘‘obtain
reporting on a substantial majority of
total releases of the chemical at all
facilities subject to the requirements of
this section.’’
III. What Reporting Requirement
Changes Are Being Proposed?
Today’s proposal applies to all TRI
chemicals except dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds, which are excluded from
consideration. Allowing Form A for PBT
chemicals affects those chemicals
identified by EPA as ‘‘chemicals of
special concern’’ under 40 CFR 372.28
(except for dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds, discussed below).
Currently ‘‘chemicals of special
concern’’ include only certain chemicals
that have been found to be ‘‘persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT).’’
Therefore, for the reader’s convenience,
we will refer to the chemicals in 40 CFR
372.28 as ‘‘PBT chemicals’’ in today’s
proposal.
For PBT chemicals, today’s proposal
would allow facilities reporting on PBT
chemicals with no disposal or other
releases of a chemical to use the Form
A Certification Statement provided they
do not exceed the 1 million pound
reporting threshold and have 500
pounds or less of total other waste
management quantities. The other waste
management quantities include
recycling, energy recovery and
treatment for destruction. For non-PBT
chemicals, facilities would now be able
to use Form A if their annual reportable
amount (ARA), which is the sum of
Form R Sections 8.1 through Section 8.7
and is also referred to as Total
Production Related Waste (TPRW), is
5000 pounds or less. This is an increase
from the current ARA threshold of 500
pounds.
Increased eligibility for the Form A
Certification Statement is based on the
reporting of individual chemicals, and
does not apply to facility reporting as a
whole. For example, if a facility has
determined it must report on four
chemicals in a given reporting year, it
must consider each of its chemicals
individually to determine its eligibility
to use Form A. In doing so, facilities
must ensure that they are using the
correct eligibility requirements for each
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
toxic chemical, depending upon
whether or not the chemical is a PBT.
As noted above, PBT chemicals, except
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds may
now be eligible to use the Form A
Certification Statement. Dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds have been
excluded from this expanded eligibility.
Because of the high toxicity of some
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and
the wide variation in toxicity between
forms of dioxin, EPA recently proposed
to add toxic equivalency (TEQ)
reporting for the dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds category (70 FR 10919,
March 7, 2005). EPA proposed this
revision in response to requests from
TRI reporters that EPA create a
mechanism for facilities to report TEQ
data to provide important context for
the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds
release data. In addition, EPA believes
that the public will benefit from the
additional context and comparability of
data provided by TEQ reporting. The
Agency has decided to wait until the
Dioxin TEQ rulemaking is finalized and
until the Agency has appropriate data
before considering whether this class of
PBT chemicals should be considered for
Form A eligibility.
A. Reference Guide for Burden
Reduction Options
In this section, Figure 1 and Table 2
are intended as reference guides to help
readers understand the proposed
eligibility requirements for Form A use.
By increasing eligibility for Form A, the
Agency is providing an alternative to
Form R for facilities required to report
to TRI. A basic understanding of the
information a Form R respondent would
be required to submit in Section 8 of
Form R is necessary to understand the
proposed new requirements for Form A
eligibility. Figure 1 presents the Section
8 portion of Form R to facilitate
understanding of the proposal. Table 2
summarizes the proposed new
eligibility requirements. Readers are
encouraged to refer to the descriptions
here and in Table 2 of this section for
summary information, but should read
through the subsequent text discussion
for more detail about the proposed new
eligibility requirements.
One term that is used frequently in
this proposal and may need some
clarification is ‘‘releases.’’ EPCRA
defines the term ‘‘releases’’ to include
activities such as air and water
discharges, and land disposal.
According to 42 U.S.C. 11049(8), the
‘‘term ‘release’ means any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting,
emptying, discharging, injecting,
escaping, leaching, dumping, or
disposing into the environment
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(including the abandonment or
discarding of barrels, containers, and
other closed receptacles) of any toxic
chemical.’’ Beginning with the Public
Data Release (PDR) for the 2003
reporting year, in an effort to provide
additional context to the TRI data and
to remind readers that the definition of
‘‘releases’’ is broad, the Agency refers to
total ‘‘releases’’ as total ‘‘disposal or
other releases.’’ However, within the
legal context of the TRI program,
‘‘disposal’’ is a subset of release, not a
separate waste management activity
from ‘‘release.’’ EPA carries the term
‘‘disposal or other releases’’ over to this
rulemaking, but also uses the term
‘‘releases’’ by itself for brevity and
because this is the term used in the
statute. In both cases, the Agency is
referring to all types of releases,
including disposals.
In addition, another point of possible
confusion is the term ‘‘chemicals of
special concern’’ which was used in the
October 1999 PBT rule to identify
chemicals subject to a lower reporting
threshold and not eligible for Form A.
As noted above, currently all of the
chemicals that are of special concern are
57829
PBTs. Therefore, for simplicity, the term
‘‘PBT chemical’’ is used in lieu of
‘‘chemicals of special concern.’’ For
purposes of this proposal, the Agency
will also refer to non-PBT chemicals,
when referring to the larger group of TRI
chemicals that are not PBTs (i.e., not
chemicals of special concern). Should
the Agency identify additional
chemicals of special concern in the
future, at that time the Agency will
consider whether it is appropriate to
extend these or other burden reduction
options to those chemicals.
FIGURE 1.—SECTION 8 OF THE FORM R
Section 8.—Source Reduction and Recycling Activities
Column A prior
year
(pounds/year*)
Column B current reporting
year
(pounds/year*)
Column C following year
(pounds/year*)
Column D second following
year
(pounds/year*)
8.1
8.1a
Total on-site disposal to Class I Underground Injection
Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills.
8.1b
Total other on-site disposal or other releases .....................
8.1c
Total off-site disposal to Class I Underground Injection
Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills.
8.1d
Total other off-site disposal or other releases .....................
8.2
Quantity used for energy recovery onsite ............................
8.3
Quantity used for energy recovery offsite ............................
8.4
Quantity recycled onsite .......................................................
8.5
Quantity recycled offsite .......................................................
8.6
Quantity treated onsite .........................................................
8.7
Quantity treated offsite .........................................................
8.8
Quantity released to the environment as a result of remedial actions, catastrophic events, or
one-time events not associated with production processes (pounds/year)*.
8.9
Production ratio or activity index ..........................................
8.10
Did your facility engage in any source reduction activities for this chemical during the reporting year? If not, enter ‘‘NA’’ in Section
8.10.1 and answer Section 8.11.
Source Reduction Activities
[enter code(s)]
Methods to Identify Activity (enter codes).
8.10.1
a.
b.
c.
8.10.2
a.
b.
c.
8.10.3
a.
b.
c.
8.10.4
a.
b.
c.
8.11
Is additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities included
with this report? (Check one box)
Yes
Ÿ
* For Dioxin or Dioxin-like compunds, report in grams/year.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
No
Ÿ
57830
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—BURDEN REDUCTION TERMS
Expanding Form A eligibility
Applicable Form R sections
PBT Chemicals * .......................................................................................
Sections 8.1a through 8.1d must equal zero and Section 8.8 cannot include positive quantities of disposal or other releases.
Section 8.2 + Section 8.3 + Section 8.4 + Section 8.5 + Section 8.6 +
Section 8.7+ Section 8.8 must = 500 pounds or less.
Sections 8.1 + Section 8.2 + Section 8.3 + Section 8.4 + Section 8.5 +
Section 8.6 + Section 8.7 must = 5000 pounds or less.
*To be eligible, must also meet 1 million pound alternate threshold for
manufacture processing or otherwise use.
Non-PBT Chemicals * ...............................................................................
For convenience, the entire Form R and
Form A are reprinted below as Figures
2 and 3 respectively.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57831
EP04OC05.000
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
EP04OC05.001
57832
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57833
EP04OC05.002
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
EP04OC05.003
57834
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57835
EP04OC05.004
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
EP04OC05.005
57836
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
57837
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
EP04OC05.006
BILLING CODE 6560–50–C
57838
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
B. Background on the Form A
Certification Statement
Reporting to the TRI is required by
section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act. The
information contained in the Form R
constitutes a ‘‘report,’’ and the
submission of a report to the
appropriate authorities constitutes
‘‘reporting.’’ The Pollution Prevention
Act (PPA) of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508)
added additional reporting requirements
for facilities that are required to submit
Form Rs under section 313 of EPCRA.
These data were required beginning
with reports for calendar year 1991.
The purposes of the required
‘‘reporting’’ include providing the
public with information on the releases
and other waste management of EPCRA
section 313 chemicals in their
communities and providing EPA and
other regulators with release and other
waste management information to assist
them in determining the need for future
regulations. Facilities must report the
quantities of routine and accidental
releases, and releases resulting from
catastrophic or other one time events of
EPCRA section 313 chemicals, as well
as the maximum amount of the EPCRA
section 313 chemical on-site during the
calendar year and the amount contained
in wastes managed on-site or transferred
off-site.
The EPA Form A Certification
Statement was established in 1994. This
form is based on an alternate reporting
threshold for facilities with small
quantities of an EPCRA section 313
chemical released or otherwise managed
as waste. The Form A serves to certify
that a facility is not subject to form R
reporting for a specific toxic chemical
[Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
Reporting Forms and Instructions (EPA
260–B–04–001), pages 1–2].
The primary difference between
information contained on Form R and
the Form A Certification Statement is
that the Form R provides details of
releases and other waste management
(e.g., total quantity of releases to air,
water, and land; on- and off-site
recycling, energy recovery), while the
Form A does not. The Form A
Certification Statement may be used by
reporters in lieu of the Form R for
chemicals other than those specified as
chemicals of special concern (e.g., PBTs)
if the reporter does not exceed the
1,000,000 pound threshold for amount
of the chemical manufactured,
processed, or otherwise used in the
reporting year and if the annual
reportable amount of a chemical is no
more than 500 pounds for the year. The
annual reportable amount (ARA) is the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
total of all quantities released (on- and
off-site, but excluding catastrophic
events), treated, recovered, recycled,
and combusted at the facility, plus all
amounts transferred from the facility
off-site for the purpose of recycling,
energy recovery, treatment, and/or
disposal. If the reporter meets the
criteria for using the Form A, s/he need
only report the name of the chemical
and certain facility identification
information. In this case, the Form A
serves as a range report which tells the
public that the total production related
waste for that chemical is between zero
and 500 pounds. Several chemicals can
be reported on each Form A.
C. Form A Eligibility—PBT Chemicals
Allows PBT Reporting Facilities with
No Releases to the Environment to use
Form A Provided They Do Not Exceed
a 1,000,000 Pound ‘‘Alternate
Threshold’’ and Have 500 Pounds or
Less of Total Other Waste Management
Quantities.
1. Description of Proposed Change and
Considerations
Commenters in the November 2003
Stakeholder Dialogue and other venues
have pointed out that there are a
number of facilities that submit Form Rs
that have zero total disposal or other
releases in Section 8.1 of Form R. Some
of the stakeholders expressed the
opinion that the Agency should develop
a simplified form for these reports. EPA
notes that many reporters with zero total
disposal or other releases in Section 8.1
still report positive quantities in
sections 8.2 through 8.8. However, EPA
believes that communities and other
users of TRI information are less
concerned about small volumes of onsite waste management when a facility
is able to achieve zero release of these
chemicals. EPA has thus determined
that it is appropriate to allow Form A
for such facilities, provided they have
zero disposal and other releases for a
particular PBT chemical.
The Agency believes that many
facilities eligible for this regulatory
option are already using more desirable
waste management techniques as
evidenced by the fact that they have
zero releases. The Agency further
believes this approach will comply with
the goals of the PPA by encouraging
facilities that are already not releasing
any chemicals to accomplish further
source reduction so that their other
waste management totals are low
enough to use this option (500 pounds
or less). The Agency balanced this
pollution prevention incentive with the
needs of TRI data users who use this
information for tracking and reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
trends in recycling, waste treatment,
and energy recovery, and decided that
limited Form A eligibility for PBT
chemicals with zero releases would be
an appropriate approach for providing
burden relief to this group of reporters,
while minimizing the loss of useful
data.
a. What Is This Approach to Burden
Reduction?
Form A Eligibility—PBT Chemicals.
This approach allows facilities that
report zero or NA for items a, b, c, and
d of Section 8.1 of Form R (Zero Total
Disposal or Other Releases) for a PBT
chemical (except dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds) and do not have any
releases included in Section 8.8, but
may have other waste management
information in Sections 8.2 through 8.8
totaling 500 pounds or less, to now use
the Form A Certification Statement.
