Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13061 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements and Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 24, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5266 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–TRI–2011–0174; FRL–9642–2] 

Electronic Reporting of Toxics Release 

Inventory Data 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Facilities that currently report 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) use either paper reporting 

forms or the online reporting software 

application known as the Toxics Release 

Inventory-Made Easy Web or simply 

TRI-MEweb. Effective January 1, 2013, 

EPA proposes to require facilities to 

report non-confidential TRI data to EPA 

using electronic software provided by 

the Agency. The only exception to this 

electronic reporting requirement would 

be for the few facilities that submit trade 

secret TRI information (including 

sanitized and unsanitized information), 

who would continue to submit their 

trade secret reporting forms and 

substantiation forms in hard copy. As of 

Reporting Year (RY) 2010, 

approximately 95 percent of TRI 

reporting facilities were using TRIMEweb, making it possible for the 

Agency to process and expedite the 

release of TRI data to the public. 

Under this rulemaking, EPA would 

also require facilities to submit 

electronically (i.e., not on paper forms 

or CD–ROMs) any revisions or 

withdrawals of previously submitted 

TRI data. For trade secret submissions, 

EPA would still accept revisions or 

withdrawals of previously submitted 

trade secret information on paper forms. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

TRI–2011–0174, by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: oei.docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: OEI Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2011– 

0174. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other materials, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center 

Public Reading Room is open from 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OEI 

Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information on TRI, contact the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Hotline at (800) 424– 

9346 or (703) 412–9810, TDD (800) 553– 

7672, http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ 

hotline/. For specific information on 

this rulemaking, contact David Turk, 

Toxics Release Inventory Program 

Division, Mailcode 2844T, OEI, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; Telephone: (202) 566–1527; 

Email: Turk.David@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Index 

I. Background and General Information 

A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in 

This Document 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

C. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is EPA’s statutory authority for 

taking this action? 

III. What reporting requirement change is 

EPA proposing? 

A. Description of Proposed Change 

B. How are TRI reports currently submitted 

to and processed by the agency? 

C. What is the history of electronic 

reporting of TRI data to EPA? 

D. How does a facility report TRI data 

using TRI-MEweb? 

E. Why is EPA proposing this requirement? 

F. How does this proposed rule affect 

revisions and withdrawals of previous 

TRI submissions? 

G. What benefits will this proposed rule 

likely produce? 

H. Would EPA Offer any exceptions to the 

proposed requirements? 

I. What is EPA doing to help ensure 

facilities know about this proposed rule? 

IV. Request for Comment 

V. References 

VI. What are the statutory and executive 

order reviews associated with this 

action? 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background and General Information 

A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in 

This Document 

AFR—Automated Form R 

APA—Administrative Procedure Act 

ATRS—Automated TRI Reporting Software 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CDX—Central Data Exchange 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CROMERR—Cross-Media Electronic 

Reporting Rule 

DPC–TRI Data Processing Center 

EO—Executive Order 

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA—Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act 

FR—Federal Register 

GPEA—Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

NAICS—North American Industry 

Classification System 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

OEI—Office of Environmental Information 

(EPA) 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

(Executive Office of the President) 

PPA—Pollution Prevention Act 

RY—Reporting Year 

SIC—Standard Industrial Code 

TRI—Toxics Release Inventory 

TRI-ME—TRI-Made Easy Desktop Software 

TRI-MEweb—Toxics Release Inventory-Made 

Easy Internet-based Software Application 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

XML—Extensible Markup Language 

B. Does this action apply to me? 

This proposed rule applies to 

facilities that submit annual reports 

under section 313 of the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA) and section 6607 of 

the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). To 

determine whether your facility would 

be affected by this action, you should 

carefully examine the applicability 

criteria in Part 372, Subpart B, of Title 

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Potentially affected categories and 

entities may include, but are not limited 

to the following: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Industry ...................... Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to SIC codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 

313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 

211112*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 

512220, 512230*, 519130*, 541712*, or 811490*. 

*Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes. 

Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 

• 212111, 212112, 212113 (correspond to SIC 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); 

• 212221, 212222, 212231, 212234, 212299 (correspond to SIC 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); 

• 221111, 221112, 221113, 221119, 221121, 221122, 221330 (Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the 

purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (correspond to SIC 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); 

• 424690, 425110, 425120 (Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not 

Elsewhere Classified); 

• 424710 (corresponds to SIC 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); 

• 562112 (Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously 

classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC)); and 

• 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (correspond to SIC 4953, Refuse Systems). 

Federal Government Federal facilities. 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the individual 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. This 

action may also be of interest to those 

who use EPA’s TRI data and have an 

interest in the public availability of 

high-quality, timely TRI data and 

information, including state agencies, 

local governments, communities, 

environmental groups and other nonVerDate Mar<15>2010 15:05 Mar 02, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM 05MRP1

erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13063 

governmental organizations, as well as 

members of the general public. 

C. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The Agency 

may ask you to respond to specific 

questions or organize comments by 

referencing a Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part or section 

number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is EPA’s statutory authority for 

taking this action? 

