RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT FOR

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; 

Guidance on Reporting Options for Sections 311 and 312 and 

Interpretations

June 2010

Office of Emergency Management

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

Statutory Authority......................................................................... 1

Background..................................................................................

Summary of the Proposed Guidance...................................................

Increased Flexibility for States and Local Governments with respect to 

Reporting under EPCRA sections 311 and 312......................................

A. UST Forms to fulfill the requirements for Tier I information 

Under EPCRA section 312.......................................................

B. Partnership programs for joint access to information and streamlined 

Submission of EPCRA sections 311 and 312.................................

SERC, LEPC and fire department interest in forming 

partnership Program for joint access to information .............

Comments on draft guidance for partnership programs.........

Implementation of streamlined submittal guidance in 

Conjunction with the guidance for electronic submittal of 

EPCRA section 311 and 312 information............................

Software programs used to obtain and store 311 and 312 

Reporting data............................................................

Information Systems to ensure timely and joint receipt of 

Information by SERCs, LEPCs and fire departments............

Use of MOUs or other written documents to form partnership

Programs....................................................................

Restricting participation in partnerships............................

Technical database management issues..............................

C. Electronic submittal for EPCRA sections 311 and 312 reporting........

Certification...............................................................
3

D. Incorporation of previous submissions into EPCRA section 312

Reporting...........................................................................

E. Electronic Access to facilities databases of MSDSs........................

F. EPCRA section 312 reporting to fulfill reporting requirements under 

Section 311............................................................................

G. Interpretation of the hazardous chemical exemption for solids under 

EPCRA section 311(e)(2)..........................................................

H. Emergency Planning Notification................................................

I. Emergency Release Notification..................................................

List of Commenters sorted by Organization type.....................................

 
4

BACKGROUND

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), which

was enacted as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Pub.L.

99-499), (SARA)Title III, establishes authorities for emergency planning and preparedness, 

emergency release notification, community right-to-know reporting, and toxic chemical release 

reporting. It is intended to encourage State and local planning and preparedness for releases of 

extremely hazardous substances and to provide the public, local governments, fire departments, 

and other emergency officials with information concerning potential chemical risks in their 

communities. 

Section 302 of EPCRA requires facilities to notify their State Emergency Response

Commission (SERC) and the local emergency planning committee (LEPC) of any extremely 

hazardous substance (EHS) present at the site above its threshold planning quantity (TPQ). This 

information is then used by the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) to develop

emergency response plan for the community. EHSs and their TPQs as well as the implementing

regulations are codified in 40 CFR part 355. 

Section 304 of EPCRA requires facilities to notify their SERC and the community

emergency coordinator for the LEPC of any release of an EHS or a CERCLA hazardous 

substance above the reportable quantity. The reportable quantities for the CERCLA hazardous 

substances are in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302. The implementing regulations for section 

304 of EPCRA are also codified in 40 CFR part 355. 

Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA require facilities to submit information on hazardous 

chemicals at their sites above the threshold quantities. The information on hazardous chemicals

is submitted to the SERC, LEPC and the local fire department. The implementing regulations 

can be found in 40 CFR part 370. 

On June 8, 1998 (63 FR 31268), EPA published a proposed rule to streamline the 

reporting requirements under EPCRA, in particular, sections 311 and 312. EPA proposed four 

major revisions and provided draft guidance on various options that States and local agencies 

may wish to consider in implementing EPCRA sections 311 and 312. The four proposed 

revisions were: (1) higher threshold levels for gasoline and diesel fuel at retail gas stations; (2) 

relief from routine reporting for substances with minimal hazards and minimal risks; (3) relief 

from routine reporting for sand, gravel and rock salt ; and (4) ”Other Regulatory Changes,” such

as: reporting of mixtures; removing the Tier I and Tier II inventory forms and instructions; and 

some minor changes to the emergency planning and emergency release notification regulations 

(40 CFR part 355). In addition, EPA proposed to rewrite 40 CFR parts 355 and 370 in plain 

language, using a question and answer format to help the regulated community better understand 

the regulations.

EPA finalized higher threshold levels for reporting gasoline and diesel fuel at retail gas 

stations on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 7047). On November 3, 2008 (73 FR 65452), the Agency

finalized item in (4) above – “Other Regulatory Changes,” as discussed in section IV.B. of the 

preamble to the 1998 proposed rule. The remaining two proposed revisions [(2) and (3) above] 
5

may be finalized at a later date. 

This document contains the summary and response to comments related to the draft

guidance provided in section V of the preamble to the June 1998 proposed rule. In that 

preamble, EPA suggested various options that State and local agencies may wish to consider in 

implementing sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA. EPA also proposed revisions to a few 

interpretations for facilities to comply with EPCRA. This document also contains the summary

and response to comments related to the proposed revisions to these interpretations. 

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED GUIDANCE

In order to streamline the reporting requirements under EPCRA sections 311 and 312 for 

facilities and to reduce information management burden for SERCs, LEPCs and the fire 

departments, EPA suggested various reporting options in a form of guidance in the preamble to 

the June 8, 1998 proposed rule. The main objective of the guidance was to provide 

flexibility to the State and local agencies in implementing sections 311 and 312. In that 

preamble, EPA stated that States may implement any or all of the reporting options provided in 

the preamble whether or not EPA finalize the guidance. Since the proposed rule, many States 

have adopted at least one or two reporting options such as electronic filing via diskettes or online filing of Tier II or the State equivalent reporting form. States were always given the 

flexibility to implement the EPCRA program as necessary to meet the goals of EPCRA, which is

to prepare and respond to releases of extremely hazardous substances and to provide the public 

with information on potential chemical risks in their communities. The flexibility includes 

adding more chemicals, setting lower reporting thresholds and creating a reporting form or 

format that includes more information than is required by the Federal reporting requirements. 

EPA did not propose any regulatory changes with any of the reporting options but sought 

comments on various reporting options under sections 311 and 312. The reporting options that 

were discussed are: (1) UST forms to fulfill the requirements for Tier I Information under 

EPCRA section 312; (2) Partnership programs for joint access to information and streamlined 

submission of EPCRA sections 311 and 312; (3) Electronic submittal for EPCRA sections 311

and 312 reporting; and (4) Incorporation of previous submissions into EPCRA section 312 

reporting. These four options were given to reduce the information management burden to 

States and local agencies as well as minimize the reporting burden to the regulated community. 

In addition, EPA also suggested more options to streamline reporting and revise some 

existing regulatory interpretations for facilities. The purpose for providing these options was

also to reduce information management burden for States and local agencies. These options are: 

(1) Electronic access to facilities databases of MSDSs; (2) Interpretation of the hazardous 

chemical exemption for solids under EPCRA sections 311(e)(2); and (3) EPCRA section 312 

reporting to fulfill reporting requirements under section 311.

In the June 1998 preamble, EPA also proposed to define the term, “promptly” in 

reference to providing notice of any changes relevant to emergency planning (40 CFR part 355) 

and the term “as soon as practicable” in reference to providing written follow-up emergency
6

notice under the emergency release notification requirements (40 CFR part 355). The Agency

did not intent to revise the regulatory requirements but only provide guidance for these two 

terms. However, EPA received comments from many States and local agencies that the term 

“promptly” should be defined in the regulations since receiving information from facilities on 

changes relevant to emergency planning is crucial in developing and or updating emergency

response plans. As a result, this term was defined in 40 CFR 355.20, in the recent final rule that 

was published on November 3, 2008 (73 FR 65452). The requirement in 40 CFR 355.20 states 

that, any changes relevant to emergency planning must be provided to the LEPC within 30 days 

after the changes have occurred. 

The term, “as soon as practicable” in reference to providing written follow-up emergency

notice will be provided as guidance. The reason is that, facilities would have to provide the 

initial notification immediately after a release occurs, which is necessary to respond to the 

release by States and local emergency responders. However, the written follow-up notice would 

be better prepared after the facility has complete knowledge of the release, its cause and possible 

prevention of another release. 

This document includes a summary of all comments received for each of the options

discussed above and the Agency’s collective response to the comments for each option. 
7

Increased Flexibility for States and Local Governments with Respect to Reporting 

under EPCRA Sections 311 and 312

In order to streamline compliance with the reporting requirements, EPA proposed draft 

guidance in the preamble to the June 1998 proposed rule (63 FR 31268). EPA did not propose

any regulatory changes with any of the options provided, however the Agency sought comments 

in developing the guidance. The Agency stated in the 1998 preamble that States and local 

agencies may implement any or all of the options regardless of whether EPA issues final 

guidance, provided that options used meets the statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Support

 In general, to streamline and reduce the record keeping and reporting requirements, we 

support EPA’s proposed options for SERCs, LEPCs, and fire departments, including 

using UST forms to fulfill Tier I information requirements, allowing one submittal to a 

joint SERC/LEPC/fire department database, electronic submittal of reports, and 

incorporation of previous submittals. [101]

Opposition

 The proposed changes will significantly increase costs and the risk of non-compliance at 

companies with multiple facilities due to the loss of consistency in data management and 

compliance reporting. The benefits of increased flexibility for state and local agencies 

must be balanced against the total costs associated with implementing these changes. 

Companies with centralized tracking and reporting systems will be required to invest 

significant amounts of time and money to re-program existing computer systems. [139]

Agency Response

The Agency proposed various reporting options for State and local agencies in the June 

1998 proposed rule to provide flexibility to these agencies to implement the program as 

necessary for their community emergency planning and response. EPCRA was created to 

prepare for and respond to accidental releases of extremely hazardous substances and to 

provide the public with information on potential risks in their community. In order for 

the local emergency planning committee to develop emergency response plans for their 

community and to provide the public with information submitted under EPCRA, States 

may need to develop methods to manage the information provided by facilities. For these 

reasons, EPA proposed various options for reporting under EPCRA sections 311 and 312

and it is not required that States implement these options.

A. UST Forms to Fulfill the Requirements for Tier I Information Under EPCRA 

Section 312
8

At the time of the June 1998 proposal, many States were accepting Tier I form, 

which contains the minimum information about hazardous chemicals at a facility. Only 

few States required Tier II form from the facility. In order to provide flexibility, States if 

they choose, have the option to allow the underground storage tank (UST) form required 

under RCRA to be used to comply with reporting requirements under section 312 of 

EPCRA. This option would also benefit the facilities that have only USTs on their site 

with hazardous chemicals. In most cases, these facilities may be retail gas stations which 

have only the USTs that may be subject to the reporting requirements under sections 311 

and 312. So in order to reduce burden for these facilities, this option of substituting UST 

form for Tier I was suggested. At the same time, EPA proposed to raise the reporting 

threshold for gasoline and diesel fuel at retail gas stations provided that these facilities 

meet certain requirements in order to be subject to the higher threshold. As mentioned in 

the background section of the document, EPA finalized the higher reporting threshold for 

gasoline and diesel fuel on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 7047). This section contains the 

summary of comments received for this option and the Agency’s collective response.

A few commenters supported using the UST forms to fulfill Tier I requirements, 

but most commenters opposed the proposal. Commenters stated that it would be 

confusing and burdensome for LEPCs and fire departments and would make electronic 

filing more difficult. Some stated that the differences in information and filing schedules 

make this approach inappropriate. Other commenters stated that EPA’s approach would 

not result in streamlining and that EPA should eliminate duplicative reporting, not 

duplicative forms. These commenters also questioned the need for the approach because 

most states require Tier II forms and because the higher gasoline threshold will remove 

most of the facilities subject to UST reporting from Part 370. One commenter questioned 

the legality of multiple forms.

Support

 By allowing programs for streamlined submittal and joint access to sections 311-312 

information, electronic submittal, reporting only changes in information rather than 

complete new inventories each year and allowing RCRA UST reports to fulfill EPCRA 

section 312 requirements, facilities may be more inclined to comply with reporting 

requirements and work with state and local regulatory agencies. This also would lessen 

the impact on those agencies required to maintain information regarding community

right-to-know and extremely hazardous substances. [012]

 We support EPA’s proposed “guidance” to state and local governments that would allow 

the use of underground storage tank (UST) forms to be used to comply with the reporting 

requirements under EPCRA Section 312. [116]

 I agree with the proposal to allow RCRA underground storage tank reports to fulfill the 

requirements under section 312 of EPCRA. This proposal makes good sense and will 

reduce duplication of reports that, for the most part, are going to the same location within 

local government. This process also will improve the accuracy of data. [014]
9

 We have no objection at this time to the proposed change to allow UST forms to fulfill 

the requirements for Tier I information. [098]

 We agree that it would be helpful to use existing submittals, such as UST reports, to 

satisfy EPCRA reporting requirements where appropriate. [101]

 We support the integration of reporting requirements where feasible. However, when 

implementing the consolidated reporting, EPA should issue clear, concise guidance in the 

final rule that delineates the requirements for such reports and demonstrates how the 

submission of the reports satisfy the requirements of the various statutory obligations. 

[106]

 We support several of the ideas advanced by EPA in Part V of the proposed rule, 

including EPA’s proposed “guidance” to state and local governments that would allow 

the use of UST forms to comply with the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 

312. These notification forms contain ample information and can satisfy the intent of 

EPCRA section 312. This option would reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, be 

consistent with EPA’s desire to reinvent environmental regulation, and continue to ensure 

protection of human health and the environment. [116]

Opposition

 The simple Tier II report is not burdensome enough to warrant a change. We would 

prefer the reporting entity file a report we are used to seeing and make them do the work 

rather than put ourselves on the learning curve. [018]

 As for the use of UST reports to fulfill EPCRA section 312, we do not currently receive 

RCRA reports and would prefer to leave them under EPCRA section 312. [020]

 EPA could have just as easily combined Tier Two and UST reporting, which would 

require a small regulatory change, but certainly congruent with the move to consolidated 

reporting. EPA would be better serving all stakeholders if, instead of promoting a plan 

that would withhold EPCRA information from the public, it moved swiftly to allow 

electronic reporting in all sectors for all EPCRA reports, as well as UST. 

Another option, the least expensive and most convenient for the stakeholders, is to 

provide a federal reporting website at which a facility, and the public with a read-only 

site, could access Tier II, UST, and other reporting forms, post the data elements, and let 

whatever environmental bureaucracies retrieve the data they need for themselves. This 

would go some distance in reducing repetitive and redundant reporting, which saves 

money and improves productivity, which is good for the economy and more consistent 

with goals in reducing paperwork. This would actually save money in at least two sectors 

and the electronic reporting diminishes the storage space usually taken by records in 

paper, which saves other money. It would also boost UST compliance. [034]
10

 The use of UST forms to satisfy requirements under EPCRA section 312 (provided that 

all information is provided which is required on the Tier I form) would not be a viable 

option in New Jersey, as Tier II level information is required to be submitted by all 

facilities regulated by section 312 in our state.

In addition, we are concerned that the use of UST forms to satisfy reporting requirements 

under section 312 would establish a separate mechanism that citizens would be forced to 

use to obtain certain information about the use of hazardous chemicals at a facility. We 

believe that all reporting required under section 312 be done via the same reporting 

vehicle, the Tier I or II. [058]

 Some states/LEPCs require more than the minimum data that EPA requires. For the UST 

form to meet the standard EPCRA reporting requirements in Wisconsin, the SERC, the 

LEPC and the fire department must all receive the information; they must contain at a 

minimum Tier I information and, in Wisconsin, Tier II information; and they must be 

submitted annually by March 1. Taking this into consideration, it would appear that 

using UST forms would complicate the reporting requirements under EPCRA. Because 

the submission requirements vary so greatly between programs it is unlikely that this 

would serve to reduce the reporting burden. EPCRA provides for one agency to maintain 

records of hazardous materials; this proposal would require an individual to go to another 

agency to obtain complete information regarding on hazardous materials in the 

community. [061]

 Here again, EPA attempts to reduce burden by proliferating special requirements, rather 

than by dealing with the need for underlying information reform. UST forms are no 

substitute for Tier I reports. UST reports are not reported annually, do not identify

materials or quantities, do not identify parent companies, and are not reported directly to 

local fire departments, SERCs, or LEPCs. Rather than combine requirements that are not 

truly the same, EPA should instead promote the use of “intelligent” software that enables 

users to fulfill multiple reporting requirements. In this way EPA can achieve real burden 

reduction, not just the proliferation of exemptions. [097]

 While we agree with the EPA guidance to clarify this option is available for 

implementation by State and local organizations, in our opinion, it will probably not be 

an effective option. In our experience, Tier II information on chemicals in underground 

storage tanks does not typically change from year to year, which makes annual section 

312 reporting for these substances fairly easy to begin with. Because of differences 

between UST form and section 312 information items, it may be more burdensome to 

supplement a UST form than to update a previous Tier II form. Substitution of UST 

forms for Tier I or Tier II forms could be especially burdensome for facilities with 

multiple chemicals, since UST forms would have to be inserted amongst Tier I or Tier II 

forms for “non-UST” chemicals. In addition, there would be an extra burden on SERCs 

and LEPCs to explaining UST forms when fulfilling requests from the public.
11

It should also be noted that a large percentage of facilities in Delaware are reporting 

electronically, and we expect the percentage to grow. Substitution of UST forms and 

electronic Tier II reporting would not work together effectively. [104]

 Because the Tier II report is required for compliance with the Texas Community Rightto-Know Acts (TCRAs), we would not be able to accept UST forms. We are concerned 

about any proposal to allow UST forms to substitute for Tier I information because such 

an allowance will create confusion among members of the regulated community in states 

such as Texas that do not accept the Tier I level of information. In addition, this 

allowance would create confusion for fire departments and LEPCs because of the 

inconsistencies between the Tier I and UST formats, as well as the inconsistencies in 

general information provided. [118]

 We are opposed to the use of UST forms as described in the proposal. We have 

previously taken a position that UST forms do not fulfill EPCRA’s needs and supported 

the elimination of Tier I and use of only Tier II. [119, 129]

 EPA needs to provide a consensus form for comment. We would like to see your 

composite form and instructions for further evaluation and discussion; this should be an 

EPA/State/local partnership. Decisions at this point are premature until more information 

is gathered and explained. The RCRA UST program, not LEPCs/fire 

departments/SERCs, should be the “keeper of the keys.” UST information should be 

made routinely available for LEPCs and fire departments as needed for planning and 

response. Almost universally, the Tier II has become the routine EPCRA section 312 

reporting mechanism. Therefore, all Tier II elements should be part of UST reporting. A 

composite form is possible but would have to reflect total current requirements of both 

programs BEFORE its adoption. Each program must retain its integrity unless there is a 

full merging between program definitions, elements, etc. [122]

 While the flexibility of using the UST form to meet the Tier I reporting requirements may

reduce the burden of having to complete another reporting form, there are some 

disadvantages to this optional reporting form. Allowing the use of another form (UST 

forms) to fulfill Tier I requirements could create inconsistent and fragmented inventory

information. Also, the use of separate reporting forms may be inconsistent with the 

EPCRA section 312(g) requirements for a uniform format. Although EPA discounts this 

in the preamble (63 FR 31286) by stating that EPCRA does not require the use of a 

uniform format for submission of the section 312 information, the last sentence of section 

312(g) clearly indicates that the intent of the uniform format is for the submittal of 

information. Additionally, for the UST form to reduce the reporting burden, all three of 

the recipients (SERC, LEPC, and the fire department) must accept the form in lieu of the 

Tier I report. [133]

 We oppose allowing UST forms to fulfill EPCRA section 312 reporting requirements. 

This would mean that UST forms would have to be changed to accommodate EPCRA 

data elements not included in current report. Or a facility would have to submit 

supplemental information along with their submissions to the local agencies to provide 
12

the required information. The format of these submissions would be entirely different 

from other reports that will hinder efforts at data automation and implementation of 

electronic submittal programs. [147]

 We believe this proposal could lead to confusion for the LEPCs and fire departments by

having to look for the same information on two different forms and file the forms in an 

intermingled manner. [165]

 We believe the RCRA one-time reporting requirement will confuse businesses and many

will not report annually using a “one-time” form. [167, 180]

 UST forms do not contain sufficient information to accomplish hazard analyses and 

vulnerability studies required under EPCRA. The forms do not reach the SERC, LEPC, 

or local fire departments nor are they updated on a current basis by the agency receiving 

them. The reverse option might be considered, that the UST program use the EPCRA 

inventory reporting to meet their reporting requirements. Maine has been using a state 

form that requires considerably more information found to be very useful for inventory

reporting. We would not support using UST reporting information in place of our own.