Section 8.8 of the Form R details the
non-production related activities
occurring at a facility. These could be
releases or other waste management
quantities. For this approach ‘‘releases’’
reported in Section 8.8 must be zero, but
facilities may have other waste
management quantities in Section 8.8,
which will be totaled with the
production related waste management
quantities found in Sections 8.2–8.7.
To qualify for this option, facilities
must manufacture, process, or otherwise
use no more than 1 million pounds of
a chemical, have zero disposal or other
releases in Section 8.1 and 8.8, and have
500 pounds or less of total other waste
management quantities in Sections 8.2
through 8.8. The Agency will refer to
the sum of Sections 8.2 + 8.3 + 8.4 + 8.5
+ 8.6 + 8.7+ 8.8 as the PBT Reportable
Amount (PRA). This is a similar concept
to the Annual Reportable Amount
(ARA), which is the term referring to the
sum of Sections 8.1 through 8.7 used to
determine eligibility for Form A
currently for non-PBT chemicals with
the added restrictions that there be no
releases requiring reporting under
Sections 8.1 or 8.8 and the inclusion of
Section 8.8 in determination of the PRA.
The inclusion of Section 8.8 waste
management amounts in the PBT
reportable amount is different from the
approach taken for non-PBT chemicals.
The Agency examined data from the
2003 reporting year and determined that
some of the reporters which have zero
releases had activity reported in Section
8.8 that appears to be associated with
ongoing CERCLA or RCRA related
remediation. The Agency believes local
communities may be concerned about
the progress of these activities and may
wish to track quantities in Section 8.8
exceeding 500 pounds using the Form
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
R. Accordingly, EPA is proposing that
these amounts be considered in
determining the PRA. As a practical
matter, the inclusion of Section 8.8 in
the PRA only affects a small number of
facilities.
Using a different basis for reportable
amount for PBT and non-PBT chemicals
does pose some risk of confusion among
reporters, but PBTs already have a
number of special provisions that are
applicable to them. The Agency requests
comment on the proposed approach for
defining the PRA and specifically on
whether Section 8.8 management
amounts should be included in the
definition of the PRA. The Agency also
requests comment on whether the ARA
(for non-PBTs) should be modified to
include Section 8.8 management
information which would be an
alternate way of making the two
approaches more consistent. EPA is also
interested in information on the specific
types of activities that are reported in
Section 8.8.
b. Is the Approach Available to All TRI
Chemicals?
This approach applies to PBT
chemicals, except dioxin and dioxinlike compounds. Non-PBT chemicals
are already eligible for the Form A
Certification Statement provided they
meet the current criteria for Form A use.
(Note that Section III. C of today’s
proposal will propose new criteria for
Form A use for non-PBT chemicals.)
One example of the type of facility this
approach could benefit is a producer of
ceramic materials, such as dishes and
cups, where 100% of the TRI chemical
(in this case the lead in clay) goes into
the product.
c. Why Is This Approach Being
Considered for PBT Chemicals?
The Agency is focusing on providing
burden relief for smaller businesses that
have zero disposal or other releases.
From the Stakeholder Dialogue, some
commenters pointed out that there are
reporters with no releases, but which
also send small amounts of TRI
chemicals into more desirable
management techniques like recycling
or energy recovery. Because the Agency
encourages reuse and recycling, it
decided to explore whether a clearly
demarcated group could be defined.
Expanding Form A eligibility as
described in this approach would
provide burden relief for PBT reporters
with no disposal or other releases, but
which do have small quantities of other
waste management activities reportable
in Sections 8.2 through 8.8. For facilities
that have zero releases but also report
zero for other waste management, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
burden relief from this approach would
be relatively small, but they would also
be eligible to use Form A. While the
Agency believes that most facilities that
would qualify for this approach will be
smaller businesses, the universe of
facilities could include both large and
small facilities.
Allowing the use of Form A for some
PBTs is a departure from the current
practice of excluding PBT reporters
from Form A use. The Agency discussed
its rationale for excluding all PBT
chemicals from the alternate threshold
of 1 million pounds in the PBT
Proposed Rule (64 FR 58716, January 5,
1999). In the PBT Final Rule the Agency
stated:
EPA believes that use of the existing
alternate threshold and reportable quantity
for Form A would be inconsistent with the
intent of expanded PBT chemical reporting.
The general information provided on the
Form A, on the quantities of the chemical
that the facility manages as waste is
insufficient for conducting meaningful
analyses on PBT chemicals. (64 FR 58734)
In the PBT Final Rule, however, the
Agency also indicated that it would
revisit this issue after it had the
opportunity to collect and analyze
several years worth of data at the
lowered thresholds (64 FR 58732,
October 29, 1999). In particular, the
Agency indicated that it might consider
developing a new alternate threshold
and reportable quantity appropriate for
PBT chemicals.
To conduct this analysis of an
appropriate criterion for use of Form A
for PBT chemicals, the Agency reviewed
the group of chemicals that it expects
would qualify. Based on TRI data
submitted in previous reporting years,
the Agency expects the group of PBTs
that would qualify for this approach to
total 2703 forms. Of these, 2085 also
reported zeros for other waste
management quantities, while 618
report non-zero amounts for at least one
of the sections 8.2 through 8.8
(Economic Analysis of Toxics Release
Inventory Burden Reduction Proposed
Rule, EPA, August, 2005). For facilities
with zero in all waste management
quantities, EPA believes the loss of data
from moving to Form A would be
minimal. In addition, EPA believes that
many such facilities may choose to
continue using Form R, since the
burden of completing Form R for such
facilities is small, and Form R allows
them to show the public that they are
neither releasing nor managing as waste
any of the PBT chemical. The latter
portion of the eligible facilities, those
with some other waste management to
report, are primarily forms for lead and
lead compounds (44%), polycyclic
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57839
aromatic compounds (PACs) including
benzo(g,h,i)perylene (47%); and
mercury and mercury compounds (7%).
Together, these three chemicals account
for 98% of the eligible reports with nonzero waste management quantities. A
discussion of each of these groups and
what is known about their waste
management practices follows:
i. Lead and Lead Compounds
EPA conducted an extensive analysis
of lead reporters in conjunction with the
2002 Public Data Release.1 Based on this
analysis, it appears that the types of
management and disposal activities for
which the Agency would be foregoing
detailed information with this approach
would be information on the recycling
of small amounts of lead. In addition to
having zero releases, these facilities
would not be conducting the activities
of energy recovery or treatment for
destruction, because metals may not be
reported in those categories.2 The most
common scenario for small lead
producers is that they send lead waste
off-site to a recycler. Consequently, for
facilities filing a Form A for lead, TRI
data users may presume that the facility
is recycling 500 pounds of lead or less
(e.g., the Form A serves as a range report
of zreo to 500 pounds for recycling).
Another factor reviewed by the
Agency in considering a new PRA
threshold was whether there would be
a substantial impact on information
reported in the annual Public Data
Release (PDR). To evaluate this issue, an
analysis was performed to determine the
amount of recycling (both on and offsite) for lead reporters anticipated to be
eligible for the option. This amount
equals approximately 67,000 pounds of
recycling. When compared with the
total for amount of lead recycling for all
TRI reporters of nearly 800 million
pounds (TRI Explorer, RY 2002 data,
https://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/), this
proves to be an extremely small
percentage (0.0084 %). Given the totals
of the lead recycling reported by these
Form A eligible lead reporters compared
to recycling totals for all TRI reporters,
the Agency believes implementing this
1 See ‘‘Lead: TRI Lead and Lead Compounds
Reporting Years 2000–2002’’ (U.S. EPA) at https://
www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri02/index.htm.
2 The Agency’s Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
Reporting Forms and Instructions (EPA 260–B–05–
001, January 2005, Appendix B) state that it is not
appropriate to report energy recovery and treatment
for destruction for metals with metal compounds
categories with the exception of barium and barium
compounds. When a facility reports metals and
their associated metal compounds categories it only
reports the parent metal portion of the compounds.
The parent metal cannot be destroyed nor can it be
burned for energy recovery so these metals should
not be reported as such.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57840
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
option will not significantly impact the
use of TRI data.
ii. PACs and Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Based on a review of potentially
eligible facilities (i.e., those with less
than 500 pounds), the only waste
management activities conducted on
PACs and benzo(g,h,i)perylene are
burning in a boiler or industrial furnace
for energy recovery or treatment for
destruction via incineration. These
activities could be conducted and result
in zero releases as a consequence of the
extremely high destruction efficiencies
achieved in burning as explained in the
next paragraph. Thus, similar to the case
with lead, the Form A would serve as
a range report of zero to 500 pounds for
the waste management activity of
combustion (either for energy recovery
or destruction).
Facilities that produce small amounts
of PACs (e.g., in waste) may burn the
waste in a boiler or industrial furnace.
Many combustion units of this type, i.e.,
boilers, furnaces, and incinerators, are
subject to strict controls under either the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) or the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Further, since the PBT rule, which
lowered reporting thresholds for PACs,
was published, the Agency has adopted
new CAA Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Standards for
hazardous waste combustion facilities
that, among other things, help to ensure
that 99.99% of these chemicals are
destroyed during either energy recovery
or incineration. These standards cover
hazardous waste incinerators and
cement kilns. (See 40 CFR part 63 and
part 264.) The MACT Standards also
control products of incomplete
combustion that may result. With a PRA
limiting the total PACs treated to 500
pounds or less, releases at the lowest
allowable efficiency could be no more
than 0.01% (or a maximum of .05
pounds) for facilities that must comply
with these strict standards. The
Guidance for Reporting Toxic
Chemicals: Polycyclic Aromatic
Compounds Category (EPA 260–9–01–
01, August 2001) allows for this level of
PACs to be rounded to zero. If, for any
reason, treatment of PACs does result in
a release of even one pound, the facility
would no longer be eligible. So, while
very small amounts of releases may
occur from facilities combusting 500
pounds or less the PAC chemicals are
unlikely to be released at levels which
would require a non-zero response in
Section 8.1 and, therefore, the
completion of Form R.
The Agency also considered whether
there would be a substantial impact on
information reported in the annual TRI
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
Public Data Release (PDR) as a result of
the proposed rule. To evaluate this
point, an analysis was performed to
determine the relative amounts of these
chemicals (PACs and
benzo(g,h,i)perylene) reported by
facilities that would be eligible for Form
A. EPA analysis shows that in RY 2002,
approximately 3,900 pounds of PACs
were reported on 578 forms that meet
the PRA and zero release requirements
for Form A eligibility under the
proposed option (Antisdel, Timothy.
‘‘Data Requests for Phase II.’’ E-mail to
Marc Edmonds. May 5, 2005). This
quantity constitutes 0.023% of the
approximately 18,000,000 pounds of
PAC’s reported as recycled, burned for
energy recovery or treated for
destruction for 2002. There were
approximately 3,200 pounds of
benzo(g,h,i)perylene reported on 695
Form Rs that meet the Form A eligibility
requirements. When compared to the
approximately 450,000 pounds reported
in 2002 by all TRI reporters as recycled,
burned for energy recovery or treated for
destruction, this amounts to only 0.7%
of the total. Because the amounts of
PACs and benzo(g,h,i)perylene that
would not be reported on Form R under
this option are such a small percentage
of the totals and there are zero releases
involved for these forms, the Agency
believes that this approach will not have
a significant impact on the use of TRI
data.
iii. Mercury and Mercury Compounds
As noted above, approximately 7% of
the forms eligible for this option report
mercury. For mercury, as with lead, the
only permissible non-zero quantity in
Section 8 of Form R for those facilities
that qualify is recycling.3 One reason a
facility would recycle but not release
mercury is because the recycling of
high-category mercury waste (greater
than 260 ppm) is mandatory under
RCRA’s Land Disposal Restriction
program (See 40 CFR 268.40 for D009
and U151). Because there are
recordkeeping and management
requirements associated with this
program, there is an extremely low risk
of mercury release to the environment
from these activities. Consequently,
similar to the case for lead, the Agency’s
primary consideration was whether a
new PRA limit for mercury would have
a substantial impact on information
reported in the annual PDR. To evaluate
this point, an analysis was performed to
determine the relative amount of
mercury reported by potentially eligible
facilities. EPA analysis shows that in RY
2002, 3,700 pounds of mercury and
3 Ibid.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mercury compounds were reported on
the 186 forms that meet the eligibility
requirements for Form A. When
compared with the total mercury
recycled by all TRI facilities (1,280,000
pounds), this amounts to only about
0.3% of the total. Because there are no
releases and the amount of mercury that
would not be reported is such a small
percentage of the total, the Agency
believes that this approach will not have
a significant impact on the use of TRI
data.
