80222 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. This action contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the PRA. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes that this action does 

not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations, lowincome populations and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 16 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Confidential business information, 

Government employees, Privacy. 

Kimberly Y. Patrick, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Mission Support. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 16 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 16—IMPLEMENTATION OF 

PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552a (as revised). 

■ 2. Amend § 16.12 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(4)(i), 

(a)(5) introductory text, and (b)(1); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(iii); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(5) 

introductory text. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 16.12 Specific exemptions. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Systems of records affected. (i) 

EPA–17 Online Criminal Enforcement 

Activities Network (OCEAN). 

(ii) EPA–21 External Compliance Case 

Tracking System (EXCATS). 

(iii) EPA–30 Inspector General 

Enterprise Management System (IGEMS) 

Hotline Module. 

(iv) EPA–40 Inspector General 

Enterprise Management System (IGEMS) 

Investigative Module. 

(v) EPA–63 eDiscovery Enterprise 

Tool Suite. 

(vi) EPA–79 NEIC Master Tracking 

System. 

(vii) EPA–100 OIG Data Analytics 

Enterprise. 

(viii) EPA–83 Personnel Security 

System (PSS) 2.0. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) EPA systems of records 17, 30, 40, 

63, 79, and 100 are exempted from the 

following provisions of the PA, subject 

to the limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2): 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); and 

(e)(1). EPA system of records 21 is 

exempt from the following provisions of 

the PA, subject to limitations set forth 

in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2): 5 U.S.C 

552a(c)(3), (d), and (e)(1). EPA system of 

records 83 is exempt from the following 

provisions of the PA, subject to the 

limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(2): 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3); (d); and 

(e)(1). 

* * * * * 

(5) Reasons for exemption. EPA 

systems of records 17, 21, 30, 40, 63, 79, 

83, and 100 are exempted from the 

provisions of the PA in paragraph (a)(4) 

of this section for the following reasons: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Systems of records affected. (i) 

EPA 36 Research Grant, Cooperative 

Agreement, and Fellowship Application 

Files. 

(ii) EPA 40 Inspector General 

Enterprise Management System (IGEMS) 

Investigative Module. 

(iii) EPA 83 Personnel Security 

System (PSS) 2.0. 

(iv) EPA 100 OIG Data Analytics 

Enterprise. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) EPA 83 is exempted from the 

following provisions of the PA, subject 

to the limitations of 5 U.S.C. 

552(a)(k)(5): 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), and (d). 

* * * * * 

(5) Reasons for exemption. EPA 36, 

40, 83, and 100 are exempted from the 

above provisions of the PA for the 

following reasons: 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–24668 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 355 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0142; FRL–10285– 

01–OLEM] 

RIN 2050–AH31 

Potential Future Regulation for 

Emergency Release Notification 

Requirements for Animal Waste Air 

Emissions Under the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80223 

ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is soliciting 

information pertaining to and is 

requesting comments to assist in the 

potential development of regulations to 

reinstate the reporting of animal waste 

air emissions at farms under the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The 

Agency is soliciting comments under 

five general categories: health impacts; 

implementation challenges; costs and 

benefits; small farm definition and 

potential reporting exemption; and 

national report on animal waste air 

emissions. Requiring reporting of 

animal waste air emissions may advance 

the community right-to-know aspect of 

EPCRA by providing the public with 

information that may impact their 

health and the environment. This 

information may advance EPA’s 

environmental justice goals of 

increasing the awareness of the 

potential impact these emissions have 

on communities with environmental 

justice concerns. We solicit comments 

on all aspects of this potential action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 15, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OLEM–2023–0142, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ (our 

preferred method). Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, 

EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023–0142 Docket, 

Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal Holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

rulemaking. Comments received may be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on sending 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Noggle, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Emergency 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; 

202–566–1306; noggle.william@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of this document. The 

information in this preamble is 

organized as follows: 

I. Public Participation 

A. Written Comments 

B. Comment Headings 

II. General Information 

A. Does this ANPRM apply to me? 

B. What is the purpose of this ANPRM? 

C. Legal authority 

III. Background 

A. Overview 

B. Release Reporting Requirements Under 

CERCLA and EPCRA 

C. Continuous Release Reporting (CRR) 

Regulations 

D. Regulatory and Legal Background 

1. 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Reporting 

Exemption Rule and Related Litigation 

2. 2018 FARM Act and Related 2018 

CERCLA Rule 

3. 2019 EPCRA Rule and Related Litigation 

4. Executive Order 13990, January 20, 2021 

IV. What information is EPA seeking? 

A. Health Impacts From Animal Waste Air 

Emissions 

B. Implementation Challenges 

1. National Air Emissions Monitoring 

Study (NAEMS) 

2. Emissions Calculator and Guidance on 

Estimating Amounts of Air Releases 

3. Grazing Operations 

4. Use of Continuous Release Reporting by 

Farms 

5. Citizen Suits 

6. Privacy Concerns 

7. EPCRA National Database 

C. Costs and Benefits 

1. Estimated Regulated Universe 

2. Burden Estimates 

3. Environmental Justice and Community 

Right-to-Know 

D. Small Farms 

1. Potential Reporting Exemption for 

‘‘Small Farms’’ 

2. Defining ‘‘Small Farms’’ 

3. Animal Waste Management Methods for 

‘‘Small Farms’’ 

4. Health Impacts From ‘‘Small Farms’’ 

5. State, Tribal, and Local Emergency 

Planners and Responders Use of ‘‘Small 

Farm’’ Animal Waste Air Emissions 

Information 

6. Adjusting the RQs of Ammonia and 

Hydrogen Sulfide for Animal Waste Air 

Emissions 

E. National Report on Animal Waste 

Emissions 

V. Request for Comment and Additional 

Information 

VI. What are the next steps EPA will take? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Public Participation 

A. Written Comments 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2023– 

0142, at https://www.regulations.gov 

(our preferred method), or the other 

methods identified in the ADDRESSES

section. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from the 

docket. The EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit to EPA’s docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI), 

Proprietary Business Information (PBI), 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). Please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets for additional 

submission methods; the full EPA 

public comment policy; information 

about CBI, PBI, or multimedia 

submissions; and general guidance on 

making effective comments. 

B. Comment Headings 

Commenters should review the 

discussions in the preamble and are 

encouraged to comment on any matter 

that is addressed by this ANPRM. For 

comments submitted through postal 

mail or https://www.regulations.gov, 

EPA is requesting that commenters 

identify their comments on specific 

issues by using the appropriate number 

and comment headings listed below to 

make it simpler for the Agency to 

process your comment. If your comment 

covers multiple issues, please use all the 

heading numbers and names that relate 

to that comment. These are the 

comment headings for specific issues in 

this ANPRM: 

#1—Health Impacts (see Section IV.A) 

#2—Emissions Estimating Methodologies 

(see Section IV.B.1) 

#3—2005 Compliance Agreement (see 

Section IV.B.1) 

#4—Emissions Calculator—General (see 

Section IV.B.2) 

#5—Emissions Calculator—Continuous 

Release Reporting (see Section IV.B.2) 

#6—Accuracy of Reported Release Quantity 

(see Section IV.B.2) 

#7—Turkey and Beef Contribution Factors 

(see Section IV.B.2) 

#8—Estimating Emissions from Less 

Common Species (see Section IV.B.2) 

#9—Estimating Emissions from Atypical 

Farming Operations (see Section IV.B.2) 

#10—Cutoffs for Estimating (see Section 

IV.B.2) 

#11—Other Guidance (see Section IV.B.2) 

#12—Grazing Operations (see Section IV.B.3) 

#13—Application of Continuous Release 

Reporting (see Section IV.B.4) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80224 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1Air emissions from animal wastes on farms are 

generally a result of decomposition of the animal 

waste. 

#14—Application of Upper and Lower 

Bounds (see Section IV.B.4) 

#15—Exceptions to Continuous Release 

Reporting (see Section IV.B.4) 

#16—Benefit of Continuous Release 

Reporting Data (see Section IV.B.4) 

#17—Continuous Release Reporting—Other 

(see Section IV.B.4) 

#18—Citizen Suits—Wholly Past Violations 

(see Section IV.B.5) 

#19—Citizen Suit Cost and Benefits (see 

Section IV.B.5) 

#20—Citizen Suit—Guidance (see Section 

IV.B.5) 

#21—Citizen Suit—Other (see Section IV.B.5) 

#22—Privacy Concerns (see Section IV.B.6) 

#23—Privacy Concerns—Other (see Section 

IV.B.6) 

#24—National EPCRA Database—General 

(see Section IV.B.7) 

#25—National Database—Managing Right-toKnow Data (see Section IV.B.7) 

#26—National Database—Managing Reports 

from Facilities (see Section IV.B.7) 

#27—National Database—Animal Waste Air 

Emissions Reporting (see Section IV.B.7) 

#28—National Database—Facility Benefits 

and Disadvantages (see Section IV.B.7) 

#29—National Database—Managing FOIA 

Requests (see Section IV.B.7) 

#30—National Database—Other (see Section 

IV.B.7) 

#31—Regulated Universe—Number of Farms 

Reporting (see Section IV.C.1) 

#32—Burden—Reporting Farms (see Section 

IV.C.2) 

#33—Burden—Non-Reporting Farms (see 

Section IV.C.2) 

#34—Burden—Small Farms (see Section 

IV.C.2) 

#35—Burden—Qualitative Costs (see Section 

IV.C.2) 

#36—Benefits—Environmental Justice (see 

Section IV.C.3) 

#37—Indirect Benefits (see Section IV.C.3) 

#38—Small Farm Exemption—General (see 

Section IV.D.1) 

#39—Small Farm Exemption—Criteria (see 

Section IV.D.1) 

#40—Small Farm Definition (see Section 

IV.D.2) 

#41—Small Farm—Waste Handling (see 

Section IV.D.3) 

#42—Small Farm—Health Impacts (see 

Section IV.D.4) 

#43—State, Local, and Tribal Impacts (see 

Section IV.D.5) 

#44—RQ Adjustment—General (see Section 

IV.D.6) 

#45—Industry-Specific RQ Adjustment (see 

Section IV.D.6) 

#46—National Report based on USDA or 

State Data (see Section IV.E) 

#47—Other Technology for Estimating Air 

Releases (see Section IV.E) 

#48—Other Solutions (see Section IV.E) 

Other Comments (Section V) 

II. General Information 

A. Does this ANPRM apply to me? 

A list of entities that could be affected 

by a potential future rulemaking 

include, but are not limited to: 

TABLE 1—ENTITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY A FUTURE RULEMAKING

Type of entity Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ................................. NAICS Code 112—Animal Production. 

State and/or Local Governments.NAICS Code 999200—State Government, excluding schools and hospitals. 

NAICS Code 999300—Local Government, excluding schools and hospitals. 

State Emergency Response Commissions, Tribal Emergency Response Commissions, Tribal Emergency Planning Committees and Local Emergency Planning Committees. 

NAICS = North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by a future rulemaking. If you 

have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. What Is the purpose of this ANPRM? 

On June 13, 2019, the Agency 

published a final rule (84 FR 27533) 

which exempted reporting of animal 

waste air emissions under EPCRA for all 

farms, regardless of size. The Agency is 

reconsidering that final rule and 

through this ANRPM is seeking 

information that may assist with a 

potential future rulemaking requiring 

farms to report air emissions of 

extremely hazardous substances from 

animal waste under EPCRA. 