The EPA is implementing this action 

under sections 313(g), 313(h), and 328 

of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(g), 11023(h) 

and 11048, and section 6607 of the 

Pollution Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. 

13106. 

Under EPCRA, Congress granted EPA 

broad rulemaking authority. EPCRA 

section 328 provides that the 

‘‘Administrator may prescribe such 

regulations as may be necessary to carry 

out this chapter.’’ 42 U.S.C. 11048. 

EPCRA requires EPA to ‘‘publish a 

uniform toxic chemical release form for 

facilities covered’’ by the TRI Program. 

42 U.S.C. 11023(g). 

The Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (GPEA) (Pub. L. 105– 

277 (44 U.S.C. 3504)) allows Federal 

agencies to provide for electronic 

submissions and the use of electronic 

signatures, when practicable. Similarly, 

EPA’s Cross-Media Electronic Reporting 

Regulation (CROMERR) (40 CFR Part 3), 

published in the Federal Register issue 

of October 13, 2005, states that any 

requirement in Title 40 of the CFR to 

submit a report directly to EPA can be 

satisfied with an electronic submission 

that meets certain conditions, once the 

Agency publishes a notice that 

electronic document submission is 

available for that requirement. 

III. What reporting requirement change 

is EPA proposing? 

A. Description of Proposed Change 

EPA is proposing to require facilities 

to report non-confidential TRI data to 

EPA electronically. Under this proposal, 

EPA would no longer accept paper 

submissions of TRI reports, except for 

trade secret submissions which would 

still be submitted on paper forms 

(including sanitized and unsanitized 

versions). 

Currently, EPA provides an onlinereporting application, TRI-MEweb, for 

facilities to use to report TRI data to the 

Agency. TRI-MEweb provides a number 

of features that allow facilities to 

prepare and submit their TRI reports to 

EPA more efficiently. For example, it 

includes data validation tools that help 

facilities submit complete and valid 

data and compare the current year’s data 

to the prior year’s data—a feature which 

can sometimes help facilities identify 

potential data errors. Comprehensive 

use of TRI-MEweb should help facilities 

prepare and submit accurate TRI reports 

and reduce the amount of time it takes 

EPA to process the reports and make the 

data available to the public. 

Many TRI facilities have recognized 

the benefits of electronic reporting, as 

reflected by the general increase in the 

percentage of facilities that use TRIMEweb to submit TRI data to EPA 

electronically each year. For reporting 

year (RY) 2010, approximately 95% of 

facilities used TRI-MEweb to report TRI 

data. 

Because such a large portion of TRI 

reporters already use TRI-MEweb, this 

proposed TRI electronic reporting 

requirement is not expected to affect the 

majority of TRI reporting facilities. In 

fact, fewer than 5% of current TRI 

reporting facilities would need to 

become familiar with the electronic 

reporting process. Information about 

using TRI-MEweb to report 

electronically is available on the TRI 

Web site (http://www.epa.gov/tri) and in 

the most recent version of the Toxic 

Chemical Release Inventory Reporting 

Forms and Instructions (RFI), which is 

available on the TRI Web site. 

Under this proposed rule, facilities 

that submit trade secret information 

would continue to submit two versions 

of the substantiation form and two 

versions of Form R or Form A— 

sanitized versions that include the 

generic chemical name that is 

structurally descriptive of the chemical 

being claimed as a trade secret and 

unsanitized versions that include the 

trade secret chemical name. TRI-MEweb 

does not allow facilities to submit trade 

secret information; however, to facilitate 

reporting of such information, EPA 

currently provides electronically 

fillable/printable versions of the TRI 

reporting forms (i.e., Form A, Form R, 

and Form R Schedule 1) on the TRI Web 

site. EPA strongly recommends that TRI 

facilities that submit TRI trade secret 

information use a computer or 

typewriter to prepare their hard-copy 

submissions of TRI information and 

consult the TRI Web site (http:// 

www.epa.gov/tri) for more detailed 

information. 

To codify this proposed rule, EPA 

proposes inserting a paragraph (c) into 

40 CFR 372.85. This codification would 

require most regulated facilities to 

submit TRI data electronically using the 

current electronic reporting tool 

provided by EPA. EPA would only 

accept TRI data that are submitted 

electronically, except for trade secret 

TRI forms and substantiations; and EPA 

would not accept or process TRI data 

that are not submitted in the appropriate 

manner. 

B. How are TRI reports currently 

submitted to and processed by the 

agency? 

Currently, facilities submit TRI 

reporting forms electronically or by 

paper. To submit TRI data by paper, 

facilities download the appropriate TRI 

reporting form or forms from the TRI 

Web site (accessible at http:// 

www.epa.gov/tri). Before RY 2006, EPA 

mailed paper TRI reporting forms to 

facilities each year. Since RY 2006, EPA 

has made the TRI reporting forms 

available on its Web site. 

If using a paper TRI reporting form, 

the facility’s form Preparer enters the 

facility’s data on the form, the Certifying 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Official certifies/signs the form, and the 

facility then sends the form to EPA’s 

TRI Data Processing Center (DPC) via 

mail or courier. The current RFI, 

available on the TRI Web site (accessible 

at http://www.epa.gov/tri), provides a 

more detailed explanation of this 

process. 