As discussed above, for this approach
the Agency is now proposing to refer to
the Annual Reportable Amount for PBTs
as the PBT Reportable Amount (PRA).
This PRA will still be 500 pounds or
less, however, unlike the current Form
A, the reportable amount for this option
will include quantities that result from
non-production related other waste
management activities that are reported
in Section 8.8 of the Form R, and will
only be applied once a facility has met
the first test that they have no releases
to the environment. Also, as with nonPBT chemicals, the facility must also
meet the alternate one million pound
threshold for manufacturing, processing
or otherwise use.
It is important to note that this new
Form A option for PBT chemicals
requires that there be zero release or
disposal of the chemical. With this
condition satisfied, the Agency believes
the resulting other waste management
quantities are being adequately
addressed by facilities using recycling
and treatment technologies through
existing statutory and regulatory
requirements. This approach reinforces
these requirements by providing
incentives for additional source
reductions while still providing range
reports to TRI data users on the amounts
of chemicals recycled or otherwise
managed as waste (without being
released to the environment). Using EZ
Query in Envirofacts (www.epa.gov/
envirofacts/) or TRI Explorer data users
would still be able to access individual
PBT chemicals and list specific TRIFIDs
and names of the facilities reporting an
individual PBT chemical even if the
facility submitted a Form A certification
statement rather than a Form R.
d. How Often Is This Approach
Available to TRI Facilities?
This approach would be available
annually to any reporter having a
chemical which qualifies in a given
year.
e. What Are the Reporting
Requirements?
This approach would allow facilities
reporting PBTs (except dioxin and
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
dioxin-like compounds) that have no
releases, either in Section 8.1 or 8.8 of
Form R, and which have other waste
management information in Sections 8.2
through 8.8 totaling 500 pounds or less,
to apply a 1 million pound manufacture,
process, or otherwise use threshold to
that chemical. If the facility is under the
threshold it will be able to use the Form
A Certification Statement.
f. Do My Recordkeeping Requirements
Change?
No. The current recordkeeping
requirements remain in effect. A facility
must keep records for three years (40
CFR 372.10 and 372.27(b)).
2. Estimates of Potential Impacts
a. What Are the Potential Impacts of
Reducing Reporting Burden?
From the standpoint of burden
reduction hours, the Agency’s analysis
indicates that approximately 2,703 PBT
forms would qualify for Form A use
under this proposal, saving
approximately 47,000 hours of reporting
burden (Economic Analysis of Toxics
Release Inventory Burden Reduction
Proposed Rule, EPA, September 2005).
As presented in Table 1, the currently
approved burden estimate assumes
completion of a full Form R for a PBT
chemical requires 52.1 hours (including
recordkeeping and submission). This is
higher than the burden for a non-PBT of
30.2 hours due to the greater number of
records that may need to be reviewed
and calculations performed. Without
today’s rulemaking, facilities that would
otherwise qualify for today’s expansion
of Form A eligibility to PBT chemicals
would have to submit a full Form R.
Even facilities without waste
management activities to report (i.e.,
zeros in Sections 8.1 through 8.8) will
realize burden savings from the
finalization of this proposal. These
savings would accrue because the
facility would no longer need to
determine the maximum amount of the
TRI chemical on-site at any one time in
Section 4 of Form R. Moreover, the
Production Ratio, which measures the
relative percentage of a TRI chemical
used in a product relative to the year
before, would not have to be calculated
if a facility submits a Form A.
Eliminating the need to calculate these
and other Form R data elements that are
not included on the Form A result in an
estimated burden savings of 17.5 hours
per Form A. This is the difference
between the estimated Form R burden of
52.1 hours and the estimated Form A
burden of 34.6 hours. Under the revised
methodology discussed earlier, the
estimated burden reduction for PBT
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
reporters would be approximately
20,000 hours instead of 47,000 hours.
Regardless of methodology used, actual
burden savings are likely to be less,
given that not all Form A eligible
respondents are likely to use Form A.
Presently, only 54% of forms that
appear to be eligible are actually
submitted on Form A.
b. What Are the Potential Impacts to
Data Users?
Regarding impacts to data users, the
Agency feels that expanding Form A
eligibility to PBT reporting facilities
who have no releases to the
environment but have some other waste
management activities to report, will
have negligible impacts on the utility of
the TRI data and the TRI database. Some
information in Sections 8.2 through 8.8
for facilities within the 500 pound PBT
reportable amount will no longer be
reported in detail. The Agency
anticipates this will have a minimal
impact on the national reports TRI
generates annually because it is a low
quantity of waste and will have a
negligible impact on national totals. On
an individual facility basis, data users
will not have detailed waste
management information for recycling,
treatment, and energy recovery, but will
know that the total of these amounts is
within the range of zero to 500 pounds.
Additionally, for some chemicals,
information available to EPA and the
public allows data users to reasonably
predict the waste management
method(s) most likely employed at the
facility. Communities will still be able
to access Form A facility information
via Envirofacts or TRI Explorer. The
Agency reiterates the importance of the
information contained in the Form A
Certification Statement and discussed in
the Alternate Threshold for Facilities
with Low Annual Reportable Amounts
Final Rule (59 FR 61488, November 30,
1994). In that rule the Agency indicated
that Form A serves the purposes of
EPCRA Section 313 by providing the
public with the basic information that a
facility manufactures, processes, or
otherwise uses a listed chemical in
excess of current thresholds, that the
annual reportable amount (in this case,
the PRA) is 500 pounds or less, and that
the facility did not exceed the alternate
threshold for reporting. This
information will be made available in
the TRI database. Company records
supporting such determinations must be
made available to EPA inspectors upon
request.
c. Are There Other Potential Impacts?
The Agency feels this reporting option
will provide an incentive to TRI
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57841
facilities to eliminate releases and
reduce the need for other waste
management by allowing certification in
lieu of reporting for facilities that
manage to eliminate all releases and
reduce their other waste management
activities to a level of 500 pounds or
less.
3. Rationale for Expanding Form A
Eligibility to PBT Chemicals
EPCRA allows EPA to adjust the
reporting thresholds consistent with
Section 313(f)(2) so long as the adjusted
thresholds ‘‘obtain reporting on a
substantial majority of total releases of
the chemical at all facilities subject to
the requirements of this section.’’
Expanding eligibility for Form A to
PBTs (except dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds) would define the category
of facilities eligible for the increased
threshold as those facilities that have
zero releases and 500 pounds or less of
the PRA for a particular chemical.
Eligibility is determined on a chemicalby-chemical basis, therefore this
approach would maintain reporting on
a substantial majority of total releases
because chemicals for which a facility
has releases are not eligible for the
alternate threshold. Only where a
facility would have reported zero
releases for a chemical would the
facility be eligible; therefore, no data on
releases are lost. Additionally, the
requirement to submit a certification
statement would allow certain facility
information and information on other
waste management activities to be made
available to the public. As EPA
explained in the 1994 Form A
Rulemaking, the certification statement
‘‘relates to a range volume for a given
chemical’’ of zero to 500 pounds,
thereby providing the public with
valuable information (59 FR 61497,
November 30, 1994). In addition to
comment on this proposal, the Agency
also requests comment on whether any
of the chemicals potentially eligible for
this option are of sufficient concern so
as to justify EPA excluding them from
eligibility for Form A as is being done
with dioxins and dioxin like
compounds.
D. Expanding Form A Eligibility—NonPBT Chemicals
Allows Non-PBT Reporting Facilities
to use an Alternate Reporting Threshold
Provided They Do Not Exceed 5000
Pounds of Total Other Waste
Management Quantities.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57842
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
1. Description of Proposed Change
a. What Is This Approach To Burden
Reduction?
Facilities reporting non-PBT
chemicals would now be able to use
Form A if they meet the 1 million
pound alternate reporting threshold and
have 5000 pounds or less of total
‘‘annual reportable amount,’’ defined as
the combined total quantity released at
the facility, treated at the facility,
recovered at the facility as a result of
recycle operations, combusted for the
purpose of energy recovery at the
facility, and amounts transferred from
the facility to off-site locations for the
purpose of recycling, energy recovery,
treatment, and/or disposal. This
combined total corresponds to the
quantity of the toxic chemical in
production-related waste, i.e., the sum
of Section 8.1 through and including
section 8.7 of the Form R.
b. Is This Approach Available to All TRI
Chemicals?
This approach applies only to nonPBT chemicals.4 Non-PBT chemicals are
already potentially eligible for the Form
A Certification Statement. In Reporting
Year 2003, 12,020 non-PBT chemical
submissions were made using Form A.
An additional 10,000 non-PBT Form Rs
appear to be eligible for Form A, though
some of these may not qualify because
they may exceed the one million pound
reporting threshold. Today’s proposal
would increase the ARA from 500
pounds to 5000 pounds. Increasing the
ARA would expand eligibility to an
estimated 12,201 additional non-PBT
forms.
c. How Often Is the Approach Available
to TRI Facilities?
This option would be available
annually. A facility reporting a non-PBT
chemical may use the Form A
Certification Statement as long as it
continues to meet the 1 million pound
alternate threshold and have 5000
pounds or less for the ARA. If a
reporting facility exceeds the 5000
pound ARA in any reporting year, it
would be required to submit Form R for
that year.
d. What Are the Reporting
Requirements?
Today’s proposal would allow nonPBT reporting facilities that meet the 1
million pound manufacture, process, or
otherwise use threshold and have 5000
4 For the purposes of this proposal and as
described above, ‘‘non-PBT chemicals’’ indicates all
listed TRI chemicals that are not ‘‘chemicals of
special concern,’’ which are listed in 40 CFR
372.28.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
pounds or less of total production
related waste (i.e., the Annual
Reportable Amount equal to the sum of
Sections 8.1 + 8.2 + 8.3 + 8.4 + 8.5 +
8.6 + 8.7) to use the Form A
Certification Statement in lieu of Form
R. Form A can be found in the Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory Reporting
Forms and Instructions (EPA 260–B–04–
001).
e. Do My Record Keeping Requirements
Change?
No. The current record keeping
requirements remain in effect. A facility
submitting a Form A must keep records
for three years (40 CFR sections 372.10
and 372.27(b)).
2. Estimates of Potential Impacts
a. What Are the Potential Impacts for
Reducing Burden?
From the standpoint of burden
reduction, the Agency’s analysis
indicates that this rule, if finalized,
would extend Form A eligibility to
around 12,200 non-PBT forms, saving
approximately 117,000 hours of
reporting burden (Economic Analysis of
Toxics Release Inventory Burden
Reduction Proposed Rule, EPA,
September 2005). Without the
opportunity to use Form A, facilities
reporting non-PBTs above the current
500 pound ARA would still complete
Form R and would need to determine,
the maximum amount of the TRI
chemical on-site at any one time in
Section 4 of Form R as well as separate
release and other waste management
data. Moreover, the Production Ratio,
which measures the relative percentage
of a TRI chemical used in a product
relative to the year before, would have
to be calculated when a Form R is
submitted. The current estimate of
burden associated with completing a
non-PBT Form R is 30.2 hours
(including recordkeeping and
submission). Eliminating the need to
calculate data elements not on the Form
A would save an estimated 9.6 hours
per report. This is the difference
between the estimate for a non-PBT
Form R and the 20.6 hour estimate for
a Form A. As noted above, under the
revised burden methodology on which
EPA is today requesting comment,
potential burden savings would be
reduced. For non-PBTs, the reduction
would be approximately fifteen percent
resulting in an estimate of
approximately 100,000 hours of burden
reduction. For PBTs and non-PBTs
combined, the burden reduction
estimated by the new methodology for
this proposal would be approximately
twenty-five percent less than the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
estimate using the current methodology.
Regardless of the methodology used, it
is again important to note that actual
burden savings may be considerably less
if historical rates of Form A use
continue in the future.
b. What Are the Potential Impacts to
Data Users?
After several years of reporting
experience, the Agency believes it is
appropriate to increase the Annual
Reportable Amount (ARA) to expand
eligibility for the Form A Certification
Statement, and is today proposing to
increase that amount to 5000 pounds.
EPA has also analyzed and will be
taking comment on 1000 and 2000
pound ARA levels. While the 500
pound ARA the Agency finalized in a
1994 rulemaking (59 FR 61488) gained
a measure of success in reducing
reporting burden, the Agency believes
that increasing the ARA provides
additional burden relief to facilities, but
still allows the TRI program to report on
a substantial majority of the releases. It
also continues to provide valuable
information to the public that fulfills the
purposes of the TRI program.