EPA is specifically soliciting 

information on the following five topics: 

(1) health impacts; (2) implementation 

challenges; (3) costs and benefits; (4) 

small farm definition and reporting 

exemption, and (5) a national report on 

animal waste air emissions. Information 

collected during the public comment 

period for this ANPRM will better 

inform the Agency on whether to pursue 

a proposed rule, as well as assist the 

Agency on how best to implement the 

reinstating of EPCRA reporting from 

farms, if such a rule is finalized. The 

Agency is also requesting comments and 

information on any other topics relevant 

to conducting a future rulemaking on 

EPCRA reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste on farms. The solicitation 

of information in this ANPRM does not 

necessarily mean any action on farms 

will occur. 

The solicitation of comment on these 

matters should not be read as EPA 

suggesting legal ambiguity in the 

relevant regulations or recognizing a 

particular interpretation by EPA of 

either EPCRA, the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA), or their implementing 

regulations. For purposes of this 

comment solicitation, exploration of 

ways to further clarify particular aspects 

of the existing regulations should not be 

viewed as an indication that the existing 

language is inadequate, or in any way be 

seen to undermine the Agency’s ability 

to enforce these regulations as written. 

C. Legal authority 

This advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) is being issued 

under EPCRA, which was enacted as 

Title III of the Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 

(Pub. L. 99–499). Any future rulemaking 

would fall under the authority of 

EPCRA section 304 (42 U.S.C. 11004) 

and the Agency’s general rulemaking 

authority under EPCRA section 328 (42 

U.S.C. 11048). 

III. Background 

A. Overview 

Animal waste air emissions reporting 

from farms has been subject to a 

complex history of EPA regulatory 

actions, subsequent legal challenges, 

and Congressional legislation. Animal 

waste can generate potentially harmful 

air emissions of ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide,1 which are listed as hazardous 

substances (HSs) under CERCLA and as 

extremely hazardous substances (EHSs) 

under EPCRA. The following sections 

provide a discussion of the regulatory 

reporting requirements and the history 

of prior regulatory and legal actions 

leading to this ANPRM. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80225 

2NRC is a part of the federally established 

National Response System and staffed 24 hours a 

day by the U.S. Coast Guard. It is the designated 

federal point of contact for reporting all oil, 

chemical, radiological, biological and etiological 

discharges into the environment, anywhere in the 

United States and its territories. 

3The EPCRA definition of facility at 40 CFR 

355.16: means all buildings, equipment, structures, 

and other stationary items that are located on a 

single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites and 

that are owned or operated by the same person (or 

by any person that controls, is controlled by, or 

under common control with, such person). Facility 

includes manmade structures, as well as all natural 

structures in which chemicals are purposefully 

placed or removed through human means such that 

it functions as a containment structure for human 

use. For purposes of emergency release notification, 

the term includes motor vehicles, rolling stock, and 

aircraft. 

4SERC is defined at 40 CFR 355.61 as: the State 

Emergency Response Commission for the state in 

which the facility is located except where the 

facility is located in Indian Country, in which case, 

SERC means the Emergency Response Commission 

for the tribe under whose jurisdiction the facility is 

located. In the absence of a SERC for a state or 

Indian Tribe, the governor or the chief executive 

officer of the tribe, respectively, shall be the SERC. 

Where there is a cooperative agreement between a 

state and a tribe, the SERC shall be the entity 

identified in the agreement. 

5LEPC is defined at 40 CFR 355.61 as: the Local 

Emergency Planning Committee appointed by the 

State Emergency Response Commission. TEPCs are 

appointed by the TERCs. 

B. Release Reporting Requirements 

under CERCLA and EPCRA 

CERCLA and EPCRA are separate, but 

interrelated, environmental statutes that 

work together to provide notification of 

qualifying releases of HSs and EHSs to 

the appropriate government authorities. 

In general, CERCLA section 103 

provides for notice to federal officials, 

whereas EPCRA section 304 provides 

for notice to state, tribal, and local 

officials. Section 103 of CERCLA 

requires the person in charge of a vessel 

or facility to immediately notify the 

National Response Center (NRC) 2 when 

there is a release of an HS, as defined 

under CERCLA section 101(14), in an 

amount equal to or greater than the 

reportable quantity (RQ) for that 

substance within a 24-hour period. 

These requirements are codified in the 

CERCLA regulations at 40 CFR part 302. 

In addition to these CERCLA reporting 

requirements, EPCRA section 304 

generally requires owners or operators 

of certain facilities 3 to immediately 

notify state, tribal and local authorities 

when there is a release of an EHS, as 

defined under EPCRA section 302, or of 

a CERCLA hazardous substance in an 

amount equal to or greater than the RQ 

for that substance within a 24-hour 

period. These requirements are codified 

in the EPCRA regulations at 40 CFR part 

355 subpart C. 

Notice given to the NRC under 

CERCLA serves to inform the federal 

government of a release so that federal 

personnel can evaluate the need for a 

response in accordance with the 

National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Contingency Plan (NCP), the federal 

government’s framework for responding 

to both oil discharges and hazardous 

substance releases. Related, notice 

under EPCRA is given to the State or 

Tribal Emergency Response 

Commission (SERC or TERC) 4 for any 

state or tribal region likely to be affected 

by the release and to the community 

emergency coordinator for the Local or 

Tribal Emergency Planning Committee 

(LEPC or TEPC) 5 for any area likely to 

be affected by the release so that state, 

tribal and local authorities have 

information to help protect the 

community. As stated in the title of the 

statute, EPCRA also has an important 

community right-to-know component 

that provides for public availability of 

release notifications pursuant to EPCRA 

section 324. 

Release reporting under EPCRA 

depends, in part, on whether reporting 

is required under CERCLA. Specifically, 

EPCRA section 304(a) provides for 

reporting under the following three 

release scenarios: 

1. EPCRA section 304(a)(1) requires 

notification if a release of an EPCRA 

EHS occurs from a facility at which a 

hazardous chemical is produced, used 

or stored, and such release requires a 

notification under CERCLA section 

103(a). 

2. EPCRA section 304(a)(2) requires 

notification if a release of an EPCRA 

EHS occurs from a facility at which a 

hazardous chemical is produced, used 

or stored, and such release is not subject 

to the notification requirements under 

CERCLA section 103(a), but only if the 

release: 

Æ Is not a federally permitted release 

as defined in CERCLA section 101(10), 

Æ Is in an amount in excess of the 

reportable quantity as determined by 

EPA, and 

Æ Occurs in a manner that would 

require notification under CERCLA 

section 103(a). 

3. EPCRA section 304(a)(3) requires 

notification if a release of a substance 

not designated as an EPCRA EHS occurs 

from a facility at which a hazardous 

chemical is produced, used or stored, 

and such release requires a notification 

under CERCLA section 103(a). 

C. Continuous Release Reporting (CRR) 

Regulations 

There are situations where known or 

anticipated releases may be subject to 

significantly reduced reporting 

requirements, rather than the immediate 

or occurrence-based reporting of 

CERCLA section 103(a) and EPCRA 

section 304(a) as outlined above. 

CERCLA section 103(f) and its attendant 

regulations at 40 CFR 302.8 provide 

such relief for a release of a hazardous 

substance that is continuous and stable 

in quantity and rate. Similarly, EPA 

relied on EPCRA section 304(a)(2) to 

promulgate analogous reduced reporting 

regulations for continuous releases 

under EPCRA at 40 CFR 355.32. Those 

EPCRA regulations instruct a facility to 

rely on and follow, in part, the related 

CERCLA regulations at 40 CFR 302.8. As 

discussed further in this document, the 

continuous release reporting option is 

meant to save facilities and response 

authorities from the unnecessary burden 

of notification each time a repeated 

release—that is continuous and stable— 

occurs. 

Under CERCLA section 103(a), 

regulated entities are required to 

immediately report releases of CERCLA 

hazardous substances that meet or 

exceed the RQ threshold. In lieu of 

reporting for each release, however, 

certain continuous releases can qualify 

for reduced reporting (see 40 CFR 

302.8), which allows the regulated 

entity to only provide the following: 

(1) Initial telephone notification made 

to the NRC; 

(2) Initial 30-day written notification 

to the EPA; 

(3) One-year follow-up written 

notification to the EPA; 

(4) Notification to the EPA of a change 

in the composition or source(s) of the 

release or in the other information 

submitted in the initial written 

notification; and 

(5) Notification to the NRC of any 

increase in the quantity of the 

hazardous substance being released 

during any 24-hour period, which 

represents a statistically significant 

increase (SSI). 

Reduced release reporting provisions 

are also available under EPCRA, which 

requires reporting of CERCLA hazardous 

substances and EPCRA extremely 

hazardous substances. Under the 

EPCRA continuous release reporting 

regulations codified at 40 CFR 355.32, 

which cross-reference the CERCLA 

regulations at 40 CFR 302.8, facilities 

are required to report only items 1, 2, 

and 5 (from the list above) to their SERC 

or TERC and LEPC or TEPC. Any 

changes in source or composition (item 

4) may be considered a new release, 

which is also required to be reported to 

the SERC or TERC and the LEPC or 

TEPC. A first anniversary report (item 3) 

is not required under EPCRA section 

304. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80226 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

6The EPCRA continuous release reporting 

regulation at 40 CFR 355.32 cross-references the 

CERCLA definition of continuous releases at 40 

CFR 302.8(b). 

7EPA defined different sizes of farms using the 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) size definitions for concentrated animal 

feeding operations (CAFOs). A table of EPA’s 

NPDES regulatory definitions of large, medium, and 

small CAFOs can be viewed here: https:// 

www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sector_table.pdf. 

CERCLA and the implementing 

regulations of both CERCLA and 

EPCRA 6 and their implementing 

regulations define whether a release 

qualifies for continuous release 

reporting. The continuous release 

regulations in 40 CFR 302.8(d)(1) 

provide that a facility can establish a 

continuous release by ‘‘[u]sing release 

data, engineering estimates, knowledge 

of operating procedures, or best 

professional judgment to establish the 

continuity and stability of the release.’’ 

There is no specific requirement for 

release monitoring or collecting release 

data if a facility is relying on 

engineering estimates, best professional 

judgment, or knowledge of operations. 

The definitions in the continuous 

release regulations in 40 CFR 302.8(b) 

provide further assistance to determine 

what qualifies as a continuous release. 

There, a continuous release is defined as 

a release ‘‘that occurs without 

interruption or abatement or that is 

routine, anticipated, and intermittent 

and incidental to normal operations or 

treatment processes.’’ A routine release 

is defined as a release ‘‘that occurs 

during normal operating procedures or 

processes.’’ And the phrase ‘‘stable in 

quantity and rate’’ is defined as a release 

‘‘that is predictable and regular in 

amount and rate of emission.’’ 

The continuous release regulations 

also include reporting the normal range 

of releases defined in 40 CFR 302.8 as 

‘‘all releases (in pounds or kilograms) of 

a hazardous substance reported or 

occurring over any 24-hour period 

under normal operating conditions 

during the preceding year.’’ The upper 

and lower bounds of the normal range 

of the release are reported in the 30-day 

written report under EPCRA. 

D. Regulatory and Legal Background 

As previously noted, the history of 

release reporting for air emissions from 

animal waste at farms is long and 

complex. The following summary of 

events leading to this ANPRM is not 

meant to be exhaustive. Publicly 

available documents cited below and 

included in the docket provide further 

background information. 

1. 2008 CERCLA/EPCRA Reporting 

Exemption Rule and Related Litigation 

Prior to 2008, all farms were subject 

to release reporting for air emissions 

under both CERCLA and EPCRA but 

were eligible for reduced continuous 

release reporting. In December 2008, 

EPA published a final rule that 

exempted all farms from reporting 

animal waste air emissions under 

CERCLA and exempted small and 

medium concentrated animal feeding 

operations (CAFOs) 7 from reporting 

such emissions under EPCRA (73 FR 

76948, December 18, 2008). Large 

CAFOs with emissions equal to or 

exceeding an RQ were still required to 

report under EPCRA with the 

continuous release reporting option, as 

applicable. EPA intended the 2008 

rulemaking to reduce the reporting 

burden on farms and emergency 

response agencies. 