Some facilities have both underground and above ground storage. Others have only 

above ground storage. Those facilities subject to reporting who are not subject to UST 

reporting would have to be treated differently. This eliminates consistency and creates 

additional confusion. This proposal would not reduce reporting burdens, would not 

provide any benefits with respect to preserving public health and safety or achieving 

EPCRA’s environmental goals, will probably not reduce costs to individuals, businesses, 

and government, and the flexible options would simply create more confusion. Rewriting 

the regulations in plain English would not reduce the regulatory burden, just shift it 

somewhat for some of the regulated community. [177]

 As the Federal Register notice recognizes, there may be many opportunities to use data 

submitted under other environmental programs to fulfill some or all of the EPCRA 

section 312 requirements. Unfortunately, each alternative poses its own set of 

circumstances which limits the ease of application or reduces its effectiveness for a 

national program. Use of the UST form is one example. Not all EPCRA agencies 

administer the RCRA/UST program. There may be significant data adjustment and data 

manipulation costs to adapt UST data elements and collection protocols to meet EPCRA 

requirements and to provide access to the UST data for EPCRA program officials and the 

community. Florida recently developed a proposal to consolidate UST/EPCRA Tier II 

reporting and community right-to-know access for retail petroleum facilities. 

Development of the system was estimated to cost $100,000. In addition, in our 

experience, the majority of the current reporters that would benefit from this option are 

retail petroleum and diesel facilities. EPA’s proposal to raise the reporting threshold for 

this group may make the UST Tier I option unnecessary. [178]

 This proposal seems to contradict EPA’s proposal to raise the threshold for facilities 

under this requirement. The number of facilities this proposal would affect then would 
13

not be sufficient to warrant a change that would be unsatisfactory and difficult to

implement. [L13]

Agency Response

Tier I information is the minimum information required under EPCRA section 

312 and the implementing regulations. When the proposed rule was published in June 

1998, some States were accepting the Tier I form. However, all States now require 

facilities to submit the State form or the Federal Tier II inventory form. Therefore, the 

Agency believes that this flexibility which was proposed in 1998 may not be beneficial. 

The guidance for using the UST form instead of Tier I was proposed mainly for

retail gas stations since these facilities may only have underground storage tanks (UST)

with hazardous chemicals and therefore may only use this option. All other facilities may

have other methods for storing hazardous chemicals other than USTs. As one of the 

commenters stated, EPA proposed to raise the reporting threshold for gasoline and diesel 

fuel for these substances stored at retail gas stations and therefore, most of the retail gas 

stations may not need to report these substances since they may fall under the new 

reporting threshold. Since EPA finalized the higher reporting thresholds for gasoline and 

diesel fuel on February 11, 1999 (64 FR 7031), most retail gas stations may not need to 

comply with the reporting requirements under EPCRA sections 311 and 312. Therefore, 

EPA believes that this guidance for using UST form instead of the Tier I form is no

longer useful. 

Other

 Kansas currently allows facilities to submit the above and underground storage tank 

forms in lieu of Tier II for petroleum fuels. Kansas has modified the storage tank form to 

assure that all the required information under EPCRA is included. Facilities can submit 

the AST/UST Tier II to the SERC, LEPC, and fire department. [108]

 Because a broader group uses EPCRA section 312 than UST, the UST forms should

become a Tier II add-on. Generally UST forms only go to the program assigned to 

Underground Storage Tank Regulation; normally this is not the agency or department 

designated to receive EPCRA reports. Typically, LEPCs, the SERC co-chair agencies, 

and most fire departments do not have ready access to UST forms. UST forms focus on 

tank age and construction material. A note area on a Tier II form to indicate age of 

storage vessel/tank vat and material could be beneficial to emergency planners as a 

hazard analysis tool. However, emergency contact information, location, and average 

volume in storage are important to local planners and responders. [119, 129]

 The facility and emergency contact information contained on the Tier II form is vital in 

maintaining the link for emergency purposes. We recommend that UST owner/operators 

report facility and emergency contact information annually (by March 1) with the UST 

form attached to the Tier II form. Also, there are occasions when UST owners submit 

other regulated material on the Tier II Form. They could then complete the other 
14

chemical-specific information and send to the SERC, LEPC, and fire department as 

usual. [123]

 EPA has failed to accurately take account of the information available to the public, 

emergency responders, and local emergency planning agencies through Underground

Storage Tank registrations. Annual reporting under EPCRA was designed for 

manufacturing facilities that use and store a broad range of chemicals that varies from

year to year. It was not intended to be a duplicative, unnecessary, and burdensome 

reporting of the same information year after year. It should come as no surprise to 

LEPCS, fire departments, or the public that diesel and gasoline fuel are stored in USTs 

installed for diesel and gasoline fuel storage.

Although RCRA does not require UST registration forms to be submitted to LEPCs, 

many state and local regulations require that UST forms be submitted to local agencies 

and fire departments. The so-called flexibility that EPA has offered in this proposed rule 

is merely a rewording of existing duplicative and burdensome regulations. The current 

proposal merely allows facilities to annually submit a UST registration form with the 

additional EPCRA information. This is not streamlining.

EPA should instead raise the Tier I threshold reporting level for diesel and gasoline fuel 

stored by fleet facilities and allow states and local communities the real flexibility of 

determining how and when they need to receive information. States and localities not 

currently requiring local reporting of USTs could modify their regulations to require that 

UST forms be sent to LEPCs or local fire departments. Retention of the zero threshold 

for complying with Tier II requests would allow LEPCs and local fire departments to 

obtain hazard data when needed.

Alternatively, states could take advantage of Internet technology to make UST 

registration forms available via the Internet to LEPCS, fire departments, and the public; 

this is already being done in Missouri and Florida. All 50 states and the District of 

Columbia have established Internet web pages for their environmental regulatory

agencies. These are broadly accessible locations for the dissemination of UST 

registrations and would obviate the need to annually send UST information to LEPCs and 

represent a true case of streamlining. [131]

 We have not previously evaluated the use of UST forms to meet the reporting 

requirements under EPCRA section 312 and have not requested that EPA allow this 

flexibility. This has not been an issue in North Carolina. If other states can justify a need 

for this flexibility, the new rules should support such. UST reports provide good 

information if properly entered into a reporting system. [140]

Agency Response

As stated above, EPA proposed this draft guidance mainly for those facilities that 

have only underground storage tanks at the site, such as retail gas stations. EPA is aware 

that other facilities have underground storage tanks as well as above ground storage tanks 
15

so these facilities may have to submit UST form as well as Tier II form to comply with 

section 312 of EPCRA. As commenters suggested, raising the threshold for gasoline and 

diesel would relieve burden for retail gas stations which was EPA’s intention for 

providing this flexibility. Since the reporting threshold for gasoline and diesel fuel was 

raised for retail gas stations in February 1999, these facilities reporting burden was 

reduced. 

In addition to providing burden for retail gas stations, information management 

burden was reduced for SERCs, LEPCs and the local fire departments who receive Tier II 

reports from retail gas stations. Some of the States informed EPA that flexibility should

be given to the States to collect information under section 312 of EPCRA according to 

their needs, such as, substituting the UST form for Tier I form. EPA understands that 

few States right-to-know program offices are within their UST program offices. For 

these States, information sharing is easier between these programs. For other States, the 

flexibility for substituting UST for Tier I may not be beneficial. Also, as stated earlier in 

this document, since all States now require facilities to submit Tier II form which may

contain more information than the UST form, substituting UST form would not be 

practical unless UST regulations are revised to include all information required by Tier II.

 

B. Partnership Programs for Joint Access to Information and Streamlined Submission 

of EPCRA Sections 311 And 312 Reporting

EPA proposed guidance on facilitating reduced submissions by allowing SERCs, 

LEPCs, and fire departments to agree that one agency would receive the information and 

make it available electronically to the other two entities.

General Comments

 We strongly feel that if one form containing all data required by each agency and 

approved by each of the agencies involved in the gathering of information such as the 

SERC, LEPC, local fire departments, UST agency, etc., then the needs of all the involved 

agencies can be met with a single filing. [103]

 Arizona is currently pursuing web site accessibility for Tier II reporting. We support the 

concept of reducing and streamlining submission of EPCRA, MSDS, and Tier data and 

would be quite interested in piloting a partnership program to promote streamlined 

submission of EPCRA information. We concur in concept with what has been offered. 

[122]

 We agree that forming partnerships between LEPCs, fire departments, and SERCs would 

be a useful feature to include in the new regulations to eliminate filing of a duplicate sets 

of information. We suggest that the partnership be responsible for determining if it is 

necessary to have the information electronically accessible. Because most departments, 

LEPCS, and SERCs today don’t have their MSDSs electronically accessible, why should 

they have to have them in a “partnership?” [048]
16

 Not all LEPCs/fire departments are tuned into, use, or understand this evolving 

technology. Should this be the mechanism for facilities to report Tier II, UST, or 

minimally inherent hazardous material, a mechanism must be set up to notify the 

SERC/LEPC/fire department that the data are on this national database system. [123]

Agency Response

EPA is aware that since the publication of the proposed rule, many States have 

already adopted some of the options provided in the draft guidance in the preamble. The 

Agency will continue to encourage the States and local agencies to work together to 

manage the information received from facilities and make these available to the public. 

B.1. SERC, LEPC, and fire department interest in forming partnership programs for 

joint access to information

Many commenters supported the idea of partnerships to allow filing of 

information to a single point. Other commenters supported the proposal, but cited a 

number of problems associated with single point of submission. They noted that many

LEPCs and fire departments do not have access to computers or the Internet. A few 

commenters opposed the proposal.

Support

 Finding a way to streamline the reporting process would be the most positive change 

since the law came into effect. All reports in the county go to a single source in local 

government to eliminate the need to have every fire station and every volunteer fire 

department maintain a file. The receiving location would put information on a computer 

database or a master list and forward it to the state. This would eliminate hundreds or 

even thousands of pages of report information being handled two, three, or four times. 

This process would provide a more accurate reporting system, better customer service for 

the facility, better control, and better access over a twenty-four hour period. Where 

possible, the report could be made part of the local hazardous materials permitting 

process. The permit and hazardous materials information could be collected at the same 

time. The facility representative would verify the facility’s inventory at the same time 

the permit is issued or renewed thereby ensuring accuracy of facility inventory. [014]

 I strongly agree that LEPCs, fire department, and SERCs should be allowed to form 

partnerships. In the City of Springfield’s case, the LEPC is the primary handler of 

EPCRA info. We have a strong bond with the city’s fire department and it would be nice 

to eliminate filing of a duplicate set of information by the facilities. I would encourage 

EPA to allow formal partnerships to exist and reduce the amount of paper filing on the 

part of facilities. By making it a local option, we would make the decision to form or not 

form the partnerships. [048]
17

 We strongly support partnership programs for the joint access to information and 

streamlined submission of EPCRA section 311/312 information. This should be 

considered a long-term project supplemental to the sharing of data from Risk 

Management Programs with LEPCs and fire departments by way of CAMEO. This 

would encourage the establishment of a comprehensive regional response system. [055] 

 We support the concept of partnerships between the SERC, fire department, and LEPC 

that would permit facilities to submit information required under EPCRA section 312 

only to the SERC and not the fire department or LEPC. We are presently discussing the 

possibility of posting on the Internet all chemical inventory information received from the 

community right-to-know survey used to collect information required under the state 

program and section 312 of EPCRA. This would give local facilities access to the data 

submitted without having to receive paper copies. Our current public access system 

requires users to have specific software and a modem. [058]

 We see no reason why facilities could not satisfy their EPCRA section 311 and 312 

reporting requirements through a single point of contact (as long as SERCs, LEPCs, and 

local fire departments jointly receive the information as required). We support and 

encourage compilation of information into a single database, such as a web site accessible 

from the Internet. [097]

 With regard to the possibility of the SERCs, LEPCs, and the fire departments forming 

partnerships for joint access to information; we would be pleased to participate in such a 

program. [098, 103]

 We strongly support partnerships among the SERC, LEPC, and fire departments that 

allow joint receipt of reports and sharing of information. Several LEPCs and fire 

departments currently use this option already in North and South Carolina. It helps to 

reduce our paperwork burden and theirs as well. [139]

 We are very interested in being able to establish joint partnerships with LEPCs and fire 

departments for the receipt of information submitted under EPCRA sections 311 and 312. 

Such partnerships will benefit the regulated facilities by allowing them to reduce their 

number of submittals, and will also reduce the burden on SERCs, LEPCs, and fire 

departments because there is the potential to have data entry/storage limited to one entity, 

thus saving time and resources, and limiting the potential for error. EPA is urged to 

attempt to grant the greatest flexibility in establishing guidance. [140]

 This proposal would allow for submission of Tier II information to one agency, which 

would disseminate that information to the other receiving agencies. It addresses the need 

for public access and availability of information to local emergency response personnel. 

This is a good idea that will save duplicative efforts of SERCs and LEPCs where data 

management is concerned. [147]

 We concur with EPA’s goal to explore information-sharing partnerships. [167, 180]
18

 The proposed streamlining of the filing process will lower compliance burdens. [L05]

Support with reservations

 We encourage EPA to investigate the possibilities of a joint electronic database. 

However, EPA should remember that many fire departments and LEPCs would not have 

access to an electronic database due to lack of computer equipment, trained computer 

personnel, and access to the Internet. EPA should consider ways to address these 

concerns, possibly through grants, before implementing such databases. Since the 

CAMEO system is already in place in many fire departments, LEPCs, and SERCs, any

electronic databases should be compatible with that system. [011, 57]

 It may be beneficial to allow for joint access to information submitted under sections 311 

and 312 to the SERC, LEPC and fire department; however, our experience with CAMEO 

and other databases has not been successful. It is important to continue to allow a facility 

to report using the current forms (as opposed to requiring use of a joint database) until 

such time as reliable systems and databases can be developed. Issues such as confidential 

business information (required to be reported under EPCRA) and the variety of systems 

or databases maintained by the SERC, LEPC, and fire department that could be required 

of a regulated facility need to be resolved prior to EPA actively encouraging joint 

databases. In addition, providing access to a SERC, LEPC, or local fire department to a 

facility’s database for MSDSs is unlikely to streamline reporting by the facility. 

Necessary training of the SERC, LEPC, or fire department, system updates, and measures 

to insure that access is uninterrupted even in an emergency could increase reporting 

burdens for facilities. [105]

 We support the concept of local/state partnerships for shared databases and data 

management. This would not only leverage resources more effectively, but would also 

promote better data quality. However, states should be provided maximum flexibility to 

manage data in the manner that is most effective for the state and local government and 

not be constrained by overly-burdensome bureaucratic procedures. [106]

 Opportunities seem to lie ahead for allowing partnerships for electronic submissions. 

When a SERC, LEPC, and fire department can access a Tier II database, these three 

organizations should be allowed to take advantage of technology that seemed impossible 

when EPCRA was adopted. In an under-funded program, it will be complicated to take 

advantage of electronic submissions. Many volunteer fire departments may never have 

official Internet access to use the inventory data in an emergency. 

Requiring written information and public notice of such partnerships places a burden 

where none is necessary. If partnerships are established, the notices should appear in the 

SERC/LEPC industry inventory instructions. The public is not really affected in that they

will be provided a hard copy, or during the course of business the SERC or LEPC will 

advise them that the information can be more quickly received by accessing an electronic 
19

database, if the SERC/LEPC fire departments determine that it should be a publicly

accessible database (There are many officials who have expressed concern that terrorists 

may access such information.). Some members also feel that this is an additional 

unfunded mandate.

Based on the above, some type of paper submission will probably continue to be 

necessary for the foreseeable future. Use of MOUs seems too limiting. Perhaps the 

terminology could include partnership agreements and contracts. Someone will need to 

agree to house and maintain the database for all current recipients. [119, 129]

 The option to develop partnership programs for joint submissions already exists; 

however, some of the proposed options are burdensome. All three recipients need to be 

in agreement throughout a state or increased burdens will be experienced and 

enforcement programs will be jeopardized. [119, 129]

 I think partnerships are great, but if everyone does not pull their own weight the 

partnership falls apart. If you are going to require more, then funding should be available 

to match the requirements. [129a]

 The partnership identified by EPA is an excellent idea and should be further explored by

the Agency. The idea, as presented in the preamble, would appear to reduce the burden 

on the regulated community and would go far in making inventory information more 

readily available to the public, possibly via the World Wide Web. If promulgated, the 

partnership should be voluntary to accommodate those regulated facilities that may not 

have an electronic database capability or to accommodate the different levels of funding 

available to the state and local authorities for establishing and maintaining a database. 

[133]

 We support a statewide system for submittal of information, but do not support a 

voluntary, fragmented program where each of 120 LEPCs or 800 fire departments decide 

on a different, limited partnership. Such an approach would create confusion, defeat the 

purpose of reporting, and create a burden on the SERC. [L13]

Oppose

 Under present circumstances, a majority of the local groups would not have the time, 

equipment, or training to be completely accessible to an electronic database. [011]

 LEPCs and fire departments are probably not going to spend their time establishing 

formal partnerships and Memorandums of Understanding. We don’t feel we need the 

structure to share information and help one another. The only formal document that we 

all work on is the community emergency response plan that incorporates the information 

that EPCRA is concerned with. [18]
20

 We have always provided assistance to facilities in compliance paperwork and other 

actions. We feel that a centralized compliance point would take away the working 

relationship that we have with our facilities. [096]

 We do not support this proposal which would change the requirement that facilities report 

MSDS and TIER II reports to three entities (i.e. the SERC, LEPC and fire department). 

The proposal to permit submission to one of the three entities or to a central database 

would impose a significant additional burden on governmental entities. The 

establishment of partnerships between the “entities” would be particularly difficult in 

Connecticut which has 155 LEPCs. [145]

 Maine has struggled with data entry since EPCRA began. We intended to do data entry

at state level and provide copies to LEPCs via diskette transfer from CAMEO to 

CAMEO. We have learned several hard lessons from this. The sheer volume means 

some data is very delayed getting to LEPCs because there is so much to do. If it is 

impossible to complete data entry and updating of an electronic data base in a small state 

on a timely basis, expecting a central clearinghouse to be updated and provide access to 

information on a timely basis is not feasible. Of Maine’s 16 LEPCs, less than half 

actively use electronic transmission of communication on a regular basis. Of Maine’s 

456 fire departments, about 1/4 to 1/3 have a computer. They don’t have funding to 

provide it and only about 5 percent have full-time staff. Joint access to information is 

not an expectation.

Further, CAMEO does not allow an updating function to occur. Transferred information 

for a facility becomes an additional facility with duplication of existing data. 

Accordingly, most LEPCs actively using CAMEO have decided to update their own data, 

so duplication of activities have not been eliminated. We have attempted to work with 

EPA Region 1, technical support, and CAMEO technicians without resolution. This 

would have accomplished the elimination of a duplication of efforts. Perhaps if EPA 

committed to improving CAMEO to accomplish data transfers more effectively, some of 

this duplication could be eliminated.

I hope other states will inform EPA if they have been overburdened with public requests 

for EPCRA information. Maine certainly has not. Making data accessible on the Internet 

has not been identified as a high priority.

The establishment of partnerships also establishes situations where some facilities are 

treated differently than others. Maine would find it very difficult to appropriately inform 

facilities in isolated situations of different reporting requirements that apply to them 

because of these partnerships. In many instances, a corporate headquarters completes the 

reporting for up to 175 individual facilities in their company. It would be extremely

difficult for these companies to modify their reporting to reflect differing situations 

concerning partnerships. Monitoring, verifying, and correcting submissions would 

quickly offset any savings realized.
21

This will reduce reporting burdens for some facilities, but information would not be 

available to local fire departments, LEPC’s or the SERC on a timely basis. There are no 

public health and safety benefits from this proposal. It will reduce costs to individuals 

and businesses. However, costs to the government will not be reduced if you consider 

government could not have access to emergency information on a timely basis for 

planning or responding. The proposal provides no benefits to EPCRA’s environmental 

goals. States would need flexible options. [177]

 Increasing flexibility to streamline compliance continues to guarantee that reporting 

becomes useless. The intent is to protect the public and we believe the public is now 

being protected. To allow less consistency would simply cause obsolescence of the 

system. The idea of having reporting to an entity which would allow SERC, LEPCs, and 

fire department to obtain information simply would not work. If information is not 

provided to LEPCs, fire departments, and SERC, the information will be lost and you 

may have streamlined middle policy and pleased major reporting entities but you will 

destroy the protection of the population. [OC-4]

Agency Response

The main reason that the Agency proposed the option of joint access is to reduce 

burden on the regulated community. This option may also reduce information 

management burden on some implementing agencies. That is, if a SERC takes the 

responsibility to develop a reporting format for facilities to submit Tier II or the 

equivalent State form, then the LEPCs and the fire departments may be able to access the 

information on-line. If the LEPCs and/or the fire departments do not have the capability 

to access the information on-line, then the States may provide the Tier II information to 

these entities on diskettes or hard copy. 

At the time of the June 1998 proposed rule, only few States were accepting Tier II 

or the State form electronically. At the present time, many States have developed their 

own electronic reporting system or using EPA’s Tier II reporting system (Tier2 Submit). 