Today’s proposal would increase the
number of potentially non-PBT Forms
eligible for Form A by approximately
12,000 to a total of approximately
34,000. However, as noted above, only
about half of potentially eligible
respondents actually use Form A. Even
if all newly eligible respondents use
Form A, the total number of Form A
submissions would still be projected to
not exceed the number projected under
the 1994 Final Rule that created Form
A. Furthermore, even with the increase
in eligible forms, the percentage of total
release pounds that would be eligible to
be reported on Form A with a 5000
pound ARA still remains at less than
1% of total releases reported on Form R
nationwide. Under this higher
threshold, approximately 14 million
pounds of releases (0.34% of total
releases) and 25 million pounds of total
production-related waste (0.11% of all
TRI total production-related waste)
would be newly eligible for Form A
reporting.
Under this approach, data users will
know that for any non-PBT chemical
submitted on a Form A, the totals for
both releases (Section 8.1) and total
production related waste (Sum of
Sections 8.1 through and including
Section 8.7) do not exceed 5000 pounds.
TRI data users are currently able to
access Form A facility information
regarding the facility via Envirofacts and
TRI Explorer (https://www.epa.gov/
triexplorer/), so they would know the
facility is a potential source. Data users
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
would also still be able to obtain
national information such as number of
Form As filed each year by individual
chemical. Using EZ Query in
Envirofacts (http:/lwww.epa.gov/
envirofacts), data users will be able to
access individual chemical Form As
along with the TRI Facility
Identification Numbers (TRIFIDs) and
names of the facilities submitting the
Form As.
Other potential impacts considered by
the Agency in the creation of Form A in
the 1994 rulemaking included estimates
seeking to characterize the impact on a
local level. That rulemaking assessed
these impacts by attempting to estimate
which counties might have all of the
TRI information reported on Form A. As
mentioned previously, the impacts
projected in that rulemaking were not
realized as only about half of the
potentially eligible respondents actually
switched to Form A.
A similar analysis was conducted for
this rule, but ZIP codes were used in the
current analysis because it was believed
that they would provide a better
measure of local impacts. Presently,
depending on the year examined, there
are between 500 and 550 ZIP codes
where all TRI reporting is on Form A.
Under the proposed rule, this number
has the potential to increase by up to
655 ZIP codes (approximately seven
percent of all ZIP codes with TRI
reporters). However, this number is
largely driven by the fact that many ZIP
codes have only a few Form Rs. Of the
655 ZIP codes where all current Form
57843
Rs would become eligible for Form A,
88% currently have only one Form R
and 10% have only two such forms.
In addition, at 5000 pounds, the
Agency notes that information on
approximately 26 additional chemicals
could potentially be reported
exclusively on Form A, though this
would only occur if all newly eligible
reporters use Form A, which is unlikely
based on past experience. The majority
of these chemicals are presently
reported on only one or two Form Rs.
Detailed analyses of the impacts on
communities (ZIP codes) and individual
chemicals is provided in the Economic
Analysis. Table 3 below summarizes the
potential impacts on reporting of raising
the ARA to 1000, 2000, and 5000
pounds.
TABLE 3.—POTENTIAL INCREMENTAL* EFFECTS OF ALL NEWLY ELIGIBLE REPORTERS USING FORM A FOR NON-PBTS
Reports potentially
eligible for Form A
ARA in pounds
Number of %
chemicals potentially reported only
on Form A
Percent of ZIP
codes where all
Form R’s potentially converted to
Form A’s
3,184
6,838
12,201
7
16
26
2
3
7
1000 .......................................................
2000 .......................................................
5000 .......................................................
Percent of total
releases potentially reported on
Form A
0.03
0.11
0.34
Percent of total
production related
waste potentially
reported on Form
A
0.01
0.03
0.11
* Note: All estimates are incremental to current 500 pound ARA threshold.
A list of the chemicals can be found
in the Economic Analysis (See
Appendix A, TABLE A–2, Chemicals
Where 100% Of Total Releases Would
Potentially No Longer Be Reported on
Form R Under the Expanded Eligibility
For Form A: Non-PBT Chemicals
Option).
3. Rationale for Expanding Form A
Eligibility for Non-PBT Chemicals
One suggestion raised by a number of
stakeholders for burden reduction was
to increase the Annual Reportable
Amount (ARA) from 500 to 5000
pounds. The Agency evaluated this
suggestion and concluded that little
information would be affected (i.e.,
about 0.1% of Total Production Related
Waste), if we extended the ARA for nonPBTs to 5000 pounds. Also, as described
above in relation to lead, mercury, and
PACs, a data user may be able to predict
based on individual chemicals what
waste management activity is likely to
be used at a facility. The range of
information provided by a Form A can
be supplemented with information on
typical industry practices and other
regulatory frameworks that might apply
to a specific chemical.
This Option is consistent with the
authority given to EPA by EPCRA
section 313(f)(2). As described above,
EPCRA allows EPA to adjust the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
reporting thresholds so long as the
adjusted thresholds ‘‘obtain reporting on
a substantial majority of total releases of
the chemical at all facilities subject to
the requirements of this section.’’ Under
this option, Form A eligibility would be
extended for Non-PBT chemicals with
Annual Reportable Amounts not
exceeding 5000 pounds. Because the
change will not affect significant
amounts of data on releases or other
waste management activities, this
approach obtains the reporting on a
substantial majority of total releases as
required by the statute. Additionally,
each Form A serves as a range report
which informs the public that total
releases, as well as total production
related waste (which includes releases)
is in the range of zero to 5000 pounds.
Among the other factors considered
by the Agency was existing Form A
utilization. The Agency observed that
only slightly over half of the forms
(54%) potentially eligible for Form A
use take advantage of that option. There
are a number of potential reasons for
this utilization rate. First, a number of
facilities may be using in excess of the
1 million pound alternative threshold 5
5 The
Agency cannot determine with certainty
whether a facility has exceeded the one million
pound threshold because facilities are not required
to report totals for manufacture, processing, or
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(e.g. users of feedstock chemicals like
nitrapyrin and producers of pesticides
or pharmaceuticals) and are therefore
ineligible for Form A. Other facilities
may report on Form R out of a desire to
showcase their pollution prevention
efforts. Still other facilities find the
Form R to be an efficient mechanism for
tracking their material balances. A
facility, having collected all of this
information, may also be making a Form
R submission to demonstrate good
environmental stewardship.
Regardless of the factors that prompt
facilities to use Form R when they may
be eligible for Form A, the Agency does
not believe the rate of Form A
utilization is likely to be significantly
higher at a 5000 pound threshold than
it currently is at the 500 pound ARA
threshold. EPA consequently projects
that, in practice, the total number of
additional Form A submissions as a
result of the higher threshold would
also be about half of the newly eligible
Form Rs. This means that the total
number of Form As that would be filed
would be comparable to what was
originally projected for Form A at the
otherwise use. Based on factors such as typical
industry practices, the Agency has presumed that
certain chemicals like the examples given would be
likely to push a facility over the one million pound
alternate threshold.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57844
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
500 pound threshold assuming full
utilization by all eligible filers. The
Agency indicated in the original
alternate threshold rulemaking (59 FR
61495) that it believed the 500 pound
threshold would ‘‘limit the loss of
detailed information currently available,
while providing industry with a
reasonably attainable level [of burden
reduction].’’ The Agency believes this
conclusion continues to be valid for the
5,000 pound ARA threshold. As noted
above, Table 3 provides a summary of
the potential impacts of changes to the
ARA threshold from 1000 up to 5000
pounds. There are 26 additional
chemicals for which releases may no
longer be reported on Form R. Of those
chemicals, the majority are pesticides.
Chemical intermediates represent the
second most occurring major class
behind pesticides. As discussed above,
the Form A certifications for these
chemicals will provide a range by which
waste management quantities and
practices may be estimated. EPA
believes that, taken together, the Form
Rs and Form As that will be filed as a
result of this rule will continue to
provide valuable information to the
public that fulfills the purposes of the
TRI program. The Agency requests
comment on its proposal to increase the
Form A Certification Statement Annual
Reportable Amount to 5000 pounds as
well as on alternate ARA thresholds of
1000 and 2000 pounds. The Agency also
seeks comment on whether changes to
the ARA would adversely impact
chemical specific or local community
uses of the information.
IV. Requests for Public Comment
The Agency recognizes that some
chemicals may be of particular concern
and therefore extending the ARA to
5000, 2000, or 1,000 pounds for those
chemicals may have a disproportionate
impact on TRI data users. EPA notes
that one known category of concern,
PBTs, is not being considered under this
Form A option, but recognizes that there
may be other chemicals of particular
concern as well. EPA requests comment
on whether any of the chemicals
potentially eligible for this option are of
a sufficient level of concern so as to
justify EPA excluding them from
eligibility for the Form A at the higher
ARA. Based on comments received and
analyses conducted, we could decide to
identify some set of chemicals that
would not be eligible to use a higher
ARA, should one be promulgated. EPA
also recognizes that some stakeholders
may be concerned about data no longer
on the Form R when facilities instead
file a Form A and requests comment on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
possible modifications to the Form A to
address this concern.
The following is a list of items
discussed in this document on which
EPA solicits comment. This list is
provided for the reader’s reference. The
Agency encourages commenters to
review the relevant portions of the
preamble that pertain to each area in
order to provide a more complete
response.
(1) The Agency solicits comment on
the reasonableness and the accuracy of
the methodology, engineering steps and
time estimates of its July 2004 revised
estimate of TRI reporting burden, as
well as on the conclusions of the
external peer review.
(2) The Agency requests comment on
its proposal to increase the Form A
Certification Statement Annual
Reportable Amount to 5000 pounds as
well as on alternate ARA thresholds of
1000 and 2000 pounds. The Agency also
seeks comment on whether changes to
the ARA would adversely impact
chemical specific or local community
uses of the information. EPA requests
comment on whether any of the
chemicals potentially eligible for this
option are of a sufficient level of
concern so as to justify EPA excluding
them from eligibility for the Form A at
the higher ARA.
(3) EPA requests comment on how
extending Form A eligibility to PBT
chemicals (except dioxins and dioxin
compounds) will impact the reporting of
TRI chemicals. EPA also requests
comment on whether any of the
chemicals potentially eligible for this
option are of a sufficient level of
concern so as to justify EPA excluding
them from eligibility for the Form A.
(4) The Agency requests comment on
the proposed approach for defining the
PRA and specifically on whether
Section 8.8 management amounts
should be included in the definition of
the PRA. The Agency also requests
comment on whether the ARA (for nonPBTs) should be modified to include
Section 8.8 management information
which would be an alternate way of
making the two approaches more
consistent. EPA is also interested in
information on the specific types of
activities that are reported in Section
8.8.
(5) 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 these analyses (entitled ‘‘Economic
Assessment of the Burden Reduction—
Phase II—Proposed Rule’’) have been
placed in the TRI docket for public
review. The Agency solicits comment
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on the methodology and results from the
economic analysis as well as any data
that the public feels would be useful in
a revised analysis.
V. What Are the Statutory and
Executive Order Reviews Associated
With This Action?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735), the Agency must determine
whether this regulatory action is
‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to
formal review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and to
the requirements of the Executive Order,
which include assessing the costs and
benefits anticipated as a result of the
proposed regulatory action. The Order
defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
as one that is likely to result in a rule
that may: (1) Have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866, it has been determined
that today’s proposed rule is a
significant regulatory action. As such,
this action was submitted to OMB for
review. Changes made in response to
OMB suggestions or recommendations
are documented in the docket to today’s
proposal.
To estimate the cost savings,
incremental costs, economic impacts
and benefits from this rule to affected
regulated entities, EPA completed an
economic analysis for this rule. Copies
of these analyses (entitled ‘‘Economic
Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Release
Inventory Phase II Burden Reduction
Rule’’) have been placed in the TRI
docket for public review. The Agency
solicits comment on the methodology
and results from the analysis as well as
any data that the public feels would be
useful in a revised analysis.
1. Methodology
To estimate the cost savings,
incremental costs, economic impacts,
and benefits of this rule, the Agency
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
estimated both the cost and burden of
completing Form R and Form A as well
as the number of affected entities. The
Agency has used 2002 reporting year for
TRI data. For all options under
consideration, the Agency identified the
number of potentially affected
respondents currently completing Form
Rs that may be eligible for burden
savings under the new Form A
57845
the number of forms eligible for each
option.
eligibility for PBT Chemicals and the
expanded Form A eligibility for nonPBT chemicals. For each option, the
Agency compared the baseline burden
for completing Form R and compared it
with the post-regulatory option under
consideration. The total burden and cost
savings associated with each proposed
options are the product of the unit
burden and cost savings per form times
2. Cost and Burden Savings Results
Table 4 summarizes the potential
annual cost and burden savings of the
Phase II TRI Burden Reduction
proposal, if all newly eligible reports
were filed using Form A.