In April 2017, the 2008 rule was 

vacated by the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit as arbitrary and capricious. See 

Waterkeeper Alliance, et al. v. EPA, 853 

F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2017). In so holding, 

the court acknowledged the potential 

health risks of some animal waste air 

emissions and found that reporting 

could be useful to local and state 

authorities who may need to investigate 

or respond to these releases. The effect 

of the court’s vacatur was to reinstate 

reporting requirements for air emissions 

from animal waste at all farms under 

CERCLA and EPCRA. The court delayed 

the effective date of its ruling until May 

2, 2018, to grant EPA time to develop 

guidance to assist farms with meeting 

their reporting obligations. 

2. 2018 FARM Act and Related 2018 

CERCLA Rule 

On March 23, 2018, President Trump 

signed into law the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (‘‘Omnibus 

Bill’’). Title XI of the Omnibus Bill is 

entitled the ‘‘Fair Agricultural Reporting 

Method Act’’ or the ‘‘FARM Act.’’ See 

Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act, 

Public Law 115–141, sections 1101– 

1103 (2018). The FARM Act amended 

CERCLA section 103 to expressly 

exempt the reporting of air emissions 

from animal waste (including 

decomposing animal waste) at a farm. 

As a result, in August 2018, the Agency 

published a final rule to amend the 

CERCLA regulations at 40 CFR part 302 

by adding the reporting exemption for 

air emissions from animal waste at 

farms and adding definitions of ‘‘animal 

waste’’ and ‘‘farm’’ from the FARM Act 

(83 FR 37444, August 1, 2018). 

The FARM Act expressly exempted 

all farms from reporting air emissions 

from animal waste under CERCLA but 

did not amend EPCRA in any way. 

3. 2019 EPCRA Rule and Related 

Litigation 

EPA proposed a rule on November 14, 

2018, to exempt all farms from reporting 

air emissions from animal waste under 

EPCRA (83 FR 56791, November 14, 

2018). EPA received considerable 

comments from the public both 

supporting and opposing the proposed 

rule. Supporters largely agreed with 

EPA’s interpretation of the statutes and 

expressed concerns over the burden that 

would be placed on farms if animal 

waste emission reporting was not 

exempt under EPCRA. Opposing 

commenters expressed concerns over 

the environmental and health impacts of 

animal waste air emissions and the 

public’s right-to-know about these 

emissions. They argued that EPA’s 

interpretation of the statute in support 

of the proposed rule was unlawful. 

After consideration of all these 

comments, EPA finalized the rule to 

promulgate the EPCRA exemption on 

June 13, 2019 (84 FR 27533) (the June 

2019 EPCRA Rule). 

On July 9, 2019, several 

environmental groups, including the 

Rural Empowerment Association for 

Community Help (REACH), the Center 

for Biological Diversity, the 

Environmental Integrity Project, and the 

Waterkeeper Alliance, amended an 

existing complaint to challenge the final 

rule in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia. See REACH v. 

EPA, No. 1:18–CV–02260 (Sept. 28, 

2018) (the REACH case). A number of 

agricultural trade associations joined the 

action as intervenors, including the 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 

the National Pork Producers Council, 

and the American Farm Bureau 

Federation. 

4. Executive Order 13990, January 20, 

2021 

On January 20, 2021, shortly after the 

change in administration, President 

Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 

13990, which states that it is the policy 

of the new administration: ‘‘to listen to 

the science; to improve public health 

and protect our environment; to ensure 

access to clean air and water; to limit 

exposure to dangerous chemicals and 

pesticides; to hold polluters 

accountable, including those who 

disproportionately harm communities of 

color and low-income communities; to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to 

bolster resilience to the impacts of 

climate change; to restore and expand 

our national treasures and monuments; 

and to prioritize both environmental 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80227 

justice and the creation of the wellpaying union jobs necessary to deliver 

on these goals.’’ (86 FR 7037, January 

25, 2021). 

E.O. 13990 further directed federal 

agencies to ‘‘immediately review and, as 

appropriate and consistent with 

applicable law, take action to address 

the promulgation of Federal regulations 

and other actions during the 4 years 

prior to the E.O. that conflict with these 

important national objectives, and to 

immediately commence work to 

confront the climate crisis.’’ See Id. In 

keeping with E.O. 13990, EPA moved 

the court in the REACH case to remand 

the June 2019 EPCRA Rule back to the 

EPA on November 23, 2021. The district 

court granted the remand on February 

14, 2022 ‘‘without vacatur,’’ meaning 

the EPCRA exemption for farms remains 

in place while EPA reconsiders the rule. 

IV. What information is EPA seeking? 

EPA is seeking comments and data 

that will better inform the Agency on 

whether to pursue a proposed rule, as 

well as assist the Agency on how best 

to implement the reinstating of EPCRA 

reporting from farms, if such a rule is 

finalized. The Agency is specifically 

soliciting information on the following 

five topics: (1) health impacts; (2) 

implementation challenges; (3) costs 

and benefits; (4) small farm definition 

and potential reporting exemption, and 

(5) a national report on animal waste air 

emissions. 

A. Health Impacts From Animal Waste 

Air Emissions 

EPA reviewed literature about health 

impacts to communities in the vicinity 

of farms with animal waste. A summary 

of the health impact studies can be 

found in the Technical Background 

Document (TBD) in the docket for this 

action. The literature review of 21 

studies reporting on health effects 

associated with air releases from Animal 

Feeding Operations (AFOs) add to a 

body of evidence that exposure to AFOs 

is associated with respiratory health 

effects, mortality, odor annoyance, 

gastrointestinal illness, and other health 

effects. They also reveal that 

populations located in close proximity 

to animal operations are at a greater risk 

for adverse health effects compared to 

populations located farther away or 

residing in areas without AFOs. The 

literature search identified several 

studies showing a correlation between 

proximity and exposure to animal waste 

and respiratory health effects, including 

increased likelihood of asthma in both 

adults and children and reduced lung 

function. Some of the studies also 

identified exposure to animal waste as 

being correlated with mortality rates, 

gastrointestinal illness, and other 

human health effects. The size and type 

of operation, number of animals, and 

species may affect the intensity of 

animal waste exposure. The studies also 

concluded that populations located in 

closer proximity to animal farm 

operations are at an increased risk for 

adverse health effects when compared 

to populations located farther away or 

residing in areas without animal farm 

operations. The studies also provided 

specific cases where communities with 

environmental justice concerns, 

including those comprising people of 

color, low-income individuals, and 

children in specific geographic locations 

of the country are disproportionately 

located near animal feeding operations. 

The location of these populations has 

the potential to result in significant 

health impacts on the members of these 

communities. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to health impacts: 

#1—Health Impacts: The Agency is 

soliciting comment on the literature 

search provided in the TBD and 

requesting any additional relevant 

literature or other information on health 

impacts from animal waste air 

emissions, including any indirect health 

impacts. The Agency is also requesting 

any information on health impacts to 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns. 

B. Implementation Challenges 

If the Agency reinstates EPCRA 

reporting, EPA anticipates a certain 

level of uncertainty with determining or 

calculating the amount of animal waste 

air emissions of ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide to trigger reporting. In the 

subsequent sections, the Agency is 

soliciting information on estimating 

amounts of air emissions, as well as 

other implementation challenges such 

as whether the continuous release 

reporting requirements are applicable to 

farm operations and how the influx of 

release reporting data could be 

managed. 

1. National Air Emissions Monitoring 

Study (NAEMS) 

EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation 

(OAR) is developing methodologies, 

based on data collected under the 

National Air Emissions Monitoring 

Study (NAEMS), to estimate air 

emissions of ammonia, hydrogen 

sulfide, particulate matter (PM), and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

from animal waste from poultry (egglayers and chicken broilers), swine, and 

dairy livestock. The NAEMS originated 

in 2005 from the EPA and agriculture 

industry’s understanding of the 

difficulty in estimating air emissions 

from animal feeding operations. To 

address the issue, the Agency entered 

into the Air Consent Agreement with 

the animal production industry, which 

included approximately 2,600 entities 

covering about 14,000 farms. As part of 

the agreement, EPA agreed not to pursue 

enforcement actions for certain past 

violations of the Clean Air Act, 

CERCLA, and EPCRA during 

development of the methodologies. The 

methodologies, based on the NAEMS 

data, are being developed for poultry 

(egg-layers and chicken broilers), swine, 

and dairy operations utilizing air 

monitoring data from animal operations 

and statistical analyses. The initial 

methodologies were released to the 

public starting in 2020. EPA anticipates 

holding a formal public comment period 

starting in late 2023 and finalizing the 

methods by spring 2024. In the existing 

draft form, the methods use a set of 

variables easily accessible to estimate 

emissions. These variables include type 

and number of animals at the farm; 

beginning and ending animal weight; 

waste management method(s) and if 

applicable; the housing type and 

number of days without animals in the 

barn or house; and ambient relative 

humidity, ambient temperature, and 

wind speed. Additional information can 

be found at https://www.epa.gov/afosair/national-air-emissions-monitoringstudy or in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2004–0237. 

The Agency acknowledges there are 

livestock types, such as turkey and beef, 

and operational configurations that are 

not covered under the NAEMS 

methodologies. The subsequent section, 

IV.B.2, solicits comment and 

information on these gaps and how to 

address them, if EPCRA reporting is 

reinstated. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to EPA’s emissions 

estimating methodologies developed 

using data collected as part of the 

NAEMS: 

#2—Emissions Estimating 

Methodologies: EPA requests comments 

on the applicability of the NAEMS 

methodologies for estimating air 

emissions from animal waste for farm 

types not included as part of NAEMS for 

a potential future reporting under 

EPCRA. For instance, data were not 

collected from cage-free layer facilities 

and recent trends in the industry have 

been toward more eggs being produced 

from cage-free facilities. As part of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80228 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

NAEMS program, emissions data were 

collected from high-rise and belt-battery 

layer facilities which may have different 

emissions than a cage-free facility. 

#3—2005 Compliance Agreement 

Reporting: If EPA requires reporting 

under EPCRA, would there be confusion 

around the timing of reporting for 

participants of the 2005 compliance 

agreement? If the Agency were to pursue 

and finalize a rulemaking to reinstate 

EPCRA reporting for animal waste air 

emissions prior to the NAEMS methods 

being finalized, then NAEMS 

Agreement participants would not have 

to report until the timeframes triggered 

by publication of the final NAEMS 

methodologies. This point may be moot 

since the NAEMS methods are 

scheduled to be finalized well in 

advance of the time needed for a 

possible rulemaking to reinstate EPCRA 

reporting. The Agency is soliciting 

comment on any outreach that EPA 

should conduct to avoid potential 

confusion. 

2. Emissions Calculator and Guidance 

on Estimating Amounts of Air Releases 

If EPA moves forward with reinstating 

the EPCRA reporting requirement for 

farms, the Agency may need to develop 

tools and guidance to minimize the 

reporting burden. 

EPA could develop a calculator for 

farms to estimate their animal waste air 

emissions. The web-based emissions 

calculator would use the estimation 

methods developed with the NAEMS 

data, enabling farms to input a limited 

number of variables to estimate the 

amount of ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide air releases from animal waste. 