EPA is aware that some of these States are accepting Tier II on-line. EPA is encouraging 

these States to explore ways to have joint access to the information with the LEPCs and 

the fire departments. EPA assumes that since the time of the proposed rule, most of the 

LEPCs and the fire departments have the capability to accept Tier II electronically. For 

those that do not have the capability, States may find other ways (i.e., hard copies or 

diskettes) to provide access to these entities. This eliminates searching through hundreds 

of papers during an emergency situation. 

EPA understands that funding may be a problem in developing partnerships. 

Since EPCRA program is more mature than it was ten years ago, many States may have 

funding available through State reporting fee system, federal grants etc. EPA is 

encouraging States to use the money available from these to develop a database system 

and set up access to information for LEPCs and fire departments. 
22

B.2. Comments on draft guidance for partnership programs

 We encourage EPA to develop guidance for partnership programs for joint access to 

information. Although we currently lack the resources to establish a statewide database of 

Tier II chemical information to share with LEPCs and fire departments, this type of 

project is a long-term goal. It would be very useful to have guidance from EPA in 

advance of establishing such partnerships to reduce the data management burdens of fire 

departments and LEPCs. We encourage EPA to consider providing grant funding to 

states and local agencies to develop such partnerships; funding is especially critical for 

development of electronic databases and computer networks. As for how the 

partnerships should be established, we favor the suggestion to require written documents, 

such as Memoranda of Understanding, to ensure that all parties understand their 

obligations. [118]

 California adopted a chemical inventory reporting program in 1986 that regulates 

approximately 110,000 businesses. We could not possibly manage 110,000 inventory

reports, therefore a single point of submission at the local level was established. 

California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 (HSC), Section 25506 (b) states that:

“Any person who files an inventory form required under Section 25509 with the 

administering agency shall be deemed to have filed the inventory form required by

subsection (a) of Section 11022 of Title 42 of the United States Code with the state 

emergency response commission and emergency planning committee established 

pursuant to Section 11001 of Title 42 of the United States Code.”

To allow SERC and LEPC access to these inventories HSC 25506 (a) states:

“The administering agency shall transmit copies of the entire business plan or any

information contained in the business plan to any requesting state or local agency.”

However, the statute currently does not necessitate the use of an electronic database for 

the transmission of this data. It is possible that such a database will be developed within 

the next five years, but, with the different electronic capabilities throughout the state, it is 

not feasible currently. We suggest that EPA place flexibility, allowing for non electronic 

means of streamline submission, into their guidance. OES system has been in place for 

10 years, providing the community, first responders, and the state with right-to-know 

information. [L15]

Agency Response

As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, States are given the flexibility to 

set up the EPCRA program as needed in each of the community in their States. None of 

the options provided in the draft guidance of the proposed rule is a requirement. States 

are allowed to choose any or all of the options to implement the program. The Agency is 

encouraging States to choose any of the options provided to reduce burden on regulated 

community and on all three entities. 
23

B.3. Implementation of streamlined submittal guidance in conjunction with the guidance 

for electronic submittal of EPCRA sections 311 and 312 information

A few commenters stated that they generally support electronic filing. They had 

reservations about the feasibility of such systems for all communities. One commenter 

stated that EPA should provide the database.

 It makes sense to notify the regulated community and the public so that they are aware of, 

and can put to use, the streamlined submittal option. The question is how to do this. 

EPA needs to create a marketing plan for this. The website project termed the Better 

BOLDER Project would be an important first step in accomplishing these goals. [034]

 The electronic submission of EPCRA section 311 and 312 information should be 

available as an option as soon as practicable when it is technically feasible. It is unlikely 

that smaller facilities will have this capability in the near future and for that reason this 

should remain optional. Problems regarding certification, confidential location, and trade 

secret information will most likely be resolved through advances in computer technology. 

[061]

 We support and encourage electronic submission of EPCRA reports. EPA should 

develop the infrastructure needed to manage information electronically. [097]

 We are generally supportive of electronic submittal. Again, this is a three-party

agreement and one party may need to receive a paper record. To avoid placing the 

burden on government as an unfunded mandate, the final regulation should state that 

paper copies as needed will be provided by the owner/operator. [119]

 Restricting data submittals to a centralized database would possibly work well for states 

that have established, centralized data programs, but this flexibility should be extended to 

non-computerized systems to meet the needs of others. As suggested by EPA, this could 

include allowing local fire departments to establish partnerships with LEPCs, so that 

regulated facilities could meet the need to submit forms to both bodies by submitting one 

form to one body. This will work well for many counties in North Carolina where fire 

departments are closely linked to the emergency management offices that support LEPCs 

by maintaining EPCRA section 311 and 312 reporting information. [140]

 California adopted an inventory reporting program in 1986 that regulates approximately

110,000 businesses. We could not possibly manage 110,000 inventory reports; therefore, 

a single point of submission at the local level was established. California Health Safety 

Code Chapter 6.95 (HSC), Section 25506 (b) states that:

“Any person who files an inventory form required under Section 25509 with the 

administering agency shall be deemed to have filed the inventory form required by

subsection (a) of Section 11022 of Title 42 of the United States Code with the state 
24

emergency response commission and emergency planning committee established 

pursuant to Section 11001 of Title 42 of the United States Code.”

To allow state emergency response committee (SERC) and local emergency planning 

committee (LEPC) access to these inventories HSC 25506 (a) states:

“The administering agency shall transmit copies of the entire business plan or any

information contained in the business plan to any requesting state or local agency.”

However, the statute currently does not necessitate the use of an electronic database for 

the transmission of this data. It is possible that such a database will be developed within 

the next five years, but currently with the different electronic capabilities throughout the 

state it is not feasible.

We suggest that EPA place flexibility, allowing for non electronic means of streamline 

submission, into their guidance. Our system has been in place for 10 years, providing the 

community, first responders, and the state with right-to-know information. [OC-6]

Agency Response

As stated in EPA’s response in the previous section, States may or may not 

choose any of the options suggested by EPA to implement the program. Since the 

publication of the proposed rule, the Agency developed an electronic reporting system, 

Tier2 Submit, which many States use. Other States have developed their own electronic 

reporting which they require facilities to use. States are given the flexibility to 

implement the EPCRA program as needed in their States for emergency planning and 

response. 

B.4. Software programs used to obtain and store 311 and 312 reporting data

 There are several electronic reporting systems on the market. There should be some way

of looking at these systems for system compatibility. The three primary systems seem to 

be SDS EM2000TM (new player), EIS, and CAMEO. If we make CAMEO the main 

player and ensure integration of EIS and SDS EM2000TM into a CAMEO system, we 

will cover an estimated 90 percent of the electronic reporting systems on the market. 

Each LEPC can select the one best suited for its use and they can partner with the state in 

the final selection of the statewide system. [014]

 Since the CAMEO system is already in place in many fire departments, LEPCs, and 

SERCs, any electronic databases should be compatible with that system. [031]

 We have been strong advocates of electronic filing and offer a service to all facilities 

within the city of preparing Tier II forms with the Tier II 5.0 software. This has been a 

tremendous help to small and larger facilities. We have every facility’s Tier II form 

inventory data stored in our software. We adopted this posture to ease the data transfer 
25

problems into CAMEO. Each year we call or get called to print out their forms. The 

facility is asked for any changes or updates and is responsible for proofing and signing. 

This process insures a more accurate form since errors are corrected in the master files as 

they are found. I would suggest that future versions of Tier II 5.0 and Tier II Windows 

retain, as part of the file structure, the name and title of the person who signed the form. 

It currently is not saved. [048]

 Our data are currently maintained in CAMEO and are a major part of our emergency

response data. The information is maintained on a secure net with 24-hour access for our 

emergency responders. [096]

 Kansas has a software program developed to allow facilities to submit Tier II information 

by diskette. The March 1, 1998, Tier II submittal was the first reporting period where 

facilities were able to use the software. When technology exists within the Kansas 

Department of Health and Environment, we will evaluate the possibility of facilities 

submitting electronically. [108]

 We currently enter hard copy data from Tier II forms into the CAMEO Windows data 

base. If electronic submittal of Tier II information is adopted, we recommend EPA 

design appropriate software programs for conversion of submitted data directly into the 

CAMEO data base to ease data entry requirements. [143]

Agency Response

Since the proposed rule was published in June 1998, EPA developed an electronic 

reporting software, Tier2 Submit. A new version of this software is developed for every

reporting year to incorporate new state specific fields. Tier2 Submit is designed to export 

Tier II Chemical inventory data into the emergency planning software - CAMEOfm. As 

stated earlier in this document, States may use Tier2 Submit or States may develop their 

own reporting system. Tier2 Submit contains all of the data elements required by federal 

EPA regulations, optional data elements which are commonly required by the States, and 

also custom fields to accommodate additional data elements required by individual 

States. For complete details and instructions on how to download Tier2 Submit, visit 

EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/epcra/tier2.htm. The Agency 

website also includes links to the State reporting requirements. 

 

B.5. Information systems to ensure timely and joint receipt of information by SERCs, 

LEPCs, and fire departments

Several commenters provided information on existing state systems. They noted 

that EPA’s goal of timely access for all parties is currently unrealistic because of the time 

required to enter and check data. Other commenters said that such systems, while 

desirable, will not reach many fire departments and LEPCs because they lack the 

resources for Internet access. One LEPC stated that it would continue to require reports 

if a state system existed.
26

 We encourage EPA to investigate the possibilities of a joint electronic database. 

However, EPA should remember that many fire departments and LEPCs would not have 

access to an electronic database due to the lack of computer equipment, lack of trained 

computer personnel, and lack of access to the Internet. EPA should consider ways to 

address these concerns, possibly through grants, before implementing such databases. 

Since the CAMEO system is already in place in many Fire Departments, LEPCs, and 

SERCs, any electronic databases should be compatible with that system. [009, 031]

 If the SERCs, LEPCs, and fire departments had unrestricted access to a statewide 

electronic database, then for any facility in the state, timely submission to the central 

electronic database could constitute timely submission to each entity under EPCRA. In 

addition, the portions of this electronic database that are the data elements the public has 

a right to know under EPCRA should be made available to the public via the Internet and 

at the LEPC or SERC. As a facility opens or changes chemical processes, the real-time 

data can be uploaded via Internet or diskette to the database. This can fulfill the section 

311 requirements, too. This is what the EPA-funded BOLDER Project will soon do. 

In addition, the NRT should either sponsor or have access to this database. Recently, 

when Texas City received a terrorist bomb threat, FEMA and the FBI contacted EPA 

Region 6 to determine what chemicals might be involved, and EPA had no idea! EPA 

should host the electronic data warehouse. This ends the issue of unfunded mandates and 

provides for regularity in databases. Most federal environmental laws are EPA’s 

responsibility, and EPA is web-enabling much of this information. It is time to do the 

same for EPCRA chemical storage and hazard information, to give this information the 

same and equal treatment. [034]

 Timely submission to the joint database would constitute timely submission to all three 

entities. [061]

 If this proposal required the sharing of hard copy submissions, then it would place an 

unreasonable burden on the state and LEPC. Individual determinations by LEPCs and 

fire departments as to whether they want copies of section 311/312 information/forms 

will also increase the burden on the SERCs. SERCs will have to track which agencies 

have requested what information from which facility and will thus complicate SERC 

compliance activities and actions. If a computer database could be used for the joint 

access to information, then it should be manageable from a workload perspective. A 

statewide database would appear to be more practicable than many individual databases 

managed at the local level. If the intent is to have the SERC responsible for the 

dissemination of information to LEPCs and local fire departments that do not have 

Internet capabilities, this would also be a considerable administrative burden as many

states have hundreds of fire departments, many of them volunteer. Wisconsin has over 

800 fire departments, most of whom do not have Internet capabilities, and less than half 

of the LEPCs in Wisconsin have Internet capability. One entity, in most instances this 

would most likely be the SERC, should have the responsibility for the development and 

maintenance of one statewide database. [061]
27

 Wisconsin has a statewide database that can be accessed through the Internet. Joint 

access to one database is feasible only if all parties have access to the database. [061]

 This LEPC plans to remain an individual compliance point for EPCRA reporting. If the 

SERC creates a centralized database, then we will use that for compliance checks, but 

will still require information to be sent directly to us. [096]

 While we would support the submission of one report to a joint database, it is 

questionable whether the SERCS, LEPCS, and fire departments would have the resources 

to implement such a system. EPA should continue to explore options to encourage the 

use of a joint database. [101]

 We strongly agree that creation of partnerships presents an excellent opportunity for 

streamlining. However, due to current technologic and basic operational constraints, the 

EPA proposed guidance as presented is too restrictive. We recommend that EPA 

consider including additional options for partnerships.

Delaware has an established state-wide information system for managing and distributing 

EPCRA information. The system is overseen by the Hazardous Materials Information 

Management Committee (HMIMC), a committee of the Delaware SERC. The system 

agreed upon and implemented revolves around the CAMEO software; in addition to 

CAMEO, the system also includes the MARPLOT and ALOHA software applications.

Within the Delaware system, each organization is assigned responsibilities based upon 

their particular areas of expertise. These responsibilities were discussed and mutually

agreed upon. The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 

(DNREC) is responsible for Hazardous Chemical Inventory, Toxic Release Inventory, 

and Emergency Release Notification data. The LEPCs (each for their district) are 

responsible for special population information, plotting facilities and special populations 

on maps, screenings and scenarios, transportation route data, additional emergency

contacts, and response resources. The 911 Fire Dispatch Centers (for each county) are 

responsible for verification of address information and identification of fire districts and 

cross streets for facilities. The State Fire School is responsible for data transfer.

Because of a variety of basic operational and technology limitations, the most difficult 

step was establishment of procedures for updating and exchanging data. CAMEO is not 

currently designed for use in a multi-user network arrangement. As such, each 

organization maintains an individual stand-alone copy. Delaware facilities submit 

EPCRA reports centrally to DNREC, which is responsible for entering the information 

into CAMEO. Information in the DNREC system is periodically downloaded to the State 

Fire School, which disseminates the information to the Fire Dispatch Centers and LEPCs 

statewide. As the Fire Dispatch Centers and LEPCs enter information for which they are 

responsible, information is uploaded to the Fire School and integrated into the main 

CAMEO version at DNREC. Guidelines for entering data within the system and 

procedures for logging activities were established. In support of the system, the 
28

Delaware SERC financed the purchase of standard computer hardware and software for 

system users to facilitate data exchange. The HMIMC organized and provided training 

for system users, and continues to do so today.

The EPA proposed guidance as presented only allows for streamlined centralized 

reporting if the reports are available on the reporting deadline to all designated recipients. 

We have been working with and discussing enhancements to our central system for 

several years, and based upon our experience we do not feel the proposed EPA guidance 

is realistic at this time for the following reasons:

(1) For all designated recipients to have access to reported data on the 

reporting deadline, direct on-line electronic submission would be required. As 

EPA states, a number of Federal agencies, including EPA, have been striving to 

develop methods for certification of electronically submitted data. This is a 

difficult issue, and EPA has not yet resolved it.

(2) To our knowledge, an information system which can accept on-line 

EPCRA submittals directly and allow multi-user access by the necessary

recipients does not currently exist. The CAMEO system cannot currently fulfill 

this role. It has several limitations, including that it is not currently a multi-user 

network system. CAMEO could be modified, or a new system developed, but it 

will take time.

(3) If reports are submitted on-line and are immediately available within the 

system for use by emergency planners and responders, data quality issues could 

pose a significant problem. In the early years of EPCRA reporting, Delaware also 

experimented with a central information system. Information was attempted to be 

entered into a database exactly as reported and then distributed to emergency

planning and response organizations. Because of data quality problems, this 

initial effort was abandoned and the data removed from use. Based on this 

experience, quality control procedures were discussed and incorporated by the 

HMIMC into the centralized information system we are using today. Quality

assurance activities must be conducted on the data prior to distribution for use, or 

confidence in the system, and eventually use of the data, will decline and the data 

may eventually, be discarded or deleted. This is based on twelve years of 

experience in managing this type of system.

(4) As stated above, for all designated recipients to have access to reported 

data on the reporting deadline, direct on-line electronic submission would be

required. Many businesses, particularly small businesses, will not have the 

capability to submit in this manner. As such, they would not be able to capitalize 

on the burden reduction offered by centralized streamlined reporting as proposed 

by EPA.

Although our centralized system does not operate as outlined in the EPA proposed 

guidance, it has several advantages:
29

(1) Centralized reporting regardless of the method of reporting (paper, 

diskette, etc.) eases the burden on all reporting facilities, including those small 

businesses which may not have adequate resources for electronic reporting.

(2) Questions on reporting issues are directed to a central location, resulting in 

more consistent guidance to facilities.

(3) Centralized reporting and data entry allows for consistent quality

assurance activities to be conducted on the data prior to use by emergency

planning and response organizations. 

(4) If a revision(s) is deemed necessary from a facility as a result of quality

assurance review activities, the revision(s) only needs to be sent to the central 

reporting location.

(5) Each LEPC and fire department does not have to devote resources to 

collecting and managing facility reports and dealing with reporting issues. Except 

for one, all fire departments in Delaware are volunteer and do not typically have 

the resources to collect and manage EPCRA information. Having EPCRA 

information centrally submitted, quality assured, computerized, and available 24 

hours a day through trained personnel in the 911 Fire Dispatch Centers is a more 

effective approach. In the event a fire department wants facility information for 

pre-planning or other non-emergency use, the information can still be obtained 

from the 911 Fire Dispatch Centers, or from other system users such as the 

LEPCs or DNREC.

(6) Access and retrieval of data in an emergency situation is improved. With 

Delaware’s system, the number of system users is limited. Through training and 

frequent use, a limited number of system users can maintain a level of proficiency

within the system that a multitude of casual users could not.

(7) Delaware collects reports electronically on computer diskette from a large 

number of facilities. If these reports were not collected centrally, paper copies 

would also have to be generated for submission to other designated recipients.

One of the critical elements set forth by EPA in the proposed guidance is that any

partnership program for joint access to information would need to ensure that the SERC, 

the LEPC, and the fire department each receive or have direct access to Tier I and Tier II 

information by March 1. We recommend that EPA consider additional flexibility in this 

area. In Delaware, it currently takes approximately 6 months from the March 1 deadline 

for all submittals to be quality assured (including obtaining necessary revisions from 

facilities), entered into CAMEO, and distributed. As the percentage of facilities reporting 

electronically via diskette continues to increase, we anticipate this processing time will 

decrease. However, it would still take several months if all facilities reported on diskette. 

Several reasons for EPA to consider flexibility on this point, such as the lack of time for 
30

quality assurance, have already been discussed. In addition, we recommend EPA also 

consider the following:

(1) As noted by EPA, much of the data from facilities does not change from year to 

year. As such, immediate access to the data for all designated recipients by the March 1 

deadline would not be of significance for much of the data.

(2) The information submitted on Tier I and Tier II reports is in reality historical 

information and potentially outdated upon receipt. The information represents chemical 

use and storage activities at the facility during the previous calendar year. Reported 

chemicals may have already been removed from the site. Additional chemicals may have 

been brought on site above the threshold, but not yet been reported (these new chemicals 

would eventually have to be reported under section 311, but not for 3 months). Most 

importantly, chemical amounts and storage locations could have already changed 

significantly prior to submission of the report. Unless these changes are considered to 

impact emergency planning activities of the LEPCS, there is no requirement for these 

types of changes to be reported until the following year. These points are not meant to 

negate the importance of the data, but rather to point out that information reported under 

Sections 311 and 312 can only be relied upon as initial information concerning potential 

substances and storage situations at reporting facilities. In an emergency, responders will 

always be required to take a conservative approach and attempt to obtain the most recent 

information from contacts at the facility.

(3) There are many situations where hazardous chemicals are used and stored by

facilities, but because of the conditions of storage or other factors, the chemicals are 

not reportable. For example, the exemption for products “packaged in the same form 

and concentration as products, packaged for distribution and use by the general 

public” allows for numerous situations where large quantities of hazardous chemicals 

above the threshold amount are not reportable. Hazardous chemical inventory reports 

under sections 311 and 312 do not present a complete picture for a facility. [104]

 With regard to certification, signing submissions to all three recipients of the data seems 

unnecessary. In most cases, the signature recipient could be either the SERC or the 

LEPC. The organization that would be most likely to pursue enforcement could be 

designated by the state to receive the signature copy. Signed copies could be submitted 

once every three years with electronic copies being submitted in the interim years, unless 

an inventory revision was made. Technically it would be beneficial if the certified 

revisions could be a part of the 311 submission as the SERC/LEPC/fire departments must 

be notified within ninety days (which is too long). By allowing this alternative, the 

March 1 burden to track changes would be diffused throughout the year. [119]

 When you talk about unrestricted access to statewide electronic database, you must 

consider there are some who have no electronic databases, let alone access. [129a]
31

 We would like for EPA to consider its definition of “timely” access, in relationship to the 

“timeliness” that exists in the current system, which is not necessarily or realistically

immediate. [140]

 The Florida SERC has established a statewide database of EPCRA sections 311 and 312 

information that it routinely shares with LEPCs, local governments, and the public. 