In January 2011, EPA began providing 

fillable/printable versions of the TRI 

Reporting Form R, Form R Schedule 1, 

and Form A through the TRI Web site. 

For those facilities still wishing or 

needing to submit paper forms (e.g., for 

trade secret submissions), EPA 

encouraged the use of the fillable/ 

printable forms, rather than handwritten 

forms, to help ensure that the data— 

once received by the DPC—could be 

read and entered into the TRI database. 

Electronic reporting using TRI-MEweb 

is already EPA’s recommended 

reporting approach for submitting TRI 

information to the Agency, and under 

this proposed rule, it would become the 

required approach. To submit TRI data 

electronically, a facility registers with 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) and 

uses TRI-MEweb to prepare, certify, and 

submit TRI reports. The use of CDX and 

TRI-MEweb to prepare and submit TRI 

reports is explained below, in Unit III.D, 

‘‘How Does a Facility Report TRI Data 

Using TRI-MEweb?’’ 

C. What is the history of electronic 

reporting of TRI data to EPA? 

Beginning in 1987, the Agency began 

encouraging facilities to submit TRI 

Form R data electronically using 

magnetic media. Initially, EPA provided 

year-specific Automated Form R (AFR) 

software that allowed a facility to 

submit TRI data for a particular 

reporting year. Facilities could install 

and use the AFR software to produce 

either a hard-copy TRI report or a 

diskette, which facilities could then 

submit to EPA. Upon receipt, the DPC 

would transcribe hard-copy TRI reports 

into a database and electronically enter 

diskette submissions into a database. 

The use of AFR proved to be popular 

among facilities, and the percentage of 

TRI reporting facilities using this tool 

increased from 13 percent in 1990 to 62 

percent in 1996. 

Generally, the Agency improved upon 

the AFR each year by incorporating new 

features, such as the ability to submit 

TRI data for multiple reporting years 

(i.e., separate reports for each year), data 

validation checks, and the ability to 

load data from prior years into the 

current reporting year’s electronic form. 

In 1998, EPA renamed the AFR software 

to Automated TRI Reporting Software 

(ATRS) to reflect the addition of Form 

A into the software. 

After RY 2000, EPA replaced ATRS 

with TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME), which 

was a computer desktop application that 

a facility could download from the TRI 

Web site or receive in the mail upon 

request. TRI-ME provided electronic 

assistance to a facility preparing TRI 

reports and, for the first time, allowed 

a facility to submit TRI data to EPA’s 

CDX via the Internet. TRI-ME also 

allowed facilities to print a hard-copy 

version of the TRI report or produce a 

digital file that could then be submitted 

online or copied to a diskette and 

mailed to the DPC. 

In 2006, for RY 2005, EPA began 

making the TRI-MEweb application 

available to a limited number of 

facilities. TRI-MEweb is a Web-based 

reporting application that includes 

validation features to help facilities 

report accurate information. This 

application is entirely online, meaning 

a facility can access the application 

from any computer that is connected to 

the Internet. In addition, because the 

application is online, EPA can instantly 

perform any needed software updates or 

corrections without requiring users to 

download an updated version of 

software. Most, if not all, computers and 

Web software should be compatible 

with TRI-MEweb. 

EPA continued to refine TRI-MEweb 

each year after its limited released, 

expanding the number of facilities that 

could use it and eventually making the 

application widely available to nearly 

all facilities for RY 2008. The Agency 

also, for RY 2008, informed facilities 

that it would focus on providing TRIMEweb, and would no longer provide 

the TRI-ME CD–ROM. Accordingly, a 

steadily increasing percentage of 

facilities have submitted TRI data to 

EPA using TRI-MEweb, as illustrated in 

Chart 1. Electronic reporting using TRIMEweb has now become the 

predominant mechanism that facilities 

use to submit TRI data to EPA. 

CHART 1—BREAKDOWN OF SUBMISSION METHODS USED DURING THE PAST FIVE REPORTING YEARS

Media type RY 2005 

(percent) 

RY 2006 

(percent) 

RY 2007 

(percent) 

RY 2008 

(percent) 

RY 2009 

(percent) 

RY 2010 

(percent) 

TRI-MEweb Submissions ..................................... 0.34 3.12 31.69 65.77 92.16 94.60 

TRI-ME via CDX Submissions ............................. 62.50 70.42 43.34 17.73 0.18 0.01 

TRI-ME via Diskette Submissions ....................... 28.71 21.22 18.20 9.79 0.16 0.02 

Paper Submissions .............................................. 8.46 5.24 6.78 6.71 7.50 5.37 

Due to the longstanding history of 

electronic reporting of TRI data, the 

benefits that TRI-MEweb provides, and 

the prevalence and availability of the 

Internet, EPA published a notice in the 

Federal Register on January 14, 2011, 

which encouraged facilities to utilize 

TRI-MEweb. The notice also notified 

facilities of the availability of fillable/ 

printable TRI reporting forms on the TRI 

Web site and stated that the Agency was 

considering publishing this proposed 

rule to require electronic reporting of 

TRI data. 