The input variables would be 

information that farmers are assumed to 

already know, such as location of the 

farm, species of animals at the farm, 

species population size, waste 

management method(s) and if 

applicable, the housing type, number of 

days without animals in the barn or 

house and beginning and ending animal 

weight. The emissions calculator could 

use the farm location (e.g., county or ZIP 

code) to obtain meteorological data (e.g., 

ambient relative humidity, ambient 

temperature, wind speed). The 

emissions calculator would perform the 

calculations using the formulas derived 

from the NAEMS data, which provide 

an estimate of release amount per day in 

pounds. This screening step would 

identify whether a farm meets or 

exceeds the reportable quantity and 

therefore, be subject to reporting under 

EPCRA. If the emissions calculator 

shows that the reportable quantity is 

exceeded, the farm may be able to meet 

the reporting requirements with 

continuous release reporting. The 

applicable information in the emissions 

calculator could then auto-populate an 

EPA webform for the continuous release 

report form. Finally, instructions with 

the webform could instruct the farmer 

on how to submit the continuous release 

report to their appropriate state, tribal 

and local agencies responsible for 

collecting EPCRA release reports. The 

Agency recognizes that the NAEMS data 

does not cover all livestock species or 

operational configurations. For example, 

common species such as turkey and beef 

are not included in the Air Consent 

Agreement, nor are less common 

livestock species, such as goat, llama, 

and aquaculture. If the Agency pursues 

a rule to require EPCRA reporting, the 

Agency does not want farmers to 

struggle with estimating air emissions, 

thus the Agency is soliciting input and 

recommendations for tools and/or 

guidance the Agency could develop to 

assist farms in estimating air emissions 

for livestock and operational 

configurations not covered under the 

NAEMS methods. 

Finally, if farms are required to report 

under EPCRA, ideally, EPA would 

provide a mechanism or threshold 

upfront to farms as to whether an 

estimate of their emissions is even 

necessary (i.e., does a farm have enough 

livestock to even come close to the 

reportable quantity?). EPA has 

considered developing guidance on a 

minimum number of animals, where 

under typical farm operations, any 

number of livestock below the cutoff 

could not exceed the 100 pounds of air 

emissions for either hydrogen sulfide or 

ammonia. If possible, these types of 

cutoffs could be provided on EPA’s 

website and on the front end of the 

emissions calculator, so that farms with 

numbers of animals below the cutoff, 

can quickly determine they would not 

need to report. EPA understands this 

may not provide the level of regulatory 

certainty to assure farmers that they are 

complying with the regulations. The 

Agency seeks input on whether this 

type of cutoff would be helpful and 

what unforeseen issues with providing 

such cutoffs through guidance and 

outreach materials could arise. Of note, 

the Agency contemplated including 

such a cutoff in regulatory text for a 

potential future rule. Under the prior 

2008 rulemaking (73 FR 76948), only 

large CAFOs were required to report 

under EPCRA, where the definition of a 

large CAFO (by number of livestock) 

provided regulatory certainty. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to a potential 

emissions calculator: 

#4—Emissions Calculator—General: 

EPA requests comments on the utility 

and function of an emissions calculator. 

Should EPA create a webform tool that 

can calculate an estimate of air 

emissions from animal wastes on farms? 

The Agency has a draft design of an 

emissions calculator included in an 

appendix of the TBD to provide readers 

with the look and feel of the tool. 

Separately, is there a need for EPA to 

create a paper form or phone hotline to 

assist users that do not have access to 

the internet? Are there other, more 

efficient, ways to provide air emission 

estimates to farms other than through a 

webform calculator? 

#5—Emissions Calculator— 

Continuous Release Reporting: If the 

emissions calculator provides an 

estimate that exceeds the reportable 

quantity, should farmers (users) be 

routed from the emissions calculator to 

the continuous release reporting form 

and the instructions for submission to 

the specific state, tribal and local 

agencies? The Agency is soliciting 

comment on this approach in general, 

and on whether this is the most efficient 

process EPA can establish for reporting 

animal waste air emissions under 

EPCRA (i.e., Would farms find this 

helpful? Are there any other steps in the 

process which could be streamlined by 

EPA and/or state, tribal and local 

agencies? Are there alternatives that 

may be more efficient?). 

#6—Accuracy of Reported Release 

Quantity: Should the calculator include 

a disclaimer that the emissions are 

estimates of uncontrolled emissions, 

and may not reflect actual emissions 

due to differences in each farm 

operation and applications of controls? 

The Agency solicits comment on adding 

a disclaimer and any other guidance 

that may be needed. 

#7—Turkey and Beef Contribution 

Factors: Turkey and beef are two of the 

most prevalent livestock species not 

included in the Air Consent Agreement. 

If EPCRA reporting is reinstated, the 

Agency would consider publishing 

contribution factors for turkey and beef 

livestock. The contribution factor would 

be a quantity of ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide emitted per animal. The farmer 

would only need to conduct a 

‘‘bookkeeping exercise,’’ of multiplying 

the number of livestock by the 

contribution factor, which would 

provide the air emission estimate. 

Potential contribution factors for turkey 

and beef are in an appendix in the TBD. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80229 

8Note: State, tribal, and local EPCRA 

implementing agencies may have additional 

reporting requirements. 

The Agency is soliciting comment and 

information on whether developing 

contribution factors would be useful 

and appropriate for turkey and beef. The 

Agency is also soliciting any 

information that could be used to 

develop contribution factors for turkey 

and beef. See the TBD for the Agency’s 

preliminary review into turkey and beef 

emissions studies. The contribution 

factors and literature search in the TBD 

are only drafts to give the reader an 

estimate of what a turkey and beef 

contribution factor may be, as well as 

show the relevant literature EPA would 

review to develop contribution factors. 

#8—Estimating Emissions from Less 

Common Species: The Agency is 

requesting information that could be 

used in development of contribution 

factors for less common livestock which 

are not included in the NAEMS. 

Additionally, if the Agency reinstates 

EPCRA reporting, would it be 

appropriate for the Agency to devote 

time and resources to develop 

contribution factors for all conceivable 

farming operations? The Agency has 

included some preliminary draft cutoffs 

in the TBD for estimating the initial 

burden to all farms when determining if 

they will exceed the RQs. 

#9—Estimating Emissions from 

Atypical Farming Operations: There 

may be farms unable to use the NAEMS 

methods because they do not apply to 

their specific operation configuration. 

For example, cage-free egg laying houses 

were not prevalent in the industry when 

the NAEMS was conducted, and no data 

were collected to support method 

development. In those cases, farms 

would need to use other information to 

estimate the air emissions, if EPCRA 

reporting is reinstated. For examples of 

operations that are included in the 

emissions calculator, see the 

screenshots of a mock-up of the 

calculator in the appendices of the TBD. 

EPA requests comment on operational 

configuration scenarios not covered by 

the NAEMS methodologies, and 

subsequently not covered by the 

emissions calculator, that should be 

included in guidance to assist the 

regulated community. EPA requests 

comment on operational configurations 

not covered by the methodologies 

developed from NAEMS data and 

requests any information that could be 

used to develop tools or guidance on 

how to calculate emissions from 

atypical farming operations. 

#10—Cutoffs for Estimating: Should 

EPA develop guidance with de minimis 

thresholds which would make clear that 

a farm with livestock inventory below 

the threshold could not conceivably 

produce over 100 pounds of ammonia or 

hydrogen sulfide in a 24-hour period, 

and thus would not have to estimate air 

emissions or have to report under 

EPCRA? The Agency is requesting any 

information that could be used to 

develop thresholds. Are there farming 

operations that could be exceptions to 

such a threshold where very few 

animals are on the farm, but the farming 

operation would have enough manure 

on site to emit over 100 pounds of 

ammonia or hydrogen sulfide in a 24- 

hour period? 

#11—Other Guidance: EPA solicits 

comment on additional implementation 

information EPA should consider in 

development of guidance, and other 

implementation tools EPA could 

provide to farms to reduce reporting 

burden and costs. 

3. Grazing Operations 

EPA is also seeking comment on 

having emissions from animals living 

and being raised in grazing or pasture 

situations covered by a potential future 

rule. A common example is beef cattle 

that are raised grazing or pastured over 

large areas of land for a period of time 

in their growth cycle. The animal waste 

generated while grazing or pastured is 

generally widely dispersed across the 

landscape and is not in a concentrated 

area. The beef cattle can then be 

transferred from the grazing or pastured 

areas to feedlots or other concentrated 

feeding operations to complete their life 

cycle. Other species similarly are raised 

grazing or pastured for a period of their 

life cycle. 

If reporting is reinstated under a 

potential future rule, only farming 

operations that are defined as a 

‘‘facility’’ would need to report. Under 

EPCRA section 329 (Definitions), the 

term ‘‘facility’’ means ‘‘all buildings, 

equipment, structures, and other 

stationary items which are located on a 

single site or on contiguous or adjacent 

sites . . .’’ The term ‘‘facility’’ is further 

defined in the EPCRA regulations at 40 

CFR 355.61 to include ‘‘manmade 

structures, as well as all natural 

structures in which chemicals are 

purposefully placed or removed through 

human means such that it functions as 

a containment structure for human use.’’ 

In general, the Agency does not 

currently believe grazing operations fall 

under the definition of ‘‘facility,’’ unless 

the manure is collected and managed. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to grazing 

operations: 

#12—Grazing Operations: EPA seeks 

comment on whether the Agency’s 

interpretation of ‘‘facility’’ relating to 

grazing operations is correct and 

appropriate. The Agency also seeks 

information on whether clarifications of 

the applicability of the regulations to 

other farming operations is needed. 

4. Use of Continuous Release Reporting 

by Farms 

The animal waste that farms handle or 

manage as part of their normal 

operations of raising animals may have 

regular air emissions which could fall 

within the scope of continuous release 

reporting (see section III.C. for an 

overview of continuous release 

reporting). As mentioned previously, 

continuous release reporting under 

EPCRA encompasses the following three 

requirements, found at 40 CFR 355.32: 

(1) Initial telephone notification made to 

the LEPC and SERC; (2) Initial 30-day 

written notification to the LEPC and 

SERC; and (3) notification to the LEPC 

and SERC of any increase in the 

quantity of the hazardous substance 

being released during any 24-hour 

period, which represents a statistically 

significant increase (SSI). The 30-day 

written notification is submitted using a 

range for the quantity released, and an 

SSI is anything that exceeds the upper 

bound of the range identified in the 

initial 30-day notification. Of note, there 

are no requirements for updating a 

continuous release report if the release 

decreases below the lower bound 

provided in the report, and there are no 

federal requirements for reporting when 

a continuous release has ceased.8

Furthermore, the initial notification 

does not require monitoring data to 

support the upper and lower bounds of 

the quantity released; instead, the 

regulations allow for ‘‘using release 

data, engineering estimates, knowledge 

of operating procedures, or best 

professional judgment’’ (see 40 CFR 

355.32(a) via 40 CFR 302.8(d)(1)). 

Finally, a continuous release is defined 

as ‘‘a release that occurs without 

interruption or abatement or that is 

routine, anticipated, and intermittent 

and incidental to normal operations or 

treatment processes,’’ (see 40 CFR 

302.8(b); emphasis added). 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to continuous 

release reporting: 

#13—Application of Continuous 

Release Reporting: The Agency is 

soliciting comment on the 

appropriateness of defining all air 

releases from animal waste on farms as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80230 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

9When using continuous release reporting, the 

30-day initial written notification under 40 CFR 

355.32(a), further specified under 40 CFR 302.8(e), 

is considered the follow-up emergency notice under 

EPCRA section 304(c). 