TABLE 4.—POTENTIAL ANNUAL COST AND BURDEN SAVINGS OF THE PHASE II TRI BURDEN REDUCTION PROPOSAL
Burden
savings per
Form R
(hours)
Total annual
burden savings
(hours)
Number of eligible Form R’s
Option
Number of potentially eligible facilities
2,703
2,064
17.5
47,303
$790
$2,136,392
1.2
3,184
2,396
9.6
30,566
430
1,368,650
0.8
Cost savings
per Form R
Total annual
cost savings
Percent
of total
cost/burden
New Form A Eligibilty
for PBT chemicals ....
Increase ARA for NonPBT chemicals to
1000 pounds .............
Increase ARA for NonPBT chemicals to
2000 pounds .............
Increase ARA for NonPBT chemicals to
5000 pounds .............
6,838
4,220
9.6
65,645
430
2,939,331
1.7
12,201
6,461
9.6
117,130
430
5,244,630
3.1
Total of Proposed
Options ..............
........................
........................
........................
164,432
........................
7,381,022
4.3
EPA estimates that the total annual
burden savings for this proposal is
164,432 hours. EPA estimates the total
annual cost savings for this proposal is
$7.4 million. Average annual cost
savings for facilities submitting Form As
in lieu of Form Rs is $430 per form for
non-PBT reports and $790 per form for
PBT reports.
3. Impacts to Data
EPA has evaluated the potential
impacts to data reported to the public
for the proposed options and
determined that the risk of significant
impacts is minimal. For New Form A
Eligibility for PBT chemicals, the TRI
chemical submitted must not have
either production-related or nonproduction related releases to the
environment. The balance of
management of these TRI chemicals is
most likely either recycling or nondissipative management through energy
recovery or treatment for destruction at
quantities totaling 500 pounds or less.
For Expanded Form A Eligibility for
non-PBT chemicals, the Agency has
evaluated both total release pounds and
total production related waste pounds
that would not be reported using Form
R if this option is finalized. Relative to
the current ARA of 500 pounds,
approximately fifteen million additional
release pounds (0.34 percent of all TRI
release lbs) and 27 million additional
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
total production related waste pounds
(0.11 percent of all TRI total production
related waste pounds) would be eligible
for Form A reporting if this option were
finalized. As noted above, based on
historical experience, EPA projects that
not all eligible reporters will use Form
A. For those that do, the Form A
provides a range report of zero to 5,000
pounds for both releases and total
production related waste. Further
information on how specific chemicals
are affected can be found in the
economic analysis of this rulemaking.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA calculated the potential reporting
and recordkeeping burden reduction for
this rule to be 202,000 hours and the
potential cost savings to be $9.2 million
per year. As noted above, actual burden
reduction and cost savings will likely be
somewhat less. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 (RFA), as
Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.
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 1000 or 100
employees per firm depending upon the
SIC code the firm primarily is classified;
(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;
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
57846
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
The economic impact analysis
conducted for today’s proposal indicates
that these revisions to Form R and Form
A would generally result in savings to
affected entities compared to baseline
requirements. The rule is not expected
to result in a net cost to any affected
entity. Thus, adverse impacts are not
anticipated.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. This
rule is estimated to save compliance
costs of $9.2 million annually to the
private sector. In addition, this rule does
not create any additional federally
enforceable duty for State, local and
tribal governments. Thus, today’s rule is
not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ This
proposed rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes’’. This
proposed rule does not have tribal
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
G. Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations 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.
Today’s proposed rule reduces
recordkeeping and reporting burden for
TRI reporters. It will not cause
reductions in supply or production of
oil, fuel, coal, or electricity. Nor will it
result in increased energy prices,
increased cost of energy distribution, or
an increased dependence on foreign
supplies of energy.
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
‘‘Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
applies to any rule that EPA determines
(1) ‘‘economically significant’’ as
defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason
to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency
must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on
children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other
potential effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the
Agency. This proposed rule is not
subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
an economically significant rule as
defined by E.O. 12866.
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, though OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This
rule does not establish technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
J. Environmental Justice
Under Executive Order 12898,
‘‘Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations,’’ EPA has undertaken to
incorporate environmental justice into
its policies and programs. EPA is
committed to addressing environmental
justice concerns, and is assuming a
leadership role in environmental justice
initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all residents of the United
States. The Agency’s goals are to ensure
that no segment of the population,
regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income, bears disproportionately
high and adverse human health and
environmental effects as a result of
EPA’s policies, programs, and activities.
The TRI is an environmental
information program. While it provides
important information that may
indirectly lead to improved health and
environmental conditions on the
community level, it is not an emission
control regulation that could directly
impact health and environmental
outcomes in a community. The
principal consequence of finalizing
today’s action would be to reduce the
level of detail available on some toxic
chemical releases or management.
However, as pointed out in the previous
discussions, the impacts will be very
small in terms of total national figures.
EPA believes that the data provided
under this proposed rule will continue
to provide valuable information that
fulfills the purposes of the TRI program.
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Further, only the second of today’s
approaches would have any effect on
reporting of chemicals released to the
environment. The first approach
requires that facilities reporting PBTs
have no releases in order to be eligible
for Form A. EPA has no indication that
either option will disproportionately
impact minority or low-income
communities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection,
Community right-to-know, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic
chemicals.
Dated: September 21, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part
372 as follows:
PART 372—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 372
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Revise § 372.10(d) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 372.10
Recordkeeping.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Each owner or operator who
determines that the owner operator may
apply one of the alternate thresholds as
specified under § 372.27(a) must retain
the following records for a period of 3
years from the date of the submission of
the certification statement as required
under § 372.27(b):
*
*
*
*
*
Subpart B—[Amended]
3. Section 372.27 is amended as
follows:
i. Revise section heading.
ii. Revise paragraph (a).
iii. Revise paragraph (b).
iv. Revise paragraph (e).
§ 372.27 Alternate thresholds and
certifications.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(e) of this section:
(1) With respect to the manufacture,
process, or otherwise use of a toxic
chemical, the owner or operator of a
facility may apply an alternate threshold
of 1 million pounds per year to that
chemical if the owner or operator
calculates that the facility would have
an annual reportable amount of that
toxic chemical not exceeding 5000
pounds for the combined total
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:03 Oct 03, 2005
Jkt 208001
quantities released at the facility,
disposed within the facility, treated at
the facility (as represented by amounts
destroyed or converted by treatment
processes), recovered at the facility as a
result of recycle operations, combusted
for the purpose of energy recovery at the
facility, and amounts transferred from
the facility to off-site locations for the
purpose of recycle, energy recovery,
treatment, and/or disposal. These
volumes correspond to the sum of
amounts reportable for data elements on
EPA Form R (EPA Form 9350–1; Rev.
12/4/93) as Part II column B or sections
8.1 (quantity released), 8.2 (quantity
used for energy recovery on-site), 8.3
(quantity used for energy recovery offsite), 8.4 (quantity recycled on-site), 8.5
(quantity recycled off-site), 8.6 (quantity
treated on-site), and 8.7 (quantity
treated off-site).
(2) With respect to the manufacture,
process, or otherwise use of a toxic
chemical, the owner or operator of a
facility may apply an alternate threshold
of 1 million pounds per year to that
chemical if the owner or operator
calculates that the facility would have:
(i) Zero disposal or other releases
(including disposal or other releases
that resulted from catastrophic events);
and
(ii) A PBT annual reportable amount
of that toxic chemical not exceeding 500
pounds. The PBT annual reportable
amount is the combined total of:
(A) Quantities treated for destruction
at the facility;
(B) Quantities recovered at the facility
as a result of recycle operations;
(C) Quantities combusted for the
purpose of energy recovery at the
facility;
(D) Quantities transferred from the
facility to off-site locations for the
purpose of recycle, energy recovery,
treatment, and/or disposal; and
(E) Quantities managed through
recycle, energy recovery, or treatment
for destruction that were the result of
remedial actions, catastrophic events, or
one-time events not associated with
production processes during the
reporting year.
(b) If an owner or operator of a facility
determines that the owner or operator
may apply one of the alternate reporting
thresholds specified in paragraph (a) of
this section for a specific toxic
chemical, the owner or operator is not
required to submit a report for that
chemical under § 372.30, but must
submit a certification statement that
contains the information required in
§ 372.95. The owner or operator of the
facility must also keep records as
specified in § 372.10(d).
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57847
(e) The alternative thresholds
described in paragraph (a) of this
section are limited by the following:
(1) The provisions of paragraph (a)(1)
of this section do not apply to any
chemicals listed in § 372.28.
(2) Dioxins and dioxin-like
compounds are not eligible for the
alternate thresholds described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
Subpart E—[Amended]
4. Section 372.95 is amended as
follows:
i. Revise section heading.
ii. Revise paragraph (b) introductory
text.
iii. Revise paragraph (b)(4).
§ 372.95 Alternate threshold certifications
and instructions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Alternate threshold certification
statement elements. The following
information must be reported on an
alternate threshold certification
statement pursuant to § 372.27(b):
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Signature of a senior management
official certifying one of the following:
(i) Pursuant to 40 CFR 372.27(a)(1), ‘‘I
hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge and belief for the toxic
chemical listed in this statement, the
annual reportable amount, as defined in
40 CFR 372.27(a)(1), did not exceed
5000 pounds for this reporting year and
that the chemical was manufactured, or
processed, or otherwise used in an
amount not exceeding 1 million pounds
during this reporting year;’’ and/or
(ii) Pursuant to 40 CFR 372.27(a)(3), ‘‘I
hereby certify that to the best of my
knowledge and belief for the toxic
chemical listed in this statement, there
were zero disposals or other releases to
the environment (including disposals or
other releases that resulted from
catastrophic events), the ‘‘PBT Annual
Reportable Amount,’’ as defined in 40
CFR 372.27(a)(3) did not exceed 500
pounds for this reporting year, and that
the chemical was manufactured, or
processed, or otherwise used in an
amount not exceeding 1 million pounds
during this reporting year.’’
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–19710 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\04OCP1.SGM
04OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57822-57847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19710]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[TRI-2005-0073; FRL-7532-8]
RIN 2025-AA14
Toxics Release Inventory Burden Reduction Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposes to revise certain requirements for the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI). The purpose of these revisions is to reduce reporting
burden associated with the TRI reporting requirements while continuing
to provide valuable information to the public that fulfills the
purposes of the TRI program. ``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. The Agency
will continue to provide valuable information to the public pursuant to
section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act
(PPA) regarding toxic chemical releases and other waste management
activities.
If adopted, today's proposed action would increase eligibility for
the Form A Certification Statement for non-Persistent Bioaccumulative
and Toxic (PBT) chemicals by raising the eligibility threshold to 5000
pounds for the ``annual reportable amount'' of a toxic chemical. It
would also, for the first time, allow limited use of Form A for PBT
chemicals where total releases are zero and the PBT annual reportable
amount does not exceed 500 pounds. Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are
excluded from consideration for expanded Form A eligibility. Today's
proposal applies to the reporting of individual chemicals and is not
intended to apply automatically to all reports that a facility may be
required to file.
For non-PBTs under the current regulations, the annual reportable
amount is the combined total quantity released at the facility, treated
at the facility, recovered at the facility as a result of recycle
operations, combusted for the purpose of energy recovery at the
facility, and amounts transferred from the facility to off-site
locations for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery, treatment,
and/or disposal. This combined total corresponds to the quantity of the
toxic chemical in production--related waste, i.e., the sum of Sections
8.1 through and including Section 8.7 of the Form R. Today's proposal
would define a PBT annual reportable amount that would also include
amounts managed and reported under Section 8.8 of the Form R. Greater
detail on how reporters can qualify for increased Form A eligibility is
provided later in today's proposal under Section III.
DATES: Comments, identified by the Docket ID No. TRI-2005-0073, must be
received on or before December 5, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. TRI-2005-
0073, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov
Fax: 202-566-0741.
Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket,
[[Page 57823]]
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. TRI-2005-0073.
Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, telephone:
202-566-1744, Attention Docket ID No. TRI-2005-0073. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. TRI-2005-0073.