Advances in technology have greatly enhanced the accessibility and efficiency of this 

information and the SERC continues to explore methods to improve its data management 

practices. However, under the current regulations, submission of reporting information to 

the SERC does not relieve facilities from the obligation to report to the LEPCs and local 

fire departments. In previous discussions with EPA, the Florida SERC was advised that 

it could not serve as the EPCRA owner/operator’s “agent” to provide required reporting 

information to the LEPCs and fire departments.

The deadline to report EPCRA information also makes joint access and submission 

problematic. It is difficult to develop a system in which EPCRA data is jointly “received” 

by all required parties by the annual March 1 deadline. Florida encourages EPA to 

continue to explore methods to revise its regulations to better reflect the use of 

technology, but reminds the agency that development, administration and maintenance of 

automated data systems can be quite expensive. Florida asks the agency to reflect on the 

level of funds committed to its recent initiative to establish a centralize automated 

database for risk management plans, or its ongoing investment in the section 313 Toxic 

Release Inventory database, both of which include a much smaller universe of reporters, 

as an indication of the costs which may be associated with automated data submission. 

Without dedicated federal resources, few SERCs, LEPCs, or fire departments will be able 

to take advantage of this option. [178]

 We support efforts at partnership but point out that this proposal is dependent upon 

unrestricted access to a central database. In Kentucky there are over 800 volunteer fire 

departments, and our LEPCs are all volunteers. We know that having access to a central 

database would be problematic on a statewide basis, therefore defeating the purpose of 

reporting. [L13]

Agency Response

As stated earlier in this document, EPA suggested the idea for joint access to the 

information mainly to reduce reporting burden on regulated community and to reduce 

information management burden for LEPCs and fire departments. EPA understands that 

some LEPCs and fire departments do not have the training or resources for electronic 

access. Since the proposed rule was published, EPA became aware that many LEPCs and 

fire department do have computer equipment or other resources to manage the 

information submitted to them. For those LEPCs and fire departments that do not have 

the capability of electronic access, the States may provide Tier II reports to these entities 

in hard copy. States are given the flexibility to choose any method to establish joint 

access. Whichever way the States choose to establish partnership or joint access to the 

information, it must meet the reporting deadline specified in the statute, that is, March 1. 
32

To accomplish this, States may want to revise the State right-to-know program to require 

facilities to submit Tier II or the State equivalent form before March 1 so that States will 

have enough time to provide access to the other two entities by March 1, therefore 

meeting the statutory deadline. EPA assumes that most of the States do have the 

capability to provide timely access to the Tier II information to LEPCs and the fire 

departments since these States are already requiring electronic submissions from 

facilities. 

As mentioned earlier in this document, forming partnerships or joint access is not 

a requirement. Prior to the 1998 proposed rule, some States and local agencies have 

requested EPA to provide flexibility to implement the program as necessary in each State. 

EPA responded to that request by providing draft guidance in the preamble to the 

proposed rule. EPA specifically stated that States may choose any of the reporting 

options provided whether or not EPA finalize the guidance. EPA is aware that some 

States already adopted some of the options provided in the proposed guidance. 

B.6. Use of MOUs or other written documents to form partnership programs

Commenters were divided on whether MOUs or written documents would be needed.

 The partnerships should be formally delineated through MOUs. [034]

 One database, maintained by the SERC, would seem to preclude the need for formal 

partnerships or MOUs. [061]

 Would establishment of a formal MOU for management of information allow SERCS, 

LEPCs, or fire departments to direct submittals to other locations? (Presently, SERCS, 

LEPCs, and fire departments can forward reports to a central agency or organization for 

processing after they are received. Could they simply be directed to that central location 

to begin with?)

EPA has the authority to establish infinite thresholds for certain substances. Could this 

authority be used to establish infinite thresholds for all substances for reporting to an 

LEPC or a fire department if they have entered into a formal MOU for collection and 

management of the information by another entity? [104]

 Requiring written information and public notice of such partnerships places a burden 

where none is necessary. If partnerships are established, the notices should appear in the 

SERC/LEPC industry inventory instruction books. [129]

 Some type of paper submission will probably continue to be necessary during the 

foreseeable future. Use of MOUs seems too limiting. Perhaps the terminology could 

include partnership agreements and contracts. [129]
33

 We endorse the principle that such agreements should be in writing, thus defining 

expectations and providing facilities protection. [140]

Agency Response

The proposed option to have MOUs or other written documents showing the roles 

and responsibilities of each entity may be needed for assuring the regulated community

that submitting Tier II to one entity would satisfy the reporting requirements under 

EPCRA section 312. The States are given the flexibility to develop any written 

agreement as necessary. 

B.7. Restricting participation in partnerships

 Initially, only Tier II reports that do not contain confidential information should be 

allowed. Those requesting confidential status should be instructed to continue to submit 

their “confidential location forms “as they have in the past. This would prevent 

accidental or hacker access of information which companies wish to have protected. 

[119]

Agency Response

Those States that wish to form partnerships should determine how they would like 

to handle reports that contain confidential location information.

B.8. Technical database management issues

Commenters raised a number of issues related to database management. Several 

stated that a single standard is needed; if each develops its own standard, the burden on 

industry will increase. Other comments repeated concerns about the costs of databases 

and the LEPCs’ and fire departments’ lack of access. One commenter sought guidance 

on how long records must be maintained.

 Because the CAMEO system is already in place in many fire departments, LEPCs, and 

SERCs, any electronic databases should be compatible with that system. [011]

 EPA should be aware that letters referencing previous submittals would not be 

compatible with electronic databases and would require manual updating. If the EPA is 

serious about building electronic databases, the issue of referencing previous submittals 

by letter might have to be revisited. [011, 031]

 If EPA adopts an electronic submission requirement, that requirement should take into 

account the data transfer needs of local and state agencies -- insure that they interface 

with CAMEO, for example. Having a electronic form is little better than paper if it 

cannot be processed in the existing software system. That requirement would better be 

left to the states, leaving the SERCs to determine the appropriate electronic form software 

to be used. [048]
34

 Facilities submitting Tier II information could vary as much as 52 different ways, 

depending on the various requirements of each state. This variety can be standardized if 

this electronic database is maintained centrally by EPA or another agency. This approach 

would provide consistent information especially if the database would rejects incomplete 

electronic data submissions. [123]

 We are very concerned because Ohio requires a map as a part of its Tier II submission. 

Fire officials have repeatedly commented that these site maps are one of the top items 

that make EPCRA inventory reports useful to them. Ohio has recently placed its industry

instruction book on its home page with downloadable forms. However, we are still four 

or five years away from being able to handle site maps electronically.

In an under-funded program, it will be complicated to take advantage of electronic 

submissions. Many volunteer fire departments (and some companies) may never have 

official Internet access to use the inventories in an emergency. [129]

 Someone will need to agree to house and maintain the database for all current recipients. 

[129]

 With EPCRA now in its tenth or eleventh year, the paper reports are beginning to become 

somewhat of a problem. As we continue our efforts to have an active compliance 

program subsequently receiving more and more reports annually, we find that we are 

searching for ways to manage the files. How long do we absolutely have to keep the 

facility records in hard copy or original copy sent to us by the facilities? After a few 

years, can we scan the section 312 reports into the computer and dispose of the original?

What we would like to do is be able to scan the 312 report onto the computer and save it 

either to floppy or to CD. This would solve our storage problems and also still allow us 

to access the facility records for future information requests or compliance questions. 

This is an item that needs to be included in the LEPC Procedure Manual. [129a]

 One option for a jointly accessed data base would be to define a standard file format. The 

file could then be imported into the data management tool of each organization’s choice. 

The recipients of the information (SERC, LEPC, and fire department) could make 

relevant decisions regarding what information is important for their specific needs. If 

properly developed, with the participation of all involved organizations (i.e., a joint 

partnership), comprehensive inventory and hazard information would be available in an 

easily managed format. The partnership could establish and refine the format for the 

electronic data, and provide ongoing support with development of data management 

tools. [133]

Agency Response

As stated earlier in this document, since the proposed rule was published, EPA 

has developed an electronic reporting system, Tier2 Submit which is compatible with 
35

CAMEO. EPA is also aware that some States also developed their own reporting system 

which is compatible with CAMEO. 

The commenter raised that EPA should maintain the reporting system rather than 

each State requiring submission created by each State. EPCRA was created to prepare 

and protect the public from emergency release of extremely hazardous substances. Since 

EPCRA requires LEPC to develop emergency response plans for each community, the 

States and the locals need the information reported under EPCRA. Therefore, the States 

are given the flexibility to implement the program as necessary for each community in 

their State. Further, the statute requires facilities to submit information to the SERC, 

LEPC and the fire department. 

There is no requirement under EPCRA section 312 for facilities or for the 

implementing agencies about recordkeeping. States may include this requirement in the 

State right-to-know regulations if the States wish to do so. 

C. Electronic Submittal for EPCRA Sections 311 and 312 Reporting

Since the beginning of the EPCRA program, the Agency encouraged States to 

implement the program as necessary to meet the goals of EPCRA, to prepare and respond 

to emergency releases of extremely hazardous substances and provide information on 

potential chemical risks in their community. States were given the flexibility to 

implement the program such as adding more chemicals, setting lower reporting 

thresholds, etc. Over the years, States have expressed that handling thousands of hard 

copy submissions of Tier I/II form is too much burden on them. So some States have 

requested EPA to allow them to create an electronic reporting format for facilities to use 

for complying with EPCRA section 312. Electronic reporting would also reduce burden 

on facilities since they don’t have to re-create most of the information from year to year. 

Facilities would have to enter most of the information on the Tier II form only in the first 

year and then revise the information as needed in subsequent years. Also, in order to 

achieve the option discussed in the previous section of this document, joint access, 

electronic reporting is necessary if the State choose to do so. 

Many commenters supported electronic submittals. Some supported it, but noted 

that it would not be practical for many LEPCs, fire departments, and smaller facilities. A 

number of commenters opposed the idea because of the burden on state and local 

agencies. Other commenters provided support for and ideas about certification for 

electronic submissions.

Support

 By allowing programs for streamlined submittal and joint access to section 311 and 312 

information, electronic submittal, reporting only changes in information rather than 

complete new inventories each year, and allowing RCA UST reports to fulfill EPCRA 

section 312 requirements, facilities may be more inclined to comply with reporting 
36

requirements and work with state and local regulatory agencies. This also would lessen 

the impact on those agencies required to maintain information regarding community right 

to know and extremely hazardous substances. [012]

 Submittal of Tier II reports in an electronic format is a good idea. This information 

should then be immediately accessible to update CAMEO and GIS maps. Reporting Tier 

II information that loads directly onto commonly used software for emergency

management will provide an incentive for the LEPC to promote electronic Tier II 

reporting. The file required for mapping has a DBF suffix. [018]

 We have no problems with electronic submission of section 311-312 information. [020]

 We support electronic submittal, the incorporation of previous submissions, electronic 

access to facility MSDSs and using section 312 to fulfill the section 311 requirements. 

These proposals are much needed advancements to streamline the reporting process and 

eliminate confusion. [096]

 We believe that sources should have the option of submitting the required EPCRA 

information electronically. Such an approach has been effective in reducing the 

paperwork burden under other EPA reporting regulations. [101]

 In 1995, Delaware initiated a pilot project to accept Tier II information electronically 

from reporting facilities. Using a contractor, we modified the federal Tier II software to 

incorporate state-specific requirements and the results of industry comments. Aside from 

the same basic data capabilities of the federal software, the Delaware Tier II software 

conducts state-specific edit checks, generates error reports, calculates state reporting fees, 

generates a fee summary, and generates a certification letter to accompany the submitted 

diskettes. Additionally, the software was designed to export directly to our state 

CAMEO system. For facilities that wish to report electronically using their own 

software, we provide them with information on the required data structure and format so 

they can mirror submittals from Delaware Tier II.

For the first two years, we slowly expanded distribution of the software. This year, we 

offered the software to all reporting facilities in Delaware. To assist facilities that wished 

to submit electronically but did not have the necessary computer capabilities, computers 

and the software were made available at the LEPC offices. Out of approximately 1240 

facilities which reported chemicals in inventory for 1997, approximately 520 (or roughly 

42 percent) submitted electronically on diskette. 

Any facility reporting electronically must submit a diskette containing the Tier II data 

alone with a signed certification letter to our central EPCRA Reporting Program. If an 

owner or operator is submitting reports for multiple facilities, all information may be 

included on one diskette. However, a certification letter must be signed for each facility. 

Delaware also requires facilities to include site plot plans along with Tier II reports (these 

are scanned into the system and made available to all users along with the rest of the 

data). Presently, these are submitted on paper along with the diskettes, but we are 
37

attempting to establish guidelines allowing electronic submission of these as well. A 

facility may use the Delaware Tier II software to report under section 311, but in most 

cases a written letter is sent.

Concerning confidential location information, facilities simply enter this information in 

the software the same as non-confidential information. However, there is a check box in 

the software for facilities to identify the location descriptions being claimed confidential. 

When transferred into our main system, the confidential designation is transferred along 

with the corresponding data. If a public request is received for information on a facility 

which reported electronically, the information is either printed from our main CAMEO 

system or from the Delaware Tier II software after loading the facility’s data from the 

diskette. During printing, the confidential information is excluded. Handling 

confidential information within electronic submittals on diskette has not posed a problem.

Delaware has been considering the option of direct on-line submission and would like to 

move in that direction. The primary obstacle is the certification issue. With respect to 

electronic reporting, this is the main area where EPA guidance is necessary. [104]

 We support electronic submittal of data, in that it has been found to improve data quality 

and provides some reduction of burden for reporting facilities. The submission of 

EPCRA section 313 data in an electronic format has provided several benefits. These 

data are submitted on disk with a cover letter (as described in option 2), which fulfills the 

signatory requirements. For disk submittal, there are several issues which have surfaced 

which may be common to electronic data management for EPCRA sections 311 and 312. 

These include the following:

(1) Software modifications should be implemented a minimum of 9 months 

prior to the reporting deadline. This would allow adequate time to modify any

relevant data management systems within the reporting facility or corporate data 

systems from which data on the report is extracted. It would also allow adequate 

time to correct any program errors in the software which may affect the integrity

of the reported data (such as occurred with the 1996 TRI AFR).

(2) A mechanism for facility verification of the data, as loaded and managed 

by the regulatory agency or other entity managing the data, is essential. The 

necessity for this has been highlighted by the observation of discrepancies in data 

among various databases which are currently using TRI data. Errors have been 

uncovered in public databases for TRI data, facility location coordinates, and 

other environmental data reported to and managed by state and federal agencies.

(3) The electronic submission of data through the more direct approach 

described in option 1 (Internet) could include certification through the appropriate

application of a Personal Identification Number. There are also several other 

issues which require resolution prior to implementation, such as date of receipt, 

integrity of transmission, point of transfer, and confidential business information 

security. [106]
38

 State and local agencies should be able to require their own versions of the Tier I and II 

forms, as long as the minimum information required by EPCRA is included. We are also 

in agreement that electronic versions of the Tier I and II should be acceptable, as long as 

these forms meet the minimum standards established by EPCRA. [118]

 We accept electronic submissions of Tier II data on computer disk (using the Tier II for 

Windows software) at this time. We require that facilities submit their computer disks 

along with a signed cover sheet form that contains a certification statement, but we do not 

allow submission of this information via the Internet because we lack the resources for 

this option. However, we would like to pursue such options in future, so any guidance 

that would allow electronic “signatures” would be desirable to allow flexibility in the 

future of our program. [118]

 We strongly support the development and use of sound electronic reporting that places 

minimum burdens on facilities, fire departments, LEPCs, and the SERC. We support 

electronic reporting, minimization of impact on facilities, etc. We have been far less 

concerned with the certification requirements than the information provided on the 

reports. We strongly support EPA’s resolution to overcome this apparent block to 

include exploring the use of electronic signatures over Internet secured lines. [122]

 We support EPA’s proposed guidance to allow electronic submission of MSDS and Tier 

II reports to reduce the paperwork burdens under EPCRA section 311-312. We suggest 

that EPA allow electronic reporting to the SERCs, giving the SERCs the responsibility of 

making the reports available to LEPCs and fire departments. [137]

 We strongly support electronic submittal of the reports required. We currently use 

electronic submittal via the EPA provided software, Tier2Win, in North and South 

Carolina. All our submittals are via diskette with a letter containing a written 

certification and signature. [139]

 Electronic submittal for EPCRA section 311 and 312 information is a good idea that will 

assist SERCs and LEPCs in more timely processing of annual inventory reports and 

allow for the automated accessibility of chemical specific data during emergency

operations. Electronic submittal will also increase the GIS capabilities of many

jurisdictions tasked with the management of EPCRA information. However, EPA needs 

to take the lead on this process to insure compatibility of the systems used across state 

and local jurisdictional boundaries. Also, most of the states do not accept electronic or 

magnetic media submissions at this time and have no source of funding to acquire the 

necessary equipment and software for this capability. [147]

 We strongly support any initiatives to streamline EPCRA sections 311 and 312 reporting. 

In particular, we support the concept of allowing facilities to submit joint reports to 

satisfy the requirement to file reports with the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department. 

We support efforts to allow electronic reporting of sections 311 and 312 data, whether on 

disk or by electronic submission. [153]
39

 We support EPA’s proposals to streamline submission of information under EPCRA 

sections 311 and 312. Electronic submission of information would reduce the burdens of 

reporting and facilitate prompt reporting. In the case of many SERCs, LEPCs, and fire 

departments, it is likely that electronic submission would facilitate prompt and ready

access to the information. [L05]

Support with reservations/suggestions

 We support moving forward with electronic submittals as long as SERCs and LEPCs 

have the capability of downloading the information. [062, 133]

 EPA indicates in its proposal that it is considering the development of guidance on 

electronic submittal to satisfy EPCRA section 311-312 reporting. Specifically, EPA is 

considering allowing the submittal of this information via the Internet. In general, we 

support the flexibility of allowing electronic submission in addition to other more 

traditional means. For example, we support submitting data on disks as a method of 

reporting. We have some general concerns about electronic submission of data via the 

Internet. We support EPA’s statement that it is not considering receiving trade secret 

information electronically; this is appropriate given the very nature of the information 

(i.e., secret) and the very nature of the Internet (i.e., insecure). Moreover, we have some 

general concerns about use of the Internet as a mechanism to submit required reporting 

without some protections that the e-mail submissions actually were received. 

Unfortunately, the reality today is that some e-mail is never received; it gets lost 

somewhere out there in cyberspace. A facility can take little comfort that their submittal 

has been received so that they are then in compliance if such submittals are forever lost in 

a cyber black hole. We recognize that indeed this could also be an issue in using U.S. 

Mail for the delivery of required submittals. However, many facilities protect themselves 

by using the “Return Receipt Requested” service which allows for some comfort that the 

required submittal has reached its appropriate destination. EPA might want to consider a 

similar mechanism for Internet submittals such as an electronic receipt of information. In 

addition, EPA should still allow facilities to comply the old-fashioned way (U.S. Mail) or 

some other electronic form (i.e., disks) in addition to the submitting via the Internet 

should the Agency finalize this aspect of the rulemaking. [113]

 We are generally supportive of electronic submittal. Again, this is a three-party

agreement, and one party may need a paper record. [129]

 We commend EPA’s efforts to develop guidance on electronic submittal for sections 311 

and 312 reporting. However, to provide burden reduction EPA needs to improve 

electronic data transfer and reduce or eliminate the need to mail diskettes, hard copies, 

and certification statements. [133]

 We generally believe that electronic submittal of information would improve the 

accuracy and timeliness of data collection and submittal, but would not necessarily result 

in any significant reduction in reporting burden upon regulated facilities. The facility 
40

would need to complete the form via a computer, then either forward it electronically or 

copy it to a disk, complete a hard copy certification, and mail this entire package. 

Additionally, the number of SERCs, LEPCs, and local fire departments that have the 

capability to receive an electronic submission is probably very small, at least at this time. 

EPA’s partnership program discussed in the preamble could stimulate progress on the 

part of these entities in enhancing electronic data transfer.

 Electronic filing of EPCRA information would best be facilitated by an EPA-sponsored 

program that provided a standard data interface for an Internet Web site. The 

development cost would be minimal, data collection would meet EPA requirements, and 

localities could decide to participate if they had the hardware available to set up a Web 

site. [167, 180]

 We are in favor of EPA developing guidelines on the electronic submittal of diskettes to 

satisfy EPCRA sections 311 and 312 reporting. Our LEPC does have the capability for 

receiving and processing electronically submitted data (diskettes), however, some of the 

issues faced by our LEPC include 1) Tier II information not being compatible with our 

current software and 2) securing the integrity of our information system (corruption).