10See comment with docket ID EPA–HQ–OLEM– 

2018–0318–0224. 

continuous releases, because they are 

routine, anticipated, and intermittent 

and incidental to normal operations. 

#14—Application of Upper and Lower 

Bounds: The Agency is soliciting 

comment on allowing farms to apply 

upper and lower bounds on their 

continuous release reports to estimate 

the highest or lowest quantity released 

at any point during the year, regardless 

of seasonal fluctuations in farming 

operations. 

#15—Exceptions to Continuous 

Release Reporting: Given the flexibility 

of the EPCRA continuous release 

reporting requirements, the Agency is 

soliciting comment on whether there are 

scenarios for which releases from 

animal waste at farms could not be 

covered under continuous release 

reporting. If that is the case, the Agency 

requests any information on such 

farming operations, so the Agency can 

account for the burden these operations 

would incur from episodic release 

reporting, instead of continuous release 

reporting. 

#16—Benefits and Costs of 

Continuous Release Reporting Data: The 

Agency is soliciting comment and 

supporting data on the usefulness of 

continuous release reporting data to the 

surrounding communities and SERCs 

and LEPCs (i.e., If the report is 

submitted with a large range for the 

quantity released, would that help the 

public understand what’s in their 

community?). 

#17—Continuous Release Reporting— 

Other: The Agency is soliciting 

information and comment on any other 

issue relating to the application of 

continuous release reporting by farms 

subject to a potential future rule. 

5. Citizen Suits 

Reinstating animal waste air 

emissions reporting requirements would 

create potential liability for farms that 

meet or exceed the RQ, but fail to report, 

under the citizen suit provisions of 

EPCRA. Under EPCRA section 

326(a)(1)(A)(i), a citizen may file suit 

against an owner or operator of a 

facility, including a farm, for failing to 

submit the follow-up emergency notice 

of release required by EPCRA section 

304(c).9 Before filing a citizen suit, the 

citizen must provide 60 days’ notice of 

the alleged violation to the facility, the 

state, and EPA, as required by EPCRA 

section 326(d)(1). If the alleged violator 

files the missing report in that time (i.e., 

the violation is ‘‘wholly past’’), EPA 

believes an actual lawsuit would be 

unlikely. Pursuant to the Supreme Court 

decision in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 

Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), 

citizens may not be able to demonstrate 

that they have standing to bring a suit 

for wholly past violations. In practice, if 

a facility files a release report within 60 

days of receiving notice of a citizen suit, 

the suit may be dismissed with no 

award of attorney’s fees or investigative 

costs. A suit also may not be brought if 

EPA has ‘‘commenced and is diligently 

pursuing’’ an action to enforce a 

requirement or impose a civil penalty 

under EPCRA. 

The Agency does not have a list of 

past citizen suits, but believes they are 

infrequent and not focused on small 

farms. EPA requests comment on 

potential citizen suit issues and 

concerns that are related to nonreporting farms. If there are other citizen 

suit considerations, EPA requests 

comment on these issues and concerns, 

including benefits of this potential 

remedy. These comments may assist in 

the development of guidance and 

outreach information to be shared with 

the regulated community as part of 

future compliance assistance if 

reporting is reinstated. 

Comments received on the 2018 

proposed rule included a concern of 

liabilities that reporting requirements 

could create for farmers because the 

information is ‘‘inherently imprecise 

and therefore subject to dispute.’’ 10 The 

Agency notes that under EPCRA section 

326(a)(1)(A)(i), a citizen suit can be 

brought against an owner or operator for 

failing to submit the follow-up 

emergency notice of release required by 

EPCRA section 304(c). That notice 

includes an ‘‘estimate of the quantity of 

any such substance that was released 

. . .’’ (see EPCRA section 304(b)(2)(C)). 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to potential impacts 

on farms from citizen suits: 

#18—Citizen Suits—Wholly Past 

Violations: Given that EPCRA requires 

60 days’ notice before filing a citizen 

suit, and the decision in Steel Co. v. 

Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 

U.S. 83 (1998), could citizen suits create 

more than a minimal burden on farms? 

Given that only an estimate needs to be 

provided to fulfill the requirements, the 

Agency is also soliciting comment and 

information on the potential for 

additional citizen suits based on the 

accuracy of the reporting estimate. 

#19—Citizen Suit Benefits and Costs: 

What are the potential costs and 

liabilities of EPCRA citizen suits for 

non-reporting farms if reporting is 

reinstated? The Agency is also soliciting 

any information on realized benefits of 

a citizen suit being filed against a farm. 

Finally, the Agency is soliciting 

information on the frequency and 

number of previous citizen suits for 

failing to submit the follow-up 

emergency notice of release required by 

EPCRA section 304(c), as well as the 

frequency and number of 60-day notices 

provided to farms in advance of the 

citizen suit. We realize that EPCRA 

reporting for animal waste air emissions 

at farms is not currently required, 

however, reporting was required by 

large CAFOs prior to 2019, which is the 

time period for which EPA is seeking 

information. 

#20—Citizen Suit—Guidance: If the 

Agency develops guidance on citizen 

suits, what information should the 

guidance include? 

#21—Citizen Suit—Other: The 

Agency is soliciting information and 

comment on any other issues related to 

citizen suits in the context of a potential 

future rulemaking to reinstate EPCRA 

reporting for farms. 

6. Privacy Concerns 

If reporting is reinstated in a future 

rulemaking for farms, the public may 

seek access to the report under the rightto-know provision in EPCRA section 

324(a). EPA understands there may be 

privacy concerns by the farmers when 

their personal residence is the same as 

the address for the farm, in which case 

the submitted reports may contain 

personal information that was 

previously unavailable from any other 

source to the public. The Agency 

expects that most small farms will not 

meet the applicable release reporting 

thresholds and will therefore fall 

outside the scope of any EPCRA 

reporting requirement entirely; 

however, the Agency still appreciates 

the concern for the small farms that 

would need to report. 

Request for Information 

#22—Privacy Concerns: EPA seeks 

comment, generally, on the privacy 

concerns of farmers who would be 

required to report animal waste air 

emissions. The Agency is also seeking 

creative solutions that could provide 

communities with information on air 

emissions from a farm without 

disclosing the location (i.e., personal 

address) of a ‘‘small’’ farm. 

#23—Privacy Concerns—Other: The 

Agency is soliciting information and 

comment on any other issues related to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80231 

privacy concerns in the context of a 

potential future rulemaking to reinstate 

EPCRA reporting for farms. 

7. EPCRA National Database 

Under EPCRA’s statutory authority 

(42 U.S.C.11004), EPCRA emergency 

release notifications (Section 304; 40 

CFR 355.30) are submitted to the SERCs 

or TERCs and LEPCs or TEPCs, but not 

to the EPA or another federal agency. 

EPA recognizes that reinstatement of 

EPCRA animal waste air emissions 

reporting will increase the number of 

release reports submitted to state, tribal, 

and local agencies (the implementing 

agencies). Under the existing 

authorities, the implementing agencies 

will have the responsibility of receiving 

and managing the reports and making 

the information publicly available as 

part of the EPCRA right-to-know 

provisions. 

The EPA requests comment and 

information on creating an EPCRA 

database for animal waste air emissions 

information at the national level, that 

would be housed at EPA. The Agency 

believes a centralized EPCRA 

submission portal and management 

system can improve the reporting 

program by centralizing and 

standardizing reporting and reducing 

burden on both the implementing 

agencies and the regulated community. 

Recognizing that existing statutory 

reporting requirements under EPCRA 

may need to be amended to allow it, 

EPA also seeks comment from the 

implementing agencies and the 

regulated community on the benefits 

and challenges of creating an EPCRA 

national database. EPA requests 

comment not only for animal air 

emissions, but for reporting under all 

sections of EPCRA, except section 313, 

which is the Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI) program. Following is a list of 

applicable EPCRA reporting 

requirements that could be built into a 

national system: 

—Facility emergency planning 

notifications (40 CFR part 355, 

subpart B; EPCRA section 302). 

—Emergency release notifications (40 

CFR part 355, subpart C; EPCRA 

section 304) 

—Hazardous chemical inventory reports 

(40 CFR part 370; EPCRA sections 311 

and 312). 

Currently, reporting methods are 

determined by the state or tribe. These 

SERCs and TERCs are using a variety of 

submission and data management 

platforms to meet their statutory 

obligations. Over half of the states are 

using three existing submission 

platforms for annual Section 312 Tier II 

submissions: Tier2 Submit, E-Plan, and 

TIER II MANAGER. The other states use 

other commercial software or have statespecific programs. Through a 

centralized database, EPA could collect 

EPCRA reports and make those reports 

immediately available to state, tribal, 

and local agencies, thus improving the 

efficiency, efficacy, and transparency of 

EPCRA reporting compliance and 

removing the burden to state, tribal, and 

local agencies receiving and managing 

the submittals. The database can also 

reduce the burden on these 

implementing agencies by providing a 

public right-to-know information center. 

The clearinghouse would be a ‘‘one-stop 

shop’’ for industry, the EPCRA 

implementing agencies, and the public. 

A national database would provide 

industry the opportunity to report to 

multiple states and local entities in one 

platform. The implementing agencies 

would have access to all of the 

submitted information for their covered 

area, reducing their administrative 

burden and allowing them to focus on 

implementation, community safety, and 

compliance. The database would handle 

all reporting requirements, as well as 

requests from the public for 

information, allowing entities to use 

their limited resources to improve 

compliance efficacy. 

The EPCRA emergency planning 

provisions, codified under 40 CFR part 

355, subpart B, include several required 

communications with the SERC or 

TERC and/or LEPC or TEPC, such as the 

initial notification that a facility is 

subject to EPCRA emergency planning 

requirements; notification of the facility 

emergency coordinator; notification of 

any relevant changes to emergency 

planning; and providing information to 

the LEPC or TEPC upon request. A 

national database could manage, track, 

and store all these required 

communications. Furthermore, with the 

planning data, the EPA could facilitate 

coordination between LEPCs or TEPCs 

with similar types of facilities to share 

best practices and lessons learned on 

how to plan for specific risks. 

The emergency release notification 

requirements, under 40 CFR part 355, 

subpart C, include immediate 

notification via phone and follow-up 

written reports to the SERC or TERC and 

LEPC or TEPC, as well as specific 

requirements for continuous release 

reporting requirements. A national 

EPCRA database could handle these 

notifications, although initial release 

notification may not be ideal, because 

initial notifications are time-sensitive 

and are typically phone calls to the 

LEPC or TEPC and SERC or TERC. 

However, the 30-day follow-up written 

reports and continuous release reports 

could be well-suited for a national 

database. LEPCs, TEPCs, TERCs and 

SERCs would have the benefit of having 

the data standardized and stored. 

Additionally, EPA could coordinate 

discussions on clean-up and response 

activities among LEPCs and TEPCs with 

similar releases. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to a National 

EPCRA Database: 

#24—National EPCRA Database— 

General: The Agency is soliciting 

information and comment in general 

about a national EPCRA database, as 

well as any input on how such a system 

should be designed, developed, and 

implemented. EPA seeks quantitative 

information characterizing how a 

centralized reporting clearinghouse 

could reduce burden to stakeholders. 

The Agency also solicits information on 

conducting a pilot of a national database 

with a small number of states and local 

implementing agencies. 

#25—National Database—Managing 

Right-to-Know Data: EPA requests 

comment and information from LEPCs, 

TEPCs, SERCs, and TERCs on whether 

a national EPCRA database would be 

beneficial to receive and manage reports 

and, pursuant to the right-to-know 

requirements, make those reports 

available to the public. 