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at:
https://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, https://
www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal
regulations.gov Web sites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. TRI-2005-0073. The public docket contains
information considered by EPA in developing this proposed rule,
including the documents listed below, which are electronically or
physically located in the docket. In addition, interested parties
should consult documents that are referenced in the documents that EPA
has placed in the docket, regardless of whether these referenced
documents are electronically or physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating documents that are referenced in documents that
EPA has placed in the docket, but that are not electronically or
physically located in the docket, please consult the person listed in
the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. All documents in
the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at: https://www.epa.gov/
edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in EDOCKET, or in hard copy at the OEI
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone
number for the OEI Docket is 202-566-1752.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more specific information or
technical questions relating to this rule, contact Kevin Donovan,
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-
566-0676; fax number: 202-566-0741; e-mail: donovan.kevin-e@epa.gov.
The press point of contact for this rule is Suzanne Ackerman, Office of
Public Affairs, 202-564-4355. For general inquiries relating to the
Toxics Release Inventory or more information on EPCRA section 313,
contact the TRI Information Center Hotline, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 5101, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460; toll free: 1-800-424-9346, in Virginia and Alaska: 703-412-9810,
or toll free TDD: 1-800-553-7672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Index
I. Background and General Information
A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in this Document
B. Does this Document Apply to Me?
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
2. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI)
D. What Are the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Requirements
and Who Do They Affect?
E. Why Is EPA Proposing to Reduce Burden Associated with TRI
Reporting Requirements?
F. What Actions has EPA Taken in the Past to Streamline TRI
Reporting?
1. TRI-ME and Reporting Assistance
2. Form A Certification Statement
3. Stakeholder Dialogue
G. Burden Reduction Estimation Methodology Used in Today's
Proposal
1. Summary of Basic Methodology
Table 1--Estimated Hours of Burden for a TRI Form
II. What Is EPA's Statutory Authority for Taking this Action?
III. What Reporting Requirement Changes Are Being Proposed?
A. Reference Guide for Burden Reduction Options
Figure 1--Section 8 of Form R
Table 2--Burden Reduction Terms
Figure 2--Form R
Figure 3--Form A
B. Background on the Form A Certification Statement
C. Form A Eligibility--PBT Chemicals: Allows PBT Reporting
Facilities with No Releases to the Environment To Use Form A
Provided They Do Not Exceed a 1,000,000 Pound ``Alternate
Threshold'' and Have 500 Pounds or Less of Total Other Waste
Management Quantities.
1. Description of Proposed Change and Considerations
a. What Is this Approach to Burden Reduction?
b. Is the Approach Available to All TRI Chemicals?
c. Why Is this Approach Being Considered for PBT Chemicals?
i. Lead and Lead Compounds
ii. PACs and Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
iii. Mercury and Mercury Compounds
d. How Often Is this Approach Available to TRI Facilities?
e. What Are the Reporting Requirements?
f. Do My Recordkeeping Requirements Change?
2. Estimates of Potential Impacts
a. What Are the Potential Impacts for Reducing Burden?
b. What Are the Potential Impacts to Data Users?
c. Are There Other Potential Impacts?
3. Rationale for Expanding Form A Eligibility to PBT Chemicals
D. Expanding Form A Eligibility--Non-PBT Chemicals: Allows Non-PBT
Reporting Facilities To Use an Alternate Reporting Threshold
Provided They Do Not Exceed 5000 Pounds of Total Other Waste
Management Quantities.
1. Description of Proposed Change
a. What Is this Approach to Burden Reduction?
b. Is this Approach Available to All TRI Chemicals?
c. How Often Is the Approach Available to TRI Facilities?
d. What Are the Reporting Requirements?
e. Do My Record Keeping Requirements Change?
[[Page 57824]]
2. Estimates of Potential Impacts
a. What Are the Potential Impacts for Reducing Burden?
b. What Are the Potential Impacts to Data Users?
Table 3--Potential Incremental Effects of All Newly Eligible
Reporters Using Form A for non-PBTs
3. Rationale for Expanding Form A Eligibility for Non-PBT
Chemicals
IV. Requests for Public Comment
V. What Are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Associated
With This Action?
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
1. Methodology
2. Cost and Burden Savings Results
Table 4--Potential Annual Cost and Burden Savings of the Phase
II TRI Burden Reduction Proposal
3. Impacts to Data
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Environmental Justice
I. Background and General Information
A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Document
ARA--Annual Reportable Amount
CAA--Clean Air Act
CBI--Confidential Business Information
CDX--Central Data Exchange
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
E.O.--Executive Order
EPA--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA--Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
ICR--Information Collection Request
MACT--Maximum Achievable Control Technology
NA--Not Applicable
NTTAA--National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OEI--Office of Environmental Information (EPA)
OMB--Office of Management and Budget (Executive Office of the
President)
PAC--Polycyclic Aromatic Compound
PBT--Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
PDR--Public Data Release
PPA--Pollution Prevention Act
PPM--Parts per million
PRA--PBT Reportable Amount
RCRA--Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RY--Reporting Year
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SIC--Standard Industrial Classification
TEQ--Toxic Equivalency Quotient
TPRW--Total Production Related Waste (total disposal and other
releases plus all other production related waste management
activities)
TRI--Toxics Release Inventory
TRI-ME--Toxics Release Inventory--Made Easy
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C.--United States Code
B. Does This Document Apply to Me?
This document applies to facilities that submit annual reports
under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). It specifically
applies to those that submit the TRI Form R or Form A Certification
Statement. (See https://www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm#forms for
detailed information about EPA's TRI reporting forms.) To determine
whether your facility would be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability criteria in part 372, subpart B, of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
This document also is relevant to those who utilize EPA's TRI
information, including State agencies, local governments, communities,
environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations, as well
as members of the general public.
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest options and
substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest options.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
2. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through
EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Commenters wishing to
submit proprietary information for consideration must clearly
distinguish such information from other comments and clearly label it
as CBI. Send submissions containing such proprietary information
directly to the following address only, and not to the public docket,
to ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in
the docket: Attention: OEI Document Control Officer, Mail Code: 2822T,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. You may claim information that you submit to EPA
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is CBI). EPA will disclose information
claimed as CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth
in 40 CFR part 2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
D. What Are the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Requirements and Who
Do They Affect?
Pursuant to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), certain facilities that manufacture,
process, or otherwise use specified toxic chemicals in amounts above
reporting threshold levels must submit annually to EPA and to
designated State officials toxic chemical release forms containing
information specified by EPA. 42 U.S.C.
[[Page 57825]]
11023. These reports must be filed by July 1 of each year for the
previous calendar year. In addition, pursuant to section 6607 of the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), facilities reporting under section 313
of EPCRA must also report pollution prevention and waste management
data, including recycling information, for such chemicals. 42 U.S.C.
13106. These reports are compiled and stored in EPA's database known as
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Regulations at 40 CFR part 372, subpart B, require facilities that
meet all of the following criteria to report:
The facility has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents
(i.e., a total of 20,000 hours worked per year or greater; see 40 CFR
372.3); and
The facility is included in Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Codes 10 (except 1011, 1081, and 1094), 12 (except
1241), 20-39, 4911 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil
for the purpose of generating electricity for distribution in
commerce), 4931 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for
the purpose of generating electricity for distribution in commerce),
4939 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating electricity for distribution in commerce), 4953
(limited to facilities regulated under RCRA Subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 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 thresholds 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 2004 data should have been postmarked on or before July
1, 2005.
The list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI reporting can be found
at 40 CFR 372.65. This list is also published every year as Table II in
the current version of the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Forms and
Instructions. The current TRI chemical list contains 581 individually-
listed chemicals and 30 chemical categories.
E. Why Is EPA Proposing To Reduce Burden Associated With TRI Reporting
Requirements?
As noted above in the summary, ``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 is proposing this action
because the Agency believes it will reduce burden and save resources
for regulated entities, while continuing to provide valuable
information to the public that fulfills the purposes of the TRI
program.
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 using the Toxics Release Inventory--Made Easy
(TRI-ME) software and EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX), making use of
data submitted to the Agency through other EPA programs, and 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 and continuing to provide useful information to the public.
In July 2005, the Agency promulgated the TRI Reporting Forms
Modification Rule (70 FR 39931, July 12, 2005), which streamlined the
current forms by eliminating some fields and simplifying completion of
others. The purpose of today's action is to propose additional burden
reduction that will continue to provide valuable information on toxic
chemical release and other waste management information that is
necessary to fulfill the purposes of the TRI program.
Today's proposal provides burden reduction for facilities that
report small quantities of PBT and non-PBT chemicals, though with
different eligibility thresholds. Those familiar with the Stakeholder
Dialogue that EPA conducted between November 2002 and February 2004
will note that the Agency is pursuing Option 3, Expanding Eligibility
for the Form A Certification Statement, but modified to include a
limited option for PBT chemicals. (More detail on the ``Dialogue'' is
provided below in Section I.F.3). While the Agency has considered a
much broader range of alternatives, many were determined to provide
only limited opportunity for burden reduction, or to be inconsistent
with the purposes of the TRI program. In a separate notice in today's
Federal Register, EPA is also announcing its notice to Congress of the
intention to initiate a rule-making that would modify the reporting
frequency for some or all TRI reports.
The Agency believes that today's proposal will provide meaningful
burden reduction while still maintaining the value of the TRI
information and will hereafter refer to this action as the ``Phase 2''
burden reduction rulemaking. In developing this approach, EPA
considered input provided by stakeholders, and identified a number of
criteria to guide the development of the approach that is presented
here today. These criteria include making sure that this proposal
maintains the integrity of the TRI database by providing meaningful
data to users that fulfills the purposes of the TRI program; providing
an overall burden savings in hours needed for reporting, adding to the
time saved by streamlining the forms and instructions in the Forms
Modification Rule; providing benefits to both non-PBT and PBT reporting
facilities as appropriate; ensuring that the approach is relatively
easy to implement; and creating incentives for pollution prevention.
F. What Actions Has EPA Taken in the Past To Streamline TRI Reporting?
1. TRI-ME and Reporting Assistance
Throughout the history of the TRI Program, the Agency has
implemented measures to reduce the TRI reporting burden on the
regulated community while still ensuring the provision of valuable
information to the public that fulfills the purposes of the TRI
program. Through a range of compliance assistance activities, such as
the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and Instructions
(which is published and mailed every year), industry training
workshops, chemical-specific and industry-specific guidance documents,
and the TRI Information Center (a call hotline), the Agency has shown a
commitment to enhancing the
[[Page 57826]]
quality and consistency of reporting and assisting those facilities
that must comply with EPCRA section 313.
EPA has also done extensive work to make reporting easier for the
TRI reporting community through the development and use of technology
such as EPA's Toxics Release Inventory--Made Easy software, otherwise
known as TRI-ME (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 reporting facilities
through a series of logically-ordered questions, TRI-ME facilitates the
analysis needed to determine if a facility must complete a Form A or
Form R report for a particular chemical. For those facilities required
to report, the software provides guidance for each data element on
Forms A and R. TRI-ME also has a one-stop guidance feature, the TRI
Assistance Library, that allows keyword searches on the statutes,
regulations, and many EPCRA section 313 guidance documents. It also
offers a ``load feature'' that enables the user to upload almost all of
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). Reporting forms generated by TRI-ME may also be
submitted offline via magnetic media or on paper. In the spring of
2003, EPA distributed approximately 25,000 copies of TRI-ME in
preparation for the 2002 reporting year deadline of July 1, 2003.
Approximately 90% of the roughly 84,000 Form R's filed in 2003 were
prepared using the TRI-ME software.
2. Form A Certification Statement
In 1994, partially in response to petitions received from the U.S.
Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy and the American Feed
Industry Association, an EPA rulemaking established the Form A
Certification Statement as an alternative to Form R. This burden-
reducing measure was based on an alternate threshold for quantities
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used by those facilities with
relatively low annual reportable amounts of TRI chemicals. A facility
may use an alternate, higher reporting threshold for a toxic chemical
for which it has an annual reportable amount not exceeding 500 pounds.
The annual reportable amount (ARA) 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 recycling 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). The reporting threshold for chemicals with an ARA less than or
equal to 500 pounds is one million pounds manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used. Facilities that meet the ARA eligibility requirement
and fall below the one million pound reporting threshold for a
particular toxic chemical may so certify by using Form A, and thus
avoid having to submit a detailed Form R.