D. How does a facility report TRI data 

using TRI-MEweb? 

TRI-MEweb is an interactive, userfriendly Web-based application that 

guides facilities through the TRI 

reporting process. As currently 

implemented, one or more 

representatives from each facility must 

establish an account with EPA’s CDX in 

order to prepare, transmit, certify, and 

submit TRI Forms. CDX is EPA’s 

centralized node on the Environmental 

Information Exchange Network that 

serves as EPA’s main mechanism for 

receiving and exchanging electronic 

information. A facility representative 

may register for a CDX account or gain 

access to an existing CDX account at 

https://cdx.epa.gov/. 

During the CDX registration process, 

CDX prompts the facility representative 

to indicate which applications (e.g., 

TRI-MEweb) to link with the account. If 

the facility representative has 

previously registered with CDX for other 

purposes, then he/she can add TRIMEweb to his/her existing CDX account. 

When adding TRI-MEweb to the CDX 

account, CDX will ask the facility 

representative to select a role as a form 

Preparer or Certifying Official. Either a 

Preparer or a Certifying Official can 

enter a facility’s TRI data in TRI-MEweb 

and transmit it to CDX to await 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13065 

certification; but only a Certifying 

Official can approve and certify a TRI 

reporting form and submit the final, 

certified form to EPA using TRI-MEweb 

and CDX. Preparers and Certifying 

Officials can potentially perform their 

TRI reporting roles (preparing and/or 

certifying TRI forms) for multiple 

facilities, if so designated by the 

facilities. 

EPA’s current electronic reporting 

procedures require each Certifying 

Official to sign and submit a hard-copy 

Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) 

to EPA before certifying any TRI reports. 

Once a facility representative registers 

in CDX as a TRI-MEweb Certifying 

Official, EPA sends an ESA to that 

representative via email. The ESA 

includes a TRI Facility Identification 

number for each facility for which the 

Certifying Official is responsible. The 

Certifying Official must sign this ESA in 

hard-copy and mail it to the DPC. Upon 

receiving an ESA, the Agency may take 

five to seven days to approve it. Once 

the ESA is approved by EPA, the 

Certifying Official may review, certify, 

and submit any pending TRI 

submissions to EPA using TRI-MEweb 

and CDX. More detailed information on 

these procedures is available on the TRI 

Web site. 

Once registered with CDX and TRIMEweb, a facility’s Preparer or 

Certifying Official can gain access to 

TRI-MEweb through CDX. Once opened, 

the TRI-MEweb application provides 

interactive Web pages that enable a 

Preparer or Certifying Official to provide 

and validate the current year’s data. 

After providing the pertinent data, a 

Preparer (or Certifying Official) can 

transmit the data electronically to CDX 

where it is then available for 

certification by the facility’s Certifying 

Official(s). The Certifying Official can 

then log into CDX to review, certify, and 

submit the TRI report to EPA. Once EPA 

receives the certified report in CDX, the 

data are then sent to the TRI database 

(and if appropriate, also to a state). 

Some TRI facilities have their own 

software or use private software to assist 

in collecting chemical release data. This 

‘‘third-party software’’ is often designed 

to produce output data files that match 

EPA’s electronic data structure 

specifications. TRI-MEweb accepts 

chemical data files from third-party 

software using Extensible Markup 

Language (XML). Detailed information 

describing the XML schema TRI-MEweb 

uses for the current reporting year is 

available online at http:// 

www.exchangenetwork.net/exchanges/ 

cross/tri.htm. 

Detailed instructions on using CDX 

and TRI-MEweb, including tutorials, are 

available on the TRI Web site and in the 

RFI, which is also available through the 

TRI Web site. Facilities may also contact 

the TRI Information Center, the CDX 

Helpdesk, the TRI DPC, the Regional 

TRI Coordinators, or the TRI Program 

staff at EPA Headquarters for further 

assistance. Please see the ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

information located on the TRI Web site 

for further details. 

Please note that the use of TRI-MEweb 

to report TRI data to EPA does not 

necessarily satisfy all reporting 

requirements that a state or local 

government might require. However, as 

will be explained below in Unit III.G, 

‘‘What Benefits Will this Proposed Rule 

Likely Produce?,’’ facilities that are 

located in states or territories 

(hereinafter collectively referred to as 

‘‘states’’) that actively participate with 

the TRI Data Exchange (TDX) can meet 

dual-reporting requirements by 

submitting TRI reports using TRIMEweb. In these states, reports 

submitted via TRI-MEweb are 

electronically made available to the 

state in which the facility is located, 

thus satisfying the requirement to report 

TRI data for both the applicable state 

and EPA. 

For facilities located in states not 

actively participating in TDX, TRIMEweb can provide these facilities with 

a certification statement which the 

Certifying Official can sign and mail to 

the appropriate state along with a 

diskette or hard copy of the TRI data the 

Preparer or Certifying Official entered 

into TRI-MEweb. 

E. Why is EPA proposing this 

requirement? 