#26—National Database—Managing 

Reports from Facilities: EPA seeks input 

on both the potential benefits and any 

disadvantages for LEPCs, TEPCs, SERCs, 

and TERCs of creating a national 

database for receiving and managing 

EPCRA sections 302, 304, 311, and 312 

reports. 

#27—National Database—Animal 

Waste Air Emissions Reporting: EPA 

seeks input on the potential efficiencies 

or inefficiencies to the regulated 

community of submitting EPCRA 

animal waste air emissions reports to 

one centralized portal. EPA also seeks 

input on both the potential benefits and 

disadvantages to the communities near 

animal farming operations and the 

general public of a national database to 

receive and manage reports and, 

pursuant to right-to-know requirements, 

make reports available to the public. 

#28—National Database—Facility 

Benefits and Disadvantages: EPA seeks 

input on potential benefits and 

disadvantages for the regulated 

community of a national database for 

complying with EPCRA sections 302, 

304, 311, and 312 reporting 

requirements. 

#29—National Database—Managing 

FOIA Requests: EPA seeks input from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80232 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

LEPCs, TEPCs, SERCs, and TERCs about 

EPA managing Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) requests and releasing 

EPCRA data from a national system. The 

Freedom of Information Act generally 

provides the public with access to 

federal agency records, however FOIA 

does not apply to state and local 

agencies. Each state has their own laws 

and procedures for releasing records to 

the public. The EPA is soliciting 

comment and information on what 

issues may need to be addressed if EPA 

were to manage FOIA requests on what 

would be considered state and local 

data under EPCRA. 

#30—National Database—Other: The 

Agency is soliciting information and 

comment on any other issues related to 

a national EPCRA database. 

C. Costs and Benefits 

1. Estimated Regulated Universe 

EPA estimates the total number of 

farms with livestock to be 

approximately 1.25 million based on 

data from the United States Department 

of Agriculture’s (USDA) 2017 Census of 

Agriculture. However, only a fraction of 

these farms is expected to exceed the 

reportable quantity for either ammonia 

and/or hydrogen sulfide, and thus be 

regulated under a potential future rule 

that would reinstate reporting. The 

Agency used data from NAEMS and 

literature reviews to estimate 

contribution factors (i.e., estimate of 

quantity of air emissions per animal per 

day), which were applied to the 

livestock numbers from the USDA 

Census, to generate an estimate of 

37,891 farms that would be expected to 

exceed the reportable quantity. All of 

the estimates, calculations and 

assumptions are in the TBD in the 

docket. 

The reporting burden is expected to 

be relatively minimal because the 

Agency anticipates that continuous 

release reporting would be used in a 

majority of instances (see Section D.2 

for burden estimates). Even though the 

reporting burden is expected to be low 

and only encompass approximately 

38,000 farms, other farms may not know 

whether their operations will exceed the 

reportable quantity. The following 

section (Section D.2) solicits comment 

on estimating the burden to all 1.25 

million farms with livestock. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to estimating the 

regulated universe: 

#31—Regulated Universe—Number of 

Farms Reporting: The Agency is 

soliciting information and comments on 

the estimate of farms expected to exceed 

the reportable quantity. The Agency is 

specifically soliciting information and 

comment on the methods for estimating 

the number of regulated farms, the data 

sources used, and the estimated 

contribution factors, which are all 

detailed in the TBD. Regarding the 

contribution factors, the Agency realizes 

that the contribution factors EPA used, 

for estimating the regulated universe, 

may not take into account all the 

variables that impact any given farm’s 

animal waste air emissions, and is 

soliciting information and comment on 

the accuracy of the contribution factors 

used to estimate the regulated universe; 

any additional information that may 

provide a more accurate estimate of the 

regulated universe; and the utility of 

refining the contribution factors or the 

method used. 

2. Burden Estimates 

In analyzing whether to pursue a 

rulemaking to rescind the reporting 

exemption, EPA considered the costs 

associated with reinstating reporting 

requirements. EPA estimated the total 

costs by combining unit costs of 

compliance per farm with the estimate 

of the affected farm universe. The 

Agency used animal inventory data 

from USDA’s 2017 Census of 

Agriculture in the affected NAICS codes 

to identify the regulated universe of 

37,891 farms. Farm operations with 

continuous air releases of ammonia or 

hydrogen sulfide from animal waste that 

meet or exceed the RQ would qualify for 

reduced reporting requirements, 

including: 

• Providing initial continuous release 

telephone notification to the SERC (or 

TERC) and LEPC (or TEPC); 

• Submitting initial written report to 

the appropriate SERC (or TERC) and 

LEPC (or TEPC); 

• Providing notification of a 

statistically significant increase (SSI) in 

a release to the SERC (or TERC) and 

LEPC (or TEPC); and, 

• Providing notification of a new 

release resulting from a change in 

source or composition. 

EPA estimated the annualized cost of 

a potential future rule over a 10-year 

analysis period. The total annualized 

cost of reinstating EPCRA reporting 

would be approximately $2.9 or $2.8 

million using three and seven percent 

discount rates, respectively, as detailed 

in the TBD. 

Table 2 summarizes the total 

undiscounted cost of a future rule, by 

year. For reporting farms, first-year costs 

are $16.8 million, and total first-year 

costs for SERCs (or TERCs) and LEPCs 

(or TEPCs) is $6.5 million. Costs in 

years 2 through 10 of the analysis are 

significantly less, at approximately $0.1 

million per year for both sets of affected 

entities. 

TABLE 2—TOTAL COST BY YEAR (UNDISCOUNTED) (2022$) 

Compliance requirement 

Animal operations State, local, tribal gov’t 

First year Years 2–10 First year Years 2–10 

Rule Familiarization and Applicability Determination ...................................... $3,710,295 $0 $0 $0 

CRRR Reporting: 

Labor Costs .............................................................................................. 11,782,802 164,451 6,481,555 108,026 

Initial Notification ............................................................................... 1,073,190 0 2,160,518 0 

Initial Written Report .......................................................................... 10,709,612 0 4,321,037 0 

Reporting an SSI ............................................................................... 0 164,451 0 108,026 

O&M Costs ............................................................................................... 1,307,223 0 0 0 

Initial Notification ............................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Initial Written Report .......................................................................... 1,307,223 0 0 0 

Reporting an SSI or New Release .................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Total Cost ................................................................................... 16,800,321 164,451 6,481,555 108,026 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80233 

The Agency has also prepared a 

screening analysis to assess small entity 

impacts, documented in the TBD. The 

Agency used sales data from the USDA’s 

2017 Census of Agriculture in the 

affected NAICS codes, along with Small 

Business Administration (SBA)- 

specified small business thresholds, to 

identify the potential set of affected 

small operations. EPA combined these 

data with the affected universe data to 

estimate the subset of reporting farms 

that meet SBA size standards for small 

entities. EPA estimates that 31,921 out 

of the 37,891 farms in the regulated 

universe (84 percent) are small 

operations under SBA size standards. 

EPA performed a cost-to-sales test for 

these entities and found that none of the 

affected operations would experience 

costs greater than one percent of annual 

sales. Based on the results of the costto-sales test, EPA concludes that a 

future rulemaking would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to the costs of a 

potential future rule: 

#32—Burden—Reporting Farms: The 

Agency is soliciting information and 

comments on the cost estimates for 

farms and state and local agencies. See 

the TBD for a detailed analysis. The 

Agency made assumptions for hours for 

specific tasks; labor rates; how many 

SSIs would be submitted; how many 

new farms would report in the out 

years; and other variables. EPA is 

requesting information and comment on 

these assumptions and variables that 

could result in more accurate burden 

estimates. 

#33—Burden—Non-Reporting Farms: 

The Agency is soliciting information 

and comments on the cost estimates for 

all farms to understand and potentially 

estimate their air emissions. The Agency 

estimates that all 1.25 million farms 

with livestock (both reporting and nonreporting farms) would incur between 1 

and 2.5 hours of burden per farm for 

rule familiarization, which totals to 

$97.6 million burden for all farms. See 

section 3.2 in the TBD for a detailed 

analysis. 

#34—Burden—Small Farms: The 

Agency is soliciting information and 

comments on the analysis of impacts to 

small farms. See the TBD for a detailed 

analysis. 

#35—Burden—Qualitative Costs: The 

Agency is soliciting information and 

comments on any qualitative costs of a 

reinstating reporting. In the TBD, the 

Agency attempted to quantify as many 

costs of a potential future rule as it was 

able to. 

3. Environmental Justice and 

Community Right-To-Know 

Any rulemaking resulting from this 

ANPRM would impact only the 

reporting requirements for animal waste 

air emissions; a new rule would not 

directly lessen air emissions from 

animal waste on farms, nor directly 

change disproportionate and adverse 

effects experienced by communities 

with environmental justice concerns. 

However, one of the benefits of 

requiring reporting is the availability 

and accessibility of this information to 

surrounding communities. This 

reporting is critical to advancing the 

Agency’s environmental justice goals by 

increasing the understanding of 

potential impacts of air emissions from 

animal waste on communities with 

environmental justice concerns. As a 

result, fenceline communities may 

benefit from the reporting of animal 

waste air emissions at farms. 

Although a potential future rule 

would not directly address human 

health or environmental conditions, the 

EPA investigated potential 

environmental justice concerns by 

conducting geospatial analyses. To 

conduct a thorough, national-level 

environmental screening analysis, 

publicly available data of source 

locations of air emissions are required. 

These data do not exist at the national 

level. While the 2017 USDA Census is 

a complete count of U.S. farms and 

ranches and the individuals who 

operate them, publicly available data are 

aggregated to the county level to protect 

the confidentiality of the information 

provided by individual respondents. 

The EPA conducted three levels of 

analysis to identify communities that 

may be affected by the reporting rule 

based on the level of animal operations’ 

ammonia emissions for 5 animal sectors 

(Beef, Broilers, Dairy, Layers, and 

Swine) at the county-level, tribal-level, 

and available state-level data. 

As shown with the 2017 USDA 

Census data in the environmental 

justice analysis provided in TBD, that 

while the upper quintile of counties 

emitting ammonia from animal waste on 

average does not exceed the national 

average for minority populations or lowincome populations, four of the top ten 

counties in ammonia emissions from 

animal waste comprise populations 

exceeding the national average for 

minority populations and low-income 

populations. The EPA believes that in 

some localities, minority and lowincome populations may be 

disproportionately impacted by air 

emissions from animal wastes, which is 

shown in the TBD at the county level 

and census block level using the USDA 

Census data and the state-specific farm 

data. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to the benefits of a 

potential future rule: 

#36—Benefits—Environmental 

Justice: The Agency is soliciting 

information and comments on the 

environmental justice analysis. See the 

TBD for details. 

#37—Indirect Benefits: The Agency is 

soliciting information and comments on 

the indirect benefits of a potential future 

rule to reinstate EPCRA reporting by 

farms. A future rule would only be a 

reporting rule to provide state, tribal 

and local implementing agencies and 

communities information on releases of 

ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from 

animal wastes on farms. However, after 

air emission information is shared with 

states, locals, and communities, there 

are potential indirect benefits, such as 

communities experiencing greater 

capacity for meaningful involvement in 

the development and implementation of 

local pollution management policies or 

the information leading to voluntary 

initiatives by farms to review farming 

and waste management practices and set 

goals for reductions in emissions, and 

institute ‘‘good neighbor’’ policies. 

Potential changes in farm operations— 

including reductions in the releases and 

changes in the waste management 

practices—could yield health and 

environmental benefits. Indirect benefits 

of a potential future rule have not been 

quantified. 