Submission through the Internet, while still requiring mailing of the certification, seems 

to defeat the purpose. One possible way for electronic certification would be to develop 

software that would need the owner or designated to approve the submission by assigning 

it a Personal Identification Number (PIN) that was preregistered with the appropriate 

agencies. [174]

 Although not currently in place, we welcome the opportunity to receive electronically 

submitted forms for all three entities (SERC, LEPC, and fire departments). The only

challenge would be how to forward the information to those organizations that do not 

have electronic capabilities at this time and the establishment of a secure network where 

all of the entities would have access. [L03]

Oppose

 For our LEPC, computer-generated Tier II forms are accepted if written inventory

amounts in pounds or gallons and written storage information are provided on the form. 

Companies and government agencies have no problem with adding this information with 

computers. I believe total electronic submittal is about five years away. I can’t support 

this proposal. [006]

 In regards to electronic submissions of section 311 and 312 information, I think that there 

are LEPCs who feel that they cannot handle this type of submission. Remember that 

LEPC members are volunteers and most are older individuals not accustomed to 

computers. Our office is computer-driven, but even I have some problem in getting 

information to download into CAMEO. [007]
41

 Again, you are being lobbied by large, affluent companies who want reporting done 

electronically. You must remember that exceedingly few LEPCs and fire stations have 

the capability of receiving electronic reports. Your proposal to have a common reporting 

station and disbursement of information to SERCs, fire departments, and LEPCs 

absolutely will not function. As an example, none of the fourteen fire departments in this 

county have the capability to accept electronic reports.

Further, the companies lobbying for electronic reporting should remember that prior to 

making an electronic report, it is necessary to have the information on paper. That paper 

report can easily be disbursed to the appropriate departments. [010]

 We are NOT in favor of electronic submission of section 311 and 312 reports. [112]

 Until LEPCs and fire departments, especially the more rural volunteer fire departments 

and smaller local government fire departments have the equipment and training to 

receive, file, and retrieve such information, it would be best to require hard copy reports. 

[165]

 There are large numbers of local fire departments and LEPCs that are not able to support 

electronic filing of data. They don’t have the computer hardware, software, or personnel. 

For those looking at enforcement actions, the certification issue becomes critical. What 

happens if a virus is included that corrupts an entire database? It could happen. For those 

not able to accept electronic filing, an alternative method must be available.

There also are large numbers of facilities which are not able to support electronic filing of

data. They don’t have the computer hardware, software, or personnel. An alternative 

method must be available.

Maine considers the virus issue to be very important. Also, for those states with state 

forms, financial assistance and technical support would be needed to implement a 

diskette submission system. The certification issue mentioned above might be resolved 

by diskette submission with accompanying certification.

The issue of confidential location information would have to be addressed and resolved.

The proposal may simplify reporting for some, but it will not for others. There will be no 

impact on preserving public health and safety benefits. The proposal may reduce costs 

somewhat to individuals, businesses and government. There will be no impact on 

EPCRA’s environmental goals. Flexible options need to be available. This is not a 

proposal that one size fits all. The language is not the issue, so a rewrite in plain English 

to reduce regulatory burden and improve compliance is not the issue. [177]

 The electronic submission of reports will cause great and considerable damage to fire 

departments and LEPCs because most fire departments and LEPCs do not have the funds 

for electronic acceptance of any submission. If electronic submission is required, then 

section 311-312 reports should be totally scrapped; those reports will not be available to 
42

protect the public. In Richland County, none of the 14 fire departments have the 

capability to accept section 311-312 reports electronically. Unless it is the intent of EPA 

to provide the appropriate equipment to those entities, either scrap the idea or the entire 

reporting plan, which is supposed to protect the residents of the counties. The section 

311-312 reports, if reported electronically, would first have to be set down on paper and 

then submitted electronically, and would cause additional work for all persons. [OC-4]

 I do have a problem with electronic submittal; until the rules are changed, there is no way

the mom and pop operations can ever comply with having to submit the information 

electronically. [OC-7]

Agency Response

The Agency understands the concerns raised by the commenters on electronic 

reporting. Prior to the proposed rule, EPA received request from many States and local 

agencies that the Agency should develop an electronic reporting system so that the 

burden of information management at the State and local level will be reduced. These 

State and local agencies also requested EPA to provide flexibility to manage the EPCRA 

program, which includes allowing States to develop their own electronic reporting 

format. This is the reason that EPA provided draft guidance in the preamble to the 

proposed rule. In that preamble, EPA advised States and local agencies to choose any 

options provided that the statutory and regulatory requirements are met. As per EPA’s 

suggestions, many States have created their own electronic reporting format or use EPA’s 

electronic reporting format, Tier2 Submit. EPA is aware that some States now require 

on-line reporting or submission via diskettes. Only few States accept paper submissions 

of Tier II reports. EPA encourages States to accommodate those facilities that do not 

have the capabilities to submit Tier II electronically by allowing these facilities to submit 

paper copies of section 312 report. 

C.1. Certification

 Most organizations require a signature along with a statement that MSDSs for reported 

material are on site and available if requested, so a letter may have to be sent anyway. It 

appears that the signature block is eliminated, but it may still be required by 

organizations not recognizing electronic signatures. [123]

 Regarding certification, signing submissions to all three recipients seems unnecessary. In 

most cases, the signature recipient could be either the SERC or the LEPC. The 

organization that would be most likely to pursue enforcement could be designated by the 

state to receive the signature copy. Signed copies could be submitted once every three 

years with electronic copies being submitted in the interim years; unless an inventory

revision was made. Technically it would be beneficial if the certified revisions could be a 

part of the 311 submission as the SERC/LEPC/fire departments must be notified within 

ninety days (which is too long). By allowing this alternative, the March 1 burden to track 
43

changes would be diffused throughout the year. This would be a great benefit to all 

SERCs and LEPCS.

Regarding confidentiality, initially only Tier II reports that do not contain confidential 

information should be allowed. Those requesting confidential status should be instructed 

to continue to submit their “confidential location forms” as they have in the past. This 

would prevent accidental or hacker access of information which companies wish to have 

protected. [129]

 EPA is seeking comments on the certification statement related to the electronic 

submission. The need to certify electronic submissions is a common element associated 

with other forms of electronic submissions. In recent years, the IRS has allowed 

individuals to submit annual Federal income tax reports electronically. The IRS requires 

the submission of a signed certification statement (IRS Form 8453-0L). To avoid the 

need for this certification submittal, EPA might consider:

(1) Requiring the facility to retain a signed certification at the facility with 

other documentation supporting the report. This certification statement would be 

available for review by federal, state, or local authorities; or alternatively,

(2) Deleting the requirement altogether for the certification statement. The 

certification statement appears to be a regulatory requirement and not specifically

required by the statute. It would appear to be within EPA’s authority to delete 

this requirement and allow the report submitted by the facility to stand on its own. 

Lack of a certification statement would not appear to have an effect upon an 

enforcement action taken for failure to provide the required information. [133]

 We endorse the use of a certification letter accompanying disk submittal of reporting 

information in that several North Carolina LEPCs and the NC SERC currently use this 

method. The NC SERC is not currently prepared to receive information via the Internet. 

As our program matures, Internet access will be carefully considered. While there are 

needs for public access, our requests for information from the public have been moderate 

over the years, and our Division of Emergency Management is carefully considering the 

threat of terrorist activities, which could be advanced with Internet access to Tier II 

information. [140]

 Connecticut has implemented a program that allows facilities to file TIER II reports by

computer disk utilizing the EPA’s Tier II software. The disks must be accompanied by a 

signed certification sheet and a site plan. This program has been very successful. [145]

 In the short term, the concept of mailing a signed certification statement to the reporting 

authority, either with a report disk or to follow electronic submission, is appropriate. In 

the longer term, we would invite EPA to consider mechanisms by which reporting could 

be done totally electronically without a separate mailing of a certification statement. In 

any case, we request that EPA (or reporting entities) develop regulations or policies 

which allow facilities to annually submit a single certification statement to a central body
44

(such as the SERC), rather than requiring that a separate certification statement be sent to 

each reporting entity. [153]

 Submission on a diskette with a signed form is ridiculous. Handling the paper is already 

a burden, adding 700 - 800 diskettes is more burdensome. Development of a signed 

statement that a facility can place on file with the locality that will remain valid until the 

authorized person at the facility changes would be preferable. Reporting facilities rarely 

submit fraudulent information so a signed inventory form is little proof of completeness.

Tier II confidential location information could continue to be submitted on paper unless a 

SERC or LEPC provided a secure Web server to handle those transactions. [167, 180]

Agency Response

As stated above, although the Agency did not finalize the guidance, many States have been 

implementing some of the reporting options provided in the preamble, including electronic 

reporting, either on-line or via diskettes. EPA is aware that those States that accept the 

hazardous chemical inventory form via diskettes are accepting the certification statement that 

contains an original signature on paper along with their diskettes. Several States are in the 

process of developing on-line systems for facilities to submit their form under Section 312. 

These systems would allow for facilities to submit all of their information, including 

certification, on-line. 

At the time the proposed guidance was published in June 1998, on-line submittal and 

certification were not available options for reporting under Section 312. In order to continue to 

provide flexibility to States in implement EPCRA and reduce information management burden, 

EPA is providing guidance to those States that currently require or may want to implement online reporting to establish procedures as necessary for accepting electronic signature and 

certification. For the purposes of Section 312 reporting, original signature could include “wet” 

signatures or electronic certifications. Thus, States may use any system for collecting chemical 

inventory information under Section 312 which continues to ensure the information is true, 

accurate, and complete and allows States to effectively and efficiently manage chemical risks 

and provide information to the public. 
45

D. Incorporation of Previous Submissions into EPCRA Section 312 Reporting

Under EPCRA section 312, facilities are required to submit Tier II report or the 

State equivalent form to the SERC, LEPC and the fire department annually whether or

not they have changes in the information submitted in previous year. In order to reduce

burden on facilities that do not have any changes in data from previous year submission,

EPA suggested few options in order to meet the requirements under EPCRA

section 312 without having to re-create the information. 

One approach suggested in the draft guidance would be for the facility to simply

reference and attach a copy of the unchanged information from the previous year’s

submittal to the current year’s submission. This would mean that the facility would have

to retain a copy of its previous submission. A second approach would be for the facility

to reference previous submittals already retained by the SERC, LEPC and local fire

department. A third approach would require only if the information changed.

Support 

A number of commenters supported the idea of limiting reporting to changes and 

a certification that no change has occurred.

 When a facility’s chemical inventory remains the same as the previous reporting year, we 

believe that a letter referencing the previous submittal would be sufficient. If changes to 

contacts or owner have occurred, these could be stated in the letter. However, if the 

chemical inventory changes, that change should require an entirely new Tier I or II form, 

not just the changes, to be submitted. [011, 031]

 By reporting only changes in information rather than complete new inventories each year, 

facilities may be more inclined to comply with reporting requirements and work with 

state and local regulatory agencies. This also would lessen the impact on those agencies 

required to maintain information regarding community right to know and extremely

hazardous substances. [012]

 I propose a possible option to save work and paper in annual reporting for everyone 

involved in Tier Two reports. The SERC, LEPC, and fire departments should keep 

previous year reports until current Tier Two forms are submitted, even past the March 1 

deadline. A sticker would be attached to the previous year Tier II form, signed and dated, 

if there are no changes. The cost of printing stickers, which are similar to postal stamps 

(perforated and has backing) should not be prohibitive. [032]

 We support the concept of allowing a facility to incorporate by reference information 

from a previous year’s submission if it has not changed. Because we retain information 

received from submissions from previous years, this provision would not represent an 

increase in our record handling. [058]
46

 This proposal is essentially what Wisconsin is now doing with the preprinted Tier II 

report form. Facilities review the most recent submission, make any changes if 

necessary, and sign the form. Although this could be done without using a preprinted 

form, experience indicates that many facilities do not retain records of previous 

submissions and would not have these forms available for a later review or comparison. 

This would also complicate EPCRA record keeping in that a record for a Tier II 

submission that is many years old may be the current submission. Provided that this 

remains an option, we have no objection to this certification. [061]

 We believe that allowing the incorporation of previously submitted reports to satisfy

certain annual EPCRA requirements will help streamline the reporting obligations and 

cut down on the flow of needless paperwork. [96, 101, 116, L05, OC-7]

 We are in favor of allowing facilities to limit their annual Tier II reports by only

submitting that information that has changed from the previous year. However, it is 

critical that EPA’s guidance indicate that SERCs, LEPCs, and fire departments are 

authorized to approve or disapprove such submissions, because this limited information 

would be of little value if the receiving entities cannot access the previous years of 

information via a computer database. At this time, we could not accept such 

submissions. However, we have a long-term goal to develop electronic databases of this 

information, so such report submissions could be feasible in the future. We recommend 

that facilities be required to submit some type of documentation of report even if their 

inventories do not change from year to year. This mechanism would allow SERCs, 

LEPCs, and fire departments to better track information. [118]

 We agree that allowing owner/operators to submit an original once every three years 

would provide relief in unnecessary reporting of duplicate information. If there have 

been no changes to their facility identification form, on their Tier II report or their site 

map the owner/operator should be allowed to check off a “no change from the last year” 

box and submit only a newly signed facility ID form. [119]

 Regarding the incorporation of previous submissions, we concur that the burden on 

LEPCs, fire departments, and SERCs will be reduced. The facility should be required to 

maintain reports that are being referenced. In Arizona we maintain forms for three 

reporting years. Would EPA entertain a tri-annual (every three years) reporting cycle? 

From a data and program management perspective if there are annual reports, something 

should be received from the covered facility to indicate comprehension of requirements. 

This should be either: 1) a new report is submitted; 2) a letter is submitted indicating “no 

change;” or 3) a “changes only” report that follows Tier II formatting and that must have 

owner/operator information listed is submitted. [122]

 Ohio’s rules allow owner/operators to submit an original once every three years. In the 

interim, if there have been no changes to their facility identification form, their Tier II 

report, or their site map, they may check off a “no change from the last year” box and 

submit only a newly signed facility ID form. Ohio’s forms may be viewed on our home 

page at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/derr/derrmain.html. [129]
47

 We support EPA’s proposed guidance to allow a reduced reporting obligation under 

EPCRA section 312 when a facility’s Tier I and Tier II reports have remained 

substantially unchanged from the previous reporting year. We support EPA’s second 

option which would allow a facility to submit a one-page certification statement that 

incorporates by reference the previous year’s submittal, indicating any changes to the 

previous year’s report. This option reduces the reporting obligation in a more meaningful 

way than the first option, which would require facilities to attach a copy of the previous 

year’s report. Submitting substantially the same reports each year imposes an 

unnecessary burden on the reporting facility and the regulatory agencies that receive the 

reports. [137]

 We support the first option, which requires that the facility have on hand its prior report 

which facilitates annual review to assure that no changes have, in fact, occurred. [141]

 We encourage EPA to require reporting only changes in information annually rather than 

a new Tier II form for every chemical stored or used each year. [142]

 While it is appropriate for a facility to reference previous submittals retained by the 

SERC, LEPC, and the local fire department, the facility making the reference should be 

required to specifically describe the document, by date or other appropriate means, so 

that the SERC, LEPC, or fire department can easily determine whether or not they are in 

possession of the document. Specific description is also critical to public use of the 

information. [152]

Oppose

A number of commenters oppose the proposal to allow reporting only when 

changes have occurred with annual certifications. They stated that this approach could 

increase the burden for agencies because previous years’ file would need to maintained 

and referenced. Others said that facilities probably would forget to report and would 

consider changes unimportant.

 Speaking from experience, the LEPC may not receive ownership changes, new site plans 

if remodeling occurs, tanks are replaced, restaurants added, etc. With computers or 

creative copies, this isn’t a real problem. I do not agree with this proposal. [006]

 When reviewing the idea of allowing submissions of only changes of information, rather 

than submitting section 312 information each year, I think some facilities would forget to 

file the information. Some forget to file now unless they are reminded. We need to send 

letters each year to about one-third of our filers to remind then that they have forgotten to 

file. So I am almost sure that this would just make matters worse for LEPCs. I further 

think that some facilities will think that some changes are so small that they don’t report 

them because then they have to do all the paper work then. Unless yearly reporting is 

mandatory, most will not make the necessary changes as they happen. 
48

We believe that making any changes just sets a precedent for other industry

classifications to make requests and lobby to be eliminated from reporting. This will 

have a detrimental effect on the public’s ability to know what is in the community, and 

will leave emergency responders guessing as to what might and might not be involved in 

an emergency. [007]

 There are two major concerns under Section 312(a)(1)and (2). One is that the facilities 

can use Tier I form to report their chemicals on the premises and the other concern is that 

owner or operator of any facility will not be required to report yearly their hazardous 

chemicals under OSHA inventory requirements. I do not agree with only using Tier I 

forms and the proposed change of eliminating yearly reporting requirements. Tier I 

information has only quantitative physical hazards characteristics of the chemicals 

located on the facilities premises; this is very vague information. This form does not 

identify the name of the chemical nor the characteristics of the chemical, nor the exact 

location.

Tier II discloses the pertinent information about the specific chemical, the location, the 

quantity, and the type of hazard that the chemical poses. If the responders know the 

name of the chemical, there are several references they can use to obtain the information 

needed when responding to an incident. The generic information does not identify the 

type of protective equipment that the fire fighters should wear, the method of 

extinguishing a fire, or other issues that are identified in the MSDS. Having the terms 

“immediate” or “delayed” for health hazards does not identify what type of health 

conditions to be aware of nor what type of medical assistance can be given if exposed to 

the chemical.

The other issue is not reporting yearly, after facilities have initial reported their chemical 

information. If the facilities do not have to report every year on a Tier II form, the 

pertinent information is not being reviewed and updated. Facilities, now, have to take the 

time to review their information and report. This forces them to consciously go over all 

of the report and correct the information. Facilities experience changes in personnel as 

well as changes in the quantities of the chemicals manufactured, used, or stored on the 

premises. The reporting requirements are another check and balance system for the 

facilities to determine if they are using less of the chemicals and/or using chemicals that 

are not classified as extremely hazardous. These are two of the objectives of EPCRA: to 

inform the community about the chemicals in their community and to encourage facilities 

to manufacture, use, or store less of the extremely hazardous chemicals or identify

alternative chemicals that are not as hazardous. [013]

 This proposal sounds good, but there are some considerations. How long can a company 

go before a revised new listing or report must be submitted? A continuous flow of 

change only information could bog down the system, and, at some point, the accuracy of 

facility inventory may be totally without merit. Further, if this proposal is adopted, the 

responsibility for all information (including content of report, frequency of report, and 

accuracy of report) must be the total responsibility of the facility. A statement to this 
49

effect should be part of any facility’s inventory listing submitted to meet section 312 

requirements. [014]

 The LEPC needs comprehensive and immediately accessible information about each 

hazardous materials storage site. Filing a complete Tier II report each year meets those 

needs. Referencing past reports requires several documents for a complete list and 

requires unnecessary use of LEPC time that is saved by filing a complete report each 

year. [018]

 We do not support the proposed change that allows facilities to submit a section 312 

report only when changes in inventory occur. This policy is not in the best interest of 

either the public or the response agencies involved. Given human nature and our 

understanding of the general nature of organizations, we believe that if the routine, 

annual requirement to report is lifted, over time very few reports will ever be submitted. 

This will result in a loss of critical information, so central in the planning process. Many

of the changes in inventory will only be discovered after an incident occurs. Postincident discovery does little to contribute to pre-incident planning, and after all, planning 

is the central focus of EPCRA. [056]

 Kansas has not pursued the option to allow facilities to report only changes in 

information on the section 312 report each year. Our biggest concern would be that 

facilities would not report at all and indicate that there have not been any changes at their 

facilities since the previous year. [108]

 We are also NOT in favor of reporting only changes in information rather than submitting 

a new report, we believe that a new report is more valid than only changes. [112]

 We believe that EPA’s proposed option of only having to report on those chemicals for 

which the information has changed does not offer much relief for the regulated 

community or for the SERC, LEPC, or fire departments receiving the information. 

Assessing whether any of the conditions have changed is still required. Additionally, this 

option would require the facility to retain records of all reportable hazardous chemicals 

from the time that they were first reported. It would also require the SERC, LEPC, and 

local fire department to maintain an extensive history on each of the reporting facilities, 

which may be beyond the capabilities of organizations with limited budgets and 

resources. The idea of “incorporation by reference” puts additional burden on the SERC, 

LEPC, and fire department to track the most current information for a particular facility. 

Unless the entire Tier I or Tier II report remains exactly the same as the previous year, 

this practice could fragment a facility’s inventory data. EPA should retain the 

requirement for the facility to report annually on all of the hazardous chemicals that 

exceed the reporting threshold and do not fall within one or more of the reporting 

exemptions. [133]

 The NC SERC information management system is managed by yearly submittals of data, 

and it would be somewhat difficult to have to refer to previous years’ forms to have the 

most current data available. It would appear that having to prepare required certification 
50

that there were no changes is about as onerous as having to resubmit information, and we 

would be reluctant to use this reporting option. [140]

 We are opposed to the second option. The second option would allow a facility to simply

reference previous submittals without attaching the earlier report. It is conceivable that a 

facility could report thusly for several years. This would require the SERC, LEPC, and 

fire departments to maintain reports for like number of years to make sense of the 

facility’s reference to prior years’ submittals. The second option also makes it too easy

for a facility to report that no changes have occurred. [141]

 Incorporation of previous submissions into EPCRA section 312 reporting is a bad idea. It

could be cumbersome to maintain the files needed to verify the original submission of 

information incorporated into a new report. Questions of certification and records 

retention would have to be addressed. [147]

 It would be preferable to have reports filed annually so that there is no mix-up as to what 

year the data applies. It would be too tempting to overlook minor changes. Also, there 

would be the question of legal liability for the LEPC if it assumed because it did not hear 

from a facility, the information was the same as last year, when it really wasn’t. This 

concept could also cause fire departments to make assumptions on outdated information, 

especially with regard to location of the various reportable materials. [165]

 Annual submissions should be a complete report. Annual submissions should not reflect 

only changes to previous Tier I and Tier II reports. This proposal will encourage 

businesses to report “No Change” to minimize costs associated with inventory reporting. 

Ultimately, this may place emergency responders in very dangerous situations. [167, 180]

 We would fully support accepting correspondence from the designated representative of a 

facility referencing that their Tier II submission has not changed from the previous year. 

However, it would be unrealistic for an LEPC to accept the burden of being responsible 

to incorporate changes from one year to the next through any other means than a Tier II 

form. Therefore, it is our opinion that changes from year to year would require a new 

Tier II submission.

In regards to the first option of facilities referencing and attaching a copy of their 

previous year’s Tier II Submission, we currently have two large file cabinets and will be 

in need of another one to accommodate EPCRA section 311 and 312 submissions next 

year. For these reasons, it cannot support this type of duplication. [174]
51

 EPA should not burden SERCs, LEPCs, and fire departments with finding and 

incorporating the previous years’ reports. As EPA noted, this option increases burden on 

local entities and public data users. EPA incorrectly suggests that the public’s ability to 

request information from SERCs and LEPCs will preserve its right-to-know. However, 

the public’s right-to-know should not be limited to special requests. Effective electronic 

reporting would enable facilities to easily incorporate previous submissions into EPCRA 

electronic reports. EPA should promote the development of “intelligent” software that 

enables facilities to automatically incorporate and update previously reported 

information. [097]

 States that use Tier I forms may find this viable. Tier II form users will find it less so. 

States with state forms that require more information than either of them would find this 

option less appealing. Less than 5 percent of the forms submitted have virtually no 

changes. Facilities in Maine are encouraged to retain copies of each year’s submissions 

to use for reference purposes, but nearly all have changes which require updating.

A major change occurs each year in the name of the person completing and signing the 

inventory form(s) from a single facility. The option of incorporating by reference data 

submitted in previous years assumes the certifier is responsible for the accuracy of prior 

information they had no role in developing or knowledge of.

The minimal reporting requirements under EPCRA are not sufficient to provide 

information necessary for the development of LEPC emergency response plans. LEPCs 

are expected to seek additional information from a myriad of sources to accomplish the 

planning tasks, but they are volunteer groups often with tenuous leadership and minimal 

resources. As a result, many are non-functioning. The importance of sufficient 

information is vital. Minimizing the reporting requirements may be beneficial to 

businesses, but it weakens the likelihood that LEPCs are going to effectively accomplish 

the tasks they are mandated to do. EPA needs to ask if some of these proposed changes 

benefit the intent of EPCRA for protecting the public by enabling LEPCs to meet their 

responsibilities. Perhaps minimizing reporting requirements to benefit business is not the 

appropriate goal. Business provides the risk to the public by manufacturing, processing, 

shipping, storing, and using hazardous chemicals and extremely hazardous substances. 

This reporting is an important accountability responsibility. Don’t minimize it. [177]

 When a facility’s chemical inventory remains the same from the previous reporting year, 

we believe that a letter referencing the previous submittal would be sufficient. If changes 

to contacts or owner have occurred, these could be stated in the letter. However, if the 

chemical inventory changes, that should require an entire new Tier II form, with the 

changes highlighted, to be submitted. Be aware that letters referencing previous 

submittals would not be compatible with electronic databases and would require manual 

updating. If EPA is serious about building electronic databases, this issue of referencing 

previous submittals by letter might have to be revisited. [057]

 The approach EPA is taking on this is favorable, but suggest the incorporation of this 

guidance into the regulation. Legislation was passed last year in California to allow for 
52

certification of past years inventories. California OES has included the section of the 

Health and Safety Code that allows for certification for EPA’s review:

HSC 25503.3 (c): “Notwithstanding Section 25509, a business may comply with the 

annual inventory reporting requirements of this article by submitting a certification 

statement to the administering agency if both of the following apply:

(1) The business has previously filed the single comprehensive hazardous 

material reporting form required by subdivision (a) or the alternative form 

designated by the administering agency pursuant to subdivision (b).

(2) The business can attest to the statements set forth in paragraphs (1) to (4), 

inclusive, of subdivision (f) of Section 25501.

HSC 25501 (f): “Certification statement” means a statement signed by the business 

owner, operator, or officially designated representative that attests to all of the following:

i. The information contained in the annual inventory form most 

recently submitted to the administering agency is complete, 

accurate, and up to date.

ii. There has been no change in the quantity of any hazardous 

material as reported in the most recently submitted annual 

inventory form.

iii. No hazardous material subject to the inventory requirements of 

this chapter are being handled that are not listed on the most 

recently submitted annual inventory form.

iv. The most recently submitted annual inventory form contains 

the information required by section 11022 of Title 42 of the 

United States Code.”

Language similar to California’s should be placed into 40 CFR part 370 to allow for the 

incorporation of previous years submission into EPCRA 312 reporting. [L15]

 The Kentucky SERC retains previous submissions and could accommodate the proposal 

to report only changes if the changes are in writing, if certification by the facility is 

included, and if the facility submits in writing that there are no changes. However, the 

effect of this approach on LEPCs may be to create a burden that outweighs the benefits 

and we request more research on this point by EPA. [L13]

Agency Response
53

At the time of the proposal, States did not have electronic reporting method in 

place. In order to reduce the burden on facilities re-creating the same information that 

they submitted previously on paper, EPA proposed the option for incorporation of 

previous submissions. Now that many States have developed electronic reporting 

methods or are using Tier2 Submit developed by EPA, the burden on facilities re-creating 

information on paper does not exist for many facilities. Facilities can store their Tier II 

report electronically and revise as needed for next year. 

After reviewing the comments, EPA realizes that the option on incorporation of 

previous submissions may be no longer necessary since it may place burden on States and 

local agencies. Also, since electronic reporting is required in many States, the burden on 

facilities to re-create the information on paper every year is reduced.

Those States that still require Tier II or State equivalent form in paper, may want 

to consider this option of incorporation of previous submissions. This method may

reduce handling hundreds of papers. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, 

States may or may not choose any option that is provided to implement the program. 

Other comments 

A few commenters provided other comments on incorporating previous year’s forms by

reference. Several commenters raised questions about the length of time forms must be 

retained.

 We pride ourselves for being available to facilities requiring assistance when filing under 

this program. All reports received are reviewed for accuracy and the designated facility

emergency coordinator is contacted when any discrepancy is detected. Under this 

program, a facility that has no changes to emergency contacts or chemical inventory can 

simply submit the Facility Identification Form with ‘No Changes’ indicated in lieu of 

submitting a report in its entirety. There is no substantial reporting burden under this 

program. Your whole approach is patterned to ‘provide relief rather than look out for the 

best interests of emergency responders, emergency planners, and the general public. I

appear to have misunderstood EPA’s role ... or have you? [017]

 By eliminating the Dun & Bradstreet number, inventory codes, storage codes, and 

initiating a sticker for No Change, a more “user friendly” Tier II form would make it

easier for everyone to prepare and use. 

 Since EPA is soliciting comments, I will offer proposals for changes that I believe are 

beneficial to all who use the Tier II forms. The emergency responders using the forms at 

an incident shouldn’t have to search for information or calculate codes, even if they have 

Tables I, II and III as a guide. After all, the responders use the Tier II information on 

incidents, LEPCs must check for accuracy, and the others just file them. [032]
54

 While it is appropriate for a facility to reference previous submittals retained by the 

SERC, LEPC, and the local fire department, the facility making the reference should be 

required to specifically describe the document, by date or other appropriate means, so 

that the SERC, LEPC, or fire department can easily determine whether they are in 

possession of the document. A specific description is also critical to public use of the 

information. [100]

 We agree with the EPA guidance to clarify this option is available for implementation by

State and local organizations. It will probably not be an effective option. Both options 

suffer from the same basic problem. Incorporating individual pages or parts of pages 

from previous reports could prove very confusing to both the designated recipients of the 

data and the public when reviewing the submittals. After several years of updates only, 

determining a complete set of current information for a facility could even become 

confusing to the facility itself. Realistically, a complete submittal would still be 

necessary on a set schedule to ensure accuracy of the information.

The most significant problem is the lack of specific record keeping requirements. Under 

section 313, facilities are required to maintain records for a period of 3 years. It would be 

extremely beneficial if record keeping requirements were specified for other sections of 

EPCRA. Within the rulemaking, EPA implies that aside from reporting facilities, even 

SERCS, LEPCs, and fire departments are required to retain reports from prior years. If 

no one is required to maintain records of submissions, how can compliance be evaluated? 

This also raises another issue. Are public requests only valid for the most recent 

reporting year? If no one is required to maintain copies of reports, it would not be 

possible to fill public inquiries for any year other than the most recent reporting year? 

We strongly recommend that EPA address this issue. For consistency purposes, record 

keeping requirements similar to those outlined for section 313 should be considered.

If recordkeeping requirements were established, option 1 would be relatively easy to 

implement. Based on our experience, most facilities are maintaining copies of section 312 

submittals anyway. On an annual basis, it is evident that many submittals are simply

photocopies of previous submittals with any necessary changes made and new signatures 

applied.

As more and more facilities move toward electronic reporting, this will become less and 

less of an issue. When reporting electronically for the first time, facilities must enter all 

information into the system. For subsequent years, however, the process is simplified. 

All that is required is updating the previous year data already in the computer and 

downloading a new submission to diskette. [104]

 The issue of how long each party needs to retain the various EPCRA reports needs to be 

addressed. CERCLA calls for records generated by a facility concerning the release of a 

hazardous substance to be kept for 50 years. OSHA requires that records regarding 

employees health be kept for thirty years. At a minimum facility Tier II reports and any 

written reports generated under section 304 should be subject to the same length of record 

retention as OSHA. This will greatly aid those of us who are subject to title search 
55

requests. However, fire departments should not be required to retain the reports for 

longer than two years. The method of record storage should be open and allow those 

who wish to store the reports on microfilm or electronically to do so. [129]

 Regarding reporting only changes in information rather than submitting a new section 

312 inventory form each year, we propose to add the following: “In every ten (10) years 

(U.S. census years may be good years, e.g., 2000, 2010, 2020, etc.), a new full section 

312 inventory form is required.” This requirement will “force” or remind reporters to 

compile a refreshed inventory, which will help them maintain accurate and 

comprehensive data and help regulatory agencies and communities access to accurate and 

current data. Requiring only changes year after year indefinitely will create a tendency, 

in the long run, to neglect the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information. [132, 

OC-3]

 When a facility’s chemical inventory remains the same from the previous reporting year, 

a letter referencing the previous submittal would be sufficient. If changes to contacts or 

owner have occurred, these could be stated in the letter. However, if the chemical 

inventory changes, that should require an entire new Tier II form, with the changes 

highlighted, to be submitted. [164]

 The Florida SERC retains previously submitted section 312 reporting information so both 

suggested options could be implemented at the SERC level. We support the annual 

submission of information, either a full report or a certification of no change. Our 

experience with EPCRA section 302 facilities that qualify for section 312 reporting 

exemptions indicates that it is very difficult to maintain current and accurate facility 

information without an annual review, validation, and submission by the facility. [178]

Agency Response

For the reasons stated in the previous section, the Agency believes that the option 

on incorporation of previous year’s submission by reference is not necessary since most 

States have adopted electronic reporting. Facilities can store the data electronically and 

revise as necessary. 

In regards to the comments on recordkeeping, the Agency may look into revising 

the regulations in 40 CFR part 370 to include recordkeeping requirements after notice 

and comment in a separate rulemaking.

E. Electronic Access to Facilities’ Databases of MSDSs

For those facilities that maintain an electronic database of MSDSs, EPA requested 

comments if the Agency should allow a facility to meet the requirement under EPCRA 

section 311 for submitting MSDSs by giving the SERC, LEPC and local fire department 

electronic access to the facility’s database of MSDSs instead of actually submitting the 

MSDSs to each of the three entities. EPA sought comments on the feasibility of this 

option. 
56

A few commenters supported providing access to a facility’s database of MSDSs; 

some of these commenters asked for a central database that includes all facilities MSDSs. 

Other commenter opposed the approach. They noted that many LEPCs and fire 

departments do not have capability to access databases electronically. Others stated that 

access would need to be assured even when power outages occur. One commenter stated 

that this approach would not meet the requirements of the law. Some commenters said 

that the issue raises concerns about the security of a company’s computer systems.

Support

 DEP supports this concept, but feels that the facility should also be required to submit to 

the SERC a copy of its computer file on diskette or compact disk as a backup in the event 

that a company’s system becomes unavailable. [058]

 We support electronic access to facility MSDSs. These proposals are much needed 

advancements to streamline the reporting process and eliminate confusion. [096]

 We also support EPA’s proposed “guidance” that would allow a regulated facility to 

submit information to a single database that could be accessed by the SERC, the LEPC, 

and the fire department. This step would reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and 

would be consistent with EPA’s desire to reinvent environmental regulation. [116]

 Concur in concept; however, rules and procedures MUST be in place (e.g., lock boxes) to 

ensure access to information in an emergency and/or when there are power disruptions. 

[122]

 SCJ conceptually supports the agency’s exploration of allowing facilities to meet Section 

311 MSDS submittal requirements by allowing SERCs, LEPCs, and local fire 

departments electronic access to a facility’s MSDS database. SCJ understands that there 

are a number of issues that need to be further evaluated to ultimately determine the 

feasibility of this approach. From the facility owners’ perspective, security and 

confidentiality issues need to be closely examined. However, at this point, we believe the 

idea deserves further consideration. [138]

 The Oakland County LEPC currently has the capability to access MSDSs through the 

Internet and would fully support allowing facilities to maintain electronic databases of 

MSDSs instead of forwarding them to the LEPC. As stated above, the continued 

resources needed for maintaining hard data are astronomical. [174]

 We support this option at the SERC and LEPC level, but caution that all local fire 

departments may not have electronic access capabilities. [178]

Oppose
57

 MSDSs from companies are not the best sources of information about a chemical and 

how to deal with the chemical in an emergency situation because some of the information 

is not correct. The Association of American Railroads has put together a two volume set 

of MSDSs for the most common chemicals encountered. This information was pulled 

together from many sources and these MSDSs can be used with confidence. The 

transporters of hazardous chemicals also pay a service group called CHEMTREC, which 

has MSDSs on file and can connect emergency response to the manufacturer for more 

information. There is yet another company called 3E Emergency Response Center that 

has MSDSs on demand. The Department of Health and Human Services has a group of 

medical professionals (ATSDR) that are always “on call” for chemical medical 

emergencies. With all of these sources involved in MSDS information, does EPA need to 

duplicate this effort? If EPCRA’s concern is discovery of new information that may be 

addressed under the TSCA reporting requirements.

The only information we really want to see from the regulated community is the Tier II 

report. MSDSs and Tier I reporting are pertinent to the immediate workplace and not 

necessary to plan emergency response. We count on labeling and placards to provide the 

immediate information needed at each specific sight when emergency response is 

required. We don’t really care that there is one pound of mercury somewhere at the 

facility and we don’t really care that this information is in a huge database. [018]

 We oppose this option in lieu of proactive reporting required by law. It does not 

constitute a submission of information as required by law. It prevents the establishment 

of databases that allow crosscutting analysis and the comparison of data from one facility

to another. It could interfere with emergency responders’ ability to access data during 

power outages caused by hurricanes, earthquakes, year 2000 computer problems, etc. 

And it prevents EPA and states from developing databases that would help them measure 

their effectiveness (under GPRA, etc.). [097]

 Providing access to a SERC, LEPC, or local fire department to a facility’s database for 

MSDSs is unlikely to streamline reporting by the facility. [105] 

 While we do not oppose the Agency providing reporting options to the regulated 

community, we are concerned that such an option is a first step in the development of a 

future mandate that all facilities provide electronic access to their MSDS database. Such 

access would be an unwarranted intrusion into the confidential electronic resources of the 

facility and it potentially could lead to significant abuse of and tampering with complex 

systems that obviously contain sensitive business information. Therefore, we are 

strongly opposed to any regulatory language that could lead to national or local mandates 

that would provide outside individuals with unfettered access to a facility’s confidential 

environmental, health and safety database. [117a, 117b, 117c, 117d, 117e]

 We oppose the option of allowing commissions or the public access to our electronic 

MSDS or inventory databases. Special programming would be required to maintain 

system security if access to non-employees is allowed. This could be very expensive and 

potentially compromise the security of our data systems. [117]
58

 We recommend that EPA consider an alternate solution of establishing a national EPCRA 

chemical inventory database into which all companies may enter their data, either by 

submitting an electronic file, or by entering directly via the Internet or other dial-in 

mechanism. Once inventories are entered into the national database, SERCs, LEPCs, fire 

departments, the public, or any interested organization will be able to view and print the 

reports. This will ensure consistency across the nation, speed up processing of the 

information, and make it available to anyone who needs it. This will allow commissions 

to extract, sort, and report the information to meet their specific needs and format.

EPA must also consider the time needed to modify computer systems to implement any

changes in the final rule. We will need at least two years from final ruling to modify

computer systems to be in compliance with the recommended changes or to identify, 

purchase and implement a completely new system to replace our current database. [139]

 Bad idea because it would require constant contact electronically and could be costly to 

maintain. Even with the Internet, maintaining a 24-hour open line between the facility 

and regulatory agencies can be expensive. Few regulatory agencies would be willing to 

acquire the burden, even fewer facilities will be willing. Also concerns of database 

security and virus protection. Facilities might also have a problem with an outside 

agency having access to their internal data files. This option is something to be 

considered when other basic questions of data management have been addressed. [147]

 This may be acceptable for those with data retrieval capabilities. Few fire departments in 

Maine have it. Less than the LEPC’s would have it. Submission of lists of available 

MSDSs is very acceptable. Consideration would need to be given to accessibility in 

situations like fire and power outages.

Using the lists option is more appropriate to reduce reporting burdens. In an emergency

situation, accessing data electronically may not be effective or efficient and may not 

serve to preserve public health and safety benefits. The proposal would have no impact 

on the achievement of EPCRA’s environmental goals. Flexible options are necessary for 

entities without electronic access capabilities. Rewriting the regulations in plain English 

to reduce regulatory burden and improve compliance is not an issue. [177]

Agency Response

Submission of MSDSs for hazardous chemicals present at a facility to the SERC, 

LEPC and the fire department is a statutory requirement. EPA is only codifying this 

requirement in 40 CFR part 370. The Agency proposed the option of submission of 

MSDSs electronically or providing access to facilities databases of MSDSs assuming that 

this will reduce burden on regulated community. The Agency also realized that this may

increase cost for SERCs, LEPCs, and the fire departments since some of these agencies 

do not have access to computers. After reviewing the comments, the Agency has decided 

not to require facilities to provide access to their MSDSs databases. As raised by the 
59

commenters, the Agency believes that during an emergency situation, a power failure 

may occur which will prevent access to computer databases. The Agency also 

understands that there is concern about security, unauthorized personnel gaining access 

into the company’s internal computer system.