When EPA lowered reporting thresholds in the subsequent PBT rule,
EPA determined that allowing the Form A certification for PBT chemicals
at that time would be inconsistent with the intent of expanded PBT
chemical information (64 FR 58732, October 29, 1999) and so disallowed
the use of Form A for PBT chemicals. EPA cited concerns over releases
and other waste management of these chemicals at low levels and said
that, based on the information available to the Agency at that time,
EPA believed that the level of information from Form A was insufficient
to do meaningful analyses on PBT chemicals (Id. at 58733). EPA also
stated ``the Agency believes that it is appropriate to collect and
analyze several years worth of data at the lowered thresholds before
EPA considers developing a new alternate threshold and reportable
quantity appropriate for PBT chemicals'' (Id. at 58732).
3. Stakeholder Dialogue
In an effort to further explore burden reduction opportunities, EPA
conducted a TRI Stakeholder Dialogue between November 2002 and February
2004. A summary is available at https://www.epa.gov/tri/programs/
stakeholders/outreach.htm. 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 submissions as part of this Stakeholder
Dialogue. Of those, approximately 730 were substantive 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. Approximately 63% of the comments
came from private citizens; another 16% came from environmental groups,
public interest groups, and public health groups; approximately 15%
came from industry and trade group representatives; and about 6% came
from government agencies, including nine States, three Federal
agencies, and one municipality. 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 Public
Reading Room in Washington, DC.
As a result of the Stakeholder Dialogue and subsequent comments
from stakeholders, the Agency identified several burden reducing
options that could be implemented while continuing to provide valuable
information to data users. These options fall into three broad
categories: (1) Relatively minor changes or modifications to the
reporting forms and the TRI-ME software; (2) expanding Form A
eligibility; and (3) reducing the frequency of reporting for some or
all reports.
EPA decided to address the three categories of changes through
separate rulemakings, the first of which was promulgated in July 2005.
The promulgated changes eliminated some redundant or seldom-used data
elements from Forms A and R, and modified others that could be
shortened, simplified, or otherwise improved to reduce the time and
costs required to complete and submit annual TRI reports. They also
improved data consistency and reliability by replacing some elements on
the forms with information extracted from the EPA's Facility Registry
System (FRS) which includes QA/QC'd data on most facilities subject to
environmental reporting requirements across EPA programs.
Today's rulemaking, the second of the three sets of changes, will
expand eligibility for Form A reporting for non-PBT chemicals, and
allow limited Form A reporting in some cases for PBT chemicals with
zero releases. In a separate notice in today's FR, EPA is announcing
notice to Congress of its intention to initiate a rulemaking to address
the third option, modifying the reporting frequency for all or some TRI
reports. EPCRA Section 313(i)(5) requires one-year advance notification
to Congress before initiating such a rule making. This notification is
being delivered today, concurrent with the publication of this notice.
[[Page 57827]]
G. Burden Reduction Estimation Methodology Used in Today's Proposal
1. Summary of Basic Methodology
The burden methodology used in today's proposal is based on
currently approved estimates of the time required to complete a Form R
or Form A and is summarized in the economic analysis contained in the
docket for this proposal. Basically, allowing respondents to file a
Form A in lieu of a Form R significantly reduces the calculation and
form completion burden and also makes a small difference (2 hours) in
recordkeeping and form submission costs. The beneficiaries of today's
proposal will almost exclusively be subsequent year reporters (i.e.,
current Form R respondents). The currently approved burden estimates
for calculations and form completion are shown below in Table 1.
Table 1.--Estimated Hours of Burden for a TRI Form
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First year Subsequent
Type of form reporter year reporter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBT Response on Form R.................. 69 47.1
Non-PBT Response on Form R.............. 37 25.2
Non-PBT Form A Response................. 25.1 17.6
PBT Form A Response*.................... 45.6 31.6
Form R Recordkeeping and Submission..... 5 5
Form A Recordkeeping and Submission..... 3 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: PBT Form A's do not presently exist so burden estimated using
approved non-PBT Form A approach.
EPA is also using today's notice to seek comment on a proposed
methodology for improving the estimation of calculation and form
completion burden. The approach taken by the Agency in developing the
new burden estimation methodology was to assemble a team of persons
with knowledge or experience related to the preparation of TRI reports
who then applied their best professional judgment to break down the
reporting requirements into separate item-specific tasks, and then
estimate the average time required to complete each task. This report
was internally vetted through Agency TRI program personnel in the
Regions and at Headquarters. The resulting estimates are assembled and
described in a July 16, 2004, memorandum entitled TRI Reporting Burden
Estimates from Hilary Eustace, David Cooper, and Susan Day of Abt
Associates to Paul Borst, EPA which is contained in the docket for this
rulemaking.
The resulting burden estimates derived from that engineering
analyses for PBT and non-PBT chemicals are substantially lower than the
current burden estimates in the OMB-approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) supporting statement for Form R. For example, under the
current ICR, the subsequent year Form R burden estimates for PBT and
non-PBT chemicals for form completion and calculation are 47.1 and 25.2
hours respectively. Form A calculation burden is estimated to be 64% of
the Form R burden. To this amount, 1.4 hours of form completion time is
added, resulting in Form A calculation and completion estimates of 31.6
hours for PBT chemicals and 17.6 hours for non-PBT chemicals.
Under the Agency's new engineering estimates, Form R estimates for
PBT and non-PBT chemicals are reduced to 6.7 and 7.6 hours for PBT and
non-PBT chemicals respectively. Under the new methodology, the average
burden for Form A for both PBT and non-PBT chemicals is 1.4 hours. If
these new numbers had been used in the estimation of the burden
reduction from today's proposal, the estimated burden reduction would
have been about three-fourths of what is estimated using the currently
approved numbers.
The Agency conducted an external peer review of this new analysis
to assess the reasonableness of the new methodology and specific burden
estimates. The peer review panel was generally favorable to both the
general methodology used in the engineering analysis (summing across
Form R elements to derive total burden) and the specific form
completion steps described. However, the panel felt that the time
allocated for many of the tasks should be increased. The panel
disagreed with the assumption in the Agency's engineering analysis that
a typical TRI reporting facility was reasonably modern and well-
organized. A majority of the panel thought that EPA overestimated the
experience and knowledge that a typical TRI reporting facility would
have in completing its Form R and thus underestimated the time it would
take to complete the Form.
The Agency has placed both its engineering estimate and the peer
review summary in the docket for today's proposed rule. The Agency
solicits comment on the reasonableness and accuracy of the methodology,
form completion steps and specific burden estimates as well as on the
conclusions of the external peer review.
II. What Is EPA's Statutory Authority for Taking This Action?
This proposed rule is being issued under sections 313(f)(2) and 328
of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2) and 11048. In general, section 313 of
EPCRA and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (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. This information is
submitted on EPA Form 9350-1 (Form R) or EPA Form 9350-2 (Form A) and
compiled in an annual Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Each covered
facility must file a separate Form R for each listed chemical
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in excess of applicable
reporting thresholds which were initially established in section
313(f)(1). EPA has also established an alternate threshold for non-PBT
chemicals with low annual reportable amounts. Facilities making use of
the alternate reporting threshold must file a Form A certification
statement listing their toxic chemicals that qualify for the alternate
threshold. EPA has authority to revise the threshold amounts pursuant
to section 313(f)(2); however, such revised threshold amounts must
obtain reporting on a substantial majority of total releases of the
chemical at all facilities subject to section 313. In addition,
Congress granted EPA broad rulemaking authority to allow the Agency to
fully implement the statute.
[[Page 57828]]
EPCRA section 328 authorizes the ``Administrator [to] prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.'' 42
U.S.C.11048.
Today's proposed approach would raise the reporting thresholds for
a specific class of chemical reports. Congress set statutory default
reporting thresholds of 25,000 pounds for manufacturing, 25,000 pounds
for processing, and 10,000 pounds for the otherwise use of a listed
toxic chemical in EPCRA section 313(f)(1). EPCRA section 313(f)(2),
however, provides EPA with authority to establish different reporting
thresholds. EPA may, at the Administrator's discretion, base these
different thresholds on classes of chemicals or categories of
facilities. EPCRA specifies that the revised threshold adopted by EPA
``shall obtain reporting on a substantial majority of total releases of
the chemical at all facilities subject to the requirements of this
section.'' 42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2).
EPA has raised the reporting thresholds for a class of chemical
reports once previously. In 1994, EPA finalized a rule that created the
Form A Certification Statement (59 FR 61488). That rule raised the
reporting thresholds for manufacturing, processing, and the otherwise
use of listed toxic chemicals to 1 million pounds for a category of
facilities whose total annual reportable amount for a particular
chemical was 500 pounds or less. In that rulemaking, EPA discussed the
value of information that is collected on the Form A as follows: ``EPA
believes that the proposed annual certification will provide
information relating to the location of facilities manufacturing,
processing, or otherwise using these chemicals, that the chemicals are
being manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at current reporting
thresholds, and that chemical releases and transfers for the purpose of
treatment and/or disposal are [500 pounds or less] per year (i.e.,
within a range of zero to [500] pounds per year).'' (59 FR 38527) EPA
further indicated that the information collected on the Form A helped
to ensure that the revised thresholds continued to obtain reporting on
a substantial majority of releases.
The burden reduction approach in today's proposal is modeled after
the approach taken in the 1994 Form A rulemaking. Expanding Form A
eligibility for Non-PBT chemicals and allowing limited eligibility for
PBT chemicals raises the reporting threshold for eligible chemicals at
a specifically defined category of facilities. As explained below,
eligibility is determined on a chemical-by-chemical basis, rather than
a facility-wide basis. Under the expanded Form A eligibility,
facilities qualifying for the raised threshold for a given chemical
would continue to file an annual certification statement in place of a
Form R. Through its narrow definition of the category of facilities
eligible for the raised threshold for certain chemicals and through the
information collected on the certification statements, EPA is ensuring
that reporting under the raised thresholds will continue to ``obtain
reporting on a substantial majority of total releases of the chemical
at all facilities subject to the requirements of this section.''
III. What Reporting Requirement Changes Are Being Proposed?
Today's proposal applies to all TRI chemicals except dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds, which are excluded from consideration. Allowing
Form A for PBT chemicals affects those chemicals identified by EPA as
``chemicals of special concern'' under 40 CFR 372.28 (except for dioxin
and dioxin-like compounds, discussed below). Currently ``chemicals of
special concern'' include only certain chemicals that have been found
to be ``persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT).'' Therefore, for
the reader's convenience, we will refer to the chemicals in 40 CFR
372.28 as ``PBT chemicals'' in today's proposal.
For PBT chemicals, today's proposal would allow facilities
reporting on PBT chemicals with no disposal or other releases of a
chemical to use the Form A Certification Statement provided they do not
exceed the 1 million pound reporting threshold and have 500 pounds or
less of total other waste management quantities. The other waste
management quantities include recycling, energy recovery and treatment
for destruction. For non-PBT chemicals, facilities would now be able to
use Form A if their annual reportable amount (ARA), which is the sum of
Form R Sections 8.1 through Section 8.7 and is also referred to as
Total Production Related Waste (TPRW), is 5000 pounds or less. This is
an increase from the current ARA threshold of 500 pounds.
Increased eligibility for the Form A Certification Statement is
based on the reporting of individual chemicals, and does not apply to
facility reporting as a whole. For example, if a facility has
determined it must report on four chemicals in a given reporting year,
it must consider each of its chemicals individually to determine its
eligibility to use Form A. In doing so, facilities must ensure that
they are using the correct eligibility requirements for each toxic
chemical, depending upon whether or not the chemical is a PBT. As noted
above, PBT chemicals, except dioxin and dioxin-like compounds may now
be eligible to use the Form A Certification Statement. Dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds have been excluded from this expanded
eligibility. Because of the high toxicity of some dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds and the wide variation in toxicity between forms of
dioxin, EPA recently proposed to add toxic equivalency (TEQ) reporting
for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category (70 FR 10919, March
7, 2005). EPA proposed this revision in response to requests from TRI
reporters that EPA create a mechanism for facilities to report TEQ data
to provide important context for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds
release data. In addition, EPA believes that the public will benefit
from the additional context and comparability of data provided by TEQ
reporting. The Agency has decided to wait until the Dioxin TEQ
rulemaking is finalized and until the Agency has appropriate data
before considering whether this class of PBT chemicals should be
considered for Form A eligibility.
A. Reference Guide for Burden Reduction Options
In this section, Figure 1 and Table 2 are intended as reference
guides to help readers understand the proposed eligibility requirements
for Form A use. By increasing eligibility for Form A, the Agency is
providing an alternative to Form R for facilities required to report to
TRI. A basic understanding of the information a Form R respondent would
be required to submit in Section 8 of Form R is necessary to understand
the proposed new requirements for Form A eligibility. Figure 1 presents
the Section 8 portion of Form R to facilitate understanding of the
proposal. Table 2 summarizes the proposed new eligibility requirements.
Readers are encouraged to refer to the descriptions here and in Table 2
of this section for summary information, but should read through the
subsequent text discussion for more detail about the proposed new
eligibility requirements.
One term that is used frequently in this proposal and may need some
clarification is ``releases.'' EPCRA defines the term ``releases'' to
include activities such as air and water discharges, and land disposal.
According to 42 U.S.C. 11049(8), the ``term `release' means any
spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging,
injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment
[[Page 57829]]
(including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and
other closed receptacles) of any toxic chemical.'' Beginning with the
Public Data Release (PDR) for the 2003 reporting year, in an effort to
provide additional context to the TRI data and to remind readers that
the definition of ``releases'' is broad, the Agency refers to total
``releases'' as total ``disposal or other releases.'' However, within
the legal context of the TRI program, ``disposal'' is a subset of
release, not a separate waste management activity from ``release.'' EPA
carries the term ``disposal or other releases'' over to this
rulemaking, but also uses the term ``releases'' by itself for brevity
and because this is the term used in the statute. In both cases, the
Agency is referring to all types of releases, including disposals.
In addition, another point of possible confusion is the term
``chemicals of special concern'' which was used in the October 1999 PBT
rule to identify chemicals subject to a lower reporting threshold and
not eligible for Form A. As noted above, currently all of the chemicals
that are of special concern are PBTs. Therefore, for simplicity, the
term ``PBT chemical'' is used in lieu of ``chemicals of special
concern.'' For purposes of this proposal, the Agency will also refer to
non-PBT chemicals, when referring to the larger group of TRI chemicals
that are not PBTs (i.e., not chemicals of special concern). Should the
Agency identify additional chemicals of special concern in the future,
at that time the Agency will consider whether it is appropriate to
extend these or other burden reduction options to those chemicals.
Figure 1.--Section 8 of the Form R
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 8.--Source Reduction and Recycling Activities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column A prior Column B current Column C Column D second
year (pounds/ reporting year following year following year
year*) (pounds/year*) (pounds/year*) (pounds/year*)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.1
-------------
8.1a Total on-site disposal
to Class I
Underground Injection
Wells, RCRA Subtitle
C landfills, and
other landfills.
-------------
8.1b Total other on-site
disposal or other
releases.
-------------
8.1c Total off-site
disposal to Class I
Underground Injection
Wells, RCRA Subtitle
C landfills, and
other landfills.
-------------
8.1d Total other off-site
disposal or other
releases.
-------------
8.2 Quantity used for
energy recovery
onsite.
-------------
8.3 Quantity used for
energy recovery
offsite.
-------------
8.4 Quantity recycled
onsite.
-------------
8.5 Quantity recycled
offsite.
-------------
8.6 Quantity treated
onsite.
-------------
8.7 Quantity treated
offsite.
-------------
8.8 Quantity released to the environment as a result of remedial
actions, catastrophic events, or one-time events not
associated with production processes (pounds/year)*.
-------------
8.9 Production ratio or
activity index.
-------------
8.10 Did your facility engage in any source reduction activities for this chemical during the reporting
year? If not, enter ``NA'' in Section 8.10.1 and answer Section 8.11.
-------------
Source Reduction Methods to Identify Activity (enter codes).
Activities
[enter code(s)].......
-------------
8.10.1 a. b. c. .................
-------------
8.10.2 a. b. c. .................
-------------
8.10.3 a. b. c. .................
-------------
8.10.4 a. b. c. .................
-------------
8.11 Is additional information on source reduction, recycling, or Yes No
pollution control activities included with this report? [msqu] [msqu] ..
(Check one box)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For Dioxin or Dioxin-like compunds, report in grams/year.
[[Page 57830]]
Table 2.--Burden Reduction Terms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanding Form A eligibility Applicable Form R sections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBT Chemicals *........................ Sections 8.1a through 8.1d must
equal zero and Section 8.8
cannot include positive
quantities of disposal or
other releases.
Section 8.2 + Section 8.3 +
Section 8.4 + Section 8.5 +
Section 8.6 + Section 8.7+
Section 8.8 must = 500 pounds
or less.
Non-PBT Chemicals *.................... Sections 8.1 + Section 8.2 +
Section 8.3 + Section 8.4 +
Section 8.5 + Section 8.6 +
Section 8.7 must = 5000 pounds
or less.
*To be eligible, must also
meet 1 million pound alternate
threshold for manufacture
processing or otherwise use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For convenience, the entire Form R and Form A are reprinted below as
Figures 2 and 3 respectively.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 57831]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC05.000
[[Page 57832]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC05.001
[[Page 57833]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC05.002
[[Page 57834]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC05.003
[[Page 57835]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC05.004
[[Page 57836]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC05.005
[[Page 57837]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04OC05.006
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 57838]]
B. Background on the Form A Certification Statement
Reporting to the TRI is required by section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The information contained in
the Form R constitutes a ``report,'' and the submission of a report to
the appropriate authorities constitutes ``reporting.'' The Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508) added additional
reporting requirements for facilities that are required to submit Form
Rs under section 313 of EPCRA. These data were required beginning with
reports for calendar year 1991.
The purposes of the required ``reporting'' include providing the
public with information on the releases and other waste management of
EPCRA section 313 chemicals in their communities and providing EPA and
other regulators with release and other waste management information to
assist them in determining the need for future regulations. Facilities
must report the quantities of routine and accidental releases, and
releases resulting from catastrophic or other one time events of EPCRA
section 313 chemicals, as well as the maximum amount of the EPCRA
section 313 chemical on-site during the calendar year and the amount
contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.
The EPA Form A Certification Statement was established in 1994.
This form is based on an alternate reporting threshold for facilities
with small quantities of an EPCRA section 313 chemical released or
otherwise managed as waste. The Form A serves to certify that a
facility is not subject to form R reporting for a specific toxic
chemical [Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Forms and
Instructions (EPA 260-B-04-001), pages 1-2].
The primary difference between information contained on Form R and
the Form A Certification Statement is that the Form R provides details
of releases and other waste management (e.g., total quantity of
releases to air, water, and land; on- and off-site recycling, energy
recovery), while the Form A does not. The Form A Certification
Statement may be used by reporters in lieu of the Form R for chemicals
other than those specified as chemicals of special concern (e.g., PBTs)
if the reporter does not exceed the 1,000,000 pound threshold for
amount of the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in
the reporting year and if the annual reportable amount of a chemical is
no more than 500 pounds for the year. The annual reportable amount
(ARA) is the total of all quantities released (on- and off-site, but
excluding catastrophic events), treated, recovered, recycled, and
combusted at the facility, plus all amounts transferred from the
facility off-site for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery,
treatment, and/or disposal. If the reporter meets the criteria for
using the Form A, s/he need only report the name of the chemical and
certain facility identification information. In this case, the Form A
serves as a range report which tells the public that the total
production related waste for that chemical is between zero and 500
pounds. Several chemicals can be reported on each Form A.
C. Form A Eligibility--PBT Chemicals
Allows PBT Reporting Facilities with No Releases to the Environment
to use Form A Provided They Do Not Exceed a 1,000,000 Pound ``Alternate
Threshold'' and Have 500 Pounds or Less of Total Other Waste Management
Quantities.
1. Description of Proposed Change and Considerations
Commenters in the November 2003 Stakeholder Dialogue and other
venues have pointed out that there are a number of facilities that
submit Form Rs that have zero total disposal or other releases in
Section 8.1 of Form R. Some of the stakeholders expressed the opinion
that the Agency should develop a simplified form for these reports. EPA
notes that many reporters with zero total disposal or other releases in
Section 8.1 still report positive quantities in sections 8.2 through
8.8. However, EPA believes that communities and other users of TRI
information are less concerned about small volumes of on-site waste
management when a facility is able to achieve zero release of these
chemicals. EPA has thus determined that it is appropriate to allow Form
A for such facilities, provided they have zero disposal and other
releases for a particular PBT chemical.
The Agency believes that many facilities eligible for this
regulatory option are already using more desirable waste management
techniques as evidenced by the fact that they have zero releases. The
Agency further believes this approach will comply with the goals of the
PPA by encouraging facilities that are already not releasing any
chemicals to accomplish further source reduction so that their other
waste management totals are low enough to use this option (500 pounds
or less). The Agency balanced this pollution prevention incentive with
the needs of TRI data users who use this information for tracking and
reporting trends in recycling, waste treatment, and energy recovery,
and decided that limited Form A eligibility for PBT chemicals with zero
releases would be an appropriate approach for providing burden relief
to this group of reporters, while minimizing the loss of useful data.
a. What Is This Approach to Burden Reduction?
Form A Eligibility--PBT Chemicals. This approach allows facilities
that report zero or NA for items a, b, c, and d of Section 8.1 of Form
R (Zero Total Disposal or Other Releases) for a PBT chemical (except
dioxin and dioxin-like compounds) and do not have any releases included
in Section 8.8, but may have other waste management information in
Sections 8.2 through 8.8 totaling 500 pounds or less, to now use the
Form A Certification Statement. Section 8.8 of the Form R details the
non-production related activities occurring at a facility. These could
be releases or other waste management quantities. For this approach
``releases'' reported in Section 8.8 must be zero, but facilities may
have other waste management quantities in Section 8.8, which will be
totaled with the production related waste management quantities found
in Sections 8.2-8.7.
To qualify for this option, facilities must manufacture, process,
or otherwise use no more than 1 million pounds of a chemical, have zero
disposal or other releases in Section 8.1 and 8.8, and have 500 pounds
or less of total other waste management quantities in Sections 8.2
through 8.8. The Agency will refer to the sum of Sections 8.2 + 8.3 +
8.4 + 8.5 + 8.6 + 8.7+ 8.8 as the PBT Reportable Amount (PRA). This is
a similar concept to the Annual Reportable Amount (ARA), which is the
term referring to the sum of Sections 8.1 through 8.7 used to determine
eligibility for Form A currently for non-PBT chemicals with the added
restrictions that there be no releases requiring reporting under
Sections 8.1 or 8.8 and the inclusion of Section 8.8 in determination
of the PRA.
The inclusion of Section 8.8 waste management amounts in the PBT
reportable amount is different from the approach taken for non-PBT
chemicals. The Agency examined data from the 2003 reporting year and
determined that some of the reporters which have zero releases had
activity reported in Section 8.8 that appears to be associated with
ongoing CERCLA or RCRA related remediation. The Agency believes local
communities may be concerned about the progress of these activities and
may wish to track quantities in Section 8.8 exceeding 500 pounds using
the Form
[[Page 57839]]
R. Accordingly, EPA is proposing that these amounts be considered in
determining the PRA. As a practical matter, the inclusion of Section
8.8 in the PRA only affects a small number of facilities.
Using a different basis for reportable amount for PBT and non-PBT
chemicals does pose some risk of confusion among reporters, but PBTs
already have a number of special provisions that are applicable to
them. The Agency requests comment on the proposed approach for defining
the PRA and specifically on whether Section 8.8 management amounts
should be included in the definition of the PRA. The Agency also
requests comment on whether the ARA (for non-PBTs) should be modified
to include Section 8.8 management information which would be an
alternate way of making the two approaches more consistent. EPA is also
interested in information on the specific types of activities that are
reported in Section 8.8.
b. Is the Approach Available to All TRI Chemicals?
This approach applies to PBT chemicals, except dioxin and dioxin-
like compounds. Non-PBT chemicals are already eligible for the Form A
Certification Statement provided they meet the current criteria for
Form A use. (Note that Section III. C of today's proposal will propose
new criteria for Form A use for non-PBT chemicals.) One example of the
type of facility this approach could benefit is a producer of ceramic
materials, such as dishes and cups, where 100% of the TRI chemical (in
this case the lead in clay) goes into the product.
c. Why Is This Approach Being Considered for PBT Chemicals?
The Agency is focusing on providing burden relief for smaller
businesses that have zero disposal or other releases. From the
Stakeholder Dialogue, some commenters pointed out that there are
reporters with no releases, but which also send small amounts of TRI
chemicals into more desirable management techniques like recycling or
energy recovery. Because the Agency encourages reuse and recycling, it
decided to explore whether a clearly demarcated group could be defined.
Expanding Form A eligibility as described in this approach would
provide burden relief for PBT reporters with no disposal or other
releases, but which do have small quantities of other waste management
activi