D. Small Farms 

Based on the existing EPCRA RQs of 

100 pounds per day for both ammonia 

and hydrogen sulfide, EPA estimates the 

regulated universe of the proposed rule 

to be 37,891 farms. The regulated 

universe is 3 percent of approximately 

1.25 million farms nationwide in the 

2017 USDA Agriculture census. Of the 

37,891 reporting farms, 31,921 farms are 

estimated to be small businesses as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), see the TBD in 

the docket. Separately, using the 

National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) farm size 

CAFO categories, only approximately 

3,000 of the 37,891 farms would be 

considered small CAFOs and limited to 

swine and dairy operations, also see the 

TBD in the docket. Even though there 

are relatively few ‘‘small farms’’ that 

would be required to report releases 

from animal waste, EPA recognizes that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80234 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

11https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-SFUND-2007-0469-1359. 

12https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OLEM-2018-0318-0405. 

13A table of EPA’s NPDES regulatory definitions 

of large, medium, and small CAFOs can be viewed 

here: https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sector_

table.pdf. 

14USDA. 2022. Economic Research Service. Farm 

Structure and Contracting. Available at: https://

www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farmstructure-and-organization/farm-structure-andcontracting/. 

most farms would not know whether 

they exceed the reporting threshold (i.e., 

be in the regulated universe). This 

section is designed to gather 

information relating to a reporting 

exemption for small farms, which could 

create regulatory certainty for farmers. 

1. Potential Reporting Exemption for 

‘‘Small Farms’’ 

If the Agency reinstates reporting for 

farms, EPA seeks information on 

whether ‘‘small farms,’’ which would 

need to be defined in a potential future 

rule, should be exempted from reporting 

animal waste air emissions. 

EPA considered relevant comments 

received during the previous 2008 11

and 2019 12 rulemakings, as discussed in 

the response to comment documents in 

those dockets. For both the 2008 and the 

2019 rules, commenters acknowledged 

that ‘‘small farms,’’ as described but not 

defined by the commenters, would not 

be expected to report because they are 

likely to fall below the RQ-based 

reporting threshold. In 2008, 

commenters stated that they did not 

think ‘‘small farms’’ would reach the 

established 100-pound RQs even 

without a reporting exemption. One 

commenter stated that EPA should 

establish an exemption for farms under 

an income level threshold which was 

not specified but would differentiate 

between ‘‘true’’ family farms and larger 

industrial-type operations. The 2019 

rule received a comment from an 

environmental group that smaller 

animal feeding operations are unlikely 

to be subject to EPCRA reporting. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information: 

#38—Small Farm Exemption— 

General: EPA requests comment on 

whether ‘‘small farms’’ should be 

exempted from reporting animal waste 

air emissions. If so, how should they be 

exempted? EPA requests any 

information that the Agency can use to 

develop a justification to exempt ‘‘small 

farms’’ from reporting air emissions 

under EPCRA. Similarly, the Agency is 

requesting any information that 

supports not exempting ‘‘small farms.’’ 

#39—Small Farm Exemption— 

Criteria: EPA requests comment on the 

criteria that should be considered in 

establishing a potential exemption for 

small farms. For example, should an 

exemption be based on animal number 

thresholds at the operation; animal 

waste management methods; single 

species-focused operations; or other 

criteria? The Agency requests 

information that could be used to 

differentiate small farms from medium 

and large operations that would support 

exempting small farms from EPCRA 

reporting. 

2. Defining ‘‘Small Farms’’ 

Any potential action for small farms 

requires defining ‘‘small farm.’’ The 

term ‘‘farm’’ is already defined in 40 

CFR 355.61. If the Agency pursues 

reinstatement of EPCRA reporting, and 

further pursues an exemption from that 

reporting for small farms, the Agency 

would not be seeking to change the 

definition of ‘‘farm,’’ but rather to 

expand on the existing definition to 

categorize ‘‘small farms.’’ 

In the 2008 rule exempting farms from 

reporting animal waste air emissions (73 

FR 76948), EPA defined different sizes 

of farms using the NPDES size 

definitions for CAFOs, due to familiarity 

with these size categorization terms 

within the agriculture industry.13 The 

NPDES farm size categories of small, 

medium, and large are based on animal 

threshold numbers for each species. For 

example, mature dairy cattle have 

species-specific threshold ranges as 

follows: less than 200 defined as a small 

CAFO, 200 to 699 defined as a medium 

CAFO, and 700 or above defined as a 

large CAFO. 

EPA seeks input on whether using the 

NPDES CAFO farm size categories for 

defining small farms is the best choice, 

and if not, EPA is seeking input on an 

alternative definition for ‘‘small farm.’’ 

EPA is aware of and has considered 

other ways to define ‘‘small farms.’’ For 

example, an alternate definition for 

small farm could come from the 

Economic Research Service at USDA,14

which classifies sizes based on revenue. 

The USDA defines small farms to have 

annual gross cash farm income (GCFI) of 

less than $350,000. If revenue is used to 

define ‘‘small farms’’, the farms would 

make the determination as to whether 

they were subject to the exemption, 

unless they voluntarily provide the 

applicable information. Any revenuebased definition would make it 

challenging for EPA, or other agencies, 

to conduct reporting compliance and 

independently determine whether a 

farm meets the exemption threshold. 

For example, EPA, or other another 

agency, would have to determine if 

revenue information is available, and 

whether the source of revenue (e.g., 

from the livestock at the farm or from 

another source such as crop production) 

is significant in defining farm size for 

EPCRA reporting purposes. 

No direct comments were received to 

assist the Agency in defining ‘‘small 

farms’’ in the 2008 nor 2019 

rulemakings. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information: 

#40—Small Farm Definition: The 

Agency is soliciting comment and 

information on how to define ‘‘small 

farm’’ in the context of creating a 

potential reporting exemption. 

Specifically, EPA is soliciting input on 

applying the definition of small farms 

from NPDES or USDA to EPCRA 

reporting. Are there other small farm 

definitions that may be more 

appropriate for EPCRA reporting? Are 

there certain attributes from ‘‘small 

farms’’ that correlate with quantity of air 

emissions (e.g., is there a certain level 

of farm revenue that correlates to farms 

with smaller manure management 

operations)? 

3. Animal Waste Management Methods 

for ‘‘Small Farms’’ 

EPA seeks information on animal 

waste management methods that could 

be used to differentiate farm size and 

how such methods would affect air 

emissions of ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide. 

In examining this issue, the Agency 

reviewed comments received on the 

2008 and 2019 rules, though no 

comments explicitly addressed how to 

differentiate farms by size. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information: 

#41—Small Farm—Waste Handling: 

EPA is soliciting information and 

comment on certain waste management 

practices that could be used to support 

an exemption for small farms, if EPCRA 

reporting is reinstated. Specifically, the 

Agency seeks information on various 

animal waste handling methods based 

on size of operation (number of animals) 

and species of animals that would be 

different at small farms versus medium 

and large farms and may affect air 

emissions of ammonia and hydrogen 

sulfide. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80235 

15See comments submitted with docket IDs: 

EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0469–0498; EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2007–0469–0215. 

16See comment submitted with docket ID: EPA– 

HQ–OLEM–2018–0318–0238. 

17See NASTTPO letter as part of comment 

submitted with docket ID: EPA–HQ–OLEM–2018– 

0318–0236. 

4. Health Impacts From ‘‘Small Farms’’ 

Section IV.A in this document 

outlines the health impacts from animal 

waste air emissions, which are further 

detailed in the TBD. This section is 

intended to solicit comment and 

information regarding any distinction 

that could be made between adverse 

health impacts from air emissions from 

small farms versus medium and large 

farms. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information: 

#42—Small Farm—Health Impacts: 

The Agency is soliciting information on 

health impacts from different size farms 

to determine if lack of adverse health 

impacts would support a reporting 

exemption for small farms, if EPCRA 

reporting is reinstated through a 

potential future rule. Conversely, the 

Agency is also soliciting information 

that demonstrates adverse health 

impacts from animal waste air 

emissions from ‘‘small farms.’’ When 

submitting information, the Agency 

requests the commenters to provide any 

information on how the requester or 

information is defining ‘‘small farm.’’ 

5. State, Tribal, and Local Emergency 

Planners and Responders Use of ‘‘Small 

Farm’’ Animal Waste Air Emissions 

Information 

Reinstating animal waste air 

emissions reporting requirements would 

require owners or operators of covered 

farms to provide initial notification to 

either the SERC or TERC, and the LEPC 

or TEPC in the event of a release of an 

EPCRA EHS, as required by EPCRA 

section 304, or of a CERCLA hazardous 

substance in an amount equal to or 

greater than the RQ for that substance 

within a 24-hour period. Within 30 days 

of the initial notification, farms must 

submit a written follow-up report to 

these agencies. EPA recognizes that 

reinstating EPCRA animal waste air 

emissions reporting will increase the 

number of notifications (ex: telephone, 

email, etc.) and written release reports 

submitted to SERCs or TERCs and 

LEPCs or TEPCs. These agencies will 

have the responsibility of receiving 

initial notifications and managing the 

reports as well as making the 

information publicly available as part of 

the EPCRA right-to-know provisions. 

Previous comments submitted to EPA 

on the 2008 rulemaking include 

comments from LEPCs stating their 

support for a reporting exemption 

because there would likely be no 

federal, state or local emergency 

response to such release reports.15 EPA 

also received comments from the 

National Association of SARA Title III 

Program Officials (NASTTPO), an 

EPCRA-related association for state, 

tribal, and local EPCRA implementing 

agencies, supporting the 2019 EPCRA 

reporting exemption (84 FR 27533).16

NASTTPO stated that these reports are 

of no particular value to LEPCs and first 

responders and instead are generally 

ignored because they do not relate to 

any specific event. The NASTTPO noted 

that open dialogue and coordination 

between local emergency authorities 

and animal farming operations can be 

more effective than EPCRA-required 

release reporting for farms that do not 

handle quantities of chemicals 

designated under EPCRA as EHSs.17

While some state and local agencies 

have stated they support not receiving 

release reports of animal waste air 

emissions from farms, the EPA believes 

there may be value in providing these 

reports for fenceline communities. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests information from 

SERCs, TERCs, LEPCs, and TEPCs on 

the usefulness of information pertaining 

to ‘‘small farm’’ animal waste air 

emissions for the purposes of emergency 

planning and response. 

#43—State, Local, and Tribal Impacts: 

Through prior public comment periods 

from previous rulemakings, as well as 

the ongoing coordination between EPA 

and SERCs, TERCs, and LEPCs, the 

Agency has heard that state, tribal, and 

local emergency planners and 

responders would not use EPCRA 

release reports of animal waste air 

emissions from farms, and so, the 

Agency is inferring that if EPCRA 

reporting is reinstated, an exemption for 

small farms would be well received by 

state, tribal, and local emergency 

planners and responders. The Agency is 

requesting any new comments and 

information that would support or 

contradict this position. Regarding small 

farms, if EPCRA reporting is reinstated 

without a small farm exemption, EPA is 

requesting comment on whether state, 

tribal, and local implementing agencies 

would process and utilize release 

reports for animal waste air emissions 

from small farms differently from 

reports from larger farms. 

6. Adjusting the RQs of Ammonia and 

Hydrogen Sulfide for Animal Waste Air 

Emissions 

One way EPA could potentially 

reduce reporting of air emissions from 

animal waste for small farms is by 

adjusting the RQs or creating industry 

and media-specific RQs. The existing 

RQs for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide 

are both set at 100 pounds. Any release 

of either of these substances at or above 

the RQ in a 24-hour period would 

require reporting under EPCRA. 