Other comments 

 If electronic access to MSDSs is considered, the information must be completely

accessible to Fire Departments, LEPCs, and SERCs. Under present 

circumstances, a majority of local groups would not have the time, equipment, or 

training to be completely accessible to an electronic database. [009, 11, 31, 57, 

164]

 In the industry I work for I have MSDSs written into Word Perfect and I have a 

special version of each of the MSDS that can be faxed because the WinFax Pro 

software messes up the layout of the MSDS. For our subsidiaries to access our 

MSDSs they also must have Word Perfect to display the MSDS correctly and they

must have a LaserJet printer to print the MSDS correctly. I would think that some 

common software would be required to have electronic access. As stated earlier, 

MSDSs for chemicals is not a focus of this LEPC. Again, we do not want to 

spend time accessing data and need the burden to be placed on the reporting 

entity. [018]

 Allowing the facility to open its electronic MSDS database in place of submitting 

hard copies should be left to the discretion of the LEPC, NOT mandated. [048]

 This would only be feasible if the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department all 

have electronic access to the facility database of MSDSs. Many LEPCs and fire 

departments do not yet have internet capability. This would also create a record 

keeping problem unless the agency downloaded the MSDS information for their 

files, and this in turn would shift the reporting burden from the facility to the 

SERC, LEPC, and fire department. It is also not clear how a facility would 

determine which substances exceeded the reporting thresholds and identify this 

information on the MSDS database. Many facilities have a very large number of 

MSDSs and it would be confusing and burdensome if all MSDSs were to be 

considered the facility 311 submission. This would also leave in question how a 

facility would identify when the section 311 submission was updated. [061]

 One of the key issues associated with this option would be the method for 

notification of updates. Access to a facility’s database of MSDSs alone would not 

appear to fulfill the 311 updating requirements. Unless SERCs, LEPCs, and fire 

departments were notified that a new chemical was on site above the threshold 

and a new MSDS was added to the system, they would not know the new 

chemical was present unless they periodically reviewed the facility’s MSDS 

system. It would appear submission of a notification would still be required by
60

the facility. This notification by itself would probably satisfy the requirement to 

update a 311 list. As such, all of the facility’s effort to allow on-line access to 

MSDSs would essentially be above and beyond the legal requirements and thus 

would not necessarily be a burden reduction. Access to facility databases of 

MSDSs would be beneficial for emergency planning and response organizations. 

However, it’s questionable whether it would be an effective burden reduction. 

[104]

 Several of our field sites supported this reporting option, but some expressed 

concern that providing public access to facilities databases is beyond the scope of 

the regulatory requirements and may pose confidentiality/security concerns. 

Many of those who do have the capability may not be willing to provide access 

for fear of unauthorized personnel circumventing the firewall and gaining access 

into the company’s internal computer system.

Some of our sites believe that this might be an acceptable means of 

complying with the Section 311 reporting requirement. MSDSs could be 

maintained on an external web page with built-in firewalls, preventing access into 

other company files, databases, etc. But, there are probably not a large number of 

facilities with this capability. Additionally, if this arrangement is intended to 

satisfy the Section 311 reporting requirements, there should be uninterrupted 24-

hour per day access to the information. If there were an emergency at the facility

(e.g., a fire), the emergency itself could result in a lack of access to the database, 

possibly at a time when access is most needed.

We believe that it could be extremely burdensome for SERCs, LEPCs, and 

fire departments to access multiple systems to get needed information. In 

addition, a facility’s MSDS database could potentially include MSDSs for 

materials no longer present at the facility and would not necessarily identify 

which chemicals are present above minimum threshold levels. [133]

 EPA’s centrally controlling one universal database of uniform MSDSs is most 

desirable, as is developing a system that looks at MSDSs relative to “real risk.” 

[140]

 Any proposal for electronic submittal of reporting information via diskette or 

compact disk must consider format - possibly a standard software program readily 

available and affordable to all jurisdictions. All pertinent information must be 

included. Information accessible through the Internet presents equipment and 

personnel problems requiring additional staff time and budget dollars. [151]

 Electronic access to an MSDS database instead of submission of the paper forms 

is a useful alternative. Full time access to the database, even under emergency

conditions, is a potential stumbling block. Submission of all facility MSDSs on 

CD-ROM or disk in a commonly accepted format may be more useful and would 

provide full time availability. While most facilities now have computers equipped 
61

with floppy disk drives, not all facilities may have CD recordable or rewritable 

drives. [167, 180]

Agency Response

None of the options provided in the draft guidance of the June 1998 preamble will 

be required. EPA stated in the preamble that States may choose to adopt any or all of the 

options provided, but is not required to do so. EPA understands the concerns raised by

commenters about security and the inability to get access to computers during an 

emergency situation, such as power failures. 

EPA stated in the preamble to the proposed rule that the Agency is not requiring 

this option at this time but only seeking comments whether this option is feasible. The 

Agency also sought comments whether providing access to facilities’ database would 

satisfy the requirement under section 311(a)(1), which is submission of MSDSs to the 

SERC, LEPC and the fire department. 

The Agency suggested electronic submission of MSDSs or providing access to a 

facility’s MSDS database to reduce the burden on the regulated community and reduce 

the information management burden on implementing agencies. However, such an 

approach does raise a number of issues, including whether it would meet the statutory

requirements under EPCRA section 311. Therefore, the Agency is no longer 

recommending such an approach in place of the submission of the MSDS forms for 

hazardous chemicals at the facility to the SERC, LEPC and fire departments. 

F. EPCRA Section 312 Reporting to Fulfill Reporting Requirements under Section 311 

EPA proposed another option to reduce reporting requirements for facilities. The 

Agency sought comments whether section 312 reporting can fulfill section 311 reporting 

requirements provided that the reporting conforms to the required time frame and that 

Tier II information is reported. 

Section 311 of EPCRA and its implementing regulations require submission of 

MSDSs or a list of chemicals to SERC, LEPC, and the fire department, within three 

months after becoming subject to the reporting requirements, or within three months after 

discovery of significant new information concerning a hazardous chemical that has 

already been reported, or within 30 days of a request from the SERC, LEPC or the fire 

department. Section 312 of EPCRA requires a submission of Tier I (or Tier II) to these 

three entities. Tier I contains general information about hazardous chemicals at the 

facility. Tier II contains specific information about each chemical similar to what is 

required in an MSDS. Since section 312 submission is due on March 1, normally, a 

facility may submit Tier I/II between January 1 and March 1 of the following year. 

Section 312 could be used to meet section 311 reporting for only those facilities that 

become subject to reporting under section 311, or discover significant new information 
62

concerning a hazardous chemical between October 1 and December 31 of any given 

calendar year. 

Since reporting under both section 311 and 312 are to the SERC, LEPC and the 

fire department, EPA believes that this proposed guidance would not pose any additional 

burden to these entities. EPA sought comments from these entities and the regulated 

community regarding the usefulness of this option.

All but one commenter who addressed this issue supported EPA’s proposal. 

Many states indicated that they already use this approach and find that it works well. 

One commenter objected because it would require reprogramming of company systems.

 Currently, many states require Tier II reporting in lieu of Tier I reporting. We feel 

industrial establishments, upon receipt of an above threshold limit chemical substance, 

contact the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department to notify pursuant to section 311 

reporting requirements. In this notification questions are raised that are equivalent to Tier 

II reporting requirements, we have found it more economical to proceed with additional 

Tier II reporting in lieu of section 311. We believe this is commonplace and voice 

support for Tier II reporting to satisfy section 311 reporting. [001]

 We agree that the Tier II information should fulfill section 311 reporting requirements. 

This change would substantially reduce the paper burden of both the SERC and LEPC. 

[009, 011, 018, 031, 057, 99, 137, 140, 145, 147, 164, 167, 177, 178, 180, L05]

 We support this change, as it has been found that information received under section 311 

is rarely used, so allowing section 312 to be used instead of section 311 in certain cases 

would allow the agency to utilize its resources in a more efficient manner. [058]

 Wisconsin currently allows the use of Tier II reporting forms to meet the requirements of 

section 311. In Wisconsin, facilities using Tier II report forms to meet section 311 

requirements are asked to indicate this on the form. The Tier II forms can be used solely 

for this purpose and can be submitted any time of the year. Wisconsin Emergency

Management has developed sufficient guidance to administer this reporting option. [061]

 Since we cannot accept MSDSs in lieu of Tier II reports, access to such databases would 

not satisfy our state law requirements. However, we are aware in fact many facilities 

track their chemical inventory through electronic databases and this information is used 

to develop Tier II reports. Nevertheless, the Branch recommends against allowing such 

databases to substitute for submission of the Tier II report because requiring such access 

could greatly increase the burden on the SERCs, LEPCs, and fire departments. [118]

 This approach has been an EPA policy in the EPCRA Questions and Answers document 

for several years. We agree with this policy and have been following it without problem. 

The more significant question with respect to a section 312 submittal fulfilling the section 

311 requirement entails facilities that have neglected a section 311 requirement, but have 

subsequently submitted a section 312 submittal for the substance. At that point, has the 
63

facility then “returned to compliance?” Obviously, the facility could be subject to 

penalties for having violated the section 311 requirement for not submitting the notice 

within the 3 month time frame required. However, would the facility still be expected to 

submit a section 311 notice even if the substance has been subsequently reported on a 

section 312 submittal? [104]

 We are strongly in favor of allowing this substitution of information. The Texas 

Community Right-to-Know Acts (TCRAs) require a Tier II report for compliance with 

both sections 311 and 312, but we allow facility owners and operators to submit a 

streamlined list that meets section 311 requirements, if the report is being submitted for 

the first time or as an update after March 1. One consistent format such as the Tier II 

form should be adopted for reporting all information to ensure consistency of information 

for emergency planners and responders. Guidance from EPA would help to ensure that 

facilities submitted forms that would meet the requirements of the TCRAs. [118]

 We support this proposal, as long as the reports are submitted within the 90 day period, or 

sooner if possible. [119, 129]

 The AZ SERC, LEPCs, and fire departments have already adopted the acceptance of Tier 

II reports to meet 311 requirements providing the timing of submission is correct. [122]

 We support EPA guidance on this subject. The preamble mentions that because of the 3 

month reporting window under section 311, the section 312 report can only suffice for 

those facilities that become subject to reporting under section 311 or discover significant 

new information concerning a hazardous chemical between October 1 and December 31. 

However, the time frame is probably much shorter than this since it is unlikely that most 

facilities will submit their section 312 report on January 1 of the following year. Those 

facilities that submit their section 312 report closer to the March 1 deadline will find this 

option providing little relief from having to submit a separate section 311 report. 

However, where the reporting time frames do overlap, facilities should be able to make 

use of the section 312 report to reduce the reporting burden. [133]

 If our company chose to use this method, it would require programming changes to 

reference additional product information on the Tier II report so that a specific MSDS 

could be identified by either our MSDS number or the manufacturer. Again, this entails 

significant programming costs. We oppose this proposed change, which comes too late 

in the EPCRA program and provides too little benefit. [139]

 Facilities should have the option of continuing to submit a full inventory report each year, 

if such an approach would be more efficient under their existing data management 

systems. We note, however, that these proposals are addressed as draft guidance in the 

preamble but are not fully addressed in the proposed regulatory text. Not all of our 

members, particularly smaller companies, have ready access to preamble language. 

Accordingly, we urge EPA to address these issues in the regulatory text of the final rule. 

[L05]
64

Agency Response

After reviewing all the comments, the Agency realizes that most States are 

already implementing this reporting option. In the preamble to the 1998 proposed rule, 

the Agency stated that even if the guidance is not finalized, the States may implement any 

or all of the reporting options suggested in the preamble. EPA encourages those States 

that have not implemented this option but wish to do so should provide flexibility to the 

facilities that may want still want to submit MSDSs or list of chemicals to all three 

entities as stated in the regulations in 40 CFR part 370.

States that choose to implement or are already implementing this reporting option 

will need to require facilities to submit a section 312 report three months after acquiring a 

new chemical in order to be in compliance with the section 311 reporting requirements.

G. Hazardous Chemical Exemption for Solids Under EPCRA Section 311(e)(2)

Commenters endorsed EPA’s proposal on the hazardous chemical exemption for 

solids.

 Revising the solids report would be a good idea, but for emergency planning it might be 

important to include the aspect of how much molten metal might be involved in a fire. 

We did have this very situation occur with smelted zinc and did not have any Class D fire 

extinguishing equipment to use on the fire. Had we known that the smelting operation 

existed we would have geared up to handle a metal fire.

We agree that no reporting needs to occur if it is improbable that a large enough volume 

of particles could be generated to cause an IDLH condition outside the business. We also 

agree that no reporting be required for a continuous release of particles if the 

concentration is not enough to cause acute and/or chronic health affects on the 

community. It would seem that most operations that generated fume or dust on the 

manufacturing floor would not be a concern to the community. [018]

 DEP supports requiring facilities to consider only the fume or dust given off by a piece of 

metal for threshold determination. Previously, in cases where the metals were handled in 

a way that would lead to potential exposure, such as welding, EPA required that the 

entire weight of the metal be considered for threshold determination. DEP agrees that 

this method has led to reporting of information that is unnecessary for planning and 

community right-to-know purposes. [058]

 This clarification is consistent with the interpretation of the law under which Wisconsin 

Emergency Management has been operating. [061]

 Regarding the changes for the interpretation of the hazardous chemical exemption for 

solids, we believe that these changes involve some good “common sense.” We do, 

however, have a question regarding how flammable solids would be classified. 
65

Certainly, it would seem that these types of materials would still need to be reported. 

[098]

 We support this interpretation of the article exemption. The purpose of the article 

exemption is to exclude from EPCRA reporting those substances which do not pose a risk 

of adverse health effects because “articles” pose little or no risk of human exposure to the 

hazardous substances incorporated in them. When a piece of metal is being modified 

such that it releases fume or dust, only the fume or dust poses a health risk. The piece of 

metal that remains intact continues to retain the characteristics of an article. Therefore, 

the fact that part of the metal has been released in the form of fume or dust does not 

warrant counting all the hazardous substances in the remaining intact piece of metal 

toward the threshold calculation. [099]

 We agree with this EPA proposed guidance. In addition, we recommend that EPA 

include clarification on this exemption within the regulations. Clarification of this 

exemption is an excellent example of relief from routine reporting for substances posing 

minimal hazards and risk using a consistent, centralized approach. This is preferred over 

the local case-by-case assessment method proposed by EPA within the rulemaking. [104]

 We support the proposed interpretation of the exemption. EPA’s current interpretation of 

this exemption has been that portions of metal stock that are modified such that exposure 

to a hazardous chemical can occur should be counted to determine the quantity present 

for threshold purposes. It appears that these EPA interpretations are inconsistent with 

current interpretation for threshold determinations for toxic release inventory reporting 

under EPCRA section 313. Therefore, for the purposes of consistency, it is 

recommended that EPA also modify the requirements for reporting under 40 CFR part 

372 to be consistent with the proposed interpretation. [106]

 We strongly support EPA’s proposed reinterpretation of the “solids exclusion” and urge 

the Agency to extend this interpretation to EPCRA Section 313. We would very much 

appreciate the opportunity to meet with the appropriate EPA officials to discuss the 

adoption of this interpretation under EPCRA section 313.

We believe there is no emergency planning or emergency response benefit from reporting 

based on chemicals in inert solid metal objects. Because of its safe inert qualities, steel is 

used to construct thousands of articles which people, including children, use on a daily 

basis. Steel is not flammable, it is not reactive, it is not a corrosive agent, and will not 

emit toxic fumes. Steel is not subject to explode, suddenly release toxic chemicals, or 

otherwise threaten local communities or emergency response teams. Nor is steel 

processing a risk-producing event. According to the American Institute of Steel 

Construction, even the largest metal fabricators that annually cut 200,000 linear feet of 1-

inch steel plate using an oxyacetylene torch would only “release” about a pound of total 

listed metals in the form of “fumes.” Any releases from the steel during welding 

operations would be even smaller. This is because most welding operations do not 

produce sufficiently hot temperatures to result in fumes being released from the welded 

steel. Metalworking fumes quickly condense into metal dust within the facility’s 
66

boundaries. Because metalworking operations typically occur inside buildings (often 

with emission control systems), there is virtually no potential exposure of the de minimis

quantities of “released” metals to emergency response teams or to local residents. In fact, 

any daily “releases” at the facility boundary would be undetectable.

Worker exposure to de minimis “releases” from “processing” steel are adequately

addressed through OSHA regulations that set permissible exposure levels and require 

MSDS notifications. The filing of an EPCRA section 311 notification or an EPCRA 

section 312 inventory for steel working operations neither advances the goals of 

community right-to-know, nor assists local emergency planners or officials. Instead, a 

substantial regulatory reporting burden is imposed without any benefit. Accordingly, 

EPA should finalize its proposed interpretations of the “solids exclusion.”

We believe EPA should extend its new interpretation of the solids exclusion to

EPCRA section 313. Metals that remain as solids (not fume or dust) cannot be spilled, 

ignited, or otherwise be “released” in any way that is potentially harmful to the 

community. In the proposed rule to amend sections 311 and 312, EPA recognizes that 

threshold-based reporting for solids metals) requires the reporting of “unnecessary

information” because the community is never exposed to the entire metal stock. The 

existing threshold quantities for “manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using” solid 

metals under section 313 of EPCRA similarly results in over-reporting without any

benefit. Section 313 assumes that facilities that “manufacture, process, or otherwise use” 

listed substances above certain “activity” thresholds could “release” those chemicals at 

concentrations that pose dangerous exposures to neighboring communities. Congress 

established “activity” levels expressed as 25,000 pounds for “manufacturing and 

processing” and 10,000 pounds for “otherwise use,” regardless of the substance. In 

establishing these activity thresholds, Congress explicitly recognized that EPA may

revise thresholds for individual substances or classes of substances (such as metals in the 

form of solids). See 42 U.S.C. 11023(e)(2).

On promulgating the final regulations implementing section 313, EPA recognized 

that experience would play a vital role in possibly changing reporting thresholds in the 

future. After “several years” of data collection, the Agency contemplated future 

threshold modifications after considering exposure factors, such as population density, 

the distance of population from covered facilities, the types of releases, and the “potency” 

of the listed substance or class of substances. EPA now has a decade of experience on 

which it can rely. For the reasons set forth above, EPA should apply the proposed, 

expanded interpretation of the “solids exclusion” to section 313 reporting as well as the 

sections 311 and 312 programs. [117a, 117b, 117c, 117d, 117e]

 We agree that the current interpretation of this exemption creates an unnecessary burden 

of reporting for certain industries. EPA’s proposal to require reporting of only threshold 

amounts of the dust or fume given off a piece of a manufactured solid appears to be 

reasonable. [118, 119, 129, 122]
67

 We agree with the proposed interpretation of the hazardous chemical exemption for 

solids under EPCRA section 311(e)(2) as drafted. In this case, if a model had been 

applied, we believe the proposed exemption would be supported by showing no off-site 

or emergency responder exposure potential. [119, 129]

 EPA’s current interpretation of EPCRA section 311 is that all chemicals in an entire solid 

manufactured item must be counted toward the threshold even if only a small part of the 

solid manufactured item is processed such that exposure could occur. We strongly agree 

with EPA’s determination that this interpretation requires reporting of information that is 

not necessary for protection of human health and the environment, and believe that it is 

not useful to the emergency planning agencies to which it is provided. Beyond our 

endorsement of the proposed change for purposes of section 311(e)(2), however, we 

earnestly request that EPA extend the reasoning of the draft guideline to section 313 

reporting. [130]

 We support the proposed modification on the interpretation of the exemption for solids so 

that only the amount of fume or dust given off a piece of metal or other manufactured 

solid that is being modified be subject to EPCRA section 311 and 312. The change could 

result in a reduction in reporting for some facilities. [133]

 We support the proposed interpretation of the article exemption. The purpose of the 

article exemption is to exclude from EPCRA reporting those substances which do not 

pose a risk of adverse health effects because “articles” pose little or no risk of human 

exposure to the hazardous substances incorporated in them. When a piece of metal is 

being modified such that it releases fume or dust, only the fume or dust poses a health 

risk. The piece of metal that remains intact continues to retain the characteristics of an 

article. Therefore, the fact that part of the metal has been released in the form of fume or 

dust does not warrant counting all the hazardous substances in the remaining intact piece 

of metal toward the threshold calculation. [137]

 We support the EPA interpretation of the article exemption for solids. Only the amount of 

fume or dust given off a metal or other solid, as it is modified, should be subject to 

threshold determinations under EPCRA section 311-312. The purpose of the article 

exemption is to exclude from EPCRA reporting those substances that do not pose a risk 

of adverse health effects. The public and emergency responders are generally familiar 

with the hazards associated with intact metals. [139]

 We endorse the concept that certain solids should not be reported unless, during 

modification, a fume or dust results and exceeds a threshold. This will relieve the system 

of information that is of little value to emergency responders and is of questionable value 

to the public. [140]

 We have no opinion, although this might represent more of a burden to industry to 

determine the amount of material that is dust or fume as opposed to the total amount of a 

solid present at the facility at a given time. [147]
68

 We support the consideration for EPA interpreting the exemption of hazardous chemicals 

at EPCRA section 311(e)(2) so that only the amount of dust or fume given off from a 

piece of metal (or other manufactured solid) be applied toward threshold determination. 