Electronic reporting not only makes it 

easier for facilities to prepare and 

submit their TRI data to EPA, it also 

helps EPA process and make the data 

available to the public more quickly 

than is possible for data submitted on 

paper forms. When facilities submit 

paper forms, EPA must manually enter 

the data into the TRI electronic 

database, which requires more time and 

staff resources than required to process 

electronic submissions. In addition, 

transcription errors can inadvertently be 

introduced during this process, 

particularly if the data have been 

handwritten on the reporting forms. 

Electronic reporting makes it possible 

for EPA to more quickly process the 

data and provide communities with 

access to the latest TRI data on toxic 

chemical releases and other waste 

management. 

Electronic reporting itself prevents 

transcription errors and expedites TRI 

data processing; but in addition, TRIMEweb, provides useful features that 

make it easier and faster for facilities to 

prepare and submit TRI data to EPA. For 

example, TRI-MEweb provides facility 

representatives with access to a facility’s 

prior years of reporting data (as 

applicable), pre-populates selected 

fields on the TRI forms (i.e., if the 

facility previously submitted a TRI 

report), provides standardized parent 

company information and chemical 

pick-lists, and automatically calculates 

the data for some numerical fields on 

the TRI forms. TRI-MEweb also provides 

data validation features, which help 

prevent facilities from submitting 

incomplete or invalid data. Due to the 

benefits TRI-MEweb provides, EPA 

expects that its use by all facilities will 

enhance data accuracy and expedite 

EPA’s processing and public release of 

the TRI data. 

This proposal to require electronic 

TRI reporting supports broader 

government efforts to further the 

electronic collection and dissemination 

of data and information, and it is 

consistent with the provisions of the 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

(GPEA). GPEA authorizes federal 

organizations to use electronic forms, 

electronic filings, and electronic 

signatures, when practicable, to conduct 

official business with the public. 

F. How does this Proposed Rule affect 

revisions and withdrawals of previous 

TRI submissions? 

This proposed rule would require 

facilities that wish to revise or withdraw 

previously submitted non-confidential 

TRI data to do so electronically. As part 

of this proposed rule, the Agency would 

continue to allow facilities to revise or 

withdraw TRI reports going back to RY 

2005, but not for reporting years prior to 

RY2005. Moreover, EPA would only 

accept revisions and/or withdrawals 

submitted via TRI-MEweb. TRI-MEweb 

allows a facility to gain access to and 

revise or withdraw TRI reports in TRIMEweb for prior reporting years, back to 

RY 2005, even if the facility did not use 

TRI-MEweb for the original submission. 

EPA proposes this RY 2005 cut off 

date for several reasons, including (1) 

the small number of revisions/ 

withdrawals received for reporting years 

prior to RY 2005 (a relatively small 

proportion of TRI form revisions/ 

withdrawals are generally submitted to 

EPA each year, and most of these 

revisions/withdrawals relate to TRI 

reports for the past few years), (2) the 

resources that would be required to 

modify TRI-MEweb and related 

information exchange capabilities to 

accommodate all reporting reporting 

years, and (3) the staff resources and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

time required to continue processing 

paper form revisions/withdrawals. 

As with original TRI submissions, 

preparing and submitting revisions/ 

withdrawals electronically should 

facilitate the reporting process for 

facilities, while also making it possible 

for EPA to more quickly process and 

make the updated data available to the 

public. Information on using TRIMEweb to submit TRI revisions/ 

withdrawals is available on the TRI Web 

site and in the TRI-MEweb application. 

In order to focus Agency resources on 

processing and making the most recent 

TRI data available to the public and to 

maintain some consistency in the 

handling of non-confidential and trade 

secret data, EPA plans to accept paper 

submissions of trade secret revisions/ 

withdrawals that concern reporting 

years back to RY 2005. 

G. What benefits will this proposed rule 

likely produce? 

Requiring facilities to report TRI data 

electronically will help reduce the 

likelihood of data entry errors occurring 

at either the facility or EPA, as well as 

reduce the amount of time it takes EPA 

to process the data, when compared to 

paper-based submissions. By requiring 

electronic reporting, the Agency will be 

able to more effectively provide the 

public with timely access to the latest 

TRI data on toxic chemical releases and 

other waste management within 

communities. 

Another benefit electronic reporting 

provides is that TRI data submitted via 

CDX is sent digitally to those states that 

participate in the TRI Data Exchange 

(TDX). Since 2005, EPA has entered into 

separate Memoranda of Agreements 

(MOA) with states that have elected to 

participate in TDX. More information on 

TDX is available through the TRI Web 

site. 

A facility located in a state that 

participates in TDX can satisfy its 

requirement to report TRI data to both 

EPA and to the applicable state by 

electronically submitting certified TRI 

data to EPA. These TRI data are then 

automatically made available to the 

state within which the facility is 

located. 

