[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57822-57847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected]
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:
http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, http://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 http://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: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., CBI or other information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in EDOCKET, or in hard copy at the OEI
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone
number for the OEI Docket is 202-566-1752.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: [email protected].
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 http://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 (http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/trime/). TRI-ME is an
interactive, user-friendly software tool that guides facilities through
the TRI reporting process. By leading prospective 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 http://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 http://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
activities reportable in Sections 8.2 through 8.8. For facilities that
have zero releases but also report zero for other waste management, the
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 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 non-zero 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Lead: TRI Lead and Lead Compounds Reporting Years
2000-2002'' (U.S. EPA) at http://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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 off-site) 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, http://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
[[Page 57840]]
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 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-PBT
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
[[Page 57841]]
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 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 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 chemical-by-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--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.
[[Page 57842]]
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 non-PBT 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-PBT reporting facilities that meet
the 1 million pound manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold
and have 5000 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 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 (http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/), so they would know the facility is a potential source.
Data users
[[Page 57843]]
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 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of ZIP Percent of total
Reports Number of % codes where all Percent of total production
potentially chemicals Form R's releases related waste
ARA in pounds eligible for Form potentially potentially potentially potentially
A reported only on converted to Form reported on Form reported on Form
Form A A's A A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000..................................................... 3,184 7 2 0.03 0.01
2000..................................................... 6,838 16 3 0.11 0.03
5000..................................................... 12,201 26 7 0.34 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 non-PBTs 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
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\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 57844]]
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 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 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.
(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 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
[[Page 57845]]
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 eligibility for PBT Chemicals and the expanded
Form A eligibility for non-PBT 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 the number of forms
eligible for each option.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Burden
Number of potentially savings per Total annual Cost savings Total annual Percent of
Option eligible Form eligible Form R burden savings per Form R cost savings total cost/
R's facilities (hours) (hours) burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Form A Eligibilty for PBT chemicals. 2,703 2,064 17.5 47,303 $790 $2,136,392 1.2
Increase ARA for Non-PBT chemicals to 3,184 2,396 9.6 30,566 430 1,368,650 0.8
1000 pounds............................
Increase ARA for Non-PBT chemicals to 6,838 4,220 9.6 65,645 430 2,939,331 1.7
2000 pounds............................
Increase ARA for Non-PBT chemicals to 12,201 6,461 9.6 117,130 430 5,244,630 3.1
5000 pounds............................
-----------------
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 non-production related releases to the environment. The
balance of management of these TRI chemicals is most likely either
recycling or non-dissipative 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 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 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;
[[Page 57846]]
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 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 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.
[[Page 57847]]
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 Sec. 372.10(d) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 372.10 Recordkeeping.
* * * * *
(d) Each owner or operator who determines that the owner operator
may apply one of the alternate thresholds as specified under Sec.
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 Sec. 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).
Sec. 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 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 off-site), 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 Sec. 372.30, but must submit a certification
statement that contains the information required in Sec. 372.95. The
owner or operator of the facility must also keep records as specified
in Sec. 372.10(d).
* * * * *
(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 Sec. 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).
Sec. 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 Sec. 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