From our perspective, it makes no sense to have 10,000 pounds of steel undergoing a 

welding process to count toward threshold determination while the only “release” is 

welding fumes. From the public perspective, this interpretation will give the public more 

consistent and meaningful information. [148]

 We concur with EPA’s recommendation regarding the interpretation of the hazardous 

chemical exemption for solids under EPCRA section 311(e)(2). [167, 180]

 We support the proposed interpretation of the hazardous chemical exemption for solids 

under EPCRA section 311(e)(2). This will reduce reporting burden. However, the 

proposal will have no impact on the preservation of public health and safety benefits and 

the achievement of EPCRA’s environmental goals. Regarding the rewrite in plain 

English to reduce regulatory burden and improve compliance, the explanation needs to be 

clear. [177]

 We agree with EPA that chemicals present in solid substances present a minimal risk to 

the community and support the proposed interpretation that only fumes or dust given off 

a piece of metal (or other manufactured solid) be subject to EPCRA section 311 and 312 

and applied to threshold determinations. [L01]

Agency Response

As expected, commenters supported the new interpretation for this exemption. 

Facilities would only have to count the amount of fume or dust given off a piece of metal 

that is being modified toward the threshold determination. In addition, as stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, EPA would like to re-state that stamping a piece of metal 

doesn’t negate the exemption for that piece of metal; the piece of metal would still 

qualify for the exemption. EPA believes that the stamping of sheet metal does not 

present exposure to a hazardous chemical. 

This new interpretation would also apply to a brick that undergoes a modification 

process (for example cutting). Facilities would only need to count the amount of fume or 

dust released during the modification of a brick toward threshold determination. 
69

H. Emergency Planning Notification

Prior to the June 1998 proposed rule, some SERCs and LEPCs have requested 

EPA to define the term “promptly” in the regulations in 40 CFRR part 355 in reference to 

providing changes relevant to emergency planning. These entities have requested a time 

frame, that is, 10, 20, 30 days. EPA requested comments whether EPA should provide 

this guidance. 

Some commenters supported EPA’s proposed use of “promptly” and guidance 

that 10 to 20 days would qualify. Other commenters proposed different time periods, 

from 7 to 90 days. A number of commenters noted that each section uses different time 

periods and sought consistency. A few commenters objected to “promptly” because it is 

vague.

 The LEPC does not have any regulatory authority to force compliance so we proceed at a 

reasonable pace. I have included a letter to show you what we consider reasonable and 

can report that this company has still not made any attempt to file Tier II reports. To 

define “promptly” is probably a moot point. [018]

 Notification that a facility is subject to emergency planning requirements and the name of 

the facility emergency coordinator should be provided to the LEPC. Because the LEPC 

is charged with writing the emergency plan, they should not have to rely on the SERC for 

information about which facilities should be included in the plan. [057]

 We reviewed the intended definition “promptly” for emergency planning notification. 

We agree that the EPA’s belief that 10 to 20 working days is generally a reasonable 

amount of time to provide such notice. [98]

 First, we recommend that EPA consider including this information within the regulations 

to provide clearer guidance to facilities. In addition, consideration should also be given 

to clarifying the obvious question concerning at what point enforcement action could be 

taken against a facility that fails to report “promptly.”

Second, there seems to be inconsistency among the various notification and updating 

requirements. Under the emergency planning requirements, a facility must provide 

notification within 60 days after the facility first becomes subject to the requirement. 

Under section 311, a facility has 3 months to provide notification after an EHS is brought 

on site above the threshold, or first exceeds the threshold. Under this newly proposed 

EPA guidance, facilities would be required to provide notification of changes impacting 

emergency planning within l0 to 20 working days. We recommend that EPA consider 

the relationships and overlap among these reporting obligations and attempt to establish 

consistency among the required time frames for reporting. [104]

 EPA is proposing to add the term “promptly” to the requirement that facility owners or 

operators inform the LEPC of any changes occurring at the facility which may be 
70

relevant to emergency planning. We oppose the addition of this term, as it is ambiguous. 

It is recommended that the EPA provide a 90 day time period for notification. [106]

 EPA has proposed that 10 to 20 working days is generally a reasonable amount of time to 

provide notice, as required under § 355.30 of the existing regulations (§ 355.20 in 

proposed regulations). This language is being considered as guidance for the term 

“promptly” in this section. We oppose the addition of the term “promptly,” as it is 

ambiguous and do not find the suggested 10 to 20 day interpretation of “promptly” to be 

reasonable. It is suggested that the EPA codify a 90-day time period for notification, 

consistent with past guidance on this requirement. [106]

 Support EPA’s efforts to clarify the term “promptly” for purposes of updating 

information that reflects changes relevant to emergency planning and any information 

requested by the LEPC that is necessary for developing or implementing the local 

emergency plan. API believes, however, that 20 to 30 working days is generally a 

reasonable amount of time to provide such notice, rather than the 10 to 20 working days 

suggested by EPA in the proposal. As the Agency establishes its standard for 

“promptly,” API urges the Agency to ensure that the standard is consistent with use of 

that term in the context of Risk Management Programs (RMPS) under the Clean Air Act. 

[116] 

 With regard to emergency planning information, we recommend that EPA use 10 

working days as an interpretation of promptly supplying requested information to the 

SERC and LEPCs. [118]

 A time limit is better than an open-ended guideline. The 10-20 day time frame in the 

suggested guidance may be inconsistent with the 30 days provided under section 311 for 

responding to requests for copies of MSDSs to fulfill public requests. [119, 129]

 With regard to emergency planning notification, pre-notification of EHSs should be 

required. Any response for requests and/or changes should be done within a 7 calendar 

day period. [122]

 The presence of EHSs at a facility requires notification by the facility to the SERC and 

LEPC in the form of a Tier II form with the EHS box checked. EPCRA Section 304 

notification is redundant. If a facility has an EHS chemical above TPQs, the appropriate 

box on the Tier II is marked. We recommend eliminating that superfluous section. 

Emergency contact numbers are also listed. [123]

 While we agree that the guidance being suggested by EPA to define “promptly” (as 10-20 

days) is reasonable, we believe that defining “promptly” as 30 days would make it 

consistent with the other 30-day notifications in the table proposed in § 355.20. Because 

this is an important definition, this particular definition should be codified in the 

regulations. It would also be consistent with the proposed 30-day guidance to define “as 

soon as practicable” for the written release follow-up notification. Notifications of some 

changes relevant to a facility’s emergency planning (e.g., naming of a new facility
71

emergency coordinator) would be relatively straightforward and notification could be 

expected within 10-20 days, while other notifications might take longer. This could 

especially be the case in responding to a request for information from an LEPC where the 

information is not readily available in a content and/or format suitable for the 

response.Additionally, we suggest that EPA clarify that the 10-20 days are intended to be 

“working days” not “calendar days.” [133]

 We support 20 working days as being sufficiently prompt. [139]

 We endorse guidance on facilities “promptly” providing notice on their coverage under 

EPCRA section 302 and believe a 10 to 20 working-day period is appropriate. EPA may

want to consider consistency, however, in that the term “working day” is different from 

any other reporting period (usually “day” or “month”) prescribed in EPCRA. [140]

 We agree that 10 - 20 working days satisfies the requirement for prompt reporting. [167, 

180]

 The term “promptly” needs to be clarified. A facility might consider 6 months to be 

“prompt.” Clarification is needed to for the rewrite in plain English to reduce regulatory

burden and improve compliance. [177]

 In reviewing this proposal, we presume that EPA is intentionally making a distinction 

between the phrases “promptly” and “as soon as practicable” by proposing a 10-20-day

standard for the emergency planning notification and a 30-day standard for the 

emergency release notification. The emergency planning notification appears to reflect 

the guidance in EPA’s Enforcement Response Policy for Emergency Preparedness/RightTo-Know Violations; however, the emergency release notification timeline conflicts with 

the enforcement policy’s application for Section 304 Written Follow-Up Reports (Level 3 

- Report provided more than seven calendar days, but less than or equal to 14 calendar 

days). We urge EPA to offer guidance consistent with its enforcement policies. [178]

 EPA requests comment on the meaning of “promptly” under § 355.30, which requires 

notice of any changes relevant to emergency planning, and any information requested by 

the LEPC that is necessary for developing or implementing the local emergency plan. 

The preamble to the proposed rule states that “EPA believes that 10 to 20 working days is 

generally a reasonable amount of time...” Instead, EPA guidance should state that 30 

days generally would be acceptable. This would allow regulated entities, particularly 

small companies, adequate time to evaluate the issues and prepare a submission, and 

would be consistent with the time otherwise established in the regulations for submission 

of Tier I information. [L05]

Agency Response

As EPA made some revisions recently to the emergency planning notification and 

some other revisions in 40 CFR part 355. EPA decided to define the term “promptly” as 
72

30 days in 40 CFR 355.20. See the final rule published on November 3, 2008 (73 

FR65452).

I. Emergency Release Notification

A written follow-up is to be provided “as soon as practicable” after a release. 

EPA requested comments if EPA should define the term “as soon as practicable”. EPA 

sought comments whether 30 days should be allowed to provide written follow-up notice. 

Commenters generally supported defining “as soon as practicable,” but differed 

on whether 30 days was a reasonable period. Some stated that the period should be 

shorter (7 or 14 days) or longer (45 to 90 days); others supported the 30-day period. A 

few commenters noted that 30 days was inconsistent with EPA’s guidance on 

enforcement actions.

 The word “practicable” is an acceptable definition. The Wyoming Emergency

Management Agency usually takes all spill calls and is considered to be the agency to 

which organizations report. The LEPC does not have a staff or a phone number to which 

to call a spill so EMA has acted in that capacity. Almost all visible or odiferous releases 

of chemicals in the community are not hazardous chemicals, but if the release causes 

community concern this LEPC does ask for an explanation. We might have the company

appear before the committee and explain the findings of their incident investigation. To 

my knowledge, no one has ever voluntarily provided a written emergency release 

notification to this LEPC. [018]

 It should be “practicable” to provide the written follow-up emergency notice within no 

more than 30 days. The EPA language should only be amended to state that the phrase as 

soon as practicable can never be more than 30 days, but less time is more appropriate. As 

a practical matter, when has EPA ever enforced this? Our experience has been that since 

there are no real requirements for accuracy and truthfulness in the written follow-up 

emergency notice, the intent of the law has been largely skirted by facilities reporting 

releases, and in effect, vacated by EPA. [034]

 We would like to encourage EPA to state unequivocally that 30 days (although 

depending on the circumstances, more time may be appropriate) should be considered “as 

soon as practicable.” In our experience “as soon as practicable” is one of several terms in 

40 CFR Part 355 that requires a better definition. EPA’s willingness to state that the 30 

days is a general guideline is appreciated. It would be further appreciated if the agency

would state in preamble language that this guidance is intended to supersede the implied 

guidance in the EPCRA/CERCLA penalty policy (OSWER DIR. #99841.2, page 12). 

The penalty policy suggests that “as soon as practicable” could be as little as one week, 

absent “extenuating circumstances.” 

We would like to encourage the EPA to go further in defining terms used in 40 CFR part 

355. Specifically EPA would provide a service by giving some guidance around the term 

immediately as that term is used to define the period for the initial EPCRA section 304 
73

notice. At present, it seems that term is defined by reference to the penalty policy and/or 

to case law, at least for those who have access to the case law. [059]

 We agree that in the event of a release, it is practicable to provide a written follow-up 

emergency release notification in no more than 30 days following the release, although, 

depending on circumstances, more or less time may be appropriate for the written followup notification. [095]

 We reviewed the meaning of “as soon as practicable” for emergency release notification. 

We agree with the EPA’s belief that generally this means that notice should be provided 

in no more than 30 days. [98] 

 We agree with the proposed guidance that it should be practicable to provide a written 

follow-up release notice in no more than 30 days. Delaware has a state release reporting 

regulation that contains a similar 30-day requirement for submission of written follow-up 

reports. In addition, however, we recommend that EPA consider including this 

information within the regulations to provide clearer guidance to facilities. Consideration 

should also be given to clarifying the obvious question concerning at what point 

enforcement action could be taken against a facility that fails to report “as soon as 

practicable.” [104]

 EPA has proposed that written follow-up notice following a release be provided in no 

more than 30 days. However, EPA states that “depending on the circumstances, more or 

less time may be appropriate.” It is suggested that the EPA provide a 90-day time period 

for notification, consistent with past guidance on this requirement. A specific, reasonable 

time frame avoids confusion on the part of the reporting entity. [106]

 Agree with the provision to provide written notification within 30 days of an emergency

release. The EPA enforcement and penalty guidance should be made consistent with the 

30 day reporting period. [107] 

 We also support EPA’s decision to consider clarifying the term “as soon as practicable” 

for purposes of submitting a written follow-up emergency notice after there has been a 

release. Instead of a 30-day time frame, however, we believe the notice should be 

submitted within 45 days of the release. [116]

 Ohio statute establishes a 30-day submission standard for companies to submit letters 

regarding releases. Currently, we send a reminder letter to companies. This has resulted 

in very few companies not submitting a response within the allotted time. Therefore, we 

support the proposal to establish a 30-day standard for the release reporting letter. It 

would also be beneficial to state that “new” information after the thirty day letter should 

be submitted as soon as possible. Sometimes sample data or inventory data is not 

available within thirty days, but it is important and should be submitted. [119, 129]

 We concur with the proposed timing for emergency release notification; Arizona also 

requires notification within seven days as new information is made available. [122]
74

 We support the 30-day guidance being suggested by EPA. We believe that this is a 

sufficient time for a regulated facility to make the follow-up release notification. [133 

139]

 We endorse guidance on the definition of “as soon as practicable” for facilities providing 

follow-up information on releases under EPCRA section 304. A 30-day period is 

appropriate, given the flexibility noted by EPA that under extenuating circumstances a 

longer period may be necessary. Note should be made that by resolution, the NC SERC 

has already defined “as soon as practicable” to be 45 days and can change this resolution 

if necessary. [140]

 We do not agree with the proposed guidance on the meaning of “as soon as practicable.” 

EPA states that it does not intend to “define the phrase” by proposing a set number of 

days in guidance. Despite protestations to the contrary, fixing a number of days in federal 

guidance will effectively do so. As stated in the Proposed Rule, while a 30-day reporting 

period may be appropriate under one set of circumstances, it may constitute an 

unjustifiable delay in another. Policy considerations would operate against adoption of 

any fixed number since, under such a policy, a responsible party could simply wait until 

the prescribed day arrives before providing notification. While a regulatory authority may

contest the delay as unjustifiable, industry will be armed with federal guidance that 

suggests 30 days is reasonable. Finally, a review of the EPA’s Interim Final EPCRA 

Penalty Policy (January 8, 1998) indicates that a Level 3 Action may be directed at a 

facility that fails to provide written follow-up emergency notice more than seven calendar 

days (but less than or equal to 14 calendar days) following the release. The proposed 

guidance would suggest more than four times that period. Currently, the company has the 

burden to show that seven calendar days was not practicable within which to produce a 

written follow up report. The proposed guidance would likely shift that burden to a 

regulatory agency to argue that 30 days was an unreasonable delay. [141]

 Thirty days seems excessive to wait for the follow-up emergency notice after a release. 

This period of time should be brought into line with that required for emergency planning 

notification. [151]

 Guidance for the timeliness of written release notification should encourage rapid 

notification. A range of 10-20 working days would seem attainable in all but a few 

extreme releases. [167, 180]

 Maine law specifies 14 days. This is consistent with our Department of Environmental 

Protection requirements, and the contents of the report are quite consistent. The proposal 

will have no impact on the reduction of reporting burdens, the preservation of public 

health and safety benefits, the achievement of EPCRA’s environmental goals, and the 

flexibility of options. [177]

 In reviewing this proposal, we presume that EPA is intentionally making a distinction 

between the phrases “promptly” and “as soon as practicable” by proposing a 10-20-day
75

standard for the emergency planning notification and a 30-day standard for the 

emergency release notification. The emergency planning notification appears to reflect 

the guidance in EPA’s Enforcement Response Policy for Emergency Preparedness/RightTo-Know Violations; however, the emergency release notification timeline conflicts with 

the enforcement policy’s application for Section 304 Written Follow-Up Reports (Level 3 

- Report provided more than seven calendar days, but less than or equal to 14 calendar 

days). We urge EPA to offer guidance consistent with its enforcement policies. [178]

 We urge EPA to provide appropriate guidance on the timing of reporting required to be 

made “promptly.” [L05]

Agency Response

As suggested by most of the commenters, EPA is defining the meaning of the 

phrase “as soon as practicable” to be 30-days. That means, a facility should provide the 

written follow-up notice after a release to the SERC and the LEPC of any area or any 

State affected by the release in no more than 30 days. 
76

List of Commenters Sorted by Organization Type

Comment # Business/Industries

001 Sara Lee Sock Company

015 Badger Mining Corporation

059 Weyerhaeuser

062 Westinghouse Electric Corporation

099 Duquesne Light

105 Coors Brewing Company

106 General Motors Corporation

107 Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

109 Chemical Products Corporation

113 Dow Chemical Company

121 Chevron Corporation

126 Bell Atlantic Corporation

138 S.C. Johnson Wax

139 Duke Energy

148 Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation

153 Reynolds Metals Company

166 Unimin Corporation

176 New England Electric System Transmission and Distribution Companies

181 Eli Lilly and Company

Environmental and Public Interest Groups

034 Don’t Waste Arizona, Inc.

097 Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Federal Government

133 Department of Energy

LEPCs – SERCs – EMAs

005 City of Beverly LEPC

006 County of Park – Emergency Management Agency/LEPC

007 La Porte County Emergency Managing Committee

009 Oklahoma County – Local Emergency Planning Committee

010 Richland County Local Emergency Planning Committee

011 Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission

012 City of Kent Fire Department

013 City of Romulus Michigan Emergency Coordinator

014 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Emergency Management Office

016 Turner County LEPC

017 County of Columbiana Local Emergency Planning Committee

018 Laramie County of Wyoming
77

020 Decatur Morgan County LEPC

031 Pottawatomie County Local Emergency Planning Committee

032 County of Park Emergency Management Agency/LEPC

048 Springfield Local Emergency Planning Committee

055 North Central Florida Local Emergency Planning Committee

056 Monroe County Local Emergency Planning Committee

061 State of Wisconsin Emergency Management

096 Harford County Government Local Emergency Planning Committee

098 Portage County Local Emergency Planning Committee

100 Jefferson County Local Emergency Planning Committee

103 Trumbull County Local Emergency Planning Committee

112 Williams County Local Emergency Planning Committee

122 Arizona State Emergency Response Commission

123 Monroe County Local Emergency Planning Committee

125 Montgomery/Greene County Local Emergency Response Council

129 Ohio State Emergency Response Commission

129a LEPCs from Stark, Holmes, Wayne, and Carol Counties in Ohio

141 Illinois Emergency Management Agency

143 Honolulu Local Emergency Planning Committee

145 State of Connecticut State Emergency Response Commission

147 State of Maryland Emergency Management Advisory Council Emergency Response Commission

149 Cuyahoga County LEPC

151 City and County of Denver Office of Emergency Management

152 Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office

164 Cleveland County Local Emergency Planning Committee

165 Cabell/Wayne Local Emergency Planning Committee

167 Fairfax Joint Local Emergency Planning Committee

174 Oakland County LEPC

L03 Indiana Emergency Response Commission 

L13 Kentucky Emergency Response Commission

L15/OC-6 California Office of Emergency Services

OC-4 Richland County Local Emergency Planning Committee

State/Local Government

057 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

058 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

104 State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control

108 Kansas Department of Health and Environment

118 Texas Department of Health

132 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yukima Indian Nation

140 North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety

177 State of Maine Department of Defense, Veterans, and Emergency Management

178 State of Florida Department of Community Affairs

Trade Associations 

095 Chemical Manufacturers Association

101 American Forest & Paper Association

110 Kentucky Fertilizer and Agricultural Chemical Association, Inc.

115 Petroleum Marketers Association of America

116 American Petroleum Institute

117a Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
78

117b Steel Manufacturers Association

117c Specialty Steel Industry of North America

117d National Shipbuilding Research Program

117e Valve Manufacturers Association

119 National Association of SARA Title Three Program Officials

130 American Institute of Steel Construction and Steel Joist Institute

131 American Trucking Association

137 Edison Electric Institute

L01 National Grain and Feed Association

L04 Petroleum Transportation & Storage Association

L05 Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association

Citizens

OC-2 Radabaugh, Gary L.

OC-3 Jung, Doo

OC-7 VeHauun, M. Jerry