Under the proposed rule, facilities 

would be required to submit their TRI 

data to EPA electronically; and 

therefore, those facilities located in 

TDX-participating states would be able 

to satisfy the requirement to submit 

federally-required TRI data to both the 

EPA and the state with one electronic 

submission. Currently, if a facility 

submits a paper report to EPA, even if 

it is located in a TDX-participating state, 

the facility must also submit its TRI 

report directly to the state to meet its 

legal reporting obligations. Requiring 

the use of electronic reporting would 

make the state processing of TRI data 

easier for TDX-participating states 

because they would no longer need to 

process paper reporting forms for TRI 

data. Facilities that are located in states 

that do not participate in TDX would 

prepare and submit their TRI data to 

EPA using TRI-MEweb, and they could 

then use TRI-MEweb to produce a 

certification statement, along with a 

hard-copy TRI report or CD, which 

could be signed by the Certifying 

Official and mailed to the appropriate 

state. 

H. Would EPA offer any exceptions to 

the proposed requirements? 

The Agency expects facilities that 

submit TRI data to EPA to do so 

electronically. Only trade secret TRI 

reports (including both sanitized and 

unsanitized information) would still be 

submitted to EPA on paper forms. EPA 

believes that the overall benefits of 

submitting TRI data electronically 

exceed those associated with 

maintaining a paper-based reporting 

approach. EPA recognizes that there 

could potentially be unexpected initial 

set-up costs or technical challenges 

associated with a requirement to submit 

TRI reports electronically, particularly 

for facilities that have never used 

electronic reporting; however, the 

Agency believes that the benefits of 

electronic reporting of TRI data— 

considering the ease of reporting, 

enhanced data quality, and faster public 

access to the data—would ultimately 

outweigh other considerations. 

EPA also offers forms of assistance to 

TRI reporters looking for help with 

electronic reporting. The Agency 

provides guidance on the TRI Program 

Web site, maintains a TRI help desk, 

and offers webinars and other training 

programs. Further, EPA believes nearly 

all facilities can already access the 

Internet because the Agency stopped 

providing physical copies of the TRI 

reporting forms in 2006, exclusively 

thereafter offering the forms online and 

only mailing a physical copy upon 

request. 

I. What is EPA doing to help ensure 

facilities know about this proposed rule? 

To inform facilities about this 

rulemaking and to solicit feedback prior 

to publication of the proposed rule, EPA 

sent a letter via email or postal carrier 

if an email address was not available to 

technical contacts for facilities that 

submitted TRI data for RY 2009 and RY 

2008. This letter notified these facilities 

that EPA was considering a proposed 

rule to require the electronic reporting 

of TRI data and informed the facilities 

of an online discussion forum where 

any interested stakeholder could 

comment on EPA’s plan to require 

electronic reporting of TRI data. EPA 

recognizes the discussion forum was 

provided electronically, which could 

bias the discussion toward facilities 

with access to computers, so EPA 

explained in the letter that facilities 

could physically mail comments to the 

Agency so that the Agency could make 

these comments available on the 

discussion forum. 

The discussion forum went live on 

June 19, 2011, was accessible via the 

TRI homepage, and stayed open through 

July 1, 2011, receiving 57 comments. 

Both the discussion forum and the 

comments received are publically 

available for viewing in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–TRI–2011– 

0174). The comments received via the 

forum fall into several broad categories: 

support for the proposed action; 

concerns involving the online reporting 

tools, and concerns regarding requiring 

electronic reporting. 

Comments supporting this action: 

Many of the comments received support 

requiring electronic reporting of TRI 

data, noting electronic reporting 

expedites the reporting process and 

improves data quality, which, in turn, 

allows EPA to provide timely, accurate 

data to TRI data users. Adding to this 

perspective were comments suggesting 

nearly all TRI reporters likely have 

access to a computer and the Internet. 

Additionally, some of the comments 

requested EPA to require states to accept 

electronic submissions by mandating 

participation in the TRI Data Exchange. 

Concerns involving the currently 

available reporting tools: EPA received 

some comments, both supportive and 

critical of this rulemaking, stating CDX 

and TRI-MEweb could be more intuitive. 

In particular, many of these comments 

requested a simplification to the process 

used to register a Certifying Official. 

Many comments also expressed concern 

that the current process for registering a 

Certifying Official, which typically takes 

about a week, can become a major 

impediment to reporting before the 

yearly July 1 deadline should managers 

become unavailable or should the 

facility change its management in June. 

EPA recognizes there are situations 

where a facility could face last-minute 

difficulties due to the current Certifying 

Official registration process. However, 

facilities may submit TRI reports prior 

to the deadline. In fact, TRI-MEweb for 

the reporting period is typically made 

available in January, thereby providing 

facilities up to six months to report TRI 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13067 

data prior to the yearly July 1 deadline. 

Any facility that foresees an upcoming 

change to its Certifying Official should 

be able to report prior to the change. 

Moreover, the Agency encourages 

facilities to designate an Alternate 

Certifying Official should the Certifying 

Official become unavailable close to the 

reporting deadline. In most situations 

either the Certifying Official or 

Alternate Certifying Official should be 

available prior to the reporting deadline. 

It is important to note that the current 

process used to register Certifying 

Officials is evolving. EPA wants to make 

reporting as simple as possible, and, 

thus, is considering ways to simplify 

and expedite the process. It is quite 

possible that a new process will become 

available in the next year or two that 

will enable the near-instantaneous 

registration of a Certifying Official. 

Comments also voiced concerns with 

various aspects of TRI–MEweb. EPA 

improves TRI–MEweb each year and 

plans to address some of the issues 

raised by comments. For example, 

changes anticipated for future releases 

of TRI–MEweb include supporting more 

Web browsers, clarifying the submittal 

process, and incorporating additional 

features into TRI–MEweb to further 

expedite the reporting process. EPA 

plans to continue addressing issues and 

improving TRI–MEweb for successive 

reporting years. 

Concerns regarding requiring 

electronic reporting: A few comments 

suggested the electronic reporting 

requirement should not extend to all 

facilities, suggesting not all facilities 

have access to a computer and the 

Internet. While EPA recognizes this 

possibility, EPA, as explained above, 

does not foresee that facilities meeting 

TRI Reporting thresholds will have 

difficulty accessing a computer and the 

Internet. Further, due to the high 

percentage of facilities that already use 

TRI–MEweb and the longstanding 

practice of providing the reporting 

forms exclusively online, most facilities 

already appear to have access to a 

computer and the Internet. 

Some of the comments requested EPA 

provide various exceptions should a 

facility be unable to report using TRIMEweb prior to the yearly July 1 

deadline. The Agency does not foresee 

the need for such regulatory exceptions. 

EPCRA provides a yearly deadline of 

July 1, and TRI-MEweb is typically 

available in January, which allows 

facilities nearly six months to report the 

required TRI data. If facilities encounter 

unexpected difficulties with electronic 

reporting, they may use any one of the 

several help services EPA provides to 

assist facilities in reporting TRI data. 

Several comments expressed a 

preference for paper reporting, stating it 

is easier to report by paper, especially 

for facilities that only submit one TRI 

reporting form to EPA. EPA understands 

in some cases a facility might prefer a 

paper reporting option but EPA 

believes, on the whole, electronic 

reporting will benefit facilities, TRI data 

users, and the Agency for all of the 

reasons noted in this proposed rule. 

Moreover, electronic reporting enables 

the Agency to publish data sooner, 

minimizes paper waste, and reduces 

costs to the Agency. At this point, EPA 

does not foresee a need to allow 

facilities to submit paper reports of nonconfidential TRI data. 

IV. Request for Comment 

In connection with this proposed rule, 

EPA encourages all interested persons to 

submit comments on the following 

topics or other relevant topics: 

1. EPA specifically seeks comment on 

whether facilities foresee any significant 

challenges in submitting RY 2012 TRI 

reports electronically, and if so, how 

EPA could potentially facilitate the 

process (e.g., through Webinars, 

Regional hands-on assistance, etc.). 

2. TRI-MEweb currently does not 

allow a facility to revise or withdraw 

TRI reporting forms submitted for 

reporting years prior to RY 2005. The 

Agency proposes to begin requiring 

electronic reporting for reporting year 

2012, which means facilities would be 

able to modify data submitted for the 

prior seven reporting years (RY 2011 

through RY 2005), but not for reporting 

years 2004 through 1988. Historically, 

only a small proportion of revision and 

withdrawal submissions received each 

year pertain to reporting years beyond a 

seven-year period. EPA seeks comment 

on whether limiting revisions to data 

submitted for reporting years 2005 

through the present would impose any 

hardship or concerns. 

3. EPA does not foresee a need for an 

exception to an electronic-reporting 

requirement. However, the Agency is 

interested in receiving input on what 

exceptions, if any, might be appropriate 

in light of an electronic reporting 

requirement. 

Input on these or other topics directly 

relevant to this proposed rule will assist 

the Agency in developing a final rule 

that addresses information needs, while 

minimizing the potential reporting 

burden associated with the rule. EPA 

requests that those who submit 

comments provide specific 

recommendations and include 

supporting documentation, as 

appropriate. 

V. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents referenced in this preamble 

that have been placed in the public 

docket for this proposed rule under 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–TRI–2011– 

0174, which is available for inspection 

as specified under ADDRESSES. For 

assistance in locating any of these 

documents, please consult the technical 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. EPA. Office of Environmental Information. 

Economic Analysis of the Electronic 

Reporting Proposed Rule: Community 

Right-to-Know; Toxic Chemical Release 

Reporting. July 7, 2011. 

2. EPA. Request Facilities To Report Toxics 

Release Inventory Information 

Electronically or Complete Fill-and-Print 

Reporting Forms. Federal Register (76 

FR 2677, January 14, 2011) (FRL–9251– 

2). Available on-line at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

VI. What are the statutory and 

executive order reviews associated with 

this action? 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

any new information collection burden. 

Instead, this proposed action would 

merely change the manner in which the 

Agency receives information. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in the existing regulations 40 

CFR Part 372 under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned the 

following OMB control numbers 2025– 

0009 (EPA Information Collection 

Request (ICR) No. 1363.21) and 2050– 

0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428.08). The OMB 

control numbers for EPA’s regulations 

in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

EPA conducted an economic analysis 

to consider the possible effects of this 

rulemaking on small entities. This 

analysis, ‘‘Economic Analysis of the 

Electronic Reporting Proposed Rule: 

Community Right-to-Know; Toxic 

Chemical Release Reporting’’ (Ref. #1), 

demonstrates this proposed rule should 

not create an economic burden on an 

individual small business of more than 

1% of its sales (or equivalent metric) 

and, thus, will not have a significant 

adverse impact on small businesses. 

After conducting this initial analysis, 

however, EPA established a new 

methodology in order to increase 

transparency and consistency in 

assessments of burden associated with 

TRI reporting. (This new economic 

analysis methodology was recently 

cleared by OMB as part of OMB’s 

approval of the Information Collection 

Request (ICR) (a Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) requirement) which EPA 

relies upon for collecting information 

under TRI). EPA has determined that 

the amount of burden estimated for 

small entities in the economic analysis 

is not affected by the previously noted 

change in burden assessment 

methodology. As a result, and regardless 

of whether the previous or current 

methodology is used, EPA is able to 

demonstrate that this proposal would 

not have a significant impact on small 

businesses. 

In summary, this proposed rule would 

create a one-time burden and a minor 

subsequent burden for facilities that 

have not previously used TRI-MEweb to 

submit TRI data to EPA. This burden 

would relate to obtaining access to a 

computer and the Internet, designating 

a facility form Preparer and Certifying 

Official, establishing an account in CDX, 

and associating the CDX account with 

TRI-MEweb. The economic analysis EPA 

prepared for this proposed rule which 

describes this burden in detail is 

available under docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–TRI–2011–0174 as Reference #1. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

This rule will merely require facilities 

under the TRI Program to submit 

electronic reports using TRI–MEweb. 

Most facilities already adhere to this 

requirement, thus this rule will affect a 

relatively small number of facilities. 

Further, the cost to adhere to this rule 

is small and, in aggregate, will not cost 

more than $100 million or more for 

state, local, and tribal governments, or 

the private sectors in any one year. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA). 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. Any 

small government that reports to the TRI 

Program will not incur significant costs 

because the cost, if any, to report 

electronically, as described above, is 

minimal. 

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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This action 

would require facilities that submit 

annual reports under section 313 of 

EPCRA to do so electronically, which 

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. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Under E.O. 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications because it 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in the Executive Order. 

Instead, the rule merely affects how 

facilities report information to the TRI 

Program. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is 

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13069 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 

1994) establishes Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs Federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. Instead, this rule 

would merely address the manner in 

which regulated facilities submit 

reporting information. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 

Environmental protection, 

Community right-to-know, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: February 23, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, Chapter I of Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 372—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 372 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048. 

2. Section 372.85 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 372.85 Toxic chemical release reporting 

form and instructions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Filing Requirements. Effective 

January 1, 2013, facilities that report 

non-confidential TRI data, including 

revisions and withdrawals of TRI data, 

to EPA must prepare, certify, and 

submit their data to EPA electronically, 

using the most current version of the 

TRI online-reporting software provided 

by EPA. 

(1) EPA will no longer accept nonconfidential TRI reports, revisions, or 

withdrawals on paper reporting forms, 

magnetic media, or CD–ROMs. 

Information and instructions regarding 

online reporting are available on the TRI 

Web site. The only exception to this TRI 

electronic reporting requirement relates 

to trade secret TRI submissions 

(including sanitized and unsanitized 

reporting forms), which must be 

submitted to EPA on paper. 

(2) Facilities must submit 

electronically any revisions or 

withdrawals of previously submitted 

TRI data. Facilities may only revise or 

withdraw TRI data previously submitted 

for reporting years 2005 through the 

present reporting year. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5264 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

48 CFR Chapter 10 

RIN 1505–AC41 

Department of the Treasury 

Acquisition Regulation; Internet 

Payment Platform; Correction 

AGENCY: Office of the Procurement 

Executive, Treasury. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, which was published in the 

Federal Register on Thursday, February 

23, 2012 (77 FR 10714), relating to the 

Internet Payment Platform. 

DATES: Comment due date: April 23, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald Backes, Director, Acquisition 

Management, Office of the Procurement 

Executive, at (202) 622–5930 (this is not 

a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 23, 2012, the Department 

of the Treasury published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking that would amend 

the Department of the Treasury 

Acquisition Regulations to implement 

the Internet Payment Platform. As 

published, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking contains an error, which 

may prove to be misleading and is in 

need of clarification. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the publication of the 

notice of proposed rulemaking, FR Doc. 

2012–4216, published February 23, 

2012 at 77 FR 10714, is corrected as 

follows: 

§ 1032.7003 [Corrected] 

1. On page 10716, in the third 

column, in § 1032.7003, the date 

‘‘October 1, 2011’’ is corrected to 

‘‘October 1, 2012’’. 

Dated: February 24, 2012. 

Ronald W. Backes, 

Director, Acquisition Management, Office of 

the Procurement Executive. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5242 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1