Establishing Category-Specific Animal 

Waste Air Emissions RQs 

CERCLA section 103 requires 

immediate notification to the National 

Response Center whenever an RQ or 

more of a CERCLA hazardous substance 

is released in a 24-hour period. 

Similarly, EPCRA section 304 requires 

notification to the SERC or TERC and 

the LEPC or TEPC when there is a 

release of an RQ or more of either a 

CERCLA hazardous substance or an 

EPCRA EHS in any 24-hour period. For 

substances listed under both CERCLA 

(40 CFR 302.4) and EPCRA (40 CFR part 

355, Appendices A and B), the 

applicable RQ is established under 

CERCLA and adopted under EPCRA 

(April 22, 1987, 52 FR 13378). For EHSs 

not listed under CERCLA, EPA used the 

EPCRA threshold planning quantities 

(TPQs) to assign RQs, by raising the 

statutory RQ (one lb) to be the same as 

their TPQs. 

EPA adopted a five-level system for 

RQs of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, and 5,000 

pounds for CERCLA reporting. These 

levels were originally established 

pursuant to CWA section 311 (40 CFR 

part 117). EPA has authority to establish 

and adjust RQs for hazardous 

substances under CERCLA and for 

EPCRA EHSs. 

EPCRA additionally requires EPA to 

consider and establish TPQs for EHSs, 

which is the quantity of the substance 

present at a facility for which 

emergency planning notification is 

required under EPCRA section 302. 

Currently, the TPQ for ammonia and 

hydrogen sulfide is 500 lb for all 

industry sectors. The TPQ methodology 

is separate from the RQ methodology 

and was developed specifically to 

reflect a quantity that could cause 

serious health consequences if 

accidentally released. Generally, the 

TPQ for a substance should be higher 

than the RQ, which is the case for most 

EHSs. For other EHSs, the TPQ is the 

same quantity as the RQ, which is 

dependent on the criteria and the 

ranking factor established for TPQ and 

RQ. In a future rulemaking, if EPA were 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
80236 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

to raise the RQs for hydrogen sulfide 

and ammonia from animal waste air 

emissions at farms above the existing 

500-pound TPQ (i.e., to either 1,000 or 

5,000 lb), the Agency may need to 

address the TPQs for ammonia and 

hydrogen sulfide emitted from animal 

waste from farms, since those situations 

may not be appropriate for emergency 

planning purposes. 

Based on publicly available 

information, EPA developed 

preliminary estimates of the reporting 

universe and the numbers of small 

farms under several possible RQs. 

Under the existing RQ of 100 pounds, 

approximately 37,891 of the 1.25 

million farms, based on USDA’s 2017 

Census of Agriculture, would be 

required to report releases of air 

emissions from animal waste, which 

comprises approximately 3% of farms. 

Using the NPDES CAFO size categories, 

this estimate of 37,891 farms includes 

approximately 3,000 small farms. If the 

RQ for both ammonia and hydrogen 

were raised to 500 pounds, the 

preliminary estimated regulated 

universe would decrease from 37,891 to 

approximately 15,000 farms; at 1,000 

pounds RQ, the estimated regulated 

universe would decrease even further to 

approximately 5,000 reporting farms. 

Additionally, at an RQ of 1,000 pounds, 

EPA estimates that no small farms, 

under the NPDES definition, would 

exceed the reportable quantity. See the 

TBD for the analysis of number of 

regulated farms at different RQs. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information relating to adjusting the 

RQs of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide 

for animal waste air emissions: 

#44—RQ Adjustment—General: EPA 

requests comments and supporting 

information, if available, on the 

potential of adjusting the RQs for 

ammonia and hydrogen sulfide to 

reduce the reporting burden for small 

farms, based on the existing RQ 

methodology. 

#45—Industry-Specific RQ 

Adjustment: The Agency is soliciting 

comment and information on creating 

industry and/or media-specific animal 

waste air emissions RQs for farms only, 

where all non-farming industries would 

retain the existing 100-pound RQs for 

ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, but 

animal waste at farming operations 

would have separate, higher RQs for 

ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. 

Additionally, the Agency is requesting 

comment and information on what the 

‘‘farm-specific’’ RQs should be. The 

Agency is seeking information that 

supports or refutes the concept of 

separate RQs for the same hazardous 

substance. 

E. National Report on Animal Waste 

Emissions 

The issue of whether farms should 

report under EPCRA has been through 

various rulemakings and litigation since 

2008. The decision seems to be binary 

(i.e., farms report or they do not). The 

Agency is including this section of the 

ANPRM to solicit comment and 

information on potential creative 

solutions to provide information to 

fenceline communities on air emissions 

from animal wastes without requiring 

farms with having to estimate and report 

to their state, tribal and local agencies. 

Request for Information 

EPA requests the following 

information on finding a creative 

solution to reporting animal waste air 

emissions: 

#46—National Report based on USDA 

or State Data: EPA contemplated 

developing a national report using 

USDA Census data to gather locations of 

farms and applying the contribution 

factors developed under NAEMS. 

However, the USDA Census dataset only 

supplies farm locations at the countylevel, and there are additional 

restrictions on sharing farm data when 

an individual farm can be identified. 

The EPA conducted the county-level 

analysis with the USDA data, which can 

be found in the TBD. However, EPA 

does not believe that county-level data 

will be granular enough for fenceline 

communities to understand the amounts 

and impacts of animal waste air 

releases. The EPA also evaluated all the 

state datasets we found that included 

farm locations (see the TBD). However, 

the handful of state datasets are well 

short of building a national report on 

animal waste air emissions. The Agency 

is soliciting comment and information 

on our assessment of using USDA 

Census data and datasets from state 

agencies. We are also soliciting 

comment and information on any other 

datasets that may be used to develop a 

national report of air emissions. Finally, 

the Agency is soliciting comment on 

whether this type of national report 

would/should be a compromise for this 

long-standing issue. 

#47—Other Technology for Estimating 

Air Releases: The Agency is soliciting 

comment and information on newer 

technologies that could be applied to 

understanding animal waste air 

emissions and then distributing that 

information to fenceline communities. 

For example, are there existing 

technologies, such as satellite-based 

instruments, to measure ammonia and/ 

or hydrogen sulfide that can be applied 

at a granular enough level to show 

quantities released from individual 

farms? 

#48—Other Solutions: The Agency is 

soliciting comment and information on 

other possible solutions to providing 

animal waste air emissions to fenceline 

communities without requiring farms 

with reporting. 

V. Request for Comment and Additional 

Information 

EPA is seeking comment on all 

questions and topics described in this 

ANPRM. In addition, EPA encourages 

all interested persons to identify and 

submit comments on other issues 

relevant to EPA’s consideration of the 

potential development of future 

regulations pertaining to animal waste 

air emission reporting under EPCRA. 

EPA requests that commenters making 

specific recommendations include 

supporting documentation, where 

appropriate. 

Instructions for providing written 

comments are provided under 

ADDRESSES, including how to submit 

any comments that contain CBI or PBI. 

VI. What are the Next Steps EPA will 

take? 

EPA intends to carefully review all 

comments and information received in 

response to this ANPRM. Once that 

review is completed, EPA will 

determine whether to pursue a proposed 

rule to reinstate air emission reporting 

from animal waste at farms under 

EPCRA. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

entitled Regulatory Planning and 

Review as amended by Executive Order 

14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review, 

EPA submitted this action to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB). Any 

changes made in response to 

recommendations received as part of 

Executive Order 12866 review have 

been documented in the docket for this 

action. Because this action does not 

propose or impose any requirements, 

other statutory and executive order 

reviews that apply to rulemaking do not 

apply. Should EPA subsequently 

determine to pursue a rulemaking, EPA 

will address the statutes and executive 

orders as applicable to that rulemaking. 

Nevertheless, the Agency welcomes 

comments and/or information that 

would help the Agency to assess any of 

the following: the potential impact of a 

rule on small entities pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); potential impacts on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 221 / Friday, November 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 80237 

state, local, or tribal governments 

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538); federalism implications pursuant 

to Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, November 2, 

1999); availability of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113; tribal 

implications pursuant to Executive 

Order 13175, entitled Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (65 FR 67249, November 

6, 2000); environmental health or safety 

effects on children pursuant to 

Executive Order 13045, entitled 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

energy effects pursuant to Executive 

Order 13211, entitled Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001); paperwork burdens pursuant 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3501); or human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations pursuant to 

Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 

14096, entitled Revitalizing Our 

Nation’s Commitment to Environmental 

Justice for All (88 FR 25251, April 21, 

2023). The Agency will consider such 

comments during the development of 

any subsequent rulemaking. 

Additional information about statutes 

and executive orders can be found at 

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/ 

laws-and-executive-orders. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 355 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Disaster 

assistance, Hazardous substances, 

Hazardous waste, Natural resources, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25270 Filed 11–16–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

43 CFR Part 2360 

[BLM_HQ_FRN_MO4500175868] 

RIN 1004–AE95 

Management and Protection of the 

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On September 8, 2023, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule that would revise the 

framework for designating and assuring 

maximum protection of Special Areas’ 

significant resource values and protect 

and enhance access for subsistence 

activities throughout the National 

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR–A). 

The proposed rule would also 

incorporate aspects of the NPR–A 

Integrated Activity Plan approved in 

April 2022. On October 24, 2023, the 

BLM extended the comment period to 

November 17, 2023. The BLM has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

further extend the comment period for 

the proposed rule by 20 days, until 

December 7, 2023, to allow for 

additional public comment. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule that originally published 

on September 8, 2023, at 88 FR 62025, 

and was extended on October 24, 2023, 

at 88 FR 72985, ends on November 17, 

2023. Under this further extension, 

comments must now be submitted on or 

before December 7, 2023. The BLM need 

not consider or include in the 

administrative record for the final rule 

comments that the BLM receives after 

the close of the comment period or 

comments delivered to an address other 

than those listed in the ADDRESSES

section. 

ADDRESSES: Mail, personal, or 

messenger delivery: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Director (HQ–630), Bureau 

of Land Management, 1849 C St. NW, 

Room 5646, Washington, DC 20240, 

Attention: 1004–AE80. Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search-box, 

enter ‘‘RIN 1004–AE95’’ and click the 

‘‘Search’’ button. Follow the 

instructions at this website. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Tichenor, Advisor—Office of the 

Director, at 202–573–0536 or jtichenor@

blm.gov with a subject line of ‘‘RIN 

1004–AE95.’’ For questions relating to 

regulatory process issues, contact Faith 

Bremner at fbremner@blm.gov. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, blind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comment Procedures 

If you wish to comment on this 

proposed rule, you may submit your 

comments to the BLM, marked with the 

number RIN 1004–AE95, by mail, 

personal or messenger delivery, or 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

(see the ADDRESSES section). Please note 

that comments on this proposed rule’s 

information collection burdens should 

be submitted to the OMB as described 

in the ADDRESSES section. Please make 

your comments on the proposed rule as 

specific as possible, confine them to 

issues pertinent to the proposed rule, 

and explain the reason for any changes 

you recommend. Where possible, your 

comments should reference the specific 

section or paragraph of the proposal that 

you are addressing. The comments and 

recommendations that will be most 

useful and likely to influence agency 

decisions are: 

1. Those supported by quantitative 

information or studies; and 

2. Those that include citations to, and 

analyses of, the applicable laws and 

regulations. 

The BLM is not obligated to consider 

or include in the Administrative Record 

for the final rule comments that we 

receive after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) or comments 

delivered to an address other than those 

listed above (see ADDRESSES). 

Comments, including names and street 

addresses of respondents, will be 

available for public review at the 

physical location listed under 

ADDRESSES during regular business 

hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. EST), 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. Before including your address, 

telephone number, email address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, be advised that your 